The administration says easing restrictions on hydrofluorocarbons will lower costs for consumers, but economists, climate experts, and even refrigeration industry leaders warn the move may do little to reduce grocery prices while slowing efforts to curb some of the world’s most potent greenhouse gases.
President Donald Trump has announced a significant rollback of federal restrictions on hydrofluorocarbons, commonly known as HFCs, a class of chemicals used in refrigerators, air conditioners, refrigerated transportation systems, and a wide range of industrial applications. The decision marks a reversal of regulations established under a bipartisan law Trump himself signed during his first term and represents one of the administration’s most consequential climate-related policy changes since returning to office.
Standing alongside Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lee Zeldin at the White House, Trump framed the move as part of a broader effort to reduce household costs at a time when rising grocery bills, fuel prices, and economic uncertainty remain major political concerns ahead of the midterm elections. Administration officials argued that easing restrictions on HFCs would save businesses and consumers more than $2.4 billion by allowing companies greater flexibility in the refrigeration equipment and chemicals they use.
“Many Americans were expressing a lot of frustration and anger at this rushed, frantic, reckless sprint by the Biden administration to phase out reliable equipment for grocery stores,” Zeldin said during the announcement. He added, “The Trump administration is answering the call, which will lower the cost of living for hard-working American families.”
The EPA later expanded on that argument, with Zeldin stating, “Today, the Trump EPA is fulfilling President Trump’s promise to lower costs and is fixing every problem we can under the authority Congress gave us.” He further claimed that, “Our actions allow businesses to choose the refrigeration systems that work best for them, saving them billions of dollars. This will be felt directly by American families in lower grocery prices.”
The administration’s justification rests largely on the idea that environmental regulations imposed during the Biden administration increased costs throughout the food supply chain by requiring businesses to transition away from HFC-based refrigeration systems. According to the White House, delaying those requirements and broadening the range of refrigerants businesses may use will reduce costs for grocery stores, food distributors, restaurants, transportation companies, and manufacturers.
Yet many economists, industry representatives, and former government officials dispute the claim that consumers will see meaningful savings at the checkout counter. David Ortega, a food economist at Michigan State University, argued that refrigeration costs represent only a small portion of overall food prices and are unlikely to materially affect what shoppers pay.
“This move is highly unlikely to produce any noticeable reduction in grocery prices for consumers,” Ortega said. “We’re talking about refrigeration, and that’s a very small share of the overall cost of food.”
Ortega pointed instead to factors such as tariffs, transportation expenses, fuel costs, and extreme weather as more significant contributors to persistent food inflation. According to the reporting, rising diesel prices have increased the cost of transporting fruits and vegetables into the United States, while climate-related drought conditions have contributed to higher prices for products including tomatoes and beef.
Others made similar arguments. Ryan Young, a senior economist at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, estimated that consumers might save only a few dollars annually from the policy change. “It’s nice that they are paying attention to affordability, but if they want to make a difference, it’s tariffs and the Iran War,” Young said.
The debate over the rule change centers on a category of chemicals that scientists have spent years trying to eliminate. Hydrofluorocarbons were originally developed to replace chlorofluorocarbons, or CFCs, which damaged Earth’s protective ozone layer. While HFCs solved one environmental problem, researchers later determined they created another. Although they remain in the atmosphere for less time than carbon dioxide, HFCs trap heat hundreds to thousands of times more effectively, earning them the designation of climate “super pollutants.”
The EPA’s own website describes the chemicals in stark terms. “HFCs are potent greenhouse gases… with high global warming potential. HFCs are commonly utilized as refrigerants, aerosol propellants, foam blowing agents, solvents, and fire retardants across residential, commercial, and industrial applications. The major source of HFC emissions is their use as refrigerants—for example, in air conditioning systems in both vehicles and buildings. Emissions occur during manufacturing, as well as through leaks, servicing, and disposal of equipment containing HFCs.”
Scientists have identified reducing HFC emissions as one of the fastest available strategies for slowing global warming. International climate agreements aimed at reducing HFC production and use have been widely embraced because of the outsized warming effect associated with the chemicals. More than 190 countries, including the United States, have agreed to sharply reduce their use. According to the reporting, phasing out HFCs worldwide could prevent as much as 0.5 degrees Celsius of global warming by the end of the century, a significant contribution toward avoiding some of climate change’s most severe consequences.
