• SERVICES
  • INDUSTRIES
  • PERSPECTIVES
  • ABOUT

    • Who We Are

      We support businesses in their strategic decisions on growth and optimization

      Who We Are

    • Connect With Us

      let’s connect to discuss how we could support your intelligence needs

      Contact

    • Work With EOS

      We are researchers – curious, knowledge-hungry, and eager to solve problems

      Work With Us
  • Search
  • ENGAGE

USA

Home USA Page 5

by EOS Intelligence EOS Intelligence No Comments

The Smoke around Legal Cannabis

1.2kviews

Till date, 31 countries and 41 states in the USA either legalized cannabis in various forms, including making it legal for medical or recreational use, or decriminalized it while still maintaining its illegal status. Few countries are preparing to legalize or decriminalize the use of marijuana for all purposes while many countries are still debating over the legalization of this plant only for medical and not for recreational use. With the rise in education about cannabis and its benefits for humans, economies, and culture, chances of positive changes in laws around cannabis are growing across the world. As legalizing cannabis is still a topic of debate with variety of business, political, and cultural views involved, we are looking at how the legalization of cannabis might impact the economy and businesses in the countries taking the step towards less restrictive approach to handling the issue.

Cannabis – a controversial medicinal plant

Cannabis or marijuana plant and its alleged benefits and risks for human body have been a difficult topic of debate amongst law makers, medical professionals, researchers, economists, politicians, and (of course) cannabis users. In many parts of the world, it still has negative connotations with a narcotic drug, due to presence of psychoactive substance tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) which brings an intoxicating effect to human mind.

In many countries, cannabis has been treated similarly to other chemical drugs, such as cocaine, heroin, etc., in terms of its legal status, by banning from legal cultivation, purchase, or selling for any purpose. However, there has been a continuous development in spreading awareness by the medical professionals, researchers, and scientists on the benefits of using cannabis for medical purposes. This has been followed by voices being raised on people’s right to legalized cannabis also for recreational purposes, comparing it with alcohol and tobacco, which are claimed to have far worse impact on human health, yet are enjoying legal status in many countries.

In addition to this, many economists too are coming forward in favor of legalizing cannabis to bring a boost to economies. As a result of such strong petitions, more and more countries are considering legalization of cannabis and the future might see countries such as USA (including all 50 states), Mexico, New Zealand, The Netherlands, Columbia, France, Spain, Italy, Czech Republic, Jamaica, and Portugal legalizing the plant for all purposes, along with legalization of personal cultivation of cannabis with an aim of bringing cure or relief to several diseases, helping to control healthcare costs, curbing illegal drug businesses, and stimulating country’s economy through adding another taxable business activity.

The Smoke around Legal Cannabis

Countries signal green light for marijuana

The league of countries with full legalization of cannabis for all purposes is still a small, two-member club, which was most recently entered by Canada (in October 2018) with more than 100 legal cannabis retail stores running across the country. After Uruguay that started this league in December 2013, Canada is the second country in the world to completely legalize cannabis, and it does not seem that the club will expand any time soon.

The USA are considering to gradually legalize cannabis for recreational use along with medical use. As of November 2018, The District of Columbia and 10 states including Alaska, California, Colorado, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Nevada, Oregon, Vermont, and Washington have legalized the recreational use of cannabis. An addition of 30 states along with US territories of Puerto Rico and Guam allow the use of cannabis only for medical purposes.

Amongst the European countries, none of them has legalized smoking cannabis or using it for recreational purposes yet, but there are several countries which have legalized the medical use of cannabis under a treatment process, while also decriminalizing the use of cannabis for recreational purposes. Malta, Greece, Luxemburg, and Denmark are amongst the European countries that legalized medical cannabis in 2018 adding to the group of other European countries such as Italy, Norway, Poland, The Netherlands, France, Spain, Slovenia, to name a few.

Some Asian countries are also moving towards legalizing cannabis but exclusively for medical purposes and that too with strict policies. Recently, in November 2018, Thailand legalized medical marijuana, but with very stringent rules to get access to marijuana plants. Also, in November 2018, South Korea became the second Asian country to legalize medical cannabis, while Malaysia is expected to be the third nation to fall into this group. Interestingly though, India, known to be the origin of cannabis sativa plant, has not legalized the use of cannabis for any purpose yet, although the country runs a huge illegal trade of marijuana as well as hashish (a drug made of cannabis resin). There are many petitions already submitted by various Indian economists and politicians in favor of legalizing cannabis for use in cancer patients and even hemp cultivation for horticulture use, but due to changing political environment in India, the petitions are still pending to be considered by the relevant law-making bodies.

Cannabis business – boom in economies

According to a report published in 2018 by Brightfield Group, with the on-going trend of countries moving towards legalizing cannabis, the global legal cannabis market is expected to reach US$ 31.4 billion by the end of 2021, owing to the growing adoption of medical cannabis in treatment or relief in a range of diseases and ailments, such as cancer, mental disorders, chronic pains, and others.

