Representatives of European member states are meeting this week to decide on their position ahead of talks with the European Parliament and Commission on revisions to theEU F-Gas Regulation.

As the industry waits for news, NGOs call on EU ministers to back strong F-gas legislation whilst European Industry Associations are calling for a balanced approach. NGOs call on EU ministers to back strong F-gas legislation.  A coalition of European campaigners has issued an urgent plea to their governments to support ambitious measures to reduce the emission of hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) – super greenhouse gases used in cooling equipment.

In a letter to EU Ministers, a group of 11 organisations, including the London- basedEnvironmental Investigation Agency (EIA), the European Environmental Bureau (EEB),Greenpeace and WWF, called for Ministers to back a faster reduction in the amount of chemicals placed on the market and bans on their use in areas where alternatives are available.  Clare Perry, Head of the EIA’s Global Environment Campaign said:

“There is a real danger that the cap-and-phase-down will be too lacking in ambition.  In that case, there is no pressure for change and it will be business-as-usual for the polluters. We need a tighter cap, supported by bans in areas where we no longer need these chemicals. In light of the dismal climate talks in Warsaw, it is more important than ever for Europe totake concrete actions to reduce its own greenhouse gas emissions. This is something we can do right now.”

Currently, the revised F-gas legislation is being debated by the European Parliament, European Commission and Member States. While early drafts included bans on the use of HFCs in a number of sectors, including commercial refrigeration, some European countries are trying to water this down.

The move comes at the same time as Refrigerants Naturally!, a partnership of major corporations including Coca-Cola, PepsiCo and Unilever with Greenpeace, issued a letter calling for more ambitious measures to be introduced in the Regulation, including support for bans.

HFCs are a family of super greenhouse gases with global warming potentials hundreds or thousands of times greater than carbon dioxide. Used as refrigerants, they are responsible for about two per cent of European greenhouse emissions. With rapid growth in developing countries, by 2050 HFCs could account for up to 19 per cent of global greenhouse gas emissions.

Susanna Williams of EEB said:

“The phase-down of HFCs in Europe would prevent the emission of 600 million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent by 2030 and could unlock global action to prevent the release of 100 billiontonnes by 2050. This is a huge opportunity”

Common industry comments on the f-gas review – The industry opinion

Inview of the 3rd trilogue meeting on the F-gas Review, a group of associations active in the automotive industry, refrigerated transport, heating, cooling, refrigeration and heat pump industries as well as the vending industry, representing millions of jobs in Europe – renew their support for a first reading agreement before the European Parliament elections, but call upon the decision-makers to ensure a balanced approach towards the new f-gas rules.  In the document  they support the Commission proposal for a phase-down: an ambitious, yet achievable HFC phase-down schedule (Annex V):

1.Our associations support the HFC phase-down, which introduces ambitious and extremely stringent requirements for industry and end-users, and accept that the HFC consumption (expressed in CO2-equivalent) needs to be reduced by nearly 80% by 2030. This is unprecedented and becomes even more significant considering that heating, cooling and refrigeration will grow by at least 50% by 2030. The heat pump market alone, which will be essential to achieve Europe’s 2050 climate and energy goals, is expected to at least triple by 2030.

Support an environmentally and cost-effective service and maintenance ban (Art. 11.3):

2.Our associations strongly support the current Council amendments to the service and maintenance ban which increases the charge size threshold from 5 to 40 tonnes of CO2-equivalent, and exempts applications operating below -50°C and systems that have been recently converted to comply with the ODS Regulation.

3.We also support the timing of the entry into force of the service and maintenance ban by 2022 as suggested by the Council.

4.We would like to stress the importance of the continued use of recycled and reclaimed refrigerants for as long as possible – at least until 2030 asproposed by the Council -, to ensure that the environmental impact of very high GWP refrigerants is minimised by preventing emissions at the end of the lifetime of equipment and providing a true incentive for recovery and recycling.

Reject a ban on pre-charging (Article 12):

1.A ban on pre-charging is counter productive: The handling of f-gases outside a controlled factory environment will increase cost and emissions. The proposed traceability scheme is a good, cost-effective proposal. In addition, the New Entrants Reserve should be increased to allow HFC pre-charge equipment to optin the quota mechanism.

Reject additional placing on the market bans (Annex III):

2.Additionals ub-sector bans on placing on the market are not required: The HFC phase-down mechanism represents a fundamental change to the way industry has been operating and will make HFCs an expensive and scarce commodity. To comply with the HFC phase-down scheme, industry needs flexibility and time to develop lower GWP, safe and energy-efficient solutions for all applications.

3.Why a sub-sector approach does not work: The definition of sub-sectors is unsuitable and impractical for regulatory purposes. A ban intended for one application may unintentionally apply to other applications. For example, a heat pump is also a split air-conditioner, so a ban on split AC may also ban heat pumps.This would create unfair competition between different AC systems and this is counter-productive, as alternatives may not be available for all sub-sectors,but also impossible to enforce for national authorities.

4.Why a GWP threshold approach is better: If bans are deemed necessary, our associations believe that setting broad GWP threshold limits for applications will set unambiguous, clear targets for industry and users, and will avoid the need for sub-sector applications. For example, targeting refrigerants with a GWP above 2500 in all stationary applications will achieve emission reductions of 38 million tonnes of CO2-eq in 2030, which in itself represents more than 50% of the emission reduction target.

[ΠΗΓΗ: http://fridgehub.com]