The regulations now being weakened originated with the American Innovation and Manufacturing Act of 2020, commonly known as the AIM Act. The bipartisan legislation, signed into law by Trump during his first term, directed the EPA to “phase down the production and consumption of listed HFCs in the United States by 85% by 2036” and “facilitate the transition to next-generation technologies that do not rely on HFCs.”
Under the Biden administration, the EPA began implementing those requirements through a series of rules designed to accelerate the transition to alternative refrigerants and reduce leaks from equipment that still relied on HFCs. The administration estimated that achieving the law’s targets would eliminate climate pollution equivalent to approximately three years of emissions from the U.S. electricity sector.
The new EPA actions alter that trajectory. One finalized rule extends compliance deadlines for replacing or modifying systems that use HFCs while also expanding the range of refrigerants available to businesses. A second rule exempts portions of the refrigerated transportation sector from requirements aimed at reducing HFC leaks. Together, the changes slow implementation of the phase-down strategy established under the AIM Act.
Trump dismissed concerns about the environmental consequences of the rollback. “It’s not going to have any impact on the environment,” he said.
That assessment has been sharply challenged not only by environmental advocates but also by segments of the manufacturing industry that spent years preparing for the transition Congress required. Air-conditioning and refrigeration manufacturers broadly supported the original phase-down, arguing that alternatives were already available and that companies had invested heavily in new production capacity, equipment, and workforce training.
“American manufacturers did what Congress and the first Trump administration asked them to do: They invested in new equipment, new refrigerants, new production lines and American workers,” said John Hurst, executive director of the Alliance for Responsible Atmospheric Policy. “The administration has now changed course in a way that weakens those investments.”
Industry leaders have also questioned the administration’s economic rationale. Because the AIM Act still requires HFC production to decline over time, extending deadlines for companies to move away from older refrigerants may increase demand for chemicals whose supply is simultaneously shrinking. Several industry representatives warned that the result could be higher prices rather than lower ones.
Stephen Yurek, president and chief executive of the Air-Conditioning, Heating, and Refrigeration Institute, described the policy as economically counterproductive. “This rule works against basic supply and demand,” Yurek said. “By extending the compliance deadline, the EPA is maintaining and even increasing demand in the market for existing refrigerants while supply continues to fall under the AIM Act.”
Yurek warned that “instead of falling, refrigerant prices are likely to rise, resulting in higher service costs, and higher costs for consumers.”
Former EPA Assistant Administrator Joseph Goffman similarly rejected the administration’s assertion that the rollback would provide meaningful financial relief. “families are already stretched thin by high grocery bills and everyday expenses, and weakening safeguards on these super-polluting refrigerant chemicals isn’t going to change that,” Goffman said. He noted that manufacturers themselves have questioned the administration’s economic claims, adding, “Even manufacturers are saying this delay likely won’t lower prices for consumers because supplies of these chemicals are already being phased down in favor of cleaner, innovative replacements.”
For Goffman and other critics, the larger concern extends beyond grocery bills. They argue that delaying the transition away from HFCs increases future climate risks while slowing investment in technologies already developed to replace the chemicals. “All this action does is slow the shift to cleaner technologies while risking continued releases of climate super pollutants and leaving families to face the much greater costs and health threats of dangerous climate change,” Goffman said.
The rollback also aligns with broader goals outlined by Project 2025, the conservative blueprint for restructuring federal government operations during a second Trump administration. According to the reporting, the plan called for repealing the HFC rule, and groups that reject the scientific consensus on climate change have long opposed the regulations despite their bipartisan origins and support from major segments of industry.
As debate over the policy continues, the administration maintains that easing environmental requirements will lower costs and increase flexibility for businesses. Critics counter that the move weakens implementation of a law Trump once championed, undermines climate commitments embraced by much of the world, and may fail to deliver the consumer savings used to justify the change in the first place.
Summarizing that concern, Goffman argued that affordability and environmental protection need not be mutually exclusive. “EPA owes it to Americans to put people’s health first—not give hidebound corporations more time to keep using outdated chemicals,” he said. “Americans deserve affordable groceries that don’t come at the expense of the strong safeguards they count on to keep our families safer, not sicker.”
COMMENTS