Benefits of Addressing HFCs under
        the Montreal Protocol
               July 2016
      Stratospheric Protection Division
      Office of Atmospheric Programs
         Office of Air and Radiation
       United States
       Environmental Protection
       Agency                   EPA 430-R-16-006

-------
     Benefits of Addressing HFCs under the Montreal Protocol

                              EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

 The United States, Canada, and Mexico have proposed an amendment to the Montreal Protocol
 to phase down production and consumption of hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) and control
 byproduct emissions.l Our goal is to adopt an ambitious HFC phasedown amendment in 2016 that
 includes HFC control commitments from both Article 5 (developing) and non-Article 5 (developed)
 countries. The agreement should produce significant climate mitigation benefits, and also include
 increased financial support that the United States and other countries can provide for the Protocol's
 Multilateral Fund (MLF) to enable compliance. The proposal builds on the success of the Montreal
 Protocol, relies on the strength of its institutions, and realizes climate benefits in both the near
 and long term.

 HFC use and emissions are rapidly increasing as a result of the phaseout of ozone-depleting
 substances (ODS) and growing global demand for air conditioning and refrigeration. The
 continued emissions of HFCs - primarily as alternatives to ODS and as byproduct emissions of
 HFC-23 - are having an immediate and significant effect on the Earth's climate system. Without
 further controls, HFC emissions could largely negate the climate benefits achieved under the
 Montreal Protocol. The proposed amendment calls for a gradual phasedown of HFCs, which will
 allow for an early transition in sectors where alternatives are widely available while providing
 more time and incentive for innovation in deploying alternatives in other areas.

 Phasing down HFCs through the Montreal Protocol has a large potential for slowing climate
 change by avoiding up to one-half degree Celsius of warming by the  end of the century.2 At the
 November 2015 27th Meeting of the Parties (MOP-27) in Dubai, the Parties adopted the Dubai
 Pathway. The Dubai Pathway commits Parties to "work within the Montreal Protocol to an HFC
 amendment in 2016." Adoption of the North American proposal would produce cumulative HFC
 consumption reductions of 90-111 GtCO2eq (or 90,000-111,000 million metric tons of carbon
 dioxide equivalent (MMTC02eq))  by 2050. Table ES-1 displays the projected cumulative
 benefits of adoption of the North American proposal as submitted in 2015 and forwarded by  the
 Parties for continued consideration in 2016.

 TABLE ES-1: ESTIMATED BENEFITS OF THE AMENDMENT PROPOSAL
Cumulative HFC Reductions (GtCCheq) through 2050

HFC Phasedown -
Consumption Reductions
Byproduct Controls -
Emissions Reductions
Total
A5 & Non-A5 Parties
78-99
13
90-111
 * Totals may not sum due to independent rounding.
1 This paper only analyzes the amendment proposed by Canada, Mexico and the United States (the "North American
proposal"). Three other proposed amendments have been submitted to the Ozone Secretariat, with different proposed
control measures and dates. They are summarized in section three of this paper.
2 Y. Xu, D. Zaelke, G. J. M. Velders and V. Ramanathan. "The role of HFCs in mitigating 21st century climate
change" Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics 13 (2013): 6083-6089. Accessible from http://www.atmos-chem-
phvs.net/13/6083/2013/acp-13-6083-2013.pdf.
                                            1

-------
              Benefits of Addressing HFCs under the Montreal Protocol - July 2016

 1. INTRODUCTION

 A phasedown of HFCs under the Montreal Protocol is the best way to reduce the rapidly
 growing climate effect of these gases. This paper presents an analysis of potential benefits from
 globally reducing consumption of hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) and reducing byproduct emissions
 of HFC-23 in accordance with the North American proposed amendment to the Montreal Protocol
 on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer as submitted by the United States, Canada, and
 Mexico using the same methodology as previous amendment analyses from the U. S.
 Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA).3

 2. PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO PHASE DOWN HFC CONSUMPTION
    AND PRODUCTION AND REDUCE HFC-23 BYPRODUCT
    EMISSIONS

