Their position puts grocers at odds with an unusual combination of opponents. A coalition of state attorneys general and environmental groups is challenging the extensions because they believe the rule allows high-GWP refrigerants to remain in use too long, exacerbating climate change. Several HVACR trade associations have also sued, but their concerns are that extending the deadlines could disrupt the refrigerant transition, tighten supplies of legacy refrigerants, and create confusion for contractors and customers.

The EPA’s May 2026 rule revised requirements established under the AIM Act. For supermarket refrigeration systems, the agency established an interim refrigerant GWP limit of 1,400 beginning January 1, 2027. The stricter limits of 150 or 300 — depending on system size, refrigerant charge, and configuration — will now take effect January 1, 2032. The change gives food retailers roughly five additional years before many new supermarket systems must meet the lower GWP limits. 

Grocer associations contend that the original schedule did not provide enough time to plan projects, obtain equipment, train technicians, and absorb the capital costs of replacing large refrigeration systems. FMI previously filed a lawsuit challenging the initial rule, arguing that the timeline for supermarket refrigeration equipment violated the AIM Act and was arbitrary and capricious.

An analysis cited by the retail coalition estimated that installing a compliant system on an accelerated schedule could add approximately $1.7 million in capital costs for an average-sized grocery store and reduce annual net income by 22%. The associations said the previous deadlines were not achievable without imposing significant costs on the food industry.

“Retail grocers and supermarkets need regulatory certainty and realistic compliance timelines to continue serving consumers,” said Monica Welt, president of the Retail Litigation Center. “The EPA’s rule extending deadlines for compliance reflects practical realities facing the food retail sector.”

Looking for quick answers on air conditioning, heating and refrigeration topics? Try Ask ACHR NEWS, our new smart AI search tool. Ask ACHR NEWS

The states challenging the rule contend the EPA exceeded its authority under the AIM Act and failed to adequately account for the environmental consequences of allowing the continued use of higher-GWP refrigerants. They also argue that some businesses have already invested in systems and equipment based on the earlier deadlines.

HVACR associations, including ACCA, AHRI, the Alliance for Responsible Atmospheric Policy, HARDI, and PHCC, have filed challenges arguing that allowing new commercial refrigeration systems to use legacy refrigerants longer will increase demand for those refrigerants even as the AIM Act reduces their production and consumption.

That mismatch, they say, could raise refrigerant prices and leave contractors servicing a larger installed base of high-GWP equipment with increasingly limited supplies. The associations also warn that changing the federal schedule could encourage states to adopt their own requirements, creating a patchwork of deadlines and equipment standards.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit will now consider the lawsuits challenging the EPA’s revised rule, along with the grocer associations’ arguments in support of the extended deadlines. Unless the rule is stayed or overturned, the revised compliance schedule will remain in effect.