Community Voices: Responsible PFAS Management is Critical. SB682 is Not the Answer.

California has a rich history of environmental protections and clean energy initiatives. As a distributor of heating and air conditioning equipment, we are transitioning to new refrigerants that have a reduced impact on the environment, as mandated by California and U.S. law. This transition has been successful due to intentional collaboration with affected industries. The same careful consideration and cooperation should be essential when addressing the prohibition of PFAS currently being discussed in the California Senate. We should focus on banning only the most harmful PFAS, which will safeguard California’s economy and environment.

Currently, California Senate Bill 682 (SB 682) adopts an inappropriate approach by employing a ban-first and ask-questions-later strategy. SB682 is excessively broad, impacting dozens of industries, and does little to effectively address contamination issues. The bill prohibits the use of new environmentally friendly technologies that our industry is transitioning toward. Anyone in need of a functioning air conditioning system will tell you: refrigerants are essential.

In the past, the state legislature has appropriately focused on nonessential consumer products with readily available replacements, such as ski wax and textiles. This year, however, legislators are considering a far more expansive proposal with SB 682, which threatens the state’s existing risk-based approach to PFAS management. Treating all PFAS compounds the same, as SB682 does, risks undermining high-tech industries and the development of modern advancements, such as air conditioners and heat pumps, which will ultimately worsen the quality of life for Californians. According to the U.S. EPA, some refrigerants are not even PFAS. SB682 would unnecessarily regulate compounds that are either already addressed through California law or should not be considered PFAS altogether. 

Undeniably, my knowledge of PFAS prohibition policy is greater regarding my own HVACR industry, but it is clear that the implications extend across multiple sectors. According to INFORUM, six key industries— aerospace, refrigeration and air conditioning, automotive, battery, pharmaceuticals, medical devices, and semiconductors —depend on specific PFAS compounds. In California alone, these industries support over 500,000 jobs and contribute nearly $150 billion to the state’s GDP, significantly impacting the quality of life for residents. SB682 would cause unnecessary administrative burdens and impose onerous fees that would greatly affect these industries’ ability to operate in California.

California is well-positioned to learn from the mistakes of other states that have been compelled to retract overly broad and expensive PFAS reporting programs. Last year, Maine enacted regulations to implement an effective risk-based approach to banning the most harmful PFAS to human health after initially adopting an infeasible law similar to SB682. Furthermore, states like New Hampshire and New Mexico share the belief that critical industries, including HVACR, deserve greater consideration and have passed bipartisan bills with similar risk-based policies. If California provides no exemptions, as SB682 does not, legislators will be forced to revisit this issue in future legislative sessions when the Department of Toxic Substances Control is overloaded with unavoidable use exemption applications and the state’s economy grinds to a halt because thousands of necessary products become unavailable.  

Responsible PFAS management is critical, yet SB682 is premature and costly. The evolving PFAS policy landscape indicates that California should continue prioritizing high-risk PFAS products. This approach would reduce unnecessary burdens, support progress in key industries, and advance environmental goals.

 Russ Geary is Vice President of Geary Pacific Supply, a wholesale distributor of heating, ventilation, and air conditioning equipment, parts, and supplies with 12 locations across the state. Russ lives outside of Sacramento, CA.