Apart from medical applications, the recreational use of cannabis too has led to a continuous rise in sales of cannabis for direct and indirect use, thus giving a push to retail businesses as well as tourism sector in countries that moved towards legalization. As a result of the rise in sales, governments of these countries and states have registered increased tax revenues and a boost to local economies. For instance, California that legalized cannabis for recreational use in January 2018, generated US$74.2 million of tax revenue during second quarter, with a rise of 22% over the first quarter. In another, more hypothetical example, according to a report by Canada’s Parliamentary Budget Officer, Canada could generate US$463.74 million in tax revenue by 2021 if the projections of nearly 734 metric tons of legal cannabis to be consumed by that year are correct.

Similarly, according to a study by New Frontier Data, if cannabis was legalized in all American states, it would generate a combined US$131.8 billion in federal tax revenue between 2017 and 2025, considering 15% retail sales tax, payroll deductions, and business tax revenue. In fact, according to a research study by Ameri Research Inc. in 2017, in the USA, tax revenues from legal cannabis are now comparable with revenues from other products, such as draft beer and e-cigarettes, a fact highlighting the recent growth of sales in legal cannabis market in the USA.

Apart from tax revenue generation, creating new business opportunities is also one of the reasons for countries to seriously consider legalization of cannabis. States such as Colorado, for example, have registered some 431,997 new business entities between 2014 and 2017. In 2017, it also experienced a 17.7% rise in employment over 2016 with 17,281 full-time equivalent jobs. Also, in 2017, across the USA, there were 9,397 active licenses with slightly more than 3,000 licenses active in Colorado. These licenses were made active for cannabis businesses dealing with cultivation, manufacturing, retailing, distributing, delivering, and even lab testing that generated 121,000 jobs in 2017 across the District of Columbia plus 10 US states. This number is expected to reach 1.1 million jobs by 2025, if cannabis is legalized in all 50 states, across all ends of cannabis industry supply chain, from farmers to transporters to sellers.

It is expected that through legalization of cannabis, several countries, especially Mexico, USA, and Canada, are also expected to witness significant drop in illicit activities related to drugs industry. According to a study by Deloitte in 2018, cannabis users in Canada are willing and in fact looking forward to pay more for legal purchase of cannabis grown and processed under federal laws and sold through legal channels rather than going for illegal drug purchase options. This goes hand in hand with Canadian government’s hopes to crack down on illegal drug trade while also finding new sources of stimulation to the country’s economy.

Impact of legal cannabis market on other business sectors

The emergence of legal cannabis market has raised many business opportunities in various sectors such as retail, food and beverages, real estate, and even tobacco and alcohol industry.

Amongst these sectors, real estate has been developing strongly in many countries allowing for legal cannabis for medical as well as recreational use. Properties and facilities that are well-suited for cannabis-related operations are experiencing rise in industrial rents and sales price premiums owing to the rise in demand for warehouses, industrial and storage facilities, agricultural, and other properties.

In Canada, legalization of growing and sales of recreational cannabis has fueled a six-fold surge in plant-growing facilities to 8.7 million square feet in 2018 according to data from Altus Group, Canadian real estate company. Aurora Cannabis, one of Canada’s leading cannabis companies, has already started its project for cultivation of cannabis in a new 8 million square feet facility in 2018. Canopy Growth, market leader in cannabis industry of Canada, has announced plans in October 2018 to develop 3 million square feet of greenhouse space in British Columbia through October 2019, which will be more than double its production surface as of 2018. With the legalization of cannabis, the demand is also rising for commercial real estate thus giving an opportunity for struggling retailers to make a move into a new market. Alberta, where cannabis industry is fully private, has experienced a sharp surge in demand for 1,200 to 3,000 square feet retail real estate to set up cannabis shops and dispensaries in malls and street-front locations.

Similarly, within the USA, Colorado, experienced a rise in real estate sector through increase in housing values by about 6% owing to increasing development in retail sector through legal cannabis pharmacies, dispensaries, cafés, and retail shops. Going beyond real estate, the retail industry is also likely to receive a push thanks to opportunities in auxiliary businesses such as accessory shops, cannabis cafés, weed gardening products stores, bakeries, and candy shops, contributing to rising demand for retail locations.

The impact of cannabis legalization is visible also in food and beverage industry thanks to new products such as cannabis-infused edibles such as cakes, candies, and drinks. In 2017, California reported sales of US$180 million of edibles, whereas Colorado has seen about a 60% rise in edibles sales volume (with 11.1 million edibles unites been sold in the same year). The future of food and beverage industry with cannabis-infused edibles is projected to be promising due to the benefits of cannabis plant for using it in food products. According to a food and beverage industry expert, Sylvian Charlebois, cannabis offers good nutrients (proteins, vitamin E and C, to name a few), hence for food products manufacturers looking for new avenues of growth, cannabis could be deemed the next ‘superfood’.

