WASHINGTON, DC - Energy and Power Subcommittee Chairman Ed Whitfield (R-KY) today wrote to the Environmental Protection Agency requesting information related to the legality, cost, and feasibility of the agency’s proposed rule banning certain refrigerants.
EPA has proposed to prohibit several substances commonly used in commercial refrigeration, automotive air-conditioning, and insulation as part of the President’s Climate Action Plan. For commercial refrigeration, the proposed ban would take effect on Jan. 1, 2016, only 9 months away. For other sectors addressed by the rule, EPA has also proposed highly accelerated timelines.
Hundreds of manufacturers have warned of the near-impossibility of meeting the proposed deadlines as well as the high costs and potential risks of using alternative compounds, many of which are flammable. In addition to the impact on manufacturers, more than a million restaurants and other small businesses rely on equipment affected by the proposed rule, and many have raised serious concerns about costs and safety.
The targeted compounds are very energy efficient and have helped manufacturers comply with Department of Energy efficiency standards for refrigeration equipment. Among the practical concerns with the proposed rule, EPA’s forced switch to unproven alternatives is likely to hamper compliance with DOE standards and may result in increased energy use and related emissions - in other words, the rule may well prove to be environmentally counterproductive.
“Once again, EPA is rushing to impose a very unworkable and expensive global warming rule. This regulation as proposed would be bad news for manufacturers, small businesses, and consumers," said Whitfield. “For these reasons, I have sent a letter to the agency with questions about the legality, feasibility, cost, and claimed benefits of the proposed rule."
