FrequentlyAskedQuestions

NorthAmericanHFC AmendmentProposal

SubmittedbytheGovernmentsofCanada,Mexico,andtheUnitedStatesofAmerica

October, 2013

1.What scientific studies are available that discuss the effect of HFCs on the climate system, and also take into account measures including the Montreal Protocol and other treaties, policies, and legislation? What are the major findings of these studies?

There are many reliable peer-reviewed scientific reports and papers that provide information about the effect of HFCs and greenhouse gases on the climate system. Many of these scientific papers and articles also discuss the role that the Montreal Protocol and other policies and legislation have played in mitigating the effects of greenhouse gases on the climate system, with a particular focus on HFCs. An addendum summarizing recent scientific papers and policy articles is attached as an annex.

These studies, among others summarized more fully in the longer science summary we have also submitted, have shown that although HFCs are currently a small portion of the total greenhouse gas emissions, their usage is growing because they are increasingly used as replacements for HCFCs which are being phased out under the Montreal Protocol. If HFC use and emissions are left unchecked, they will have a significant impact on radiative forcing and the climate system. HFCs, unlike carbon dioxide, are short-lived climate pollutants with average atmospheric lifetimes of 15 years. By decreasing HFC use and emissions the radiative forcing effect can be decreased within a few months or decades. A recent study has shown that by replacing high-global warming potential (GWP) HFCs with alternatives that are already available, as much as 0.5-degrees Celsius of warming can be avoided by the end of the century. Many policy papers suggest that reducing short-lived climate pollutants, such as HFCs, can benefit the global climate system and that it can be done through the mechanisms in place under the Montreal Protocol.

A few reports are listed below:

a)WMO (World MeteorologicalOrganization),Science Assessment ofOzone Depletion: 2010, Global OzoneResearch andMonitoringProject-ReportNo.52,Geneva, Switzerland, 2011

b)Velders,G.J.M.,Fahey,D.W.,Daniel,J. S.,McFarland,M.,andAndersen,S.O.:Thelarge contribution of projected HFC emissions tofutureclimateforcing,Proc.Natl. Acad. Sci.USA2009,106,10949–10954,doi:10.1073/pnas.0902817106, 2009.2091,2092, 2098,2108Accessible at:

c)Xu, Y., D. Zaelke, G. J. M. Velders, V. Ramanathan (2013) The role of HFCs in mitigating 21st century climate change. Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics 13: 6083–6089. [doi:10.5194/acp-13-6083-2013]

d)Jackson SC(2009)Parallel pursuit of near-termand long-termclimatemitigation.Science

326:526–527

e)Velders,G.J.M., Ravishankara, A.R., Miller M.K., Molina, M.J., AlcamoJ.,Daniel, J.S., Fahey,D.W., Montzka, S.A.,Reimann, S.,Preserving Montreal Protocol ClimateBenefits by Limiting HFCs, Science 24 February2012:335 (6071),922-923. [DOI:10.1126/science.1216414]

f)United NationsEnvironmentProgramme (UNEP),HFCs:A Critical Link inProtecting

Climate andthe OzoneLayer,2011. 36pp.

g) In addition tothese studies,U.S.EPA studies can befound at:

2.How doestheNorthAmericanamendment proposalrelatetothe recentoutcomeagreed toby governmentsat theUnitedNationsConference on Sustainable Developmentheld inBrazil in June 2012 (Rio+20) and the recent announcement by G-20 leaders?

At Rio+20, governmentsadoptedan outcomesdocument known asthe“The Future WeWant.”Paragraph 222 reads:

“Werecognize that thephase-outofozonedepleting substances(ODS) isresultingin arapidincrease intheuseand releaseof highglobal warmingpotential hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) tothe environment.Wesupport a gradualphase-down intheconsumptionandproduction ofHFCs.”

