New York Court Extends Deadline on Refrigerant Ban Enforcement
Key Highlights
- The court's decision prevents enforcement of the refrigerant ban while legal challenges are ongoing.
- Industry groups warn that the ban could cause supply shortages and increase costs for businesses and consumers.
- The legal case emphasizes the mismatch between regulation timelines and market readiness for alternative refrigerants.
ALBANY, New York — A New York appellate court has temporarily blocked enforcement of a key refrigerant ban, providing short-term relief for HVAC contractors and businesses that rely on commercial refrigeration systems.
On March 27, 2026, the Appellate Division of the New York State Supreme Court, Third Department, issued a ruling that prevents the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation from enforcing a prohibition on R-404A and R-507A refrigerants. The decision comes as part of an ongoing legal challenge filed by Heating, Air-conditioning, & Refrigeration Distributors International (HARDI).
The court granted an Order to Show Cause and extended the state’s enforcement discretion for the two refrigerants beyond the March 31, 2026, deadline. It also enjoined enforcement of the prohibition outlined in Part 494-1.4(f)(1) while the court considers a request for a preliminary injunction.
The ruling allows businesses across New York to continue using existing refrigerant supplies in commercial refrigeration systems, which are widely used in food storage, distribution, and retail operations. According to HARDI, approximately 18,130 systems rely on these refrigerants.
The organization has warned that enforcing the ban without sufficient alternatives could create supply shortages, disrupt food supply chains, and increase costs for businesses and consumers. A study cited by the group estimates the regulation could reduce economic output in the state by $106.2 million if implemented.
HARDI Vice President of Government Affairs Alex Ayers said the court’s decision acknowledges concerns about the feasibility and timing of the regulation. Industry stakeholders have argued that the restrictions outlined in Part 494 do not align with current market conditions, particularly given limited availability of replacement refrigerants.
The case will continue as the court evaluates whether to grant a preliminary injunction. In the interim, HARDI is urging state lawmakers to revise the regulation to better align with federal standards and market readiness.