Heating Air-Conditioning Refrigeration Distributors International v. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation

In a one-page decision and order, the New York Appellate Division granted Heating Air-Conditioning Refrigeration Distributors International’s (HARDI’s) motion for a preliminary injunction pending their appeal of a New York Supreme Court decision rejecting HARDI’s challenge to New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) regulations addressing hydrofluorocarbons. HARDI requested that NYSDEC be enjoined from enforcing the regulations’ prohibition on sale or purchase of bulk refrigerants as applied to R-404A and R-507A. NYSDEC had previously granted temporary enforcement discretion with respect to the two refrigerants. HARDI argued it was likely to succeed on the merits in its appeal because industry’s inability to comply with the prohibition was “abundantly clear” and the Supreme Court had erred in relying on NYSDEC’s “ad hoc and discretionary ability to provide relief for infeasibility.” HARDI also argument that New York businesses such as its members would suffer substantial harms. HARDI also argued that the balance of equities weighed in its favor because enforcement of the prohibition on the two refrigerants would have “disastrous consequences” for suppliers, customers, and consumers, while NYSDEC would suffer “little harm” from maintenance of the status quo since the injunction was limited to two refrigerants, NYSDEC had previously exercised its enforcement discretion, and New York State was currently considering rolling back its greenhouse gas emissions reduction requirements. NYSDEC opposed the preliminary injunction, as did Natural Resources Defense Council, which intervened to defend the regulations. The Appellate Division granted the motion without prejudice to a motion to vacate the preliminary injunction if the appeal was no perfected on or before June 8.

A New York trial court denied a petition challenging amendments to the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation’s (DEC’s) regulations addressing hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs). The court described the amended regulations as including prohibitions on new HFC products and systems, prohibitions on bulk substances and containers, and a variance process. First, the court rejected industry petitioners’ claims that portions of regulations were arbitrary and capricious. Regarding provisions addressing bulk substances, the court found that the record demonstrated that the regulations aligned with federal law and implemented the Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act (CLCPA) scoping plan, and that DEC acknowledged the requirements were technology forcing and provided a variance process to address feasibility concerns. Regarding prohibitions on regulated substances with 20-year global warming potential (GWP20) greater than 10 or greater than 20 (depending on the application), the court found that the regulations were consistent with the scoping plan and that the record showed DEC considered comments, that the regulation did not require specific alternatives, and that a variance provision was included. Regarding the DEC’s decision to include regulations of “other residential HVAC” that the petitioners alleged did not align with federal and other states’ requirements, the court found that the record explained why EPA and other states might not have yet regulated the technologies and that the regulations were intended to address emerging technologies. Second, the court rejected contentions that DEC failed to comply with the State Administrative Procedure Act (SAPA). The court found that DEC substantially complied with SAPA provisions requiring best estimates of the costs of the regulation, consideration of the regulation’s impact on small business, and identification of differences between federal standards and the adopted regulations. Third, the court ruled that DEC acted within its statutory jurisdiction under the CLCPA and other state environmental statutes.

Filing Year For Action