On Tuesday, the Trump administration revealed plans to loosen a previous Biden-era regulation. This original rule had mandated a significant reduction in potent greenhouse gases, specifically hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), used in cooling systems across various sectors like grocery stores, air-conditioning manufacturing, and semiconductor production.
The new proposal from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) could dismantle what many consider a crucial climate achievement: a bipartisan consensus to swiftly phase down these dangerous man-made chemicals, known as HFCs.
It’s worth noting that HFCs are extraordinarily powerful greenhouse gases, thousands of times more potent than carbon dioxide when it comes to trapping heat in our atmosphere.
However, EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin argued that the Biden administration’s aggressive timeline for reducing HFC production and consumption—a target of 85 percent by 2036—didn’t provide businesses sufficient time. He claimed that the swift transition to new refrigerant blends led to shortages, leaving many without essential air conditioning during scorching summers. The air-conditioning industry, for its part, has largely dismissed these claims as overstated.
In a public statement, Mr. Zeldin asserted, “With this proposal, EPA is working to make American refrigerants affordable, safe, and reliable again.”
This controversial proposal surfaced mere hours before a potential government shutdown, a result of the ongoing spending dispute between President Trump and Democrats. Should an agreement fail and federal workers face furloughs, all pending regulatory actions would pause. Such a shutdown could further postpone Mr. Zeldin’s broader agenda to undo numerous climate safeguards established during the previous administration.
Globally, eliminating HFCs could prevent as much as 0.5 degrees Celsius of global warming by the century’s end, a significant step in mitigating severe climate change impacts. Ironically, it was President Trump himself who, during his initial term, signed legislation instructing the EPA to curtail this potent climate pollutant. This measure was embedded within a comprehensive Covid-19 relief package enacted at the close of his presidency.
In response to that law, the Biden administration formulated regulations for HFCs, aiming to remove the equivalent of 4.5 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide by 2050—a volume comparable to roughly three years’ worth of climate pollution from the nation’s electricity sector.
Unlike the contentious debates surrounding fossil fuel reduction, the push to decrease HFCs has historically enjoyed widespread bipartisan backing, including from both industrial and environmental groups. As other nations transition away from HFCs, many viewed the existing rule as a safeguard for the substantial $206-billion-a-year cooling industry. It was seen as ensuring fair competition among manufacturers and fostering innovation in alternative technologies.
Francis Dietz, Vice President of Public Affairs for the Air-Conditioning, Heating, and Refrigeration Institute, affirmed, “We liked the rule that came out at the end of the Biden administration.”
Mr. Dietz specifically challenged the Trump administration’s assertions regarding critical shortages of HFC alternatives. He clarified that while a brief shortage occurred earlier in the year, it was quickly resolved. Furthermore, he warned that the proposed delays in compliance could hinder the planning and investment efforts of American manufacturers, many of whom have already adjusted their production and supply chains to meet the existing phase-out schedule.
He concluded, “We wanted certainty and we had it, and now we don’t, potentially.”
Conversely, numerous grocery store operators expressed their satisfaction with the Trump administration’s proposal, having actively advocated for such changes.
Leslie G. Sarasin, President and CEO of the Food Industry Association, released a statement arguing that the Biden rule had enforced “significant and unrealistic compliance timelines.” He lauded the Trump plan, stating it would implement changes “in a way that achieves the intended environmental benefits without placing unnecessary and costly burdens on the food industry.”
Specifically, the new proposal would grant the residential air-conditioning, retail food refrigeration, cold storage warehouse, and semiconductor manufacturing sectors an additional five years to transition to alternative cooling agents.
Environmental advocates, however, warned that while the business impacts might be minimal, the ramifications for the climate would be immense.
“This isn’t going to make potato chips or computer chips any cheaper,” stated David Doniger, Senior Strategic Director of the climate and clean energy program at the Natural Resources Defense Council, a prominent environmental organization.
He emphasized that these “extremely powerful greenhouse gases” would now persist in the atmosphere for a longer duration.
Once officially published in the Federal Register, the public will have a 45-day window to provide feedback on the proposal. The EPA also announced plans for a virtual public hearing to discuss the changes before they are finalized.