Paragraph 222 specifically refersto addressing consumptionand production, whichisthesame approachusedinthe MontrealProtocol. It does not referencereductionsinemissions,whichare addressed and controlled by the UNFCCC and its Kyoto Protocol. TheNorth Americanamendment proposalwould fulfill the agreedlanguageofparagraph222 fromRio+20.

On September 6, 2013, G-20 leaders agreed to support complementary initiatives, through multilateral approaches that include using the expertise and institutions of the Montreal Protocol to phase down the consumption and production of hydrofluorocarbons, based on the examination of economically viable and technically feasible alternatives. G-20 leaders also agreed to leave accounting and reporting of emissions of HFCs within the scope of the UNFCCC and its Kyoto Protocol, which is consistent with the approach of the North American HFC Amendment proposal.

3.How would adoption of an amendment support UNFramework Convention onClimate Change (UNFCCC) obligations?

The proposedamendment would have no effect on the UNFCCC's inclusion of HFCs. Theamendment is inadditiontothe UNFCCC'sefforts toaddress climate change. Article IIIof the proposed amendment makes this explicit.In accordancewith Article31(3)(a) oftheVienna Convention onthe Law ofTreaties, theNorth American Amendment Proposal statesthat theamendment would not exclude HFCs fromthecoverageoftherelevant provisions ofthe UNFCCC and the Kyoto Protocol. Itfurther states thatParties wouldcontinuetoapply those provisions foras long as theyremaininforce. The amendment does not alterobligationsunder those agreements.It supports, complements and enhancesthe UNFCCC by achieving significant climate mitigation benefits.

4.Can theViennaConvention andtheMontreal Protocol be amendedto includea phase-downofHFCs? CanHFCsfitwithinthescopeof the MontrealProtocol? What istheprocedurefora Montreal Protocol amendment?

Either treaty can beamended to includea phase-downin HFCs.Article2(2)(b) oftheViennaConvention includeslanguagethat appliestotheViennaConventionand theMontrealProtocol,and states that "Parties shall . . .co-operate inharmonizingappropriatepolicies" associated with controlling ozone-depleting substances.Oneway theParties may cooperate in"harmonizing their policies"withregardto phasing out CFCs and HCFCs is to specifyhow that transitionshould beaccomplished-- for example, by specifyingwhich alternatives theParties will,orwill not,moveto.Because HFCs arethe primary alternative to CFCs and HCFCs, thePartiesmay agree to "harmonizetheirpolicies"in movingaway fromCFCs andHCFCs to avoid the use of HFCs. This is something Montreal Protocol Parties have already done by agreeing to provide an incentive through the Multilateral Fund to transitions to low-GWP alternatives.

TheprocedureforamendingtheMontrealProtocol calls for aParty to present aproposed amendment at least sixmonthsbeforeaMeetingoftheParties. TheMeetingofthePartiescan adopt an amendment that has been proposed,and whichmay include specific provisionsrelated to its entry into force. TheNorthAmerican HFCAmendment Proposal includes provisions inArticle IVofthe proposal that set out entry into forcerequirementsfor countries that havedeposited an instrument of ratification,approval,or acceptance.

5.Isauthorizationfromthe KyotoProtocolneeded tobringHFCsintothe Montreal Protocol?

Amendment of theMontrealProtocol does notrequireanyaction by the UN FrameworkConvention on ClimateChange (UNFCCC)oritsKyoto Protocol. There are many examples of overlapping mandates among Multilateral Environmental Agreements that did not require pre-authorization for countries to move forward in addressing issues of concern. The NorthAmericanProposalreconcilesthe relationship betweentheclimateregime andtheMontreal Protocolbykeepingin placeall of the obligationsof the climate regime, as set out in Article IIIofthe proposal.Thenew Montreal Protocol obligationswith regard to HFCs would bein additiontotherequirements of theclimateconventions.

6.Does the amendmentproposalsupportthebasicobjective of theMontreal Protocol andtheVienna Convention?

