An analysis of reduction opportunities for consumption of hydrofluorocarbons and comparisons to US climate policy proposals

Abstract

Many of the most cost-effective options for reducing emissions of hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) involve: reducing leaks; responsible handling practices; replacement with a substance with little or no global warming potential; or reducing the amount of the greenhouse gas (GHG) needed. Some of these options can be implemented immediately for quick emission reductions. However, because many of the types of equipment that rely on these gases have lifetimes ranging from 10 to 30 years, fully implementing these emission reductions can take decades. Reductions in HFC consumption, however, can generally be seen more immediately. Recent US proposals for climate legislation have considered limits on HFC consumption under a cap separate from other GHGs. Whether and how such a cap would be implemented, and the economic efficiencies of such a framework, are the subject of considerable debate. Marginal abatement cost curves developed by the US Environmental Protection Agency are used here to examine possible reductions in HFC consumption, and their associated costs, against targets as envisioned in four proposals for US climate legislation. It is seen that such comparisons depend integrally on how the future growth of HFC consumption is projected; that is, what assumptions underlie the baseline. Furthermore, while it is determined that known options may not be available today to meet the policy proposals examined, current developments in the HFC market, along with the history of those markets in the ozone-depleting substances phaseout, provide indications that deeper reductions are achievable.