The R-134A 'Boxer' punch

The more controversial a bill is, the more likely it will continue to change right up until signing it into law. Witness the actions of Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., chair of the Senate committee that passed a climate change bill on Dec. 5. She just couldn't let go of the California Air Resources Board's (CARB) proposed restrictions on the sale of containers of HFC134a (R-134a) by retail auto stores to reduce emissions of ozone-depleting chemicals (ODC) and hydroflourocarbons.

But she didn't exactly shout out her preference. Instead, she quietly added a provision that would restrict consumer purchases of R-134a in auto supply retail stores to America's Climate Security Act (S. 2191) — even though a subcommittee passed it just a month before without R-134a restrictions.

Aaron Lowe, vice president of the Automotive Aftermarket Industry Association (AAIA), says, "We were taken by surprise." AAIA and other industry groups have been working with CARB to avert an R-134a ban in California.

Boxer has not said publicly why she added the R-134a consumer ban. But on the day of the vote, she posted a letter from Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger praising her revised bill on the committee's Web site. Stanley Young, spokesman for Climate Change Programs at CARB, says he doesn't know whether Boxer or her committee staff talked with CARB or the governor's office about these restrictions. The CARB commissioners will decide just how extensive the ban will be in December 2008.

Boxer has been under heavy pressure from Schwarzenegger, other Senate Democrats such as Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., and environmental groups to produce big emission cuts. Julia Bovey, spokeswoman for the Natural Resources Defense Council, says her group supports a ban on consumer cans of R-134a, as well as requirements for the recovery and recycling of HFCs.

"HFC producers view profligate use as a risk to continued permission to make HFCs," she says. "We're not against anyone trying to recharge their own air conditioner, but there are no methods for storing the extra gas in the can, so it goes into the atmosphere."

However, a ban on "do-it-yourself " sales of R-134a gets a miniscule greenhouse gas emissions reduction. Based on industry sales data, there are 19.3 million pounds of R-134a sold annually to Americans in small containers. A 2006 study by global growth consulting company Frost and Sullivan, "U.S. Consumer Buying Behaviors of R-134a Refrigerant for Light Vehicle Applications," AAIA and the Automotive Refrigerant Products Institute (ARPI) found that a retail sales ban would amount to a savings of 0.2 million metric tons (MMT) of CO2 equivalent.

CARB's estimate is much higher: 1 to 2 MMT CO2 equivalent by 2020 in California alone, making it a Tier 1"Early Action" candidate in CARB's March 2007 report. By comparison, developing a low-carbon auto fuel standard would save 10 to 20 MMT. But a retail sales ban on R-134a is still big news — HFC has a Global Warming Potential (GWP) of 1,300 as compared to CO2 (with a GWP of 1).

The climate change bill now is a high priority issue for the Senate. Most people in Washington believe some federal restriction on emissions of greenhouse gases is coming, if not in 2008, then in 2009, especially if a Democrat is elected president. So now is a good time for the industry to help politicians in California and Washington define what kinds of R-134a consumer sales "restrictions" are reasonable and worthwhile.

Stephen Barlas has been a full-time freelance Washington editor since 1981, reporting for trade, professional magazines and newspapers on regulatory agency, congressional and White House actions and issues. He also does a column for Automotive Engineering, the monthly publication from the Society of Automotive Engineers.