Potential Hydrofluorocarbon Phase Down: Issues for Congress

Potential Hydrofluorocarbon Phase Down: Issues for Congress

link to page 1

June 7, 2018
Potential Hydrofluorocarbon Phase Down: Issues for Congress
Potential Issues for Congress
approved as replacements for more potent ODS, such as
Hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), a potent set of greenhouse
chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs).
gases (GHGs), are used in air conditioning, refrigeration,
foam blowing agents, insulation, and other applications.
Although scientists believe HFCs would not significantly
While many nations are poised to phase down HFCs, U.S.
deplete stratospheric ozone, they are GHGs, being efficient
policies appear paused: Next steps in the executive branch
absorbers of infrared radiation in the atmosphere. Their
are unclear. Nonetheless, Congress may face several issues
potency, or Global Warming Potential, ranges from about
related to possible phase down of HFCs both domestically
150 to 8,000 times more than the equivalent mass of carbon
and internationally:
dioxide (CO2), the principal human-related GHG. Once
emitted to the atmosphere, various HFCs persist there for
 The Senate may consider its advice and possible consent hundreds to thousands of years.
to ratify a 2016 international treaty, the Kigali
Amendment, if the President submits it to the Senate.
Figure 1. Estimated and Projected Emissions of ODS
Under the Kigali Amendment, Parties commit to
and HFC Substitutes Without Kigali Amendment
eventually phase out HFC production and consumption.
 Industry and environmental groups seek, along with
U.S. ratification of the Kigali Amendment, clarification
of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA)
authority to limit HFC use after a federal court in 2017
vacated part of an EPA rule.
 If the United States joins the Kigali Amendment,
Congress may consider appropriations of the U.S.
contribution, if any, to international “adequate
financing” of HFC reduction efforts by low-income
countries.
 Should the United States not join the Kigali

Amendment, whether adverse trade issues could emerge
Source: Guus Velders, “Scenarios of ODSs and ODS Substitutes,”
under restrictions on trade with non-Parties.
Government of the Netherlands, presentation given May 2, 2011.

Notes: This 2011 analysis does not include control of HFC emissions
Should the United States seek to address the risks of
(red area), as would occur under the Kigali Amendment. Also,
climate change by controlling GHG emissions, phasing
depicting emissions of these gases by mass is not indicative of their
out HFCs—or not—could affect the distribution of
relative environmental impacts. “High” and “low” represent a range
effort among emitting sectors and the economic costs
of future emission projections.
and benefits. HFC reductions can be achieved at very
low cost per ton compared to many other GHG
From Protecting Stratospheric Ozone to
reduction options. Deciding not to abate HFC could
Phasing Down HFC
raise the costs, difficulty, and time required to avoid any
In the 1970s, scientists expected but had little evidence that
given level of climate change risk.
certain manufactured chemicals, including CFCs, would
damage the Earth’s protective stratospheric ozone layer.
Several legislative proposals have been introduced in the
Regulation began in 1978 with U.S. restrictions on CFCs in
115th Congress, but none has seen committee action.
aerosol sprays under EPA authority in the Toxic Substances
Emergence of HFCs as Pollutants
Control Act of 1976, as well as Food and Drug
Administration authority in the Federal Food, Drug, and
HFCs were first manufactured in the context of efforts,
Cosmetic Act. The Clean Air Act Amendments (CAAA) of
described below, to reduce damage to the Earth’s
1977 (P .L. 95-95) broadly authorized EPA to regulate any
stratospheric ozone layer, which absorbs harmful incoming
activity that threatened the stratosphere and endangered
solar radiation and also affects the Earth’s climate. HFCs
public health.
(and alternatives) replace ozone-depleting substances
(ODS), including hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs).
1985 Vienna Convention
[Figure 1 illustrates how HFCs (red) replace HCFCs
In response to new scientific evidence in 1985 of the
(yellow) which replace CFCs (blue).] HCFC use began with
springtime “ozone hole” over Antarctica, 20 nations,
low levels in the 1970s and accelerated after they were
https://crsreports.congress.gov