Yes.TheMontreal Protocol hasalong historyof considering HFCs andtheir growth as alternatives to ozone-depleting substances, as isevident by thefollowing decisions:

  • MOPDecision X/16 (1998): convened aworkshop, incollaboration with UNFCCC, with the view to assistingestablishment ofand providinginformationon HFCs andPFCs and potential ways to limit their emissions,
  • MOPDecision XIV/10 (2002): called on TEAPtocollaborate with IPCCto develop report: Safeguarding theOzoneLayerand theGlobal Climate System; Issues Relatedto HFCs and PFCs,
  • MOPDecision XIX/6 (2007): calledontheMultilateral Fund Executive Committee (ExCom) to give priority to substitutes and alternatives that minimize other impacts tothe environment, including on the climate, taking intoaccountglobalwarmingpotential (GWP)and other factors,
  • MOPDecision XX/8 (2008):calledfor a report and workshop on high-GWP alternatives, principally HFCs,to ODS,and
  • ExComDecision 60/44 (2010): allowed for up toa 25% funding increment, above cost-effectiveness thresholds,when needed for climate benefits, mainly toavoid selection ofhigh-GWPHFCs.

Theproposedamendment builds on thehistorical experienceof theMontrealProtocol with respect to HFCs, andcomplements the currentactivities ofthe Protocol.The Vienna Convention explicitly requires Parties to“co-operate in harmonizingappropriate policies” related tothephaseout of ozone-depletingsubstances. Theamendment wouldhelp managethe phaseout of ozone-depleting substances ina more environmentally-friendly fashion.

7.Article 5 countries just started their HCFC phaseout. How can we also focus on HFCs when we have so much to do to implement our Stage I HCFC phase-out management plans (HPMPs)?

Parties shouldmaintaina focuson meetingHCFCphaseout objectives and obligationsunder the Protocol, and as theydo so, eachParty faces adecision regarding what alternatives they will rely on and the climateimpacts (or other) of those alternatives. ForArticle 5Parties, the 201510% reduction step and 2020 35% reduction step arefast approaching, andplanningneeds to takeplace to ensurecompliance is achieved. The Multilateral Fund’sExecutive Committee (ExCom)has already approved 138 Stage I HCFC Phaseout Management Plans(HPMPs) as well as one HCFC production phase-out management plan. Theamendment is structured to becompatible and implementablewith the HCFCphaseout.

In undertakingStageIofHPMPs,countriesare already making importantchoiceson thealternatives that will bephasedin, and whether theywill seektomaximize climate benefits.Somecountriesfocused their Stage I HPMPonly on sectors that have arelativelywiderangeof climate-friendly alternativesortechnology options, such as the foamandservicing sectors.Othercountries have addressedmore challengingsectorslikeindustrial andcommercial refrigerationandair-conditioning by pursuing relatively newertechnologies suchas lower GWPfluorinated and non-fluorinated refrigerants in certainapplications. In moving onto Stage II of their HPMPs, countries again have the opportunity to make key choices to promote climate-friendly alternatives and technology.

Establishing along-termschedule forcontrolling HFCconsumption and production would assist Partiesas they consider sectorsandalternativesin phasingout HCFCsbyremovinguncertainty regarding the futureof HFCs. Article 5 Partieswill benefit from the regulatory certainty of a HFC phase-down as they decidehowto best meet their upcomingHCFC targets.By adoptingagradual phase-downscheduleforHFCs, which is sufficiently flexible to permit some transition toHFCswhen alternatives are not available,Parties will be able to plan theirHCFCphase-out in a more informed and integratedmanner,because theywouldknow thetotalquantity of HFCs they will beable to consume for many years ahead. Therefore, adoptingan HFC phase-down would support and facilitate the HCFC phaseout, and provide certaintyfor planning ontransitions.

