SJRES-14-119
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
Sponsored by Roger Marshall (R-KS)
What it does
This joint resolution would use the Congressional Review Act (CRA) to nullify an EPA rule implementing the phasedown of hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) — potent greenhouse gases used in refrigerants and air conditioning systems — under the American Innovation and Manufacturing (AIM) Act of 2020. If passed, the rule would be voided and, under the CRA, the EPA would be prohibited from issuing a substantially similar rule without new congressional authorization. The resolution is currently in committee in the Senate.
Who benefits
Manufacturers and importers of HFC-based refrigerants and equipment who would avoid compliance costs and production limits. Businesses that service or sell HFC-dependent equipment (HVAC contractors, refrigeration technicians). Consumers who may face lower short-term costs for HFC-based appliances and services. Industries with large refrigeration needs (food storage, supermarkets, cold-chain logistics) that would avoid equipment transition costs. Small HVAC businesses that may lack capital to retool for alternative refrigerants.
Who is hurt
Manufacturers of HFC alternatives (hydrofluoroolefins and natural refrigerants) who have invested in next-generation products and would lose a regulatory advantage. Companies that have already spent capital transitioning to compliant equipment. U.S. businesses competing internationally, as trading partners (EU, others) continue their own HFC phasedowns under the Kigali Amendment. Communities and individuals who may experience greater exposure to climate change effects, as HFCs are estimated to have global warming potentials hundreds to thousands of times greater than CO₂. Future consumers who may face higher transition costs if the phasedown is delayed and then resumed later.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that the EPA rule imposes significant compliance costs on American manufacturers, HVAC businesses, and consumers at a time when inflation has strained household budgets, and that the AIM Act's broad delegation of authority to EPA may not have clearly authorized the specific management requirements in this rule. They contend that Congress — not an executive agency — should set the pace and terms of any industrial transition of this economic magnitude, consistent with the major questions doctrine articulated in West Virginia v. EPA (2022), and that the CRA provides the appropriate democratic check on agency overreach.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that Congress explicitly passed the AIM Act of 2020 with bipartisan support to authorize exactly this kind of HFC phasedown, giving EPA clear statutory authority that distinguishes this rule from the situation in West Virginia v. EPA. They contend that voiding the rule would strand investments already made by companies that transitioned to compliant alternatives, undermine U.S. competitiveness with trading partners who are proceeding with their own phasedowns, and delay action on chemicals with global warming potentials up to 12,000 times that of CO₂, according to EPA estimates.
Constitutional context
The AIM Act of 2020 provides the statutory basis for this EPA rule, but post-Loper Bright v. Raimondo (2024), courts will independently assess whether the Act's language clearly authorized the specific management requirements EPA imposed, without deferring to EPA's own interpretation. If the rule's scope is deemed to involve questions of vast economic significance, West Virginia v. EPA (2022) requires that Congress have provided clear authorization — a question this resolution sidesteps by simply nullifying the rule via the CRA rather than litigating it.
Checks and balances
Congress gains authority to nullify the EPA rule and block substantially similar future rules without new legislation; the President retains a veto check on the resolution, and courts retain jurisdiction to review any future EPA rulemaking in this area.
Historical precedent
Congress has used the Congressional Review Act to nullify EPA rules before, most notably in 2017 when it voided the Stream Protection Rule; the AIM Act of 2020 itself was a bipartisan legislative mandate for HFC phasedown, making this resolution a direct congressional reversal of a policy Congress recently authorized.