link to page 1 Potential Hydrofluorocarbon Phase Down: Issues for Congress
including the United States, agreed to the 1985 Vienna
consume no more than 15%-20% of their respective
Convention for the Protection of the Ozone Layer.
baselines.
1987 Montreal Protocol (MP)
The Kigali Amendment also provides for an unspecified
Parties to the Vienna Convention adopted the subsidiary
amount of “adequate financing,” through a Multilateral
MP in 1987 to set binding, quantitative schedules for
Fund, to support HFC reductions in low-income countries
countries to phase out listed ODS. The MP provides for
and for research and development of affordable alternatives.
international cooperation on safer substitutes for ODS,
research cooperation, financial assistance, and trade
One widely cited estimate suggested that the Kigali
restrictions with non-Parties. A series of amendments to the
Amendment HFC phase-down schedule could avoid as
MP set specific schedules for freezing, reducing, and
much as 0.5o Celsius of global warming by 2100.
prohibiting production and consumption of CFCs, HCFCs,
and additional ODS. There are 197 Parties to the Vienna
Alternatives to HFCs
Convention and the MP, including the United States.
There are several means to reduce HFC production and
consumption. These include conserving and recycling
CAAA of 1990
HFCs, substituting other substances (e.g., ammonia or CO2)
To provide EPA authority beyond that in Section 157 of the
that are less potent GHG than HFCs, and modifying the
CAAA of 1977, Congress enacted the CAAA of 1990 (P.L.
technologies that use HFCs, including energy efficiency.
101-549), Title VI, to protect stratospheric ozone. Under
Title VI, EPA allocated production and consumption
Costs, Trade, and the Ratification
tradable allowances for ODS equal to the amounts accepted
Question
by the United States under the MP. EPA developed a
Many industry and environmental groups support U.S.
complementary comprehensive program, including ODS
ratification of the Kigali Amendment and EPA regulation to
production and import limits; requirements for labeling,
assure compliance with it. Without those, certain U.S.
recovery and recycling; and equipment technician
companies’ abilities to access international markets with
certification. It established the Significant New Alternatives
U.S.-developed ODS substitutes could be adversely
Policy (SNAP) to approve safer substitutes.
affected by the treaty’s trade restrictions. The costs are
expected to be low and some measures could yield net cost
In 1994, SNAP—in accordance with the 1993 U.S. Climate
savings, particularly through energy efficiency. Some
Change Action Plan—first listed HFCs as acceptable
industry representatives urge careful monitoring of the
substitutes for ODS in certain uses. At that time, EPA
availability of substitutes. Experts expect the unit costs to
concluded that the CAAA mandate to evaluate substitutes
fall over time with technological advance and expansion of
based on reducing overall risk to human health and the
the global market. Studies also concluded that delaying a
environment authorized impact on climate as a permissible
phasedown could significantly increase costs by increasing
SNAP evaluation criterion.
the investment in equipment that would need to be replaced
once conversions to HFC-free technologies begin.
In 2015, EPA concluded that other ODS substitutes posed
lower overall risks to the environment than did HFCs and
The Kigali Amendment is expected to enter into force on
so listed HFCs as unacceptable in specified uses. EPA set
January 1, 2019, having been ratified, accepted, or
timetables to phase down HFC uses and listed some
approved by 37 nations. The United States signed the Kigali
acceptable alternatives. A federal court in 2017, in
Amendment in 2016. To become a Party, the United States
Mexichem Fluor, Inc. v. EPA, took a narrower view,
must ratify the treaty with the advice and consent of the
vacating part of the 2015 EPA rule. EPA has not provided a
Senate. The Trump Administration has not submitted it to
response to that ruling.
the Senate and has not indicated its intentions. Some argue
that any treaty infringes on U.S. sovereignty or may be
The Kigali Amendment to the MP
wary of environmental treaties or regulation in particular.
In 2007, MP Parties agreed to accelerate a phaseout of
HCFCs. Studies projected strong growth of HFCs as
For more information
replacements (Figure 1), particularly in developing
CRS Legal Sidebar WSLG1868, D.C. Circuit Rejects
countries. A 2009 study projected that uncontrolled HFC
EPA’s Efforts to Ban Hydrofluorocarbons: Part 1, by Linda
emissions could globally add as much climate forcing in
Tsang
2050 as 9%-19% of business-as-usual CO2 emissions.
CRS Legal Sidebar WSLG1869, D.C. Circuit Rejects
Consequently, in 2016, nearly 200 nations—including the
EPA’s Efforts to Ban Hydrofluorocarbons: Part 2, by Linda
United States—agreed to the Kigali Agreement to the MP.
Tsang
It contains commitments eventually to phase out HFC
production and consumption globally.
Jane A. Leggett, Specialist in Energy and Environmental
Policy
Developed countries are to begin to phase down HFCs by
2019. Most low-income countries freeze HFC consumption
IF10904
levels in 2024, while certain low-income countries freeze
consumption in 2028. By the late 2040s, Parties agreed to

https://crsreports.congress.gov

Potential Hydrofluorocarbon Phase Down: Issues for Congress

Disclaimer
This document was prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS). CRS serves as nonpartisan shared staff to
congressional committees and Members of Congress. It operates solely at the behest of and under the direction of Congress.
Information in a CRS Report should not be relied upon for purposes other than public understanding of information that has
been provided by CRS to Members of Congress in connection with CRS’s institutional role. CRS Reports, as a work of the
United States Government, are not subject to copyright protection in the United States. Any CRS Report may be
reproduced and distributed in its entirety without permission from CRS. However, as a CRS Report may include
copyrighted images or material from a third party, you may need to obtain the permission of the copyright holder if you
wish to copy or otherwise use copyrighted material.

https://crsreports.congress.gov | IF10904 · VERSION 2 · NEW