 The governments of the United States of America, Canada, and Mexico are proposing an
 amendment to the Montreal Protocol to phase down the consumption and production of HFCs
 and reduce HFC-23 byproduct emissions. Key elements of this amendment proposal:
 •  Lists 19 HFCs as controlled substances under the Montreal Protocol;
 •  Recognizes that there may not be alternatives for all HFC applications today and therefore
    relies on a gradual phasedown mechanism with a plateau as opposed to a complete phaseout;
 •  Establishes commitments for the phasedown of HFC production and consumption by
    developed countries (non-Article 5) and by developing countries (Article 5) with additional time
    for Article 5 countries;
 •  Uses GWP weighting for HFC s and HCFC s;
 •  Includes provisions to limit HFC-23 byproduct emissions resulting from the production of
    HCFCs and HFCs;
 •  Requires reporting on HFC production, import, export, and byproduct emissions of HFC-23;
 •  Makes reductions in HFC production and consumption and byproduct emissions eligible for
    funding under the Multilateral Fund for the Implementation of the Montreal Protocol (MLF);
    and
 •  Requires licensing of HFC imports and exports, and import and export controls from/to
    non-Parties.

 3. PROPOSED PHASEDOWN OF HFC CONSUMPTION

 3.1.  ASSUMPTIONS FOR ESTABLISHING THE BASELINE AND PROJECTED
      CONSUMPTION

 Because HFCs have replaced HCFCs in many applications already, particularly in non-Article 5
 countries, the baseline used in the North American proposal is set using historical information
 while accounting for this transition. The consumption baseline is depicted in the table below.
3 EPA, 2015 Benefits of Addressing HFC under the Montreal Protocol, October 2015. Accessible at
https://www.epa.sov/sites/production/files/2016-03/documents/2015 benefits of addressing hfcs under the montreal protocol
 final clean.pdf.

-------
              Benefits of Addressing HFCs under the Montreal Protocol - July 2016

TABLE 1: BASELINE EQUATION
Party
Equation 1:
Non-Article 5
parties
Equation 2:
Article 5
parties
Method
100%
100%
/ / 2011 HFC consumption \ \
I +2012 HFC consumption \
\+ 2013 HFC consumption/
3
\ 1
// 2011 HFC consumption \\
1 +2012 HFC consumption \
\+ 2013 HFC consumption/
3
\ )
+ 75%
+ 50%
// 2011 HCFC consumption \\
1 +2012 HCFC consumption ] \
V+2013 HCFC consumption/
3
^ /
// 2011 HCFC consumption \\
1 +2012 HCFC consumption \ \
V+2013 HCFC consumption/
3
^ /
Projected consumption estimates for Article 5 and non-Article 5 from 2015 through 2050 are
shown in Graph 1.
GRAPH 1. PROJECTED HFC CONSUMPTION 2012 THROUGH 2050

               Projected HFC Consumption 2O15 through 2O5O

                       Projected Article 5
                      Consumption Range
                                          ^Tff
    1.000

Projected Non-Article 5
Consumption Rang*

2010 2Oli 2020 2O2S 20JO 2OJS
Year
2O4O 2O*S 2O3O

3.2.   REDUCTION SCENARIO AND RESULTS
While the Parties to the Montreal Protocol are considering four different amendment
proposals, as noted above, this paper only analyzes the North American proposal.
Therefore, the reduction schedule used for this analysis appears in Graph 2 and Table 2
below. Phasedown steps were set by considering the need to achieve significant reductions to
protect the global climate, the known and likely availability of alternatives, and other
obligations under the Montreal Protocol (e.g., HCFC phaseout).

-------
                 Benefits of Addressing HFCs under the Montreal Protocol - July 2016
 GRAPH 2. PROPOSED HFC REDUCTION SCHEDULES
             HFC Freeze and Reduction Steps for Non-Article 5 & Article 5 Countries
                                     (as a percent of baseline)
      100% -i

       90% -
    0)  70% -

   "3  60% -
    IB
   CD
   •4-  50% -
    o
       30% -

       20% -

       10% -
         2015
                  2020       2025      2030

                       AS Steps to be considered in 2016
 2035       2040       2045       2050

— Non-A5 Steps to be considered in 2016
                                                                                     2055
  TABLE 2: PROPOSED HFC REDUCTION SCHEDULES
HFC Consumption and Production Reduction Schedule
Non-Article 5 Parties
Year
2019
2024
2030
2036
Cap (% of Baseline)
90%
65%
30%
15%
Article 5 Parties
Year
2021
2026
2032
2046
Cap (% of Baseline)
100%
80%
40%
15%
 Applying the reduction schedule and baselines to the proj ected consumption for Article 5 and
 non-Article 5 parties yields HFC consumption reductions as shown in Table 3. Table 3 estimates
 the range of cumulative reductions through 2050.

