|
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).
|