Potential Hydrofluorocarbon Phase Down: Issues for Congress

June 7, 2018

Potential Hydrofluorocarbon Phase Down: Issues for Congress

Potential Issues for Congress

Hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), a potent set of greenhouse

gases (GHGs), are used in air conditioning, refrigeration,

foam blowing agents, insulation, and other applications.

While many nations are poised to phase down HFCs, U.S.

policies appear paused: Next steps in the executive branch

are unclear. Nonetheless, Congress may face several issues

related to possible phase down of HFCs both domestically

and internationally:

 The Senate may consider its advice and possible consent

to ratify a 2016 international treaty, the Kigali

Amendment, if the President submits it to the Senate.

Under the Kigali Amendment, Parties commit to

eventually phase out HFC production and consumption.

approved as replacements for more potent ODS, such as

chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs).

Although scientists believe HFCs would not significantly

deplete stratospheric ozone, they are GHGs, being efficient

absorbers of infrared radiation in the atmosphere. Their

potency, or Global Warming Potential, ranges from about

150 to 8,000 times more than the equivalent mass of carbon

dioxide (CO2), the principal human-related GHG. Once

emitted to the atmosphere, various HFCs persist there for

hundreds to thousands of years.

Figure 1. Estimated and Projected Emissions of ODS

and HFC Substitutes Without Kigali Amendment

 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

under restrictions on trade with non-Parties.

 Should the United States seek to address the risks of

climate change by controlling GHG emissions, phasing

out HFCs—or not—could affect the distribution of

effort among emitting sectors and the economic costs

and benefits. HFC reductions can be achieved at very

low cost per ton compared to many other GHG

reduction options. Deciding not to abate HFC could

raise the costs, difficulty, and time required to avoid any

given level of climate change risk.

Several legislative proposals have been introduced in the

115th Congress, but none has seen committee action.

Emergence of HFCs as Pollutants

HFCs were first manufactured in the context of efforts,

described below, to reduce damage to the Earth’s

stratospheric ozone layer, which absorbs harmful incoming

solar radiation and also affects the Earth’s climate. HFCs

(and alternatives) replace ozone-depleting substances

(ODS), including hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs).

[Figure 1 illustrates how HFCs (red) replace HCFCs

(yellow) which replace CFCs (blue).] HCFC use began with

low levels in the 1970s and accelerated after they were

Source: Guus Velders, “Scenarios of ODSs and ODS Substitutes,”

Government of the Netherlands, presentation given May 2, 2011.

Notes: This 2011 analysis does not include control of HFC emissions

(red area), as would occur under the Kigali Amendment. Also,

depicting emissions of these gases by mass is not indicative of their

relative environmental impacts. “High” and “low” represent a range

of future emission projections.

From Protecting Stratospheric Ozone to

Phasing Down HFC

In the 1970s, scientists expected but had little evidence that

certain manufactured chemicals, including CFCs, would

damage the Earth’s protective stratospheric ozone layer.

Regulation began in 1978 with U.S. restrictions on CFCs in

aerosol sprays under EPA authority in the Toxic Substances

Control Act of 1976, as well as Food and Drug

Administration authority in the Federal Food, Drug, and

Cosmetic Act. The Clean Air Act Amendments (CAAA) of

1977 (P .L. 95-95) broadly authorized EPA to regulate any

activity that threatened the stratosphere and endangered

public health.

1985 Vienna Convention

In response to new scientific evidence in 1985 of the

springtime “ozone hole” over Antarctica, 20 nations,

https://crsreports.congress.gov

Potential Hydrofluorocarbon Phase Down: Issues for Congress

including the United States, agreed to the 1985 Vienna

Convention for the Protection of the Ozone Layer.

consume no more than 15%-20% of their respective

baselines.

1987 Montreal Protocol (MP)

Parties to the Vienna Convention adopted the subsidiary

MP in 1987 to set binding, quantitative schedules for

countries to phase out listed ODS. The MP provides for

international cooperation on safer substitutes for ODS,

research cooperation, financial assistance, and trade

restrictions with non-Parties. A series of amendments to the

MP set specific schedules for freezing, reducing, and

prohibiting production and consumption of CFCs, HCFCs,

and additional ODS. There are 197 Parties to the Vienna

Convention and the MP, including the United States.