Last, aconsiderableinstalled baseofHFCs is already in place, and is unrelated to the HCFCphaseout, and growingeveryday. Some examples include: (1) HFC-134ausedin allmajor automotive platforms globally,and(2)R-410A (anHFCblend)air conditioning systems being producedandsold in some Article 5 countries,before thosecountries had steps to phase outHCFCs. ThisHFCbase is already significant, is growing rapidly,and is currently outsidethe influence of theMultilateral Fund’s phase out of HCFCs.Activitiesinthese sectors, currently outside the purviewof theProtocol,mayhinder thesuccessofHCFC transitionsinachievingclimate-friendly transitions.

8.Are there factors that are limiting the adoptionof low-GWP refrigerants, including hydrocarbons,ammoniaand carbon-dioxide?

Thecurrent market penetrationof non-fluorinatedandlow-GWPfluorinated compoundsvariesby sector and location based on a variety of factors. In many cases, the speed ofdeployment is increasing. Particular care needs to be taken in the deployment of substances that are flammable or toxic. Revised standards are stillneeded in some applicationsfor the useof flammablesubstances.Decisions on refrigerant are driven by many considerations, including availability of relevant standards, ability to deploy safely in a given situation, system costs, reliability, and other issues.

The 2010 TEAPAssessment Report, TEAP’sresponsetoDecision XXIII/9in the 2012 Progress Report, and TEAP’s response to Decisions XXIV/7 in the 2013 Progress report, make the followingcomments concerningthe air-conditioning and refrigerationsectors:

  • In commercialrefrigerationstand-alone equipment, hydrocarbons(HCs)and R-744 (CO2) are gainingmarketsharesinEuropeand in Japan; they arereplacingHFC-134a, whichisthe dominant choice inmost countries.
  • In many developed countries, R-404A and R-507Ahavebeen themain replacements for HCFC-22 insupermarkets; however,becauseof theirhighGWPanumberofotheroptionsarenow beingintroduced. Indirect systems are themost effectiveoption for emissionsreductions in new centralized systems for supermarkets.IntwostagesystemsinEurope,R-744isusedat thelow-temperaturelevel andHFC-134a,R-744 and HCsat themediumtemperaturelevel.
  • In industrial refrigeration,R-717 (ammonia) and HCFC-22 are still the most common refrigerants; R-744is gaining inlow-temperature,cascadedsystems though the market volume is small.
  • In unitary (air-to-air)air-conditioning, HFCblends, primarily R-410A,but toa limited degree also R-407C, are still thedominantnear-term replacements for HCFC-22in aircooledsystems. HC-290 is also beingusedto replaceHCFC-22 in low charge split system, window andportable air-conditioners insome countries. Most Article 5countries are continuing to utilise HCFC-22 as thepredominantrefrigerant inair-conditioning applications.

Carmanufacturersandsuppliers haveevaluatedseveralrefrigerantoptions for newcar (and truck)air-conditioning systemsincludingR-744, HFC-152a and HFC-1234yf,allwith GWPs belowthe EUMAC Directive regulatory threshold of 150. In the United States and Europe there are more than a hundred thousand motor vehicles on the road today that use HFC-1234yf. Theuse of hydrocarbons or blendsofhydrocarbonshasalso been considered but so farhas not yet received support fromvehicle manufacturers due in part tosafety concerns.

Supermarket centralizedsystems is a subsectorwheresignificant focushas been ona combinationof changing refrigerantfluids,improvingdesigns,and improving servicingpractices. Secondary loop systems that chill glycol, brine or R-744, andsystems cascaded with directexpansion R-744 systems, areavailableglobally andreducethe useofHFCs significantly. Thesecondaryglycol, brineandR-744systemsaremadeby mostmajor manufacturers. The cascadeR-744systemhasmany installations inEurope and several inthe UnitedStates and is made by multiplemanufactures in both these locations. Supermarkets in Australia are incorporating R-744 cascade and transcritical refrigeration systems tomeet their targetreductions inCO2eqemissions.ShiftingfromHFCs toR-744 hasreducedtheircarbon footprintby25%. InEurope many transcritical R-744systemsand ammonia/R-744cascadesystemshavebeeninstalledwith manymorebeing prepared forinstallation. TheUnited States hasrecently seen R-744 cascade systemsand ammonia/R-744 systemsinstalled aswell the first transcritical system, while in Canadathere isagreaterfocuson transcritical systems.

