Trump repeals Biden’s EPA refrigerant regulations
President Donald Trump said reversing Biden’s EPA refrigerant regulations would reduce food prices, transportation costs and air conditioning costs.
If the Trump administration lifts refrigerant regulations for grocery stores, will shoppers see lower prices? Probably not by much, say two professors.
On May 21, the Trump administration overhauled two Biden-era Environmental Protection Agency rules on refrigerants, saying it would reduce grocery costs for consumers, USA TODAY previously reported.
One action would extend the deadline for grocery stores and other businesses to phase out the use of climate-damaging refrigeration hydrofluorocarbons under the 2023 Technology Transition Rule. The White House estimates that the measure will make more refrigerant used in freezers, refrigerators and air conditioning systems available to supermarkets, homeowners and other businesses. The White House estimates the savings will be $900 million, including $800 million in reduced grocery costs.
On May 21, EPA took action to amend the 2024 program to exempt all road-grade refrigerant equipment used to transport goods from new leakage requirements for hydrofluorocarbons. This will result in $1.5 billion in savings for the White House project, USA TODAY reported.
Grocery store executives were also present at the May 21 announcement, and while no grocery store has made a binding commitment to pass on cost savings to shoppers, Kroger CEO Greg Foran said the company is “in the thick of it right now,” USA TODAY reported.
Will the cost savings trickle down to shoppers?
But reducing costs for grocery stores is unlikely to significantly reduce food prices for shoppers.
“This price cut is unlikely to lead to meaningful food price relief for consumers, at least in the short term or in any measurable way,” Bernhard Dahlheimer, assistant professor of macroeconomics and trade at Purdue University’s School of Agricultural Economics, told USA TODAY.
From a supply chain and food price perspective, Dahlheimer said the Biden administration-era rules targeted one-time investments and capital costs for equipment upgrades for commercial refrigeration systems.
“Moving forward the compliance deadline means that grocers and cold chain operators who have not yet invested in new equipment are out of harm’s way for now. This avoids future costs, but does not reduce the costs that are currently built into the price of groceries,” he said.
Dahlheimer said shoppers are paying today’s food prices because of pressures and policies that raise the cost of energy, labor, transportation and household items, not the cost of refrigerant upgrades that grocers were prepared for down the road.
Dahlheimer’s colleague Joseph Balagtas, a professor of agricultural economics at Purdue University, analyzed the potential cost savings even if grocery stores passed on 100% of the savings from the rule change to consumers.
Balagtas said that using the figure of $48 million in annual savings from late compliance cited in the Environmental Protection Agency’s memo on the new rule, the savings for the U.S. population of 340 million is divided by 14 cents per person, or 56 cents per year for a family of four.
“So the cost savings for a family of four is the equivalent of two bananas,” he said. “The best-case scenario is that this regulatory action will have a measurable impact on food affordability.”
FMI says new rules will stop price increases
Food industry association FMI, which represents the food and grocery industry, said in a statement it applauded the Trump administration’s actions and said they will prevent rising costs for grocers and consumers.
“FMI greatly appreciates EPA’s efforts to prevent food price increases by revising technology transition rules and revisiting administrative rules,” the group said. “Taken together, these measures maintain the agency’s goals without placing an unnecessary financial burden on the food industry or grocery shoppers.”
The group said its economic analysis found that EPA’s technology transition rules and administrative rules, combined, “could impose nearly $144 billion in total costs on U.S. businesses and consumers, representing an economic burden of more than $1,000 per U.S. household.”
Betty Lin-Fisher is a consumer reporter for USA TODAY. Contact her at blinfisher@USATODAY.com or follow her at @blinfisher on X, Facebook and Instagram and @blinfisher.bsky.social on Bluesky.. Sign up for our free The Daily Money newsletter, breaking down complex consumer and financial news. Subscribe here.
