Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Environmental Protection Agency relating to "Phasedown of Hydrofluorocarbons: Management of Certain Hydrofluorocarbons and Substitutes Under the American Innovation and Manufacturing Act of 2020".

INTRODUCED

January 24, 2025

POLICY AREA

Environmental Protection

STATUS

Referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.

SOURCE

Congress.gov ↗

This is a joint resolution, not an ordinary bill

A joint resolution goes through the same process as a bill and carries the same legal force once signed. One exception: a joint resolution proposing a constitutional amendment is not presented to the President — it needs a two-thirds vote in both chambers and then ratification by three-quarters of the states. Bill vs. resolution, explained →

Summary

H.J. Res. 30 is a joint resolution introduced in the House of Representatives on January 24, 2025, that seeks to disapprove a rule issued by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) under the Congressional Review Act (CRA), specifically chapter 8 of title 5 of the United States Code. The resolution targets the EPA's rule titled "Phasedown of Hydrofluorocarbons: Management of Certain Hydrofluorocarbons and Substitutes Under the American Innovation and Manufacturing Act of 2020," which was published in the Federal Register on October 11, 2024 (89 Fed. Reg. 82682). If enacted, this joint resolution would nullify the EPA's rule, rendering it without legal force or effect. The resolution does not propose a constitutional amendment; therefore, it follows the standard legislative process requiring passage by both the House and Senate and presentation to the President for signature or veto. The American Innovation and Manufacturing (AIM) Act of 2020 directs the EPA to phase down the production and consumption of hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), which are potent greenhouse gases used in refrigeration, air conditioning, and other applications. The EPA's rule implements the AIM Act by establishing a schedule for reducing HFC production and imports, setting allowances for companies, and regulating the use of HFCs and their substitutes. Supporters of the rule argue it is necessary to combat climate change by reducing emissions of HFCs, which have a global warming potential hundreds to thousands of times greater than carbon dioxide. Opponents, including the sponsors of H.J. Res. 30, contend that the rule imposes excessive costs on businesses, disrupts industries reliant on HFCs, and may lead to higher prices for consumers. The resolution reflects ongoing debate over the balance between environmental regulation and economic impact, with Republicans generally favoring less regulation and Democrats generally supporting stronger environmental protections.

Ask This Bill

Ask a specific question about this bill’s actual text — answers cite the section they come from.

Read the full analysis on Congress.gov →

Where Each Party Stands

MIGHT SUPPORT

+None identified, as Democrats generally support the EPA's HFC rule as a necessary measure to combat climate change and implement the AIM Act of 2020.

MIGHT OPPOSE

−Would eliminate a scientifically grounded regulation designed to phase down hydrofluorocarbons, which are greenhouse gases with global warming potential up to thousands of times greater than carbon dioxide.

−Undermines the American Innovation and Manufacturing Act of 2020, a bipartisan law that mandates HFC phase-down to protect the environment and drive innovation in safer alternatives.

−Could harm public health by allowing continued emissions of HFCs, which contribute to climate change and its associated risks such as extreme weather, heat-related illness, and environmental degradation.

−Creates regulatory uncertainty for industries that have invested in compliance and transition to HFC alternatives, potentially wasting resources.

−Sends a negative signal about U.S. commitment to international climate agreements, such as the Kigali Amendment, and may discourage global cooperation on reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

MIGHT SUPPORT

+Reduces regulatory burden on industries that rely on hydrofluorocarbons, such as refrigeration, air conditioning, and foam manufacturing, potentially lowering operational costs.

+Prevents potential increases in consumer prices for appliances, vehicles, and other products that use HFCs by blocking costly compliance requirements.

+Asserts congressional authority over executive branch agencies, reinforcing the principle that major regulations should have explicit legislative approval.

+Protects American jobs in industries that might face disruption or relocation due to stringent HFC phase-down timelines.

+Aligns with skepticism about the urgency of regulating HFCs given their relatively small share of total greenhouse gas emissions compared to carbon dioxide from fossil fuels.

MIGHT OPPOSE

−Undermines efforts to meet international climate commitments, such as the Kigali Amendment to the Montreal Protocol, which the United States has ratified.

−Could create regulatory uncertainty for businesses that have already begun planning for HFC phase-down under the AIM Act.

−May result in the continued use of potent greenhouse gases, exacerbating climate change and its associated economic risks.

−Fails to provide an alternative framework for reducing HFC emissions, leaving a gap in federal climate policy.

−Could be seen as prioritizing short-term industrial interests over long-term environmental and public health benefits.

History

Jan 24, 2025

Referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.

Jan 24, 2025

Introduced in House

Jan 24, 2025

Introduced in House