 TABLE 3: ESTIMATED BENEFITS OF THE HFC PHASEDOWN
Cumulative HFC Phasedown Consumption Reductions (MMTCCheq) through 2050
Non-Article 5 Parties
Article 5 Parties
World*
25,000-37,000
¥0,000-73,000
7S,000-PP,000
  * Totals may not sum due to independent rounding.
  * Totals do not include benefits from controlling HFC-23 byproduct emissions.

  A study by Velders et al.4 indicates that phasing outHFC production in 2020, for example,
  prevents up to 146 GtCO2eq (or 146,000 MMTCO2eq) of cumulative emissions from 2020
  2050, and an additional bank of up to 64 GtCO2eq (or 64,000 MMTCO2eq) could also be
  avoided in 2050.
 3.3.    OTHER AMENDMENT PROPOSALS
 The European Union (EU), India, and a coalition of Pacific Island States submitted proposals in
4 G. J. M. Velders, S. Solomon and J. S. Daniel. "Growth of climate change commitments from HFC banks an
emissions" Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics 14 (2014): 4563-4572. Accessible from http://www.atmos-chem-
phys.net/14/4563/2014/acp-14-4563-2014.html.
                                              4

-------
                Benefits of Addressing HFCs under the Montreal Protocol - July 2016

 2015 along with the North American proposal. Each proposal recognizes the differing transition
 capabilities of Non-Article 5 and Article 5  countries, as evidenced in Tables 4 and 5 below. The
 four proposals suggest a first step or freeze by 2019, with at least two additional steps occurring by
 2030 for Non-Article 5 countries. For Article 5 countries, the four proposals call for a freeze date
 ranging from 2019 to 2031, with varying numbers of steps.

 TABLE 4: COMPARISON OF HFC AMENDMENTPROPOSALS'KEYELEMENTSFORNON-ARTICLESPARTIES
KEY ELEMENTS
Party's Baseline
(GWP -weighted)






Control Measures
for HFC
Production and
Consumption
(percent of
baseline)
NORTH
AMERICAN
PROPOSAL
Average of HFC
production and
consumption in
20 11-20 13 +75% of
average HCFC
production and
consumption in
2011-2013
2019-90%
2024 - 65%
2030 - 30%
2036 - 15%


INDIA
PROPOSAL
Average of HFC
production and
consumption in
20 13-20 15 +25% of
HCFC baseline
(excludes HFC-23)


2016-100%
2018-90%
2023 - 65%
2029 - 30%
2035 - 15%

EUROPEAN
UNION
PROPOSAL
Average of HFC
production and
consumption in
2009-20 12 + 45% of
average HCFC
production and
consumption in
2009-2012.
2019-85%
2023 - 60%
2028 - 30%
2034 - 15%


ISLAND STATES
PROPOSAL*
Average of HFC
production and
consumption in
2009-20 12 + 45% of
average HCFC
production and
consumption in
2009-2012
2017-85%
2021-65%
2025 - 45%
2029 - 25%
2033 - 10%

* Kiribati, Marshall Islands, Mauritius, Federated States of Micronesia, Palau, Philippines, Samoa and Solomon Islands.

 TABLE 5: COMPARISON OF HFC AMENDMENT PROPOSALS' KEY ELEMENTS FOR ARTICLE 5 PARTIES
KEY ELEMENTS


Party's Baseline
(GWP -weighted)


Control Measures
for HFC
Production and
Consumption
(percent of
baseline)




NORTH
AMERICAN
PROPOSAL
Average of HFC
production and
consumption in
2011-2013+50%
HCFC production
and consumption in
2011-2013

2021 - 100%
2026 - 80%
2032 - 40%
2046 - 15%




INDIAN
PROPOSAL

Average of HFC
production and
consumption in
2028-2030 + 32.5%
of HCFC baseline
(excludes HFC-23)

2031-100%
2050 - 15%
Phasedown steps are
to be nationally
determined 5 years
in advance for the
next 5 -year period




EUROPEAN
UNION
PROPOSAL
Consumption:
average of HFC and
HCFC consumption
in 2015-2016
Production:
average of HFC
production in 2009-
20 12 + 70% of
HCFC production in
2009-2012
Consumption: 2019
- 100% combined
HCFC/HFC
consumption;
further reduction
steps and timing to
be agreed by 2020
Production
2019 -100% HFC
production
2040 -15% HFC
production
ISLAND STATES
PROPOSAL