The Kigali Amendment also provides for an unspecified

amount of “adequate financing,” through a Multilateral

Fund, to support HFC reductions in low-income countries

and for research and development of affordable alternatives.

CAAA of 1990

To provide EPA authority beyond that in Section 157 of the

CAAA of 1977, Congress enacted the CAAA of 1990 (P.L.

101-549), Title VI, to protect stratospheric ozone. Under

Title VI, EPA allocated production and consumption

tradable allowances for ODS equal to the amounts accepted

by the United States under the MP. EPA developed a

complementary comprehensive program, including ODS

production and import limits; requirements for labeling,

recovery and recycling; and equipment technician

certification. It established the Significant New Alternatives

Policy (SNAP) to approve safer substitutes.

In 1994, SNAP—in accordance with the 1993 U.S. Climate

Change Action Plan—first listed HFCs as acceptable

substitutes for ODS in certain uses. At that time, EPA

concluded that the CAAA mandate to evaluate substitutes

based on reducing overall risk to human health and the

environment authorized impact on climate as a permissible

SNAP evaluation criterion.

In 2015, EPA concluded that other ODS substitutes posed

lower overall risks to the environment than did HFCs and

so listed HFCs as unacceptable in specified uses. EPA set

timetables to phase down HFC uses and listed some

acceptable alternatives. A federal court in 2017, in

Mexichem Fluor, Inc. v. EPA, took a narrower view,

vacating part of the 2015 EPA rule. EPA has not provided a

response to that ruling.

The Kigali Amendment to the MP

In 2007, MP Parties agreed to accelerate a phaseout of

HCFCs. Studies projected strong growth of HFCs as

replacements (Figure 1), particularly in developing

countries. A 2009 study projected that uncontrolled HFC

emissions could globally add as much climate forcing in

2050 as 9%-19% of business-as-usual CO2 emissions.

Consequently, in 2016, nearly 200 nations—including the

United States—agreed to the Kigali Agreement to the MP.

It contains commitments eventually to phase out HFC

production and consumption globally.

Developed countries are to begin to phase down HFCs by

2019. Most low-income countries freeze HFC consumption

levels in 2024, while certain low-income countries freeze

consumption in 2028. By the late 2040s, Parties agreed to

One widely cited estimate suggested that the Kigali

Amendment HFC phase-down schedule could avoid as

much as 0.5o Celsius of global warming by 2100.

Alternatives to HFCs

There are several means to reduce HFC production and

consumption. These include conserving and recycling

HFCs, substituting other substances (e.g., ammonia or CO2)

that are less potent GHG than HFCs, and modifying the

technologies that use HFCs, including energy efficiency.

Costs, Trade, and the Ratification

Question

Many industry and environmental groups support U.S.

ratification of the Kigali Amendment and EPA regulation to

assure compliance with it. Without those, certain U.S.

companies’ abilities to access international markets with

U.S.-developed ODS substitutes could be adversely

affected by the treaty’s trade restrictions. The costs are

expected to be low and some measures could yield net cost

savings, particularly through energy efficiency. Some

industry representatives urge careful monitoring of the

availability of substitutes. Experts expect the unit costs to

fall over time with technological advance and expansion of

the global market. Studies also concluded that delaying a

phasedown could significantly increase costs by increasing

the investment in equipment that would need to be replaced

once conversions to HFC-free technologies begin.

The Kigali Amendment is expected to enter into force on

January 1, 2019, having been ratified, accepted, or

approved by 37 nations. The United States signed the Kigali

Amendment in 2016. To become a Party, the United States

must ratify the treaty with the advice and consent of the

Senate. The Trump Administration has not submitted it to

the Senate and has not indicated its intentions. Some argue

that any treaty infringes on U.S. sovereignty or may be

wary of environmental treaties or regulation in particular.

For more information

CRS Legal Sidebar WSLG1868, D.C. Circuit Rejects

EPA’s Efforts to Ban Hydrofluorocarbons: Part 1, by Linda

Tsang

CRS Legal Sidebar WSLG1869, D.C. Circuit Rejects

EPA’s Efforts to Ban Hydrofluorocarbons: Part 2, by Linda

Tsang

Jane A. Leggett, Specialist in Energy and Environmental

Policy

https://crsreports.congress.gov

IF10904

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