The UNEP Technology and Economic Assessment Panel

1.2 The UNEP Technology and Economic Assessment Panel

1. 
   Chemicals Technical Options Committee
   
2. 
   Flexible and Rigid Foams Technical Options Committee
   
3. 
   Halons Technical Options Committee
   
4. 
   Medical Technical Options Committee
   
5. 
   Methyl Bromide Technical Options Committee
   
6. 
   Refrigeration, A/C and Heat Pumps Technical Options Committee
   

At the MOP-19 in Montreal an important Decision was taken on the accelerated phase-out of HCFCs in Article 5 countries. In the decision, a reduction schedule for production and consumption was defined for the period 2013-2030, with a freeze in 2013 and a servicing tail until 2040. Apart from the specific percentages, the decision mentioned:

“….To encourage Parties to promote the selection of alternatives to HCFCs that minimize environmental impacts, in particular impacts on climate, as well as meeting other health, safety and economic considerations” and

“….To agree that the Executive Committee, when developing and applying funding criteria for projects and programmes, and taking into account paragraph 6, give priority to cost-effective projects and programmes which focus on, inter alia:

“Phasing-out first those HCFCs with higher ozone-depleting potential, taking into account national circumstances”, and

“Substitutes and alternatives that minimize other impacts on the environment, including on the climate, taking into account global-warming potential, energy use and other relevant factors.”

As a first consequence of Decision XIX/6, the Parties requested the TEAP and its RTOC in Decision XIX/8, to report on the status of substitutes and alternatives to HCFCs under high ambient conditions. The report was done by a Subcommittee of the RTOC, and submitted to Parties in a preliminary form in 2009 and in its final form in 2010.

In 2008, Parties requested the TEAP and its committees, in Decision XX/8, to look at the status of alternatives in the different sectors and subsectors, as covered by the six Technical Options Committees. In a report by a Task Force, a large amount of material was summarised; this report also contained updated information on banks and emissions from all sectors, including refrigeration, AC and heat pumps as well as foams. In 2009, in Decision XXI/9, on HCFCs and environmentally sound alternatives, Parties requested the TEAP to update the information from the XX/8 report, and to report on the status of low GWP alternatives for the replacement of HCFCs, and to report on the comparison of performances of high and low GWP alternatives. TEAP established again a Task Force, which reported on the definition of the term “low-GWP” and “high-GWP”, and particularly on the 2009/2010 status of (low GWP) substitutes and alternatives to HCFCs in all sectors and subsectors. In 2011, 2012, 2013, the Parties requested a number of Task Force reports under Decisions XXIII/9, XXIV/7 and XXV/5. It should be noted that the request in Decision XXIII/9 was made in parallel with the request for new assessment reports to be submitted by the end of 2014, requesting information on the costs of alternatives to HCFCs, on alternatives that were technically proven, economically viable, environmentally benign, and which could be used in high ambient temperature conditions.

The information requested for these Task Force reports was very much related to the information requested on how to deal with a conversion from ODS (particularly HCFCs) to environmentally sound alternatives (which definition includes low global warming characteristics). For the report under Decision XXIV7, Parties requested to update information on alternatives, but also to identify barriers and restrictions to the adoption of environmentally sound alternatives, as well as an estimation of the approximate amount of alternatives with negative environmental impacts that could be avoided. The Task Force XXIV/7 report elaborated on the methodological approach, gave a long description of the alternatives that would be environmentally sound, in particular for the RAC, foams, as well as the fire protection and solvents sectors. It also determined amounts on alternatives with negative environmental impacts that could be avoided (e.g. it was estimated that, integrated over the period 2013-2020, 15% could be avoided in the RAC sector).As a result of this XXIV/7 reporting, in 2013, the Parties requested a new report under Decision XXV/5. The Terms of Reference mentioned that it should report on (1) alternatives that should be commercially available, technically proven and environmentally sound, easy and safe to use (also in high urban densities), alternatives that would be economically viable and cost effective. It also mentioned to again report on the suitability of alternatives under high ambient temperature conditions. The decision also requested to assess the economic costs, implications and environmental benefits of various scenarios of avoiding high GWP alternatives. The decision further asked to expand on the demand issue and to report on scenarios for the current and future demand of alternatives.

