Register for NexusCon 2025 - Now Accepting Abstracts!
%20(2).webp)
In my 15-year career, I haven’t seen a more compelling case for investing in smart building technology.
Consider this: you have a mission-critical system that leaks an extremely potent greenhouse gas at a rate of 20% or more per year, while the cost to replace that gas skyrockets and regulations tighten year after year, all as the skilled workforce required to manage it dwindles.
Refrigerant leaks have become a perfect storm that has facility managers—especially in grocery retail, where the average supermarket leaks 875 lbs of HFC refrigerant per year—scrambling for solutions. And while new federal rules like the AIM Act are an important backdrop, what’s really driving the latest wave of investment is far beyond mere compliance.
This article explores why supermarket chains (and increasingly other verticals) are investing in software-based refrigerant leak detection—going beyond mere compliance to achieve financial, operational, and environmental benefits. We spoke with several industry experts and practitioners to unpack why software-based, “indirect” leak detection is emerging as a hot solution and where traditional sensor-based detection still fits in.
In late 2020, President Trump signed the bipartisan American Innovation & Manufacturing (AIM) Act into law, kicking off an aggressive phasedown of hydrofluorocarbon (HFC) refrigerants. The AIM Act builds upon the EPA’s existing Section 608 regulations (which historically applied mostly to ozone-depleting CFC/HCFC refrigerants) and expands them to HFCs. In effect, what was once a niche compliance issue has exploded in scope.
“The commercial refrigeration space [is] the sacrificial lamb when it comes to a lot of the refrigerant regulatory frameworks. Despite becoming somewhat accustomed to this, they're often the ones that are having to scramble to keep up,” said Tristam Coffin, co-founder of êffecterra and former sustainable facilities lead at Whole Foods Market, noting that grocers have been through this before with ozone-depleting CFC/HCFC refrigerants, but now it’s applied to “a much broader spectrum” of their assets.
In other words, supermarkets are first in the line of fire for HFC leak regulations, from federal rules to a patchwork of aggressive state laws in California, Washington, New York, and others.
Under these regulations, large refrigeration systems are required to have automatic leak detection (ALD) or adhere to frequent leak inspection regimes. For example, both New York and Washington state now require leak detection on systems with over 1,500 lbs of refrigerant—a threshold that covers typical supermarket rack systems.
“What has happened is the AIM Act has now made mandatory leak inspection also for HFCs... Previously, only refrigerants such as R-22 [an HCFC] was regulated; now all HFCs are regulated... the compliance threshold is now 15 pounds, instead of 50 pounds under the old Section 608 rules.”
This change, as Basant Singhatwadia (Global Director of Customer Success & Strategy at Facilio) explains, means that many smaller commercial systems that were previously exempt are now included. Any refrigeration or AC system (although there are gray areas with applications such as rooftop units) with over 15 lbs of HFC refrigerant is subject to leak tracking and reporting, whereas before, only systems above 50 lbs had to do so.
Both federal and state rules offer reduced inspection burdens if ALD is in place. For instance, under Washington State’s new refrigerant management program, a supermarket with a large system must do monthly manual leak inspections if no ALD is installed – but with ALD, manual inspection frequency drops significantly. In California and Washington, systems with ALD can even be exempted from certain periodic inspections altogether.
This creates a strong incentive to deploy leak-detection technology to streamline compliance. “There’s also a financial play here... if you have an ALD in place and you can avoid doing manual leak inspections on those assets, then there’s a labor savings opportunity there,” notes Coffin.
The regulatory pressure is not just theoretical – it’s being felt on the ground right now. California has long enforced strict refrigerant leak rules, and now Washington and New York have both put precedent in place for automatic detection systems. New York’s new regulations (effective Jan 2025) require any system over 200 lbs to undergo quarterly leak inspections and those over 1,500 lbs to have monthly monitoring. Leaks must be repaired within 14 days (versus 30 days under EPA rules), and chronic leakers can even face mandated retrofit or shutdown. By June 1, 2025, all >1,500 lb systems in NY must have ALD installed. These state-level rules are creating a complex patchwork.
Onlookers might think the current administration will not let the EPA enforce [the AIM Act]... but experts warn against complacency. Even if the EPA doesn’t enforce, 20 states have formed an active coalition pushing climate initiatives including HFC bans to ensure progress continues regardless of federal shifts.
The consequences of falling behind on compliance are severe. Failing to repair a leak within the 30-day window could mean tens of thousands of dollars in fines per day. Beyond fines, an EPA consent decree brings years of audits, inspections, and legal. Singhatwadia emphasizes that it’s “better to comply than get into that mess – the fines might be small for large retailers, but the administrative burden is astonishing.”
Additionally, once a piece of equipment is flagged for leaking above the threshold, the regulations impose costly maintenance requirements. Under EPA rules, for example, any refrigeration system that has leaked above the allowable rate must undergo quarterly leak inspections for the next year.
“Think about it: once you have a problem, you’ve got four store visits a year [for that system]. Even if you don’t have another leak, that’s $2,000 in labor just to inspect one asset (assuming ~$500 per visit). If you’ve got a lot of leaking assets, you’re doing a lot of visits.” All of this adds up to powerful regulatory motivators for better leak detection and prevention.
While compliance may be the initial driver, facility managers are discovering that refrigerant leak detection technology delivers far more than just regulatory box-checking. “Is it just regulations that’s driving things? They’re saying that less now,” observes Ted Atwood, a refrigerant management veteran who founded the refrigerant management software vendor Trakref and now Business Development Adviser for North America at Bueno. “Now they’re starting to say things like, ‘I have this responsibility operationally. I know we can do better.”
In other words, operators are beginning to view proactive refrigerant management as a best practice in asset management—with clear financial and operational upsides—rather than a burdensome mandate. After talking to experts across the industry, it’s evident that investing in leak detection can yield a rare win-win: it can pay for itself through cost savings, reduce risk, alleviate labor constraints, and support sustainability goals. Let’s break down these benefits.
