The Executive Committee took note of document UNEP/OzL.Pro/ExCom/20/65 and the recommendation by the Sub-Committee on Project Review (UNEP/OzL.Pro/ExCom/20/5, para. 54) and decided:
(a) To approve the recommendations in the Secretariat’s document on safety-related costs in projects using hydrocarbon technologies, namely:
(i) With regard to domestic refrigeration projects:
a. 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;
b. 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;
c. The number of projects approved for cyclopentane/isobutane technology was not sufficient to enable reliable conclusions to be drawn;
(ii) 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;
(iii) With regard to rigid polyurethane foam projects, there was no need for the introduction of a discounting factor to account for the additional safety costs for hydrocarbon technology, because the above statistical analysis showed that on average, projects using hydrocarbon technology were already below the cost‑effectiveness threshold for the sector, and thus would not be disadvantaged for consideration for funding;
(b) 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.