On the other hand, the legalization of cannabis has affected alcohol industry due to the emerging inclination of people towards choosing the “green high” over alcoholic drinks.

According to a study by Deloitte in 2018, in Canada, cannabis is likely to be increasingly perceived as a substitute to beer, spirits, and wine which could negatively impact the alcoholic beverages-related revenues for governments, liquor companies, and retailers. This is already observed in the USA, where a joint recent research study of 10 years conducted by two US-based universities, namely University of Connecticut, Storrs and Georgia University, Atlanta in cooperation with Universidad del Pacifico in Peru, has suggested that the counties located in medical marijuana states showed almost a 15% decline in monthly alcohol sales between 2006 and 2015.

At the same time, some industry experts believe that since it is part of American and European food culture to drink alcoholic drinks such as beer and wine with food, the legalization of cannabis is not going to affect the demand for such food-complementing alcoholic drinks. In fact, cannabis legalization is also coming out to be a stepping stone for large alcohol brands to enter the cannabis industry with cannabis-infused alcoholic beverages, mostly through mergers and acquisitions with leading cannabis growing companies. In August 2018, New-York based Constellation Brands acquired more that 50% stake of Ontario-based Canopy Growth for US$4.0 billion, the largest investment registered in cannabis industry so far. The received investment is believed to help Canopy Growth strengthen and expand its leadership position in Canada and other countries with legalized cannabis. It is expected that in the future, other alcohol industry leaders will also consider getting involved in cannabis industry in order to expand through cannabis-infused drinks, creating a new segment of products with combination of alcohol and cannabis.

EOS Perspective

The benefits of cannabis on human body in diseases such as cancer, acute and chronic pains, or neurological and mental illness, have resulted in a growing count of countries legalizing use of cannabis. On the other hand, the legalizing of cannabis for recreational purpose is still receiving mixed views by industry experts and public opinions in several countries. The only way to make this experiment work, is to follow the steps of those countries that have legalized recreational cannabis and are simultaneously focusing on implementing a completely regulated system to scrutinize the whole supply chain in order to curb illegal drug activities and over-dose of cannabis by the users.

For this purpose, the leaders – Uruguay and Canada – have created systems of registration cards with a specific limit to purchase a quantity of cannabis for recreational use per month. As a result of this, the situation is expected to be under control and authorities believe that this will help in curbing illegal trade activities while keeping check on personal consumption of cannabis.

It is also recommended to consider the fact that legalization of cannabis for recreational and medical purposes is likely to reduce the use of other, more harmful and addictive drugs, as well as curb (at least to some extent) the over-consumption of alcohol that is associated with serious health hazards and many deaths, generating huge social burden and healthcare costs in many countries.

Considering all these factors, the success of legalizing cannabis for all purposes in any country depends on how the processes across cultivation, distribution, retail, all the way to the end buyer is regulated and scrutinized by the law makers and law enforcers of the country. There surely are both pros and cons of legalizing cannabis but with solid work towards improved awareness, and, more importantly, a regulated system with proper (enforced) laws, it can give the countries a boost to their economies along with rise in employment, better medical treatments, and decline in illegal drug activities.

Healthcare fraud
by EOS Intelligence EOS Intelligence No Comments

A Ripple Effect of Healthcare Fraud in the USA

2.9kviews

In June 2018, the US Department of Justice held nearly 600 individuals, including doctors, responsible for the largest healthcare fraud in the US history resulting in losses of over US$2 billion. Each year, the American healthcare system loses tens of millions of dollars to fraudulent claims not only overloading the healthcare system but also affecting the security and identity of patients and other citizens. To combat the ill effects of healthcare fraud, the government is laying strict measures to monitor such incidents and is using artificial intelligence (AI) to identify threats before they actually occur.

Out of the country’s total health expenditure, estimated to have to crossed US$3.5 trillion mark in 2018, as much as 10% is lost annually due to healthcare fraud (examples include billing for services not provided, providing services not medically needed, and reporting patients as having a more severe illness in order to obtain higher reimbursement), bleeding not only taxpayers’ money but also billions of dollars from the healthcare system.

Over the past decade, reduction in the number of fraud cases in healthcare programs has emerged as a significant priority for the US government and other federal agencies – US Department of Health & Human Services, Office of Inspector General (HHS OIG), the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), and the US Department of Justice (DOJ). These agencies make laws, use anti-fraud tools, and also partner with private sector to help protect consumers against healthcare fraud.

