The Sixteenth Meeting of the Executive Committee recognized that in some domestic refrigeration projects using hydrocarbon technologies there are significant costs related to the provision of safety equipment and agreed that in calculating the cost-effectiveness of such projects, the safety-related costs should be identified and deducted from the total project cost before the cost-effectiveness calculations are made. These costs would, however, be considered in determining the level of project costs and funding.
(UNEP/OzL.Pro/ExCom/16/20, para. 32e).
The Seventeenth Meeting of the Executive Committee, noting its decision at its Fifteenth Meeting to presume against the use of HCFCs in investment projects, recognizing the higher cost of hydrocarbon technologies, primarily due to safety factors, and desiring to ensure an equality between technology options consistent with that decision, decided:
(a) that for the purposes of calculating the cost-effectiveness value of projects utilizing such technologies, the numerator should be discounted by up to 35 per cent. It is expected that these figures will be adjusted in the light of experience and a study on safety matters to be conducted by the Secretariat;
(b) to request the Secretariat to analyze projects in the pipeline for the commercial refrigeration sector and the rigid polyurethane sector where hydrocarbon technologies are used, and to inform the Executive Committee of the results at its Eighteenth Meeting.
(UNEP/OzL.Pro/ExCom/17/60, Decision 17/14 para. 23).
The Twentieth Meeting of the Executive Committee decided,
(a) with regard to domestic refrigeration projects:
(i) there was an increase in both the capital and total cost per unit for all-hydrocarbon technologies compared to HCFC/HFC-based technologies. The increase in the total project cost (capital plus operating costs) ranged between 15.6 per cent to 55.1 per cent for different categories of projects;
(ii) discounting the numerator by 35 per cent was sufficient to maintain parity between HCFC-141b/HFC-134a and cyclopentane/HFC-134a technology options in the domestic refrigeration sector;
(iii) the number of projects approved for cyclopentane/isobutane technology was not sufficient to enable reliable conclusions to be drawn;
(b) with regard to the commercial refrigeration projects there was no need for the introduction of a discounting factor to account for the additional safety costs needed for hydrocarbon technology, because on average, projects using hydrocarbon technologies were within one per cent of the cost-effectiveness threshold for the sector and therefore would not be disadvantaged for consideration for funding;
(c) that the Secretariat should, however, consider further information on conversion in the commercial refrigeration sector and report back to the Executive Committee at its Twenty-second Meeting.
(UNEP/OzL.Pro/ExCom/20/72, Decision 20/45, para. 45).
(Supporting document: UNEP/OzL.Pro/ExCom/20/65).