The XVV/5 reported in two steps, with a draft report for the OEWG in 2014 and a final report for the MOP of the Parties in that same year. The report presented a long list of alternatives available and alternatives that would become available, it listed GWPs and costs for alternatives as far as information was available and mentioned information related to the operation under high ambient conditions -- where available. It reported on alternatives and future developments for the refrigeration, AC, foams, fire protection, medical uses and solvents sectors.

The XXV/5 report also presented demand scenarios for the period up to 2030 for environmentally sound alternatives to ODS for the sectors refrigeration and AC and foams. BAU scenarios were defined for non-Article 5 and Article 5 Parties, and it was decided to present two mitigation scenarios for the demand, based upon bans for certain refrigerant (blowing agent) chemicals in certain years. In these scenarios it was shown that the demand in the RAC sector was very much dominant over the demand in other sectors. The assumption of two types of mitigation scenarios showed that the growth of high global warming alternatives could be curbed. This would be possible with certain plausible (partly already ongoing) measures in non-Article 5 countries. Furthermore, stringent (but still plausible) measures as of 2020-2030 could lead to a real reduction of the demand for non-environmentally benign alternatives during the period 2020-2030 in Article 5 countries.

As an example, the XXV/5 Task Force reported that the first (MIT-1) scenario could cumulatively deliver a saving of 3,000 Mtonnes CO₂-eq. by 2030 and that the second (MIT-2) could deliver 11,000 Mtonnes CO₂-eq over that same time period.

As a result of the discussions concerning the information provided in the XXV/5 report, Parties requested an update of the report via Decision XXVI/9. This report is expected to be delivered by a TEAP Task Force in the course of 2015, that is, after that this 2014 Assessment Report has been published. Amongst other information, the XXVI/9 report will use information from the XXV/5 Task Force report and from the RTOC 2014 Assessment Report.

The information collected for the various Task Force reports mentioned above (XXIII/9, XXIV/7 and XXV/5) has, of course, been used in the preparation of the 2014 TOC Assessment Reports, in particular for the 2014 RTOC Assessment Report. The final versions of the Task Force reports are available on the Internet (http://www.unep.org/ozone).

Where Terms of Reference for the TEAP and its TOCs had been drafted in 1996, Parties, in Decision XXII/22, requested the TEAP to report on guidelines for nominations, on the appropriate expertise when appointing members etc. The report by TEAP resulted in Decision XXIII/10 (2011), which requested the Panel to update information on nominations and operational procedures of the TEAP and its technical committees, also related to the duration of appointments and various other procedures. Delivery of the TEAP XXIII/10 report resulted in a new Decision XXIV/8 (2012), which gave –in an 8 page long description- (updated) Terms of Reference, a code of conduct and disclosure and conflict of interest guidelines for the TEAP and its technical options committees and temporary subsidiary bodies. Decision XXV/6 requested information on issues such as the implementation as well as the proposed configuration of the TOCs as of 1/1/2015; it also requested to streamline annual progress reporting. In its future operations, after delivery of this 2014 Assessment report, the RTOC will consider all elements that have been mentioned in these decisions, when deciding on the organisation of the Refrigeration, AC and Heat Pumps Technical Options Committee, its size, expertise and further operational procedures.

The 2014 Technical and Economic Assessment has been carried out by the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel and its six Technical Options Committees. The six Committees consisted of more than 120 experts from a large number of countries (for a list, see the annex to the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel Report 2014). The 2014 Refrigeration, AC and Heat Pumps Assessment forms an important part of all the 2014 Assessment efforts.

Most Technical Options Committee reports (including the 2014 Refrigeration, AC and Heat Pumps Assessment Report) have been subject to a peer review before final release. The final version of the reports will be distributed internationally by UNEP and will also be available on the Internet (http://www.unep.org/ozone).