Average of HFC
consumption in
2015-2017 + 65% of
HCFC baseline


2020 - 85%
2025 - 65%
2030 - 45%
2035-25%
2040 - 10%




A key takeaway from comparing these proposals is that, with the exception of the Indian
                                             5

-------
                Benefits of Addressing HFCs under the Montreal Protocol - July 2016

amendment proposal, they all call for an early freeze on HFC consumption and production for
Article 5 countries. This early action is vital, as the majority of the benefits will be realized by 2030,
and a freeze well before that year is an essential first step to realizing these benefits.
 3.4.   NATIONAL, REGIONAL, AND GLOBAL EFFORTS
 Over the past several years, we have seen a number of countries take actions to address HFCs.
 Even in the absence of an amendment, we can expect additional actions at the national and regional
 levels. While these actions have already changed the trajectory of global HFC emissions, these actions
 alone are not enough. Graph 3 depicts:
     •   Business as usual in a world absent HFC reduction measures;
     •   Reduced consumption from domestic and regional measures;
           o   Includes measures from the EU, United States, Japan, and assumed measures
               from Canada;
     •   Reduced consumption from additional measures under the Montreal Protocol (i.e.
        adopting an HFC phasedown).

 GRAPH 3. NON-ARTICLE 5 CONSUMPTION BENEFITS
                            Potential for HFC Reductions:
                                     Non-A5  Parties
        1.700
                  Business as Usual absent HFC
                     Reduction Measures

                                                       Reduced Consumption from
                                                     Domestic and Regional Measures
                 Reduced Consumption from
                   Additional Measures:
                 Adopting the Amendment
           2015
                      2020
                                          2030       20»
                                               V.-.1--.
                                                                        204S
                                                                                  204O
 United States of America
 In June 2013, the President directed the United States to lead through both international diplomacy
 and domestic action. In particular, he directed the U.S. EPA to use its authority through the
 Significant New Alternatives Policy (SNAP) Program to encourage private sector investment in
 low-emissions technology by identifying and approving climate-friendly chemicals while also
 prohibiting certain uses of the most harmful chemical alternatives. In addition, the President
 directed his Administration to purchase cleaner alternatives to HFCs whenever feasible and to
 transition over time to equipment that uses safer and more sustainable alternatives.

 Since the President's direction, the U.S. EPA issued two rules, three notices, and one proposed rule
 significantly updating the lists of acceptable and unacceptable alternative chemicals under the
 SNAP Program. In February 2015, several alternatives were added to the acceptable list (subject to
                                            6

-------
               Benefits of Addressing HFCs under the Montreal Protocol - July 2016

use conditions) for use in the refrigeration and air conditioning sectors, including several
hydrocarbons. Hydrocarbons  are already in use in refrigeration and air conditioning applications in
Europe and Asia and are now entering the U.S. market. In July 2015, the U.S. EPA released a final
rule that changed the status of certain high-GWP HFCs used in motor vehicle air conditioning,
retail food refrigeration and vending machines, aerosols, and foam blowing to make them
unacceptable because alternatives that are more climate-friendly and pose less overall risk are
available. The expected cumulative emission savings are 1.1 gigatons of CCh-equivalentby 2030
and 4.5 gigatons by 2050. In October 2014, July 2015, and May 2016, the U.S. EPA also issued
three acceptability notices, adding to the list of alternatives acceptable for use in the refrigeration
and air conditioning; solvents, coatings and inks; fire suppression and explosion protection; and
foam blowing sectors. In April 2016, the U.S. EPA issued a proposed rulemaking to change the
status of certain high-GWP HFCs used in chillers, household refrigerator-freezers, foam blowing,
cold storage warehouses, and  additional uses in retail food refrigeration.

The U.S. also recognizes that refrigerant management is an important way to reduce climate-
damaging  emissions from equipment used for air-conditioning and refrigeration. In November
2015, the U.S. EPA proposed a regulation that would strengthen the existing refrigerant
management requirements and then extend those requirements to HFCs. This rule would further
reduce HFC emissions by an estimated 7 million metric tons of CO2 equivalent in 2025. The U.S.
EPA intends to finalize this rule in 2016.