Non-fluorinated optionsare increasinglybeing considered forbothsmallchargeandlargercharge applications. Flammable refrigerants and hydrocarbons are being used in vending machines, reach in coolers, room air-conditioners and other small charge applications.

Flammable refrigerants can be safely used where equipment has been specifically designed to operate safely using them. Safety standardsareevolvingallowingfor increased useofnon-fluorinated options; however additional revisions to safety standards is necessary to ensure the safe use of certain refrigerants across the globe.

The U.S.EPA’sSignificant New Alternatives Policy (SNAP)program( has listed asacceptable various alternatives that could result inincreasedmarket penetration in NorthAmerica and elsewhere. Theseinclude:

•hydrocarbonsfor useinstand-alone commercial freezers and domestic refrigeration;

•CO2 formotor vehicleairconditioning;

•CO2 forvending machines;

•Solstice1233zd for various foamblowingapplications; and

•additional alternativesforfiresuppression.

A supermarket inthe United States started using 100% non-fluorinatedcompoundsinall refrigeration applications–includingcentralizedequipment,stand- alonecases,andvendingmachines in 2012. In 2013, the first transcritical CO2 refrigeration system in a supermarket opened in the United States and a hydrocarbon system is being tested. There are over 1,000 food retail stores using CO2 transcritical refrigeration in Europe, more than 30 in Canada and over 100 in Japan.

9.Havenon-Article5Partieschosen non-HFCalternativesinmeetingHCFC reductionsteps?

Basedonnationalcircumstances,countrieshavedesignedtheirHCFCphaseoutplansdifferently.Inthe UnitedStates,theapproachisbasedon‘worstfirst’orhigherozonedepletingpotential(ODPs)first approach.Thisresultedinearlytransitionsinfoamsectors,startingwithflexiblefoams in1993-1994 andrigidfoamsin2003-2004.Roughlyhalfofthefoamblowingsectorsin theUnitedStatesmoved entirely tonon-fluorinatedcompounds,atatimewhentheavailabilityof low-GWPalternativeswas muchmorelimitedascomparedtotoday.TheUnitedStatesalsosimilarlyfocusedonthenon-medical aerosolsectorfirstintheearly1990sandalsosawa majorityofthetransitiontonon-fluorinatedoptions.

Fortherefrigerationandair-conditioningsector,mostofthe transitioninitiallywent toHFCs.Some refrigeration sectorswithsmallerchargesizestransitioneddirectly to hydrocarbons. Asecondtransitionis beginning from HFCs toeither lowerGWPfluorinatedoptions ornon-fluorinatedoptions.Forunitaryair-conditioningandlargerchargesizesthe majorityofthe transitionhasbeenandcontinuestobetohigh-GWPHFCs.However,thereareseveraloptionsnow undereitherdevelopmentorinvestigationthatwilllikelybeable toreplaceaportionofthatendusein thenearfuture.

JapanandtheEuropeanUnionhavealsoundertakeneffortstocontrolHFCs. The Japanese Cabinet recently revised its fluorocarbon regulations to support a transition to climate-friendly alternatives. The revised regulations call on: producers to reduce their climate impact by manufacturing fluorocarbons with lower greenhouse effects and recycling a certain amount of used fluorocarbons; manufacturers of equipment using fluorocarbons to transition to non-fluorinated or low-global warming potential alternatives by certain target years set for each category of product; requests users of commercial air conditioning and refrigeration units using fluorocarbons to properly manage such units and prevent the leakage of fluorocarbons, and requests certain users to annually report any leaks; and sets up a registration and permission system for servicing technicians and recycling/reclaiming operations.