A Ripple Effect of US Healthcare Fraud on Consumers and Healthcare System

Anti-Fraud Laws

The need to curb the exploitation of healthcare system by healthcare providers for illegal gains has led to the formation of laws that fight fraudsters, ensuring better quality and more equal medical care to all. These laws assist physicians, if they comply by them, to easily identify the red flags with regards to their relation with payers, other physicians and healthcare providers, and vendors. These are:

  • False Claims Act (FCA) – enacted in 1863, this civil law prohibits the submission of false claims to the government

  • Anti-Kickback Statute (AKS) – this criminal law, enacted in 1972 and enforced in the mid-1980’s, prohibits willfully offering, paying, soliciting, or receiving any remuneration directly or indirectly for referrals of federal healthcare program

  • Physician Self-Referral Law (Stark Law) – introduced in 1988, this law limits physician referrals in case of a financial relationship with the entity

  • Criminal Healthcare Fraud Statute – As part of the US Code (18 U.S.C. § 1347), this statute prohibits willfully executing, or attempting to execute, a scheme to defraud any healthcare benefit program or obtain any money under any healthcare benefit program

  • Civil Monetary Penalties Law (CMPL) – As part of the US Code (42 USC § 1320a-7a), it prohibits willfully executing of a scheme or use false statements to obtain funds held by a federal healthcare program

  • Exclusions – legally excludes participation of healthcare providers and suppliers in all healthcare programs if convicted of criminal offenses

Policymakers have established these laws to minimize, or at least reduce, healthcare fraud. The laws have contributed, for instance, to the US government being successful in finding parties responsible for healthcare fraud, mainly due to FCA, especially in the form of information coming from whistleblowers. Under the act, there are financial incentives for whistleblowers, who bring healthcare fraud to the attention of the government, receiving 15% to 30% amount of the total recovery. Incentivizing whistleblowers has been successful – through aid from private individuals and units or individuals serving as whistleblowers, the government has been able to recover more than US$31 billion of taxpayers’ funds over the past thirty years.

Anti-Fraud Partnerships

The government is also focusing on strategic partnerships with other private agencies to fight fraud, which include:

  • Healthcare Fraud Prevention Partnership (HFPP) – A public/private partnership between the federal government, state agencies, law enforcement, private health insurance providers, employer organizations, and healthcare anti-fraud associations with the purpose of exchanging data, building competence and proficiency to fight fraud. Since its inception in 2012 till the end 2017, the number of public, private, and state partner organizations as participants of the partnership reached 85

  • Healthcare Fraud Prevention and Enforcement Action Team (HEAT) – established as a conjoint effort between DOJ, OIG, and HHS in 2009. The purpose of this partnership is to invest in new resources and technology to prevent fraud, reduce healthcare costs and improve the quality of care, and highlight best practices by providers and public sector employees

  • Medicare Fraud Strike Force – launched in 2007, resources from federal, state, and local law enforcement entities come together to prevent and combat healthcare fraud by harnessing data analytics and exploratory intelligence

  • Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) – a federal agency, established in 1965, administers and oversees medical programs by partnering with individuals, contractors, entities, and law enforcement agencies

  • Office of Inspector General (OIG) – founded in 1976, its purpose is to protect the integrity of HHS programs as well as the welfare of the beneficiaries of those programs

  • Center for Program Integrity (CPI) – established in 2006, it promotes the integrity of health programs by monitoring and identifying program vulnerabilities through audits and policy reviews

  • General Services Administration (GSA) – an independent agency of the US government formed in 1949 that maintains the Excluded Parties List System (EPLS) that includes information on entities suspended, disqualified, and/or excluded from receiving contract, financial assistance, and other benefits

Such partnerships and agencies help prevent healthcare fraud on a national scale, to a certain extent, as they take substantive actions to stop fraudulent payments thus improving the overall process of monitoring fraud.

In efforts to combat fraud committed against all health plans, both public and private, the Healthcare Fraud and Abuse Control (HCFAC) Program was established in 1997, under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA). The program was designed to coordinate federal, state, and local law enforcement activities with respect to healthcare fraud and abuse. Under the program, each year, funds are allotted to the various offices of HHS and DOJ to support the effective and smooth functioning of the programs and partnerships directed towards identifying and fighting fraud in healthcare sector. In 2017, a little above US$1 billion was allocated and over US$2.4 billion was recovered in healthcare fraud judgments and settlements and around US$2.6 billion (including amount assimilated from preceding years) was returned to the government or paid to private persons. The program yielded an ROI of US$4.2 for every dollar spent for the period 2015-2017.

Senior Medicare Patrols (SMPs)

Senior Medicare Patrols (SMPs) are grant-funded projects of the federal US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), US Administration for Community Living (ACL), Administration on Aging (AoA) – an agency providing leadership and expertise on programs, advocacy, and initiatives affecting older adults and their caregivers and families. These grants are supported by SMP National Resource Center, created in 1997 as a demonstration project in 12 regions moved on to become a nationwide program in 2003 and now includes 54 SMP programs across all the 50 states, the District of Columbia, Guam, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands.

