On July 21, 2026, a coalition of 19 state Attorneys General, led by California, Massachusetts, Washington, Minnesota, and Colorado, together with the City of New York, filed a petition for review in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit challenging a recent U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) rule delaying the transition to lower-global warming potential (GWP) refrigerants. The lawsuit challenges the EPA's rollback of the 2023 Technology Transitions (TT) Rule, issued under the bipartisan American Innovation and Manufacturing (AIM) Act of 2020, which established requirements for transitioning commercial refrigeration equipment from high-GWP hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) to lower-emission alternatives.
Originally, the 2023 Technology Transitions Rule required commercial refrigeration equipment, including supermarket refrigeration systems, remote condensing units, and cold storage applications, to transition to low-GWP refrigerants beginning in 2026 and 2027. The rule reduced allowable refrigerant GWP limits from legacy levels typically exceeding 1,400-4,000 to approximately 150-300 GWP. The EPA's revised rule delays these transition deadlines until 2032 by temporarily increasing the allowable GWP limit back to 1,400, allowing the continued installation and use of higher-emission refrigerants during the interim period.
The states argue that the EPA's rollback violates the AIM Act and undermines Congress's goal of achieving an 85% reduction in HFC production and consumption by 2036. The petition is based on three main legal arguments. First, the states argue that the EPA did not comply with the AIM Act's statutory transition timeline by making the revised rule effective too soon after it was finalized. Second, they contend that the EPA violated the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) by reversing its earlier position without providing a clear technical justification or adequately explaining why the original compliance schedule was no longer appropriate. Third, they argue that the rollback undermines the AIM Act's broader HFC phasedown because it allows continued installation of equipment using high-GWP refrigerants, even as the law continues to reduce the overall supply of those refrigerants.
The petition also highlights concerns about market disruption. Many manufacturers, retailers, and commercial operators had already invested in low-GWP refrigeration technologies based on the original EPA timeline. The states argue that delaying the transition creates uncertainty for companies that complied early while potentially rewarding those that delayed investment. They further argue that continued use of high-GWP refrigerants could increase greenhouse gas emissions and slow progress toward national climate goals because HFCs can have greater warming impacts than CO2.
Implications for North American Compliance Carbon Markets
Although the lawsuit targets the EPA's refrigerant regulations under the AIM Act, its outcome could have implications for California's Cap-and-Invest Program (WCI) and Washington's Climate Commitment Act (CCA). While the rule delays the transition to low-GWP refrigerants, the AIM Act's upstream HFC production and consumption caps remain unchanged, limiting supply to 60% of historical baseline levels through 2028 before falling to 30% in 2029. This creates a structural supply-demand imbalance. As demand for legacy refrigerants remains elevated against a declining supply, refrigerant prices are expected to rise, increasing operating and maintenance costs for businesses that are already subject to carbon allowance obligations. For covered entities, including supermarkets, food processors, commercial real estate operators, and industrial facilities, the EPA's rollback could increase compliance costs.
The rollback also widens the gap between federal and state climate policies. California's Refrigerant Management Program and Washington's Chapter 173-443 WAC continue to require low-GWP refrigerants (≤150 GWP), regardless of the federal rule. As a result, companies operating across multiple states may face different compliance requirements and investment timelines, increasing administrative complexity and capital costs. In addition, the rule could influence refrigerant-related carbon offsets under the California Air Resources Board (CARB) Compliance Offset Program. By extending the legal use of high-GWP refrigerants until 2032, the rollback maintains a larger pool of refrigerants that could be recovered at end of life, potentially supporting the availability and economics of HFC recovery and destruction projects that supply both California's compliance offset market and the voluntary carbon market.
Overall, the EPA HFC rollback represents more than a refrigerant policy change; it could create ripple effects across industrial operations, compliance costs, and carbon markets. For regulated companies in California's WCI and Washington's CCA, the key impacts could include higher refrigerant costs, increased regulatory complexity, and potential changes in the supply and value of refrigerant-related carbon credits. More broadly, the case highlights the challenge of aligning federal regulations with state climate programs while maintaining consistent market signals for businesses investing in emissions reductions.
Next Steps:
ClearBlue is actively monitoring these developments. For more information regarding ClearBlue’s advisory services or market intelligence coverage, please contact us.