TheEuropeanUnion’sregulationsonfluorinatedgreenhousegaseshavebeeninplacesince2006and coverstationaryequipmentwithaspecificdirectiveonmobileairconditioners.TheEuropeanUnion is evaluating the proposed strengthening of the regulations and revised regulations are anticipated with 6-12 months and are likely to includeanEU-wideHFCphasedown,endusebans,andthresholds.

On June 25, 2013, President Obama announced the Climate Action Planthat willkeep “the United States of America a leader, a global leader in the fight against climate change.” As part of his plan, President Obama directed EPA to use its authority through the SNAP Program “to encourage private-sector investment in low-emissions technology by identifying and approving climate-friendly chemicals while prohibiting certain uses of the most harmful chemical alternatives.”

Consistentwithapproachsuggested intheNorthAmericanProposaltoamendtheProtocoltoaddress HFCs,Partiescancontinuetousenationalapproachestodeterminethebestwayto meet theGWP-based obligations.It isnotnecessaryto transitionallsectorsat the sametime, andit maybeadvisable towait forthedevelopmentandcommercializationofadditionalalternativesinsomesectors.Approachesused bymanynon-Article5Partiesto meettheHCFCfreeze, the35%reduction,andmorerecentlythe75% reduction,havenotrequiredaddressingallsubsectorsatthesametime.Partiescouldtherefore:

(1)addresssectorsandsubsectorswherenon-fluorinatedandlow-GWPfluorinatedoptionsexistfirst,

(2)incorporatetheuseoftechnologytoreducechargesizes,and

(3)improvemaintenanceandservicing practices toensuretheoverallreductioninHFCconsumption.

10.Would HFC-23 controlsunder theamendmentproduceaperverse incentivefor excessive HCFC-22 productionand HFC-23 byproduct? How would CleanDevelopmentMechanism (CDM)HFC-23 creditsbeaffected if there isan HFCphase-down under theMontreal Protocol?

TheNorth AmericanAmendmentProposalincludesacomplianceobligationtocontrolHFC-23 byproduct emissionsfromcertainchemical production facilities, andat thesame timemakes implementation of this compliance obligationeligible for financial supportfromthe Multilateral Fund. TheProtocol’s incremental cost model pays only the agreedincremental costsfor compliance, and therefore would not provide anincentive forover-production of HCFC-22 sinceit would onlypay theagreedincremental costsfor mitigating or destroyinganybyproduct thatis generated.This standsin contrast to themodel under the CDM thatprovidesamarket valueforHFC-23credits.Because the market valueof HFC-23 credits dramatically exceeds the cost of mitigation, thequestion ofperverse incentive is directly relevant tothe issuanceand valueof CDM credits. One advantageof theuseof the Multilateral Fund model,since it relatesback toactualmitigationcosts, is that it avoids concerns overperverseincentives.

Theproposed HFC-23control obligationsdo not apply toemissionsfromproductionlines that havean approvedproject undertheCDM solongas thoseemissionsarecovered by and continue togenerate emissions reductioncreditsunder a CDMproject. There are a numberof production facilities that do not currently have CDM projects that would be eligible forMultilateral Fund financing under the North AmericanAmendmentProposal.

11.How would technicaland financial support be provided for theNorth AmericanAmendment Proposal? How muchwouldthe amendmentcost,and couldtheTEAP makean estimateof its costs?

TheNorth AmericanHFC Amendment Proposalwould relyon the same successfulfinancial and technical support model usedtoimplement theMontreal Protocol to date. Financial support is providedto meet the agreedincremental cost of implementationinaccordancewith Article 10 of the MontrealProtocol. We would anticipatethatassistancewouldcontinueto beprovidedtobuild and maintain national-level capacity throughinstitutional strengtheningand regional capacity assistance networking.