ACL issues a new request for proposals for the program every three years, and then awards grants to a selected project across all regions (each US state, the District of Columbia, Guam, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands). Since 2016, SMP grants are funded as discretionary projects by HHS operating division, ACL, through the Healthcare Fraud and Abuse Control Program (HCFAC) – a program designed to coordinate federal, state, and local law enforcement activities with respect to healthcare fraud and abuse. The resource center, through these projects, reaches out to approximately two million beneficiaries each year via 5,000 volunteers associated with the SMP program.

These projects, through trained volunteer workforce, provide education and assistance to Medicare beneficiaries, their families, and caregivers to identify, prevent, and report healthcare fraud. These groups also help protect elderly persons’ health records, financials, and medical identity. Moreover, they provide assistance, when issues are identified, about whether or not fraud is suspected by referring to the appropriate authorities for further investigation.

Data Analytic Tools

An effective way to prevent fraud in healthcare system is to identify it before claims are paid, and data examination capabilities such as data analysis, predictive analytics, trend evaluation, and data modeling approaches can be utilized to analyze and examine fraud patterns.

Data analytic tools can identify fraud patterns by developing a certain set of rules. One can set up a ‘rule’ or an ‘alarm’ for identifying fraud related to medical expertise – a healthcare provider claiming for a procedure outside his area of expertise or when the claim crosses a certain amount for a particular test or treatment. These tools use AI, continuously mine data, and identify patterns thus enabling the user to set new rules or alarms.

Up to 30% of total healthcare expenditures in the USA are estimated to be related to fraud, waste, abuse, and errors – a key contributor to soaring healthcare costs in the country. Analytic tools, by tracking fraudulent payments have helped in cutting down costs related to fraud and abuse. In 2014, CMS prevented more than US$210.7 million in healthcare fraud using predictive analytics. In addition, the tool also enables CMS to assign risk scores to specific claims or providers, spot claim irregularities or errors that were earlier hard to detect, and identify inconsistent billing patterns thus eliminating future potential fraud.

Government authorities are not the only entities to use data analysis for monitoring and tracking purposes. Insurance companies are also using similar tools to reap benefits and reduce fraudulent payouts. For instance, United Healthcare, a US-based healthcare and benefits services provider that manages more than one million claims every day, transitioned to a predictive modeling environment based on Hadoop big data platform. The company claims to have spawned a 2,200% return on their investment in big data technology.

EOS Perspective

The healthcare system in the USA is considered unstable with no sufficient policies in place to regulate the healthcare pricing. In addition to exorbitant prices, over the years, increasing cases of fraud have not only overburdened the healthcare system but also consumers, contributing to large number of personal bankruptcies due to healthcare treatments being disproportionately expensive. Moreover, as the spending on healthcare is projected to rise rapidly in the coming years – CMS projected healthcare spending to reach nearly US$5.5 trillion by 2025, the cost of healthcare fraud is likely to follow suit, resulting in weighing down the consumers even more as they bear the costs of fraud, topped with an existing unaffordable exorbitant healthcare, thus worsening the situation altogether.

Healthcare fraud is a grave problem and affects the entire healthcare system including patients, government, and insurance companies. The foremost effect of fraud perpetrated by healthcare providers is experienced by consumers as this drains the taxpayers’ pockets in the form of higher insurance premiums, reduced benefits, and overall coverage.

In the USA, insurance fraud accounts for approximately $30 billion in lost revenue for the insurance industry and fraud related to healthcare is the second most common form of fraud after vehicle theft. While it is almost impossible to determine how much health insurers lose every year to fraud cases, as low as 5%, or even less, of these losses are recovered annually. The downside is that the heightened cost of fraud and errors are borne by the customers as the companies translate this loss into higher premiums. This deters many individuals from purchasing insurance policies, which makes them unprotected in case of serious diseases and injuries due to reduced medical coverage (or complete lack of it).

Healthcare fraud is a financial gutter in the healthcare system that not only strips individuals of health benefits and insurance companies of money but also results in higher taxes and budgetary nuisances for the government.

Besides increasing the economic costs, such fraud cases extensively affect an individual’s medical identity. In 2017, of total identity thefts reported in US, nearly 3% were related to medical theft standing at a number of 134,260 cases; the overall tally, however, is anticipated to be much higher as the count of incidents unaccounted for remains unknown. Cases of medical identity theft result in misuse of an individual’s medical information that can cause dire consequences.

Each individual is issued a Medicare number, a unique identification number, as part of the national health insurance program. As these Medicare numbers are distinctive and cannot be changed, unless issued a new one, once compromised, such fraud cases put the person’s healthcare and future benefits at a huge risk. The victim could end up receiving wrong medical treatment or, in some cases, even die due to altered or misrepresented medical records as a case of identity fraud. In addition, medical identity theft also impacts an individual financial stability related to medical concerns – the fraudster ends up claiming the treatment amount in medical bills from insurance company, when the victim actually approaches the insurance company to file a legitimate claim, he is informed that he has already reaped the benefits, thus orphaning the victim of his right to medical care. As an extreme repercussion, victims may also have to deal with legal authorities over false allegations of procuring and possessing illegal drugs.

