Why Rolling Back Costly Biden-Era Energy and Refrigeration Rules Is Good for Main Street, Consumers, and Commercial Real Estate

As a commercial real estate broker, I look at government policy through a very practical lens: does it make it easier or harder for businesses to open, operate, expand, hire, and stay in business?

That is why the rollback of restrictive Biden-era energy and refrigeration rules is a welcome development for business owners, landlords, consumers, and local communities. These regulations may have been promoted as environmental policy, but for many businesses they created a very real cost problem. Restaurants, grocery stores, convenience stores, cold-storage users, food distributors, and many other commercial tenants rely heavily on refrigeration, HVAC systems, walk-in coolers, freezers, ice machines, and other energy-intensive equipment. When government rules force businesses to replace or retrofit that equipment before the end of its useful life, the cost does not disappear. It gets passed on through higher prices, delayed openings, reduced hiring, tighter margins, and sometimes closed doors.

The EPA’s 2023 Technology Transitions Rule restricted the use of certain high-global-warming-potential HFC refrigerants in refrigeration, air conditioning, heat pumps, and other equipment. Beginning in 2025, the rule placed restrictions on the manufacture, sale, distribution, installation, import, and export of certain products using those refrigerants. The Trump administration has moved to loosen or delay parts of those Biden-era refrigerant requirements, with EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin saying the changes are intended to reduce costs for consumers and businesses. Reuters reported that the administration estimated potential savings of more than $2.4 billion from easing these restrictions.

For small businesses, this matters. A national chain may be able to absorb a major equipment mandate, but a neighborhood restaurant, independent grocer, franchise operator, or local food-service tenant often cannot. These businesses already face pressure from labor costs, insurance, rent, utilities, food costs, financing costs, and taxes. Adding a forced refrigeration or HVAC replacement on top of those expenses can be the difference between signing a lease and walking away, expanding and standing still, or staying open and shutting down.

President Trump has highlighted this concern directly, arguing that many grocery stores and restaurants were put under pressure because they had no choice but to replace expensive refrigeration equipment. Whether one agrees with the exact wording of his statement, the underlying point is one every commercial broker and small business owner understands: restaurants operate on thin margins, and major unexpected equipment costs can be devastating.

From a commercial real estate standpoint, the health of tenants is the health of the market. When regulations increase the cost of operating a restaurant, grocery store, or retail business, the effects ripple through the entire property ecosystem. Tenants may need larger tenant-improvement allowances. Build-outs become more expensive. New leases take longer to finalize. Some users decide not to expand. Others close locations or delay openings. Landlords face higher vacancy risk, and consumers lose convenient local businesses.

That is especially important for restaurants. Restaurant spaces are among the most capital-intensive commercial uses. A restaurant tenant already has to invest in kitchen equipment, ventilation, grease traps, plumbing, electrical upgrades, seating, signage, point-of-sale systems, and code compliance. If federal rules also push that tenant toward premature refrigeration or HVAC replacement, the economics of the deal can quickly stop making sense.

Supporters of the rollback are not saying environmental goals do not matter. The better argument is that regulations should be practical, affordable, and timed to the real world. Food retailers and industry participants raised concerns that some substitute systems could be costly, difficult to implement, less practical in certain store formats, or dependent on building-code changes and technician availability. EPA documents also noted concerns from food retailers about substitute refrigerants, safety issues, energy use, reliability, technician shortages, and whether compliance deadlines gave the market enough time to adjust.

A common-sense transition should allow businesses to replace equipment when it is economically and operationally reasonable, not because Washington has imposed a rushed deadline. For commercial property owners and tenants, predictability is critical. Businesses sign leases, borrow money, hire employees, and invest in improvements based on expected costs. Sudden regulatory mandates make that planning harder and discourage investment.

Consumers also benefit when businesses are not burdened with unnecessary costs. Grocery stores, restaurants, and refrigerated transportation companies operate in industries where equipment and energy costs are directly tied to the price of food. If compliance costs rise, those costs are eventually reflected in grocery bills, menu prices, delivery charges, or reduced service. The Associated Press reported that President Trump said the EPA action would help lower grocery costs, while also noting that some industry groups dispute how quickly the change will affect prices.

That is a fair caveat. No single rollback will instantly solve inflation or erase every cost pressure facing businesses. But reducing unnecessary regulatory burdens is still a step in the right direction. Lower compliance costs give businesses more flexibility. More flexibility means more room to hire, invest, negotiate leases, keep prices competitive, and remain open.

For commercial real estate, this policy shift sends an important message: business conditions matter. The best way to strengthen communities is to make it easier for businesses to operate successfully. When restaurants, grocers, retailers, and service businesses are healthy, they fill storefronts, create jobs, pay rent, generate sales tax, and give neighborhoods life.

Rolling back overly restrictive Biden-era rules is not just about refrigeration equipment or energy policy. It is about restoring common sense to the cost of doing business. It is about recognizing that every regulation has a price tag, and that price tag is often paid by small businesses and consumers first.

As a commercial broker, I believe policies that lower costs, protect tenant viability, and encourage business expansion are good for the market. They are good for landlords. They are good for entrepreneurs. They are good for consumers. And they are good for the communities that depend on strong local businesses.

When government gets out of the way of practical business decisions, Main Street has a better chance to grow.