Skip to content
Goldberg Segalla logo

Environmental Law Monitor

Your Guide to Emerging Issues in Environmental Regulation and Litigation.

supermarket grocery store aisle and shelves blurred background
• Emissions, Environmental Law Monitor, EPA

EPA’s Refrigerant Rules on Ice?

Posted by

In May, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency announced a final rule to revise the 2023 Technology Transitions Rule (TTR) (previously reported by ELM here).

The final revisions to the TTR extend compliance deadlines for the use of hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), making a wider variety of refrigerants available to businesses while still meeting statutory requirements under the American Innovation and Manufacturing (AIM) Act. In particular, companies can now use HFCs that are up to 1,400 times as potent as carbon dioxide until 2032 instead of 2027, as mandated under the previous rule.

The TTR also allows the inventory of residential and light commercial air conditioning and heat pump equipment manufactured in the United States or imported into the United States before January 1, 2025, to continue to be installed.

The final TTR was published in the Federal Register on May 26. It will become effective on July 27.  Notably, HFCs are chemicals used for refrigeration and cooling that are up to 10,000 times more potent than the equivalent amount of carbon dioxide, and they are among the fastest growing sources of greenhouse gas emissions both in the United States and around the world. The rule rolls back some of the existing deadlines for industry to move from using HFCs to refrigerants with less Global Warming Potential (GWP).  In addition, HFCs are widely used in commercial, residential, and mobile cooling systems, such as air conditioning and refrigeration.

However, on July 21, 19 attorneys general and one city filed a lawsuit against the EPA: (Claimants included: California, Massachusetts, Washington, Colorado, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Wisconsin, the District of Columbia, and the City of New York).

In particular, the states argue that EPA’s final rule is arbitrary and capricious and violates the AIM Act. For example, the states argue that the final rule will increase emissions of highly potent greenhouse gases, slow progress toward reducing climate pollution, and undermine the orderly transition Congress established under the AIM Act. In addition, they argue that the rule would also create unnecessary market disruption by weakening the balance between declining HFC supply and demand, increasing the likelihood of shortages and higher costs that could ultimately be passed on to consumers. Moreover, the attorneys general contend that EPA ignored the fact that many companies have already invested in compliance with the existing rule’s requirements and compliance schedule. Thus, the fate of the TTR rule remains to be seen.