Given the impact on individuals, medical system, and economy, it is clear that healthcare fraud is a costly problem and a critical threat to the US economy as it not only increases healthcare costs for everyone but also affects common people leaving them incapacitated and vulnerable. While the government has achieved some triumph, over the last few years, in detecting fraud cases and punishing the wrong-doers, the success rate of detecting such frauds is always questionable.

At this stage, though immense efforts are being bestowed in formulating laws and technological investments being made to identify impostors, it is very difficult to ascertain what the government has accomplished, as fraud related to healthcare cannot only be measured in terms of monetary loss. The measure should also include the extent of safeguarding the interest and identity of the citizens, and the degree to which this has been achieved is debatable. It must be noted, however, that in the current scenario, where the key focus is on reducing the rate of fraud in the healthcare sector, while keeping the overall healthcare costs in check, the task in hand for the American government is of mammoth scale.

plastic waste landfill
by EOS Intelligence EOS Intelligence No Comments

Commentary: How USA Can Deal with Its Waste Crisis

751views

It is not often that one can hear that a US$100 billion industry is in tatters, however, this is currently the reality in case of the US recycling industry. For years, the USA has been dependent on waste exports, to countries such as China, India, and Korea. However, that dependence has now placed the USA in a very difficult position, as the implementation of National Sword policy by China, the largest export destination for US waste, amidst the China-USA trade disputes, resulted in waste exports coming to a virtual halt since the start of 2018.

With waste generation growing, the USA has been left scrambling to look for alternative destinations for its waste, the largest being India, Malaysia, Thailand, and Vietnam, albeit none of them capable of completely compensating for waste exports to China. Recently, in March 2019, India also banned imports of plastic waste, eliminating another major avenue through which the USA could get rid of its trash.

US dependence on exports for waste recycling meant that the development of domestic recycling facilities has been neglected. The country’s domestic waste recycling sector is now incapable of handling the ever-increasing waste, a major chunk of which ends up in landfills, creating other environment and health-related problems.

However, where there are challenges, there are opportunities as well. We look at what challenges the USA currently faces, and how the recycling industry is trying to adapt and come up with potential solutions to the country’s waste problem.

USA’s linear model left recycling industry unprepared

Traditionally, US municipals have depended on external companies to dispose their waste. Most disposal companies follow a linear model, under which they collect the municipal waste and then segregate it for further processing (with majority of it previously being exported to China). This dependence on waste exports led to limited investments in developing or expanding the domestic recycling infrastructure, which the country has been left to rue in the wake of the waste import ban imposed by China and India.

Limited capacities have put extra burden on the system. Moreover, elimination of revenue from scrap sales to China puts additional economic pressure on waste processors. As a result, many waste collection agencies have either suspended waste pickup or raised prices to dispose of waste. Municipals too have to bear greater economic burden. Cities, which were earlier paid for their waste, are now being charged significant amounts for hauling waste.

Current waste disposal process is not up to the mark

Another key challenge is the lack of sorting at source, i.e. at the household level. Due to consumer’s preference, the USA follows a single-stream recycling system, where all recyclables are collected in the same receptacle. With no segregation happening at this stage of waste collection, the processor is responsible for sorting different type of materials for recycling.

However, the lack of capacity and established infrastructure makes it difficult and expensive to sort these waste materials, resulting in most of the waste being discarded, either ending up at an incineration facility or a landfill, which are much more cost-effective compared with recycling. Currently, only 10% of plastic waste generated in the USA is recycled, while 75% of it is discarded in landfills (remaining 15% being incinerated to form electricity – but that too has its critics due to the pollution caused).

How USA Can Deal with its Waste Crisis

Recycling companies invest to boost processing capabilities

Impacted by the loss of the key buyer and facing own limited capacities, several smaller recycling companies reliant on exports to China have shut down their operations, while several other recyclers have been forced to reassess market strategy from exports to processing.

Several recycling companies have already started investing to develop their domestic waste processing and collection infrastructure. As an example, Waste Management, a US-based waste disposal and recycling services provider, invested more than US$110 million in 2018 alone in developing additional processing capacity, acquiring new technologies, and boosting waste collection infrastructure.

Robotic technology is likely to witness more investment

With limited capacities and waste production growing, there is a need to improve the overall efficiency of waste sorting and recycling process. Companies across Europe and Asia Pacific have been researching and developing trash robots (also called “trashbots”) capable of collecting, sorting, and recycling waste and other scrap materials.

