Will a Trump administration rollback of refrigerant rules for grocers result in lower prices for shoppers? Probably not in a big way, two professors say.
On May 21, the Trump administration overhauled two Biden-era Environmental Protection Agency rules for refrigerants and said the action would lower grocery costs for consumers.
One action delays deadlines for grocers and other companies to phase out the use of climate-damaging hydrofluorocarbons for refrigeration under the 2023 Technology Transitions Rule. The White House estimates the move would make more refrigerants — which are used in freezers, refrigerators and air-conditioning systems — available to supermarkets, homeowners and other businesses. The White House estimated that there would be $900 million in savings, including $800 million from lowered grocery costs.
The EPA on May 21 also took steps to amend a 2024 program to exempt all road refrigerant appliances used to transport goods from new leak requirements for hydrofluorocarbons — a move the White House projects will bring $1.5 billion in savings.
Grocery executives were present at the announcement on May 21 and while no grocer has made any binding commitments to pass cost savings on to shoppers, Kroger CEO Greg Foran said his company “is right in the middle of doing that at the moment.”
Will Cost Savings Trickle Down to Shoppers?
But any cost relief for grocers is unlikely to lower grocery prices much for shoppers.
“This rollback is unlikely to translate into meaningful grocery price relief for consumers, at least not in any near-term or measurable way,” Bernhard Dalheimer, assistant professor of macroeconomics and trade at Purdue University’s Department of Agricultural Economics, told USA TODAY.
From a supply chain and food price perspective, the Biden-era rules targeted a one-time investment or capital cost in equipment upgrade for commercial refrigeration systems, Dalheimer said.
“Rolling back the compliance deadlines means grocers and cold-chain operators who have not yet invested in new equipment are off the hook for now. That avoids a future cost, but it does not reduce any cost that is currently embedded in grocery prices,” he said.
Shoppers are paying today’s prices for food because of pressures and policies that are raising the costs of energy, labor, transportation and commodities — not refrigerant upgrade costs that grocers were bracing for down the road, Dalheimer said.
Dalheimer’s colleague, Joseph Balagtas, a professor in agricultural economics at Purdue, broke down the potential cost savings even if grocers passed 100% of the rules-change savings to consumers.
Using a figure of $48 million per year in savings from the delayed compliance cited in an EPA memo about the new rules, Balagtas said dividing that savings among a U.S. population of 340 million works out to 14 cents per person, or 56 cents a year for a family of four.
“So the cost savings for a family of four amounts to a couple bananas,” he said. “The best case scenario is that this regulatory action will have an imperceptible effect on the affordability of groceries.”
New Rules Prevent Price Increases, FMI Says
In a statement, FMI, The Food Industry Association — which represents the food and grocery industry — applauded the Trump administration for the action, which it said would prevent increases in costs for grocers and consumers.
“FMI is incredibly grateful for EPA’s efforts to prevent an increase in grocery prices by revising the Technology Transitions Rule and reconsidering the Management Rule,” the organization said. “Taken together, these actions preserve the agency’s goals without placing unnecessary financial burdens on the food industry and grocery shoppers.”
The organization said an economic analysis indicated the EPA’s Technology Transitions Rule and Management Rule together “could impose nearly $144 billion in total costs on American businesses and consumers — equivalent to an economic burden of more than $1,000 per American household.”
Betty Lin-Fisher is a consumer reporter for USA TODAY.
Read the full article here
