Federal regulators are facing a legal challenge from a coalition of Democratic-led states, Washington, D.C. and New York City over a recently announced Environmental Protection Agency rule that delays certain HFC phase-down deadlines. The petition, filed in the federal appeals court in Washington, D.C., contests an EPA decision to lengthen the timeframe for companies to switch from hydrofluorocarbons to lower-climate-impact refrigerants used in commercial cooling systems.
The complaint names EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin and seeks to block the "Phasedown of Hydrofluorocarbons" rule, which is scheduled to take effect on July 27. Plaintiffs contend the revised timeline will increase harmful greenhouse gas emissions and undo elements of the American Innovation and Manufacturing Act, which set a goal of reducing HFCs by 85% by 2036. That statute was signed into law by President Donald Trump in December 2020.
HFCs are widely used in air conditioning systems, in large refrigerators and freezers commonly found in supermarkets, and in refrigeration equipment used in semiconductor manufacturing. One contested provision in the EPA rule would permit supermarkets, convenience stores and bakeries to continue using remote condensing systems until 2032, even when those systems rely on refrigerants with more than nine times the previously permitted global warming potential.
In a webcast announcing the legal action, California Attorney General Rob Bonta said the rule would reverse progress achieved under the law and would unfairly penalize companies that already complied with earlier mandates. Bonta also criticized the administration, saying it prioritized industry profits over public health and the planet's future.
The petition is led by the attorneys general of California, Massachusetts and Washington state. They are joined by the attorneys general of Colorado, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Wisconsin, and Washington, D.C., as well as New York City.
The EPA, in a regulatory filing, defended the rule on economic grounds, saying it would help reduce the cost of living for American families and avoid compelling firms to adopt technologies that could raise the cost of food and semiconductor production. The filing also framed the change as consistent with President Trump's January 31, 2025 executive order aimed at promoting deregulation.
The agency otherwise declined comment on the pending litigation, citing its longstanding practice. The broader backdrop to the dispute includes a pattern of the current administration rolling back several environmental measures and standards, including actions described as reducing support for clean energy and repealing an Obama-era scientific finding that characterized climate change as a threat to public health.
The litigation highlights a direct legal confrontation over the pace of regulatory change for refrigerants that are integral to multiple sectors of the economy. Supermarket operators, convenience stores, bakeries and semiconductor manufacturers are named specifically in the debate over allowable equipment and the global warming potential of permitted refrigerants.
Both sides frame their positions in economic and public-interest terms: state plaintiffs emphasize climate and compliance harms, while the EPA emphasizes cost relief for households and businesses and adherence to a deregulatory executive directive. The court filing will determine whether the revised deadlines stand as scheduled when the rule takes effect later this month.