The trend is now catching up in the USA as well. Waste Management has already installed a waste sorting robot at one of its material recycling facilities, and plans to install three more robots in 2019. The company is also planning to install additional screeners and optical sorters at its facilities.

New opportunities are emerging in plastic waste recycling

With a significant focus on promoting sustainability, several other companies also see recycling as a promising business opportunity, thereby driving investment in recycling infrastructure. GDB International, a US-based company selling plastic scrap to international markets, was impacted by the Chinese import ban, and decided to invest in developing its own recycling capabilities. The company plans to recycle plastic scrap domestically, and sell recycled plastic pellets to plastic product manufacturers within the USA and abroad.

EOS Perspective

Chinese and Indian waste import bans have jolted the US recycling industry as a whole, pressing it to search for a solution to its swelling problem. The industry is witnessing problems which question the entire structure of the industry and challenge companies to reconsider their commonly utilized business model – shifting from a linear model to a circular economy.

The most obvious solution for the US recycling industry, in the short term, is to consider alternative waste destinations, such as Vietnam, Malaysia, and Thailand, to share the waste burden. However, since none of these markets are developed enough to sustain over a long term, this solution, at best, can be considered a temporary fix.

The government needs to take several initiatives to lay a strong foundation for a revamped recycling industry, such as banning or restricting the use of hard-to-recycle plastics (including single-use plastics such as straws and disposable spoons), and laying down strict guidelines for sorting of waste already at the household level, which will improve the efficiency and costs associated with the recycling process.

A coalition of plastics players and other industry groups is lobbying for provision of funds by the US government, an investment of US$500 million, to help develop local waste management systems. If disbursed, these investments will enable development of the recycling industry until it becomes self-sufficient in handling domestic waste. Once this happens, the costs of disposing and processing waste are also likely to reduce.

In the long run, significant private investments in building domestic recycling capacities will be required to effectively address the ever-increasing waste. Excess waste, which was earlier exported to China and India, offers a sustainable source of raw materials to justify these investments in developing the recycling infrastructure. Furthermore, increasing focus on sustainability is driving a demand for recycled raw materials. Development of downstream recycling and processing capabilities can also enable recycling companies to tap this lucrative business opportunity. Partnerships with end users are likely to open further revenue stream.

While private investments in recycling infrastructure have started flowing in and the rate is expected to pick up, these investments will take time before the added capacities actually become operational. The success of these investments, however, will depend on how effectively the US government is able to execute initiatives to aid growth of domestic recycling industry.

by EOS Intelligence EOS Intelligence No Comments

Sino-US Trade War to Cause Ripple Effect of Implications in Auto Industry

3.6kviews

The whole world has its eyes on China and the USA as both nations are threatening to impose massive tariffs on each other in a ‘tit for tat’ trade skirmish. According to the Trump administration, the proposed tariffs are intended to punish China for pursuing its protectionist policies, currency manipulations, and alleged intellectual property (IP) theft. Fears of a possible full-scale trade war between the world’s two largest economies have caused global stock exchanges to plunge and cautioned investors as well as governments across the globe. There is no doubt that a trade war would not only hurt both economies, but it would also impact the overall global economy. As the proposed tariffs would pertain, amongst others, to vehicles and auto components, we are taking a look at potential implications this trade war might have on automotive industry in both countries.

Since his presidential campaign, president Trump has criticized China for pursuing protectionist policies, currency manipulations, and IP theft. In order to punish China for its current trade policies, and to reduce USA’s huge trade deficit with China, Trump proposed tariffs on approximately US$50 billion worth of Chinese goods coming into the country. Of these, approximately US$34 billion worth of Chinese goods including vehicles and auto parts will be subject to new tariffs starting from July 6, 2018, while the remaining US$16 billion are still under review.

The total automotive trade between the USA and China stood at US$33.9 billion in 2017. At present, in the USA, a 2.5% import tax is levied on imported vehicles and components. The current government proposes to raise this to 25% for vehicles and parts coming from China. China charges around 25% tax on vehicle imports from overseas, and now have threatened to add an additional 25% for vehicles built in the USA. Although these are just proposals for now, if they do get implemented, they will have implications on the entire automotive ecosystem in both countries, including carmakers, dealers, and auto parts manufacturers, and suppliers.

American companies won’t remain unaffected

A trade war with China will make domestic-made cars more expensive at home and less competitive in China. As a significant portion of the auto components and parts used by the US carmakers is sourced from China, increased tariffs will lead to increased production costs. Experts fear that OEMs will pass the increased costs onto the consumer. As a result, domestic auto sales are expected to witness a dip. Further, automakers based in the USA will become less competitive in China and may not be able to retain their current market share any longer.

Tesla is one of the companies that will feel the heat of higher tariffs. Chinese market accounted for approximately 17% of Tesla’s revenue in 2017. The company is already struggling to cope with the existing 25% import duties amid stiff competition from local rivals, such as BYD, NIO, and Byton, who have cheaper alternatives. American OEMs, such as Ford, GM, etc., fear that vehicles made by their subsidiaries in China and exported to the USA could end up being hit by the proposed tariffs.