The U.S. government is a large purchaser of goods and services. To meet the President's goals for
federal leadership to reduce HFC emissions, new executive actions  were announced in September
2014 to begin the process to update procurement regulations for federal agencies in order to
promote the use of safer chemical alternatives to HFCs by service and vendor contractors. The
Department of Defense (DoD), General Services Administration, and the National Aeronautics
and Space Administration (NASA) jointly issue the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) for use
by executive agencies in acquiring goods and services. In May 2016, DoD, GSA, and NASA
sponsored a final rule to amend the FAR to address  HFCs. The final rule directs government
agencies to procure other alternatives in lieu of high-GWP HFCs, where feasible, and refers to
EPA's SNAP Program for the current list of acceptable alternatives; refers to EPA's pending
regulation to extend refrigerant management  requirements to reduce HFC emissions; requires
vendor reporting on use of HFCs (i.e.,  refrigerants); and supports using reclaimed HFCs where
feasible.

European Fluorinated Gas Regulation
The European Commission revised and strengthened its requirements on fluorinated gases as part
of its policy to combat climate change.  The previous F-gas regulation (including the mobile air
conditioning (MAC) Directive) was adopted in 2006 and was aimed at stabilizing EU F-gas
emissions  at 2010 levels. The regulation went into effect January 1, 2015, and aims to cuttheEU's
F-gas emissions by two-thirds compared with 2014 levels. Requirements include a European
phasedown and quota system for the supply of HFCs that began in 2015, bans on certain HFC-
containing equipment, and a requirement to destroy or recycle HFC-23 (a production byproduct).
Existing regulation on labeling, refrigerant management and reporting requirements, and training
programs have also been expanded to cover HFCs. The expected cumulative emission savings are
0.9 gigatons of CCh-equivalent by 2030 and 2.6 gigatons by 2050.

Canada
Canada is  in the process of developing a licensing and reporting regime consistent with how the
North American Proposal would phase down HFCs under  the Montreal Protocol. Most recently,

-------
                Benefits of Addressing HFCs under the Montreal Protocol - July 2016

 they published a notice that requires information to be provided on HFCs manufactured, imported
 or exported in bulk during the 2015 calendar year. Following consultations with industry, Canada
 is considering three approaches: 1) a phasedown of FIFC consumption (manufacture, imports and
 exports); 2) prohibitions on specific HFC-containing products, such as air-conditioning and
 refrigeration equipment, foam insulation products and aerosol products; and 3) a hybrid approach
 that combines elements of the first two. The hybrid approach is similar to the one used to
 successfully phase out ozone-depleting substances in Canada. Work on defining the proposed
 controls and moving through the regulatory development process is ongoing. The target date for
 publication is late 2016.5

 Japanese Fluorinated Gas Regulation
 Japan enacted a law updating and expanding their existing fluorocarbon regulations. The
 objective of the new legislation, which came into force in April 2015, is to reduce HFC
 emissions through measures that cover the total life cycle, from manufacture through disposal, of
 fluorocarbons and equipment using these gases. Under the new law, manufacturers and importers
 are required to develop HFC phasedown plans that promote non-fluorinated gases or low-GWP
 fluorocarbons, and meet national GWP targets and timelines for specific end uses. The
 government has also created mandatory registration/permission systems for fluorocarbon process
 operators (i.e. entities that recover, refill, recycle or destroy fluorocarbons). In addition, end users
 of fluorocarbon-containing equipment are responsible for the proper monitoring and
 management of equipment and leaks.

 The Climate and Clean Air Coalition to Reduce Short-Lived Climate Pollutants
 The Climate and Clean Air Coalition (CCAC) to Reduce Short-Lived Climate Pollutants is a
 voluntary initiative  launched in 2012 aimed at achieving progress in addressing near-term
 contributions to global warming. The CCAC is focusing on HFCs as well as black carbon and
 methane, and has sponsored several capacity-building activities such as workshops and
 conferences focusing on enabling the use of climate-friendly alternatives to high-GWP HFCs and
 removing barriers to their adoption. The CCAC is also helping countries inventory their HFC
 sectors and has produced case studies to share information about successful transitions to climate-
 friendly alternatives in commercial refrigeration. In addition, it is sponsoring several technology
 demonstration projects and additional capacity-building efforts.