Refrigerant is expensive—and getting more so each year. The AIM Act’s phasedown is cutting the allowable HFC supply by 85% through 2036, and as supply tightens, prices are climbing. In 2024, prices for common HFCs like R-410A jumped ~20% in some markets, and analysts expect high costs to persist.
For high-GWP refrigerants that will be phased out sooner, the situation is even more dire: “Most of these refrigerants deployed today – e.g. R-410A – they’re going to be gone by 2029, like scarcely available. The supply is going to be near depleted... it’s going to get tight quick, not a decade from now but 3–4 years from now,” warns Coffin, citing research his firm presented at the most recent ASHRAE Winter Conference. In some states, sales bans on certain HFC refrigerants are already coming into effect (California’s began in 2024, New York announced one for 2025 before pausing enforcement due to industry pushback).
Leaking refrigerant is like leaking money in an age of hyperinflation. How much money? The average U.S. supermarket leaks about 25% of its refrigerant charge each year. In a typical grocery store with ~3,500 lbs of refrigerant, that equates to roughly 875 lbs leaked annually. At current prices of $30–$60 per pound (depending on the refrigerant type and region), that means $20,000–$50,000 per store per year simply spent on replacing lost refrigerant.
Then there are the knock-on costs of leaks: emergency repair labor, equipment wear, product loss, and business disruption. A single major leak event (for example, a sudden loss of a few hundred pounds from a rack system) can easily cost $15,000 or more by the time you factor in overtime for technicians, food spoilage or lost sales from case outages, and the rush shipment of replacement refrigerant.
Simply put, preventing leaks or catching them early has a direct and significant impact on the bottom line. By reducing leak rates, stores can dramatically cut their annual refrigerant purchases. For example, Albertsons (a major grocery chain) ran a multi-store pilot of a continuous leak detection program and saw about a 35% reduction in the annual leak rate as a result. That translates to tens of thousands of dollars saved per store.
“This should be taken with a grain of salt because it was a small pilot of 10 stores. If you take the leak rates before, then run it for a year and look at leak rates after, there was a 35% reduction, but some of that could be because there were no leaks,” explained Wade Krieger, who spent two decades managing refrigeration systems at Albertsons and now works for service provider Climate Pros.
Woolworths Group partnered with Bueno in Australia and has seen similar results over time and at scale. They've seen 37% leak savings over 8 years and 1000+ locations.
Beyond dollars per pound, a refrigerant leak is an equipment reliability risk. Refrigeration systems are the lifeblood of grocery stores—a major leak can bring down critical cooling racks, risking food spoilage and forcing an unplanned shutdown. Even smaller leaks, if undetected, put extra strain on compressors (running with low charge) and can lead to overheating or mechanical failure. Early leak detection is just good preventative maintenance—heading off catastrophic failures of compressors or chillers.
Tristam Coffin notes that some forward-looking retailers are approaching leak detection from a business continuity standpoint. Coffin’s team has modeled the upcoming refrigerant supply crunch and found that many commonly used refrigerants (like R-410A and R-134a) could face severe shortages within the next 4–6 years due to the phasedown. If a business can reduce its leak rate now, it not only cuts current costs but also insulates itself against future supply risk —essentially reducing operations risk in an era of HFC scarcity. Some companies have even begun stockpiling reclaimed refrigerant or locking in contracts, but the cheapest “insurance policy” is simply to leak less.
Additionally, continuous leak monitoring provides data that can be used for condition-based maintenance of the refrigeration system. Unusual patterns in refrigerant levels or pressures might indicate a component starting to fail (even if no big leak has occurred yet). Krieger points out that data-driven monitoring software systems can give an extra layer of insight: “It does offer some predictive technology above [just detecting] leaks, where you can say, hey, something’s not right with this system – the algorithms are showing it. So maybe you schedule somebody to go in next week, when it’s convenient, and look. Then maybe they find a compressor that’s about ready to die… you can take care of that proactively, rather than have it fail on overtime.”
In this way, leak detection software can double as an early warning system for other issues, allowing facility teams to fix problems on their own schedule instead of in emergency mode. And as Ted Atwood joked, “keep the butter from melting”.
It’s no secret that HVAC/R technicians are in short supply. The refrigeration trade is facing a wave of retirements and not enough new entrants, leaving many service contractors and internal teams stretched thin. In this context, any technology that reduces manual workload is a boon.
Traditional leak management is extremely labor-intensive—it involves technicians performing routine leak inspections with handheld detectors, crawling through rack rooms and cases sniffing for gas. These rounds might be monthly or quarterly per store (and even more frequent if a store has known leaks or is under heightened scrutiny). That’s a lot of truck rolls and hours that skilled techs could otherwise spend on higher-value repairs or preventive maintenance.
Automated leak detection, especially software-based systems that continuously monitor remotely, can take a huge burden off the techs in the field. “Labor is another big thing,” Coffin notes. “What do you want your folks spending their time and effort on? I’m sure, probably not walking around a facility with a leak detector.”
By installing systems that watch refrigerant conditions 24/7 and alert when a leak is suspected, the pitch from software vendors is that FMs and service contractors can reallocate their technicians to tasks that truly require on-site expertise (like fixing identified leaks or servicing equipment), rather than playing “hide and seek” with invisible gas. It essentially allows one centralized analyst to do the first line of monitoring, flagging only the stores that need a service call. This improves the productivity of a limited workforce.
However, it’s important to note that automated detection doesn’t completely eliminate the need for manual diligence. Krieger cautions that his company still continues periodic on-site leak checks even with fancy predictive tools: “Our sense is, we have a quarterly PM program, so we’re checking the equipment anyway. You might as well spend that couple of hours… you might find some oil dripping somewhere, a leak that just started in the last week and wasn’t being picked up [yet]. There’s always going to be value in that.”
In practice then, the goal is to augment and focus human efforts, not to replace them outright. The software can monitor continuously and catch many issues, but technicians still double-check and address things the software can’t, like very small seeps or maintenance of physical detectors.
Where the labor savings really materialize is in avoiding emergency calls and inefficient routines. If a leak can be detected early and repaired during normal working hours, you avoid that 2:00 AM crisis call or a frantic weekend repair when the case goes down.
