Attorney General James challenges EPA rollback of climate protections in federal court

New York – New York Attorney General Letitia James has joined a coalition of attorneys general from across the country in a legal challenge aimed at blocking a federal rule that eases restrictions on a powerful class of greenhouse gases. The lawsuit argues that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s recent decision to delay key environmental requirements conflicts with federal law and threatens progress made in reducing emissions linked to climate change.

Filed in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, the lawsuit brings together attorneys general from 18 states, the District of Columbia, and the City of New York. The coalition is asking the court to overturn the EPA’s rollback of standards governing hydrofluorocarbons, commonly known as HFCs, which are widely used in refrigeration, air conditioning, and cooling equipment.

According to the coalition, the EPA’s revised rule postpones long-established deadlines requiring certain new commercial refrigeration systems to switch to refrigerants with lower global warming potential. State officials argue that the delay weakens protections established under the bipartisan American Innovation and Manufacturing (AIM) Act and could result in increased emissions of some of the most potent greenhouse gases currently in use.

HFCs do not damage the ozone layer in the same way as older refrigerants they replaced, but scientists have determined that they have a significant impact on global warming. Depending on the specific chemical, some HFCs can trap heat thousands of times more effectively than carbon dioxide. Because these gases remain in the atmosphere for a shorter period than carbon dioxide, reducing their use is considered one of the quickest ways to slow the pace of climate change.

Attorney General James said the effects of climate change are already being felt across communities, pointing to increasingly severe weather and environmental events as evidence of the need to maintain existing protections.

Read also: Passenger bus rollover on New York State Thruway leaves 10 injured as investigation continues

“From blankets of wildfire smoke to worsening storms and floods to exceedingly high temperatures, we are experiencing the climate crisis in real time,” said Attorney General James. “Congress passed a bipartisan law to reduce some of the most dangerous greenhouse gases because the costs of inaction are simply too high. The EPA cannot ignore that law and put our communities at risk. My office is taking action to ensure these critical climate protections remain in place.”

Congress approved the AIM Act in 2020 with bipartisan support, and the legislation was signed into law by President Donald Trump. The law directs the EPA to reduce the production and consumption of HFCs by roughly 85 percent by 2036. To accomplish that goal, the agency established technology transition standards requiring manufacturers installing new commercial refrigeration and cooling equipment to use refrigerants with lower global warming potential whenever practical alternatives were available.

State officials argue those standards were designed to reduce demand for HFCs alongside the law’s gradual reduction in production, allowing manufacturers, businesses, and suppliers to adjust over time while continuing to move toward cleaner technology.

The lawsuit focuses on a new EPA rule that delays compliance deadlines for several categories of commercial refrigeration equipment by as much as six years. One example highlighted by the coalition involves remote condensing units commonly found in supermarkets, convenience stores, and bakeries. Under the revised timeline, those systems would be allowed to continue using refrigerants with nearly ten times the previously permitted global warming potential until 2032.

According to the attorneys general, extending those deadlines would slow the transition to cleaner refrigerants and increase emissions that Congress intended to reduce through the AIM Act. They also contend that the rollback disrupts the balance between declining HFC production and market demand, potentially leading to supply shortages, higher costs, and uncertainty for businesses that have already begun adapting to the existing requirements.

The coalition further argues that many manufacturers and businesses have already invested significant resources to meet the original compliance schedule. Companies in New York and other states have updated equipment, adjusted manufacturing processes, and planned future investments based on the federal standards that had already been established. Changing those deadlines now, the lawsuit claims, creates unnecessary market disruption and places compliant businesses at a disadvantage.

The legal filing also notes that opposition to the EPA’s revised rule extends beyond state governments. Several industry trade organizations, along with states and advocacy groups, have also challenged the rollback through separate legal petitions, reflecting broader concerns about changing the regulatory framework after companies had already begun transitioning to new technology.

Read also: Governor Hochul defends New York’s AI data center strategy in Wall Street Journal letter

In their petition, Attorney General James and the coalition argue that the EPA exceeded its legal authority by adopting a rule that conflicts with the AIM Act. They maintain that the agency’s action is arbitrary, capricious, and inconsistent with the law passed by Congress, making the regulation unlawful under federal administrative law.

The coalition is asking the court to block the rule before the delayed deadlines take effect, arguing that preserving the original schedule is necessary to protect public health, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and maintain regulatory certainty for manufacturers and businesses.

Joining Attorney General James in the lawsuit are the attorneys general of California, Colorado, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, Wisconsin, the District of Columbia, as well as the City of New York. Together, they are seeking judicial intervention to keep the original climate protections in place while the case moves through the federal court system.