 4.  BYPRODUCT EMISSIONS OF HFC-23

 PROPOSED AMENDMENT AND CURRENT MITIGATION ACTIVITIES
 HFC-23 is a potent greenhouse gas that is 14,800 times more damaging to the Earth's climate
 system than carbon dioxide. The North American Amendment proposal, as well as two other
 proposals, includes provisions that limit HFC-23 byproduct emissions resulting from the
 production of HFCs andHCFCs, particularly HCFC-22. HCFC-22 is an ODS used primarily as a
 refrigerant and as a feedstock for manufacturing synthetic polymers. Non-feedstock production of
 HCFC-22 is scheduled for phaseout by 2040 under the Montreal Protocol. However,  given the
 extensive use of HCFC-22 as a feedstock, its production is projected to continue indefinitely.
 While a small amount of HFC-23 is used in plasma-etching processes in semiconductor
 manufacturing,  as a fire suppressant, and either neat or as a blend component in cryogenic
5 The reporting requirement can be found in Canada Gazette, Part I: Vol. 150. No. 24. available at
http://gazette.gc.ca/rp-pr/pl/2016/2016-06-l l/html/notice-avis-eng.php#nl4. For the proposed measures see
Amendments to the Ozone-depleting Substances and Halocarbon Alternatives Regulations, available at
https://www.ec.gc.ca/ozone/default.asp?lang=En&n=77A94123-l&offset=l&toc=show.

-------
                Benefits of Addressing HFCs under the Montreal Protocol - July 2016

 refrigeration, the vast maj ority of HFC-23 produced is not used and is either emitted, captured or
 destroyed. The capture and destruction technologies for HFC-23 byproduct emissions are proven
 and readily available. Yet, recent studies6 indicate that HFC-23 emissions continue to increase in
 developing countries, despite global efforts to curb emissions.

 BENEFITS FROM BYPRODUCT CONTROLS

 TABLE 6: ESTIMATED BENEFITS OF HFC-23 BYPRODUCT EMISSION CONTROLS
Cumulative HFC-23 Byproduct Emission Reductions through 2050 (MMTCCheq)
World Byproduct Controls
13,000
 In April 2013, the Executive Committee of the MLF reached an agreement with China to phase
 out all HCFC production for consumption by 2030. China is by far the largest Article 5 producer
 of HCFC-22 and has 34 of the 43 identified production lines. While the agreement will phase out
 HCFC-22 production for consumption, this analysis accounts for the HCFC-22 phaseout as well as
 the growth in HCFC-22 production for feedstock use. On September 25, 2015, the United States
 and China made a joint presidential statement on climate change that states that, for China,
 "Actions on HFCs continue to be supported and accelerated, including effectively controlling
 HFC-23 emissions by 2020."

 5. SUMMARY

 One of the world's most significant climate mitigation opportunities of 2016 is the adoption of
 an ambitious amendment to the Montreal Protocol to phase down production and consumption of
 HFCs. This analysis estimates the projected climate benefits of phasing down HFCs in
 accordance  with the proposed North American Amendment to the Montreal Protocol. Adoption
 of its provisions would produce cumulative climate benefits of 90,000-111,000 MMTCO2eq
 through 2050. Table 7 displays the projected cumulative benefits of adoption of the proposal as
 submitted in 2015.

TABLE 7: ESTIMATED BENEFITS OF THE AMENDMENT PROPOSAL
Cumulative HFC Reductions (GtCCheq) through 2050

HFCPhasedown-
Consumption Reductions
Byproduct Controls -
Emissions Reductions
Total
A5 & Non-A5 Parties
78-99
13
90-111
 * Totals may not sum due to independent rounding.

 Although both the HFC proposal and the HCFC controls would be effective concurrently,
 individual countries would still have the ability to examine their specific conditions and
 obligations, and to determine how best to meet their obligations under the two regimes. Transitions
 from HCFCs could include interim steps using a range of HFCs in various end uses, transit! oning
 to low-GWP HFCs and non-fluorinated alternatives (e.g., ammonia, hydrocarbons) and continuing
 to use some amount of HFCs for the foreseeable future for certain end uses (e.g., metered dose
 inhalers for asthmatics).
 6 S. A. Montzka, L. Kuijpers, M. O. Battle, M. Aydin, K. R. Verhulst, E. S. Saltzman and D. W. Fahey. et al. "Recent increases
 in global HFC-23 emissions," Geophysical Research Letters 37 (2010): L02808. Accessible from
 http://ontinelibrarv.wilev.com/doi/10.1029/2009GL041195/full.
                                            9

-------