Over time, fewer massive leaks mean fewer after-hours emergencies—a significant quality-of-life improvement for technician teams (and less overtime cost for the employer). By integrating leak alerts into existing work order systems, some retailers are making leak response a standard part of maintenance workflows rather than an ad-hoc scramble.
Refrigerant leak detection isn’t only about compliance and cost—it also carries safety and environmental benefits that facility peers are increasingly prioritizing. On the safety side, as the industry transitions to new refrigerants, leak alerts become even more critical.
Many supermarkets are experimenting with A2L “mildly flammable” refrigerants (like R-454 series or R-32 blends) to replace higher global warming potential (GWP) A1 HFCs. These gases have lower climate impact but introduce flammability concerns. Leak detection systems (both sensors and software) provide a safeguard by quickly notifying if a flammable refrigerant is escaping into a space, allowing staff to ventilate and repair before concentrations reach dangerous levels. “The industry is largely leaning into ALD from a safety perspective, as we transition to A2Ls,” Coffin notes.
Even with non-flammable refrigerants, a major leak in an enclosed space can displace oxygen and pose asphyxiation risk, so detection is a life-safety measure in machinery rooms (ASHRAE 15 actually requires detectors in many engine rooms to alarm if refrigerant concentration rises too high).
On the sustainability side, refrigerant leaks are a climate-change triple threat: they directly emit high-global-warming gases, they can degrade HVAC energy efficiency, and they create waste (manufacturing new refrigerant to replace the lost charge has its own carbon footprint). Companies are now expected to include refrigerant emissions in their Scope 1 greenhouse gas reporting. HFC leaks in particular pack an outsized punch – in fact, HFC refrigerants currently account for an estimated 3–4% of all global greenhouse gas emissions (by radiative impact).
This makes refrigerant management one of the highest-leverage decarbonization strategies available to many companies. Project Drawdown famously ranked refrigerant management as the #1 climate solution in terms of potential impact, ahead of solutions like wind and solar, estimating that aggressive refrigerant leak reduction and end-of-life refrigerant capture globally could avoid up to 90 gigatons of CO₂e by 2050.
Many grocery chains have public sustainability targets to reduce their refrigerant leak rates (some participate in EPA’s GreenChill program, aiming to get below 10% leaks annually). By investing in better leak detection and reduction, they also make progress on corporate ESG goals and demonstrate climate leadership.
Another driver towards leak detection technology is the technological progress itself. Facility managers now have multiple options for how to implement refrigerant leak detection and management.
Traditionally, leak detection meant direct, sensor-based systems: physical gas sensors (infrared, ultrasonic, etc.) installed in mechanical rooms, display cases, or along piping runs, which trigger an alarm when they detect refrigerant in the air. These systems are proven for safety and can pinpoint leak locations (e.g. “leak in aisle 3 dairy case”). However, they have notable limitations in practice: coverage, maintenance, and cost. Let's explore these, plus unpack where software-based leak detection can enhance the leak detection stack:
Coverage: You might install a handful of sensors in key areas, but no practical sensor network can literally cover an entire complex refrigeration system with hundreds of pipe connections spread throughout a store. Leaks can (and do) occur in places without a nearby sensor – meaning a slow leak in a remote line might go unnoticed by a fixed detector.
This is one reason a newer approach has emerged: indirect leak detection (ILD) using software analytics. ILD systems infer leaks by analyzing data like refrigerant pressure, temperature, compressor runtimes, etc., from the refrigeration control system. Essentially, they look for the symptoms of a leak (e.g. a compressor suddenly running longer to maintain setpoint, or suction pressure trending lower than normal due to loss of refrigerant) rather than “sniffing” the gas itself.
The big advantage is that these analytics have full system coverage—they monitor the whole refrigerant circuit’s performance, including outdoor and inaccessible areas, by using existing sensor data. ILD can detect very small leaks over time by noticing anomalous trends, even if the leak is too diffuse for a physical gas sensor to pick up.
Maintenance: Physical leak detectors require regular upkeep to be effective. Most manufacturers and regulations call for annual calibration of refrigerant sensors to ensure accuracy. Sensors can also suffer from fouling, drift, or failure in the harsh environments of a supermarket (compressor rooms can be hot, oily, and humid).
However, in the field, this maintenance often doesn’t happen. “We have had tens of thousands of leak detectors [deployed], and less than 1% are calibrated or maintained at all. It’s staggering,” says Atwood, based on his experience servicing customers. He recounts visiting store after store where the manager had no idea the sensor needed calibration—many had never been touched since installation.
A poorly maintained sensor network gives a false sense of security (either it won’t alarm when it should, or it false-alarms so often that staff ignore it). ILD systems, by contrast, don’t rely on additional hardware sensors—they leverage the data from existing refrigeration controls. They do require proper setup and occasional tuning of the software algorithms, but there are no physical sensors out in the field to calibrate or replace. This can make ILD inherently lower maintenance.
Cost: The upfront cost to install a traditional fixed leak detection system across a supermarket can be hefty. Krieger notes that a retrofit of a typical large grocery store with a sensor-based leak detection system can run as much as $50,000 per store in capital expense, plus ongoing costs for calibration and monitoring.
Even for large chains, that kind of investment at portfolio scale (hundreds or thousands of stores) is challenging. Owners prioritize the sites required by law, leaving the rest of their locations without automated detection for now. ILD solutions, often delivered as a cloud-based software subscription, can be considerably cheaper per site—because they piggyback on existing control systems, the main cost is software licensing and integration. There’s no $50K of hardware to install; an ILD service might be a few thousand dollars per site per year (and potentially much less at scale). This lower cost barrier means ILD can be deployed to a wider swath of stores, including smaller-format stores where a $50K system would never get approved.
None of this is to say sensor-based direct leak detection (DLD) is dead. In fact, the best practice emerging is a hybrid approach: use ILD analytics to continuously scan for any signs of leaks across the whole system, and also have targeted DLD sensors in key high-risk areas to provide instant alerts and precise location information. “In my mind, where the industry needs to go is a hybrid of the two,” Coffin argues. “Combine the technologies: figure out the most effective cost and safety and emissions reduction approach, and knock it out of the park.”
