The Trump administration recently announced plans to significantly relax a previous rule enacted under the Biden administration. This policy initially mandated that grocery stores, air-conditioning manufacturers, semiconductor fabrication plants, and other industries drastically cut their use of powerful greenhouse gases found in cooling equipment.
This new Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposal could dismantle a rare climate achievement: a bipartisan consensus to swiftly phase down these man-made chemicals, known as hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs). Many industry figures and environmental advocates had praised the original agreement as a significant step forward.
It’s crucial to understand that HFCs are incredibly potent, contributing thousands of times more to global warming than carbon dioxide.
However, EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin argues that the Biden administration’s original timeline — which aimed for an 85 percent reduction in HFC production and consumption by 2036 — didn’t provide businesses adequate time to adapt. Zeldin claimed that the rapid shift to alternative refrigerants led to supply shortages, leaving families without crucial air conditioning during warm periods. The air-conditioning industry, however, largely disputes the severity of these claims, suggesting they are overstated.
In a statement, Mr. Zeldin asserted, “With this proposal, E.P.A. is working to make American refrigerants affordable, safe, and reliable again.”
This proposal emerged just as a government shutdown loomed due to a budget impasse between President Trump and Democrats. Should a shutdown occur, furloughing federal workers, all pending regulations would pause. Such a delay could also impact Mr. Zeldin’s broader agenda to dismantle numerous climate protections implemented by the previous Biden administration.
Globally phasing out HFCs is projected to prevent up to 0.5 degrees Celsius of global warming by the century’s end, a significant contribution to mitigating severe climate change impacts. Ironically, it was President Trump himself who, during his initial term, signed legislation instructing the EPA to reduce this climate pollutant. This directive was included within a comprehensive Covid-19 relief package passed late in his presidency.
The Biden administration then drafted regulations to implement this law, aiming to cut emissions equivalent to 4.5 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide by 2050 – a reduction comparable to three years’ worth of climate pollution from the entire electricity sector.
Notably, efforts to reduce HFCs have enjoyed rare bipartisan support, attracting backing from both Democrats and Republicans, alongside major industry associations and environmental groups. As other nations transition away from HFCs, proponents argued that the original rule safeguarded the $206-billion global cooling industry. It achieved this by ensuring fair competition among manufacturers and fostering the development of environmentally friendlier alternatives.
Francis Dietz, Vice President of Public Affairs for the Air-Conditioning, Heating, and Refrigeration Institute, commented, “We liked the rule that came out at the end of the Biden administration.”
Mr. Dietz challenged the Trump administration’s assertions regarding critical shortages of HFC alternatives. While acknowledging a brief shortage earlier this year, he confirmed it had since been resolved. He further warned that delaying compliance could destabilize planning and investment for U.S. manufacturers who have already adapted their production and supply chains to meet the existing timeline.
“We wanted certainty, and we had it,” he stated, “and now we don’t, potentially.”
Conversely, many grocery store operators had advocated for changes and expressed satisfaction with the Trump administration’s revised plan.
Leslie G. Sarasin, President and Chief Executive of the Food Industry Association, a prominent trade group, issued a statement praising the new plan. He argued that the Biden rule had imposed “significant and unrealistic compliance timelines,” and that the Trump plan would achieve “intended environmental benefits without placing unnecessary and costly burdens on the food industry.”
Specifically, the new proposal could grant the residential air-conditioning sector, retail food refrigeration, cold storage warehouses, and semiconductor manufacturing an additional five years to transition to more environmentally friendly coolants.
However, environmentalists contend that while these changes might offer only marginal benefits to businesses, they could have profound negative consequences for the climate.
David Doniger, Senior Strategic Director of the climate and clean energy program at the Natural Resources Defense Council (an environmental organization), critically noted, “This is not going to make potato chips or computer chips any cheaper.”
He emphasized that these “extremely powerful greenhouse gases” would now persist in the atmosphere for extended periods, exacerbating global warming.
The public will have a 45-day window to submit comments once the proposal is published in the Federal Register. The EPA also confirmed that a virtual public hearing would be held to discuss the plans before any final changes are implemented.