Montreal Protocol Hydroflourocarbons Agreement

The Environmental Policy Initiative is tracking the environmental regulatory rollbacks of the Trump administration. Click here for the list of rules we are following

Why it Matters

Hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) were thought to be an acceptable substitute for ozone layer-depleting chloroflourocarbons (CFCs), which the Montreal Protocol sought to phase out. But it is now understood that HFCs have a high global warming potential and their continued use contributes to climate change.

Current Status

The Kigali agreement has not yet entered into force. A recent court ruling casts doubt on the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) ability to consider climate change when regulating HFCs, under existing law.


On July 20, 2015 EPA finalized a rule to reconsider a list of acceptable substitutes for ozone-depleting chemicals. Instead of just having an “acceptable” list, EPA would now designate chemicals as unacceptable; acceptable subject to use; or acceptable subject to narrow use.

On September 17, 2015 Industry sued EPA over the rule, saying the Clean Air Act program authorizing action is about ozone depletion, not climate change, and that EPA had therefore overstepped its authority. – Mexichem Flour v. EPA, No. 15-1328.

On October 15, 2016 the international community reached agreement on the Kigali Amendment to the Montreal Protocol, to phase out HFCs because of their global warming potential.

Trump Era

On April 3, 2017 Mali became the first country to ratify the amendment; 20 countries must ratify before the agreement can enter into force on January 1, 2019.

On August 8, 2017 The D.C. Circuit vacated (cancelled) EPA’s HFC rule on the grounds that Title VI of the Clean Air Act only allows EPA to list “acceptable” chemicals based on their inability to deplete the ozone layer. EPA may not consider climate change when listing chemicals. This could affect the United States’ ability to meet the Kigali Amendment under current authorities.

On September 22, 2017 a coalition of environmental and industry groups petitioned the court for a rehearing. Soon after, multiple states filed a motion requesting an invitation to file a brief in support of the request for a rehearing.

For More Information

For more on the history of this rule see the Columbia University Sabin Center for Climate Change Law’s database. Also see Sabin’s Climate Deregulation Tracker for additional updates.

HLS Student Orgs

ELP on Twitter

Search ELP