For example, ILD might send an alert that “Rack 2 likely has a 5% charge loss over the last 48 hours.” That tells you there’s a leak in that general subsystem. Then a technician can be dispatched and use handheld detectors or check fixed sensor readouts to pinpoint the leak in a specific component (maybe a particular display case or a valve on the rack). In this way, ILD provides the broad coverage and early warning, while DLD provides the exact location once you know where to look.
Coffin also notes that ILD can make deploying leak detection to smaller equipment more feasible: for a little self-contained refrigeration unit that wouldn’t justify a dedicated sensor, an ILD algorithm could still watch its pressure trends and catch leaks, whereas previously that small unit would simply never be monitored until it failed.
It’s worth mentioning that the regulatory definitions are still catching up to these new approaches. Some state rules (like Washington’s) define “leak detection system” in a way that includes both direct and indirect technologies. There has been a bit of a marketing war, with some vendors of ILD claiming only they can meet the “full coverage” requirements, while traditional DLD vendors counter that their calibrated sensors on main components are sufficient and time-tested.
Facility managers are less concerned with this debate and more concerned with results—they’ll use whatever combination of tools actually drives down their leak rate and keeps them compliant.
Refrigerant management is rapidly evolving from a niche compliance task to a strategic operational priority. What’s happening in the grocery sector today is likely a preview of what’s to come for all facilities that rely on vapor-compression cooling—from cold storage warehouses to office-building chillers to rooftop units.
As HFC phasedown regulations tighten, leak tracking and minimization will become standard practice across the board. Grocery chains may be the canary in the coal mine (or as Coffin said, the “sacrificial lamb”) in facing these challenges first, but other industries will follow. Every facility manager with cooling equipment should be watching these trends and asking: How can we get ahead of this?
The good news is that tackling refrigerant leaks pays dividends on multiple fronts: compliance, cost savings, risk reduction, and sustainability. It’s one of those rare instances where environmental benefit, operational resilience, and financial ROI line up together. As such, the tone in the industry has shifted from one of begrudging compliance to proactive improvement. “Getting your house in order” on refrigerants – by investing in better leak detection processes and technology – is increasingly seen as a hallmark of good facility stewardship.
In summary, the drivers fueling investment in software-based refrigerant leak detection go beyond the letter of the AIM Act. Yes, regulations provide the shove (and a hefty one at that). But it’s the myriad side benefits – fewer costly leaks, fewer emergency repairs, more efficient use of technician labor, extended equipment life, and progress toward climate goals – that are sealing the deal for many organizations.
The investment is not hype – it’s a practical step that peers in the grocery sector are finding success with. And given the trajectory of regulations and refrigerant trends, it’s an investment that more than pays off in the long run, keeping you ahead of the curve as we all transition to a lower-leak, lower-carbon future.
Coverage: You might install a handful of sensors in key areas, but no practical sensor network can literally cover an entire complex refrigeration system with hundreds of pipe connections spread throughout a store. Leaks can (and do) occur in places without a nearby sensor – meaning a slow leak in a remote line might go unnoticed by a fixed detector.
This is one reason a newer approach has emerged: indirect leak detection (ILD) using software analytics. ILD systems infer leaks by analyzing data like refrigerant pressure, temperature, compressor runtimes, etc., from the refrigeration control system. Essentially, they look for the symptoms of a leak (e.g. a compressor suddenly running longer to maintain setpoint, or suction pressure trending lower than normal due to loss of refrigerant) rather than “sniffing” the gas itself.
The big advantage is that these analytics have full system coverage—they monitor the whole refrigerant circuit’s performance, including outdoor and inaccessible areas, by using existing sensor data. ILD can detect very small leaks over time by noticing anomalous trends, even if the leak is too diffuse for a physical gas sensor to pick up.
Maintenance: Physical leak detectors require regular upkeep to be effective. Most manufacturers and regulations call for annual calibration of refrigerant sensors to ensure accuracy. Sensors can also suffer from fouling, drift, or failure in the harsh environments of a supermarket (compressor rooms can be hot, oily, and humid).
However, in the field, this maintenance often doesn’t happen. “We have had tens of thousands of leak detectors [deployed], and less than 1% are calibrated or maintained at all. It’s staggering,” says Atwood, based on his experience servicing customers. He recounts visiting store after store where the manager had no idea the sensor needed calibration—many had never been touched since installation.
A poorly maintained sensor network gives a false sense of security (either it won’t alarm when it should, or it false-alarms so often that staff ignore it). ILD systems, by contrast, don’t rely on additional hardware sensors—they leverage the data from existing refrigeration controls. They do require proper setup and occasional tuning of the software algorithms, but there are no physical sensors out in the field to calibrate or replace. This can make ILD inherently lower maintenance.
Cost: The upfront cost to install a traditional fixed leak detection system across a supermarket can be hefty. Krieger notes that a retrofit of a typical large grocery store with a sensor-based leak detection system can run as much as $50,000 per store in capital expense, plus ongoing costs for calibration and monitoring.
Even for large chains, that kind of investment at portfolio scale (hundreds or thousands of stores) is challenging. Owners prioritize the sites required by law, leaving the rest of their locations without automated detection for now. ILD solutions, often delivered as a cloud-based software subscription, can be considerably cheaper per site—because they piggyback on existing control systems, the main cost is software licensing and integration. There’s no $50K of hardware to install; an ILD service might be a few thousand dollars per site per year (and potentially much less at scale). This lower cost barrier means ILD can be deployed to a wider swath of stores, including smaller-format stores where a $50K system would never get approved.
None of this is to say sensor-based direct leak detection (DLD) is dead. In fact, the best practice emerging is a hybrid approach: use ILD analytics to continuously scan for any signs of leaks across the whole system, and also have targeted DLD sensors in key high-risk areas to provide instant alerts and precise location information. “In my mind, where the industry needs to go is a hybrid of the two,” Coffin argues. “Combine the technologies: figure out the most effective cost and safety and emissions reduction approach, and knock it out of the park.”
