The AIM Act Could Ensure Kigali Ratification

As seen in the, Cooling Post.

A bipartisan group of senators led by Republican, John Kennedy, and Democrat, Tom Carper, introduced a new bill called the American Innovation and Manufacturing Act, or Aim Act. The Aim Act paves the way for the Kigali Amendment giving the EPA the authority it needs to reduce HFC’s.

This bill would ensure a phase down of HFC’s and provide a pathway for future technologies and the next generation of refrigerants.

“On the surface, this bill seems more complicated than high school chemistry, but really it’s pretty simple. It’s about jobs. And it’s about protecting the investment by Louisiana companies in new technologies and protecting Louisiana jobs,” said Senator Kennedy. “This bill gives a $206bn US industry the clarity it needs to invest, transition and protect American jobs. It’s not often that Democrats, Republicans, industry and environmental groups come together to agree on anything, but we are all in agreement on this one.”

Previously, the Trump Administration stated they would need evidence that the Kigali Amendment had a positive impact on US jobs before they would consider ratifying it. The AIM Act hopes to answer those questions by supporting US manufacturing of the next generation refrigerants, protecting the environment, and also amending the Montreal Protocol.

Read full article, here.

California Works Towards Reducing HFC Emissions

In an article written by the, Cooling Post.

In 2017, the US Court of Appeals ruled that the EPA did not have the authority to reduce hydroflourocarbons, or HFCs, through the Clean Air Act. This section of the Clean Air Act removed certain high GWP refrigerants, like 404a, 410a, 134a, and 407a, from the EPA’s SNAP list for use in certain new products.

However, this week the California Air and Resources Board (CARB) adopted the EPA’s previously proposed SNAP rules. California says they are working to reduce their emissions to mandated state and federal levels. Under a senate bill authored by Ricardo Lara, the Lara Bill, California will reduce its HFC emissions by 40% below 2013 levels by 2030. Due to the US Court of Appeals overruling the SNAP rules California passed its own regulations to stay in line with their goals.

The US Court Rejects Petition to Continue HFC Bans

In an article written by the, Cooling Post:

The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit rejected an appeal  brought by refrigerant manufacturers Chemours and Honeywell, in addition to the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), on the courts decision to overturn a ban on the usage of HFC refrigerants.

In 2015, the EPA ruled to ban high GWP refrigerants including R404A, R134a, R407C and R410A from use in certain new products as early as January 1, 2021.

Refrigerant manufacturers Mexichem and Arkema appealed the 2015 ruling, claiming that the EPA could not use a section of the Clean Air Act to target HFCs. The US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia agreed, and in August last year decided 2-1 in favor of the appeal, discontinuing the ban on HFC’s.

While this court decision slows efforts to phaseout HFC’s, states like California are creating their own phase-down schedules and other states are likely to follow. There is also uncertainty on whether the Trump administration will ratify the Kigali Amendment, which met it’s 20-country threshold for ratification in November of 2017.

Read full article, here. 

Dynatemp Submits Comments to CARB Regarding HFC Bans

Recently, Dynatemp International sent comments to CARB, the California Air Resources Board, regarding the news of enhancements and updates to the Assembly Bill No. 32. “Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006” and also Senate Bill 1383.

Our main points are numbered below:

1.)  No state regulation should supersede proposed Kigali amendment or SNAP’s authority.  It creates a fractured regulatory environment for industry.  We prefer a reserved regulatory environment which defers to global preferences first.

2.)  The use of incentives will have a stronger realization to reduction of high-GWP use because it will encourage reclamation and recycling.  We do not support any sales ban.

3.)  Codes and standards need to be in place first before a sales ban, not the other way around.
To see full letter, click here.