Besides USA, German automakers such as BMW and Daimler will also be highly exposed since they are the largest vehicle exporters from the USA to China. Potential implications of the Sino-US trade war on companies mentioned above could lead to several job losses at US manufacturing plants. According to a report by Peterson Institute for International Economics, the trade war could result in loss of around 195,000 jobs over the next three years. Additionally, it will also impact other industry players such as auto component OEMs and suppliers, dealers, as well as local retailers.

Trade war could also hamper and limit US companies’ access to the Chinese automotive market, which is currently the largest market globally both in terms of production as well as sales. China is also the best-performing market in the world for electric vehicles (EVs) from sales, infrastructure, and government support perspective. With trade war in place, US companies could lose out to EU and other Asian counterparts on various market opportunities in China.

With trade war in place, US companies could lose out to EU and other Asian counterparts on various market opportunities in China.

Besides automakers, trade war will also have serious implications on auto parts manufacturers and suppliers as well. For example key tier-1 suppliers such as Lear, Delphi Automotive, Adient etc., rely heavily on China for their revenue. On the other side, there are many suppliers that rely on China for sourcing. China is also the largest trading partner for USA in tires. Exports in 2017 reached nearly US$2 billion, an increase of 28.2% as compared to previous year. If the proposed tariffs become reality, all these players will face business challenges on sales as well as supply-chain fronts.

Chinese companies will also face some implications

For the Chinese automotive industry, the trade war will impact mainly imported cars produced in the USA and domestic cars that use components from the USA. Since most cars sold in China are manufactured locally, the impact on Chinese auto OEMs will not be as significant as felt by their US counterparts. However, China is a major exporter of auto spare parts and components to the USA. In 2017, China exported auto parts worth US$17.4 billion to the USA. Thus, the trade war will heavily impact Chinese car parts manufacturers and exporters that rely on US business. On the EV front, new tariffs will raise the prices for parts and components imported from the USA. This in turn, will dampen the adoption of EVs due to higher initial costs and impact domestic EV sales.

Trade war is likely to hinder auto investments in China up to some extent as many companies might re-think their production and supply-chain strategies and put China investments on hold. For example, Ford has kept its plan to export Focus compact to the USA from China on hold due to the ongoing rift. Trade war will therefore impact local production as automakers serving USA market might scale down production in China. This might result in layoffs at local manufacturing units. In addition, trade skirmish with the USA will also create more obstacles for Chinese companies, such as Geely and GAC Motor, looking for market expansion in the USA.

Trade war will therefore impact local production as automakers serving USA market might scale down production in China.

 

EOS Perspective

In May 2018, president Xi announced to lower tariffs on imported cars to 15% effective from July 1, and ease ownership restrictions in automotive joint-ventures. This had somewhat cooled down the ongoing tension between the two nations. At this stage, many experts believed that the current situation will be resolved between the two nations via negotiations. However, despite three rounds of negotiations, both sides have failed to reach an agreement yet.

In the recent chain of events, Trump has threatened to slap extra tariffs on additional Chinese products worth US$400 billion. He also plans to restrict Chinese investments in American technology companies and technology exports from USA to China. This has opened up another front in the ongoing battle. In response, Beijing has warned to retaliate with levies on additional list of American products.

As of now, the potential effects of a full-blown trade war on the auto industry are not clear as they are still proposals. However, if tariffs were imposed, OEMs based in the USA would feel the strongest impact as they export around 280,000 vehicles to China each year.

In addition, considering that automakers today are more globalized than ever and depend on globally-integrated supply-chain networks to optimize their bottom line, a broader impact of the trade war would impact the supply-chains of many global OEMs. The business losses suffered by them will eventually pour down to auto parts suppliers, dealers, retailers, and local auto businesses, who will all feel the heat with varying degrees. It will be interesting to see how things progress and finalize over the next few days. For now, industry stakeholders are sweating over the looming trade war between the two powerhouses.

by EOS Intelligence EOS Intelligence No Comments

Commentary: USA to Re-Enter TPP but Only If It Calls the Shots

375views

When Donald Trump decided to pull the USA out of Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) in January 2017, it was a huge setback for the remaining 11 countries – we wrote about it in our article TPP 2.0 – Minus the USA in May 2017. However, after months of discussions and deliberations, the surviving members (Australia, Brunei, Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, and Vietnam) planned to move the partnership ahead without the USA, finally signing the pact in March 2018 and naming it Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP). Soon after, while in talks over another bilateral trade deal with Japan, Trump said that he would join back TPP, if the USA was offered a deal it cannot refuse. Asserting on the fact that Trump government prefers bilateral trade agreements over multilateral, Trump made it clear