For example, ILD might send an alert that “Rack 2 likely has a 5% charge loss over the last 48 hours.” That tells you there’s a leak in that general subsystem. Then a technician can be dispatched and use handheld detectors or check fixed sensor readouts to pinpoint the leak in a specific component (maybe a particular display case or a valve on the rack). In this way, ILD provides the broad coverage and early warning, while DLD provides the exact location once you know where to look.
Coffin also notes that ILD can make deploying leak detection to smaller equipment more feasible: for a little self-contained refrigeration unit that wouldn’t justify a dedicated sensor, an ILD algorithm could still watch its pressure trends and catch leaks, whereas previously that small unit would simply never be monitored until it failed.
It’s worth mentioning that the regulatory definitions are still catching up to these new approaches. Some state rules (like Washington’s) define “leak detection system” in a way that includes both direct and indirect technologies. There has been a bit of a marketing war, with some vendors of ILD claiming only they can meet the “full coverage” requirements, while traditional DLD vendors counter that their calibrated sensors on main components are sufficient and time-tested.
Facility managers are less concerned with this debate and more concerned with results—they’ll use whatever combination of tools actually drives down their leak rate and keeps them compliant.
Refrigerant management is rapidly evolving from a niche compliance task to a strategic operational priority. What’s happening in the grocery sector today is likely a preview of what’s to come for all facilities that rely on vapor-compression cooling—from cold storage warehouses to office-building chillers to rooftop units.
As HFC phasedown regulations tighten, leak tracking and minimization will become standard practice across the board. Grocery chains may be the canary in the coal mine (or as Coffin said, the “sacrificial lamb”) in facing these challenges first, but other industries will follow. Every facility manager with cooling equipment should be watching these trends and asking: How can we get ahead of this?
The good news is that tackling refrigerant leaks pays dividends on multiple fronts: compliance, cost savings, risk reduction, and sustainability. It’s one of those rare instances where environmental benefit, operational resilience, and financial ROI line up together. As such, the tone in the industry has shifted from one of begrudging compliance to proactive improvement. “Getting your house in order” on refrigerants – by investing in better leak detection processes and technology – is increasingly seen as a hallmark of good facility stewardship.
In summary, the drivers fueling investment in software-based refrigerant leak detection go beyond the letter of the AIM Act. Yes, regulations provide the shove (and a hefty one at that). But it’s the myriad side benefits – fewer costly leaks, fewer emergency repairs, more efficient use of technician labor, extended equipment life, and progress toward climate goals – that are sealing the deal for many organizations.
The investment is not hype – it’s a practical step that peers in the grocery sector are finding success with. And given the trajectory of regulations and refrigerant trends, it’s an investment that more than pays off in the long run, keeping you ahead of the curve as we all transition to a lower-leak, lower-carbon future.
Coverage: You might install a handful of sensors in key areas, but no practical sensor network can literally cover an entire complex refrigeration system with hundreds of pipe connections spread throughout a store. Leaks can (and do) occur in places without a nearby sensor – meaning a slow leak in a remote line might go unnoticed by a fixed detector.
This is one reason a newer approach has emerged: indirect leak detection (ILD) using software analytics. ILD systems infer leaks by analyzing data like refrigerant pressure, temperature, compressor runtimes, etc., from the refrigeration control system. Essentially, they look for the symptoms of a leak (e.g. a compressor suddenly running longer to maintain setpoint, or suction pressure trending lower than normal due to loss of refrigerant) rather than “sniffing” the gas itself.
The big advantage is that these analytics have full system coverage—they monitor the whole refrigerant circuit’s performance, including outdoor and inaccessible areas, by using existing sensor data. ILD can detect very small leaks over time by noticing anomalous trends, even if the leak is too diffuse for a physical gas sensor to pick up.
Maintenance: Physical leak detectors require regular upkeep to be effective. Most manufacturers and regulations call for annual calibration of refrigerant sensors to ensure accuracy. Sensors can also suffer from fouling, drift, or failure in the harsh environments of a supermarket (compressor rooms can be hot, oily, and humid).
However, in the field, this maintenance often doesn’t happen. “We have had tens of thousands of leak detectors [deployed], and less than 1% are calibrated or maintained at all. It’s staggering,” says Atwood, based on his experience servicing customers. He recounts visiting store after store where the manager had no idea the sensor needed calibration—many had never been touched since installation.
A poorly maintained sensor network gives a false sense of security (either it won’t alarm when it should, or it false-alarms so often that staff ignore it). ILD systems, by contrast, don’t rely on additional hardware sensors—they leverage the data from existing refrigeration controls. They do require proper setup and occasional tuning of the software algorithms, but there are no physical sensors out in the field to calibrate or replace. This can make ILD inherently lower maintenance.
Cost: The upfront cost to install a traditional fixed leak detection system across a supermarket can be hefty. Krieger notes that a retrofit of a typical large grocery store with a sensor-based leak detection system can run as much as $50,000 per store in capital expense, plus ongoing costs for calibration and monitoring.
Even for large chains, that kind of investment at portfolio scale (hundreds or thousands of stores) is challenging. Owners prioritize the sites required by law, leaving the rest of their locations without automated detection for now. ILD solutions, often delivered as a cloud-based software subscription, can be considerably cheaper per site—because they piggyback on existing control systems, the main cost is software licensing and integration. There’s no $50K of hardware to install; an ILD service might be a few thousand dollars per site per year (and potentially much less at scale). This lower cost barrier means ILD can be deployed to a wider swath of stores, including smaller-format stores where a $50K system would never get approved.
None of this is to say sensor-based direct leak detection (DLD) is dead. In fact, the best practice emerging is a hybrid approach: use ILD analytics to continuously scan for any signs of leaks across the whole system, and also have targeted DLD sensors in key high-risk areas to provide instant alerts and precise location information. “In my mind, where the industry needs to go is a hybrid of the two,” Coffin argues. “Combine the technologies: figure out the most effective cost and safety and emissions reduction approach, and knock it out of the park.”
For example, ILD might send an alert that “Rack 2 likely has a 5% charge loss over the last 48 hours.” That tells you there’s a leak in that general subsystem. Then a technician can be dispatched and use handheld detectors or check fixed sensor readouts to pinpoint the leak in a specific component (maybe a particular display case or a valve on the rack). In this way, ILD provides the broad coverage and early warning, while DLD provides the exact location once you know where to look.
Coffin also notes that ILD can make deploying leak detection to smaller equipment more feasible: for a little self-contained refrigeration unit that wouldn’t justify a dedicated sensor, an ILD algorithm could still watch its pressure trends and catch leaks, whereas previously that small unit would simply never be monitored until it failed.
It’s worth mentioning that the regulatory definitions are still catching up to these new approaches. Some state rules (like Washington’s) define “leak detection system” in a way that includes both direct and indirect technologies. There has been a bit of a marketing war, with some vendors of ILD claiming only they can meet the “full coverage” requirements, while traditional DLD vendors counter that their calibrated sensors on main components are sufficient and time-tested.
Facility managers are less concerned with this debate and more concerned with results—they’ll use whatever combination of tools actually drives down their leak rate and keeps them compliant.
Refrigerant management is rapidly evolving from a niche compliance task to a strategic operational priority. What’s happening in the grocery sector today is likely a preview of what’s to come for all facilities that rely on vapor-compression cooling—from cold storage warehouses to office-building chillers to rooftop units.
As HFC phasedown regulations tighten, leak tracking and minimization will become standard practice across the board. Grocery chains may be the canary in the coal mine (or as Coffin said, the “sacrificial lamb”) in facing these challenges first, but other industries will follow. Every facility manager with cooling equipment should be watching these trends and asking: How can we get ahead of this?
The good news is that tackling refrigerant leaks pays dividends on multiple fronts: compliance, cost savings, risk reduction, and sustainability. It’s one of those rare instances where environmental benefit, operational resilience, and financial ROI line up together. As such, the tone in the industry has shifted from one of begrudging compliance to proactive improvement. “Getting your house in order” on refrigerants – by investing in better leak detection processes and technology – is increasingly seen as a hallmark of good facility stewardship.
In summary, the drivers fueling investment in software-based refrigerant leak detection go beyond the letter of the AIM Act. Yes, regulations provide the shove (and a hefty one at that). But it’s the myriad side benefits – fewer costly leaks, fewer emergency repairs, more efficient use of technician labor, extended equipment life, and progress toward climate goals – that are sealing the deal for many organizations.
The investment is not hype – it’s a practical step that peers in the grocery sector are finding success with. And given the trajectory of regulations and refrigerant trends, it’s an investment that more than pays off in the long run, keeping you ahead of the curve as we all transition to a lower-leak, lower-carbon future.
In my 15-year career, I haven’t seen a more compelling case for investing in smart building technology.
Consider this: you have a mission-critical system that leaks an extremely potent greenhouse gas at a rate of 20% or more per year, while the cost to replace that gas skyrockets and regulations tighten year after year, all as the skilled workforce required to manage it dwindles.
Refrigerant leaks have become a perfect storm that has facility managers—especially in grocery retail, where the average supermarket leaks 875 lbs of HFC refrigerant per year—scrambling for solutions. And while new federal rules like the AIM Act are an important backdrop, what’s really driving the latest wave of investment is far beyond mere compliance.
This article explores why supermarket chains (and increasingly other verticals) are investing in software-based refrigerant leak detection—going beyond mere compliance to achieve financial, operational, and environmental benefits. We spoke with several industry experts and practitioners to unpack why software-based, “indirect” leak detection is emerging as a hot solution and where traditional sensor-based detection still fits in.
In late 2020, President Trump signed the bipartisan American Innovation & Manufacturing (AIM) Act into law, kicking off an aggressive phasedown of hydrofluorocarbon (HFC) refrigerants. The AIM Act builds upon the EPA’s existing Section 608 regulations (which historically applied mostly to ozone-depleting CFC/HCFC refrigerants) and expands them to HFCs. In effect, what was once a niche compliance issue has exploded in scope.
“The commercial refrigeration space [is] the sacrificial lamb when it comes to a lot of the refrigerant regulatory frameworks. Despite becoming somewhat accustomed to this, they're often the ones that are having to scramble to keep up,” said Tristam Coffin, co-founder of êffecterra and former sustainable facilities lead at Whole Foods Market, noting that grocers have been through this before with ozone-depleting CFC/HCFC refrigerants, but now it’s applied to “a much broader spectrum” of their assets.
In other words, supermarkets are first in the line of fire for HFC leak regulations, from federal rules to a patchwork of aggressive state laws in California, Washington, New York, and others.
Under these regulations, large refrigeration systems are required to have automatic leak detection (ALD) or adhere to frequent leak inspection regimes. For example, both New York and Washington state now require leak detection on systems with over 1,500 lbs of refrigerant—a threshold that covers typical supermarket rack systems.
“What has happened is the AIM Act has now made mandatory leak inspection also for HFCs... Previously, only refrigerants such as R-22 [an HCFC] was regulated; now all HFCs are regulated... the compliance threshold is now 15 pounds, instead of 50 pounds under the old Section 608 rules.”
This change, as Basant Singhatwadia (Global Director of Customer Success & Strategy at Facilio) explains, means that many smaller commercial systems that were previously exempt are now included. Any refrigeration or AC system (although there are gray areas with applications such as rooftop units) with over 15 lbs of HFC refrigerant is subject to leak tracking and reporting, whereas before, only systems above 50 lbs had to do so.
Both federal and state rules offer reduced inspection burdens if ALD is in place. For instance, under Washington State’s new refrigerant management program, a supermarket with a large system must do monthly manual leak inspections if no ALD is installed – but with ALD, manual inspection frequency drops significantly. In California and Washington, systems with ALD can even be exempted from certain periodic inspections altogether.
This creates a strong incentive to deploy leak-detection technology to streamline compliance. “There’s also a financial play here... if you have an ALD in place and you can avoid doing manual leak inspections on those assets, then there’s a labor savings opportunity there,” notes Coffin.
The regulatory pressure is not just theoretical – it’s being felt on the ground right now. California has long enforced strict refrigerant leak rules, and now Washington and New York have both put precedent in place for automatic detection systems. New York’s new regulations (effective Jan 2025) require any system over 200 lbs to undergo quarterly leak inspections and those over 1,500 lbs to have monthly monitoring. Leaks must be repaired within 14 days (versus 30 days under EPA rules), and chronic leakers can even face mandated retrofit or shutdown. By June 1, 2025, all >1,500 lb systems in NY must have ALD installed. These state-level rules are creating a complex patchwork.
Onlookers might think the current administration will not let the EPA enforce [the AIM Act]... but experts warn against complacency. Even if the EPA doesn’t enforce, 20 states have formed an active coalition pushing climate initiatives including HFC bans to ensure progress continues regardless of federal shifts.
The consequences of falling behind on compliance are severe. Failing to repair a leak within the 30-day window could mean tens of thousands of dollars in fines per day. Beyond fines, an EPA consent decree brings years of audits, inspections, and legal. Singhatwadia emphasizes that it’s “better to comply than get into that mess – the fines might be small for large retailers, but the administrative burden is astonishing.”
Additionally, once a piece of equipment is flagged for leaking above the threshold, the regulations impose costly maintenance requirements. Under EPA rules, for example, any refrigeration system that has leaked above the allowable rate must undergo quarterly leak inspections for the next year.
“Think about it: once you have a problem, you’ve got four store visits a year [for that system]. Even if you don’t have another leak, that’s $2,000 in labor just to inspect one asset (assuming ~$500 per visit). If you’ve got a lot of leaking assets, you’re doing a lot of visits.” All of this adds up to powerful regulatory motivators for better leak detection and prevention.
While compliance may be the initial driver, facility managers are discovering that refrigerant leak detection technology delivers far more than just regulatory box-checking. “Is it just regulations that’s driving things? They’re saying that less now,” observes Ted Atwood, a refrigerant management veteran who founded the refrigerant management software vendor Trakref and now Business Development Adviser for North America at Bueno. “Now they’re starting to say things like, ‘I have this responsibility operationally. I know we can do better.”
In other words, operators are beginning to view proactive refrigerant management as a best practice in asset management—with clear financial and operational upsides—rather than a burdensome mandate. After talking to experts across the industry, it’s evident that investing in leak detection can yield a rare win-win: it can pay for itself through cost savings, reduce risk, alleviate labor constraints, and support sustainability goals. Let’s break down these benefits.
Refrigerant is expensive—and getting more so each year. The AIM Act’s phasedown is cutting the allowable HFC supply by 85% through 2036, and as supply tightens, prices are climbing. In 2024, prices for common HFCs like R-410A jumped ~20% in some markets, and analysts expect high costs to persist.
For high-GWP refrigerants that will be phased out sooner, the situation is even more dire: “Most of these refrigerants deployed today – e.g. R-410A – they’re going to be gone by 2029, like scarcely available. The supply is going to be near depleted... it’s going to get tight quick, not a decade from now but 3–4 years from now,” warns Coffin, citing research his firm presented at the most recent ASHRAE Winter Conference. In some states, sales bans on certain HFC refrigerants are already coming into effect (California’s began in 2024, New York announced one for 2025 before pausing enforcement due to industry pushback).
Leaking refrigerant is like leaking money in an age of hyperinflation. How much money? The average U.S. supermarket leaks about 25% of its refrigerant charge each year. In a typical grocery store with ~3,500 lbs of refrigerant, that equates to roughly 875 lbs leaked annually. At current prices of $30–$60 per pound (depending on the refrigerant type and region), that means $20,000–$50,000 per store per year simply spent on replacing lost refrigerant.
Then there are the knock-on costs of leaks: emergency repair labor, equipment wear, product loss, and business disruption. A single major leak event (for example, a sudden loss of a few hundred pounds from a rack system) can easily cost $15,000 or more by the time you factor in overtime for technicians, food spoilage or lost sales from case outages, and the rush shipment of replacement refrigerant.
Simply put, preventing leaks or catching them early has a direct and significant impact on the bottom line. By reducing leak rates, stores can dramatically cut their annual refrigerant purchases. For example, Albertsons (a major grocery chain) ran a multi-store pilot of a continuous leak detection program and saw about a 35% reduction in the annual leak rate as a result. That translates to tens of thousands of dollars saved per store.
“This should be taken with a grain of salt because it was a small pilot of 10 stores. If you take the leak rates before, then run it for a year and look at leak rates after, there was a 35% reduction, but some of that could be because there were no leaks,” explained Wade Krieger, who spent two decades managing refrigeration systems at Albertsons and now works for service provider Climate Pros.
Woolworths Group partnered with Bueno in Australia and has seen similar results over time and at scale. They've seen 37% leak savings over 8 years and 1000+ locations.
Beyond dollars per pound, a refrigerant leak is an equipment reliability risk. Refrigeration systems are the lifeblood of grocery stores—a major leak can bring down critical cooling racks, risking food spoilage and forcing an unplanned shutdown. Even smaller leaks, if undetected, put extra strain on compressors (running with low charge) and can lead to overheating or mechanical failure. Early leak detection is just good preventative maintenance—heading off catastrophic failures of compressors or chillers.
Tristam Coffin notes that some forward-looking retailers are approaching leak detection from a business continuity standpoint. Coffin’s team has modeled the upcoming refrigerant supply crunch and found that many commonly used refrigerants (like R-410A and R-134a) could face severe shortages within the next 4–6 years due to the phasedown. If a business can reduce its leak rate now, it not only cuts current costs but also insulates itself against future supply risk —essentially reducing operations risk in an era of HFC scarcity. Some companies have even begun stockpiling reclaimed refrigerant or locking in contracts, but the cheapest “insurance policy” is simply to leak less.
Additionally, continuous leak monitoring provides data that can be used for condition-based maintenance of the refrigeration system. Unusual patterns in refrigerant levels or pressures might indicate a component starting to fail (even if no big leak has occurred yet). Krieger points out that data-driven monitoring software systems can give an extra layer of insight: “It does offer some predictive technology above [just detecting] leaks, where you can say, hey, something’s not right with this system – the algorithms are showing it. So maybe you schedule somebody to go in next week, when it’s convenient, and look. Then maybe they find a compressor that’s about ready to die… you can take care of that proactively, rather than have it fail on overtime.”
In this way, leak detection software can double as an early warning system for other issues, allowing facility teams to fix problems on their own schedule instead of in emergency mode. And as Ted Atwood joked, “keep the butter from melting”.
It’s no secret that HVAC/R technicians are in short supply. The refrigeration trade is facing a wave of retirements and not enough new entrants, leaving many service contractors and internal teams stretched thin. In this context, any technology that reduces manual workload is a boon.
Traditional leak management is extremely labor-intensive—it involves technicians performing routine leak inspections with handheld detectors, crawling through rack rooms and cases sniffing for gas. These rounds might be monthly or quarterly per store (and even more frequent if a store has known leaks or is under heightened scrutiny). That’s a lot of truck rolls and hours that skilled techs could otherwise spend on higher-value repairs or preventive maintenance.
Automated leak detection, especially software-based systems that continuously monitor remotely, can take a huge burden off the techs in the field. “Labor is another big thing,” Coffin notes. “What do you want your folks spending their time and effort on? I’m sure, probably not walking around a facility with a leak detector.”
By installing systems that watch refrigerant conditions 24/7 and alert when a leak is suspected, the pitch from software vendors is that FMs and service contractors can reallocate their technicians to tasks that truly require on-site expertise (like fixing identified leaks or servicing equipment), rather than playing “hide and seek” with invisible gas. It essentially allows one centralized analyst to do the first line of monitoring, flagging only the stores that need a service call. This improves the productivity of a limited workforce.
However, it’s important to note that automated detection doesn’t completely eliminate the need for manual diligence. Krieger cautions that his company still continues periodic on-site leak checks even with fancy predictive tools: “Our sense is, we have a quarterly PM program, so we’re checking the equipment anyway. You might as well spend that couple of hours… you might find some oil dripping somewhere, a leak that just started in the last week and wasn’t being picked up [yet]. There’s always going to be value in that.”
In practice then, the goal is to augment and focus human efforts, not to replace them outright. The software can monitor continuously and catch many issues, but technicians still double-check and address things the software can’t, like very small seeps or maintenance of physical detectors.
Where the labor savings really materialize is in avoiding emergency calls and inefficient routines. If a leak can be detected early and repaired during normal working hours, you avoid that 2:00 AM crisis call or a frantic weekend repair when the case goes down.
Over time, fewer massive leaks mean fewer after-hours emergencies—a significant quality-of-life improvement for technician teams (and less overtime cost for the employer). By integrating leak alerts into existing work order systems, some retailers are making leak response a standard part of maintenance workflows rather than an ad-hoc scramble.
Refrigerant leak detection isn’t only about compliance and cost—it also carries safety and environmental benefits that facility peers are increasingly prioritizing. On the safety side, as the industry transitions to new refrigerants, leak alerts become even more critical.
Many supermarkets are experimenting with A2L “mildly flammable” refrigerants (like R-454 series or R-32 blends) to replace higher global warming potential (GWP) A1 HFCs. These gases have lower climate impact but introduce flammability concerns. Leak detection systems (both sensors and software) provide a safeguard by quickly notifying if a flammable refrigerant is escaping into a space, allowing staff to ventilate and repair before concentrations reach dangerous levels. “The industry is largely leaning into ALD from a safety perspective, as we transition to A2Ls,” Coffin notes.
Even with non-flammable refrigerants, a major leak in an enclosed space can displace oxygen and pose asphyxiation risk, so detection is a life-safety measure in machinery rooms (ASHRAE 15 actually requires detectors in many engine rooms to alarm if refrigerant concentration rises too high).
On the sustainability side, refrigerant leaks are a climate-change triple threat: they directly emit high-global-warming gases, they can degrade HVAC energy efficiency, and they create waste (manufacturing new refrigerant to replace the lost charge has its own carbon footprint). Companies are now expected to include refrigerant emissions in their Scope 1 greenhouse gas reporting. HFC leaks in particular pack an outsized punch – in fact, HFC refrigerants currently account for an estimated 3–4% of all global greenhouse gas emissions (by radiative impact).
This makes refrigerant management one of the highest-leverage decarbonization strategies available to many companies. Project Drawdown famously ranked refrigerant management as the #1 climate solution in terms of potential impact, ahead of solutions like wind and solar, estimating that aggressive refrigerant leak reduction and end-of-life refrigerant capture globally could avoid up to 90 gigatons of CO₂e by 2050.
Many grocery chains have public sustainability targets to reduce their refrigerant leak rates (some participate in EPA’s GreenChill program, aiming to get below 10% leaks annually). By investing in better leak detection and reduction, they also make progress on corporate ESG goals and demonstrate climate leadership.
Another driver towards leak detection technology is the technological progress itself. Facility managers now have multiple options for how to implement refrigerant leak detection and management.
Traditionally, leak detection meant direct, sensor-based systems: physical gas sensors (infrared, ultrasonic, etc.) installed in mechanical rooms, display cases, or along piping runs, which trigger an alarm when they detect refrigerant in the air. These systems are proven for safety and can pinpoint leak locations (e.g. “leak in aisle 3 dairy case”). However, they have notable limitations in practice: coverage, maintenance, and cost. Let's explore these, plus unpack where software-based leak detection can enhance the leak detection stack:
Head over to Nexus Connect and see what’s new in the community. Don’t forget to check out the latest member-only events.
Go to Nexus ConnectJoin Nexus Pro and get full access including invite-only member gatherings, access to the community chatroom Nexus Connect, networking opportunities, and deep dive essays.
Sign Up
Nexus Labs exists to move the smart buildings industry forward, without the fluff.
On Wednesday, we send out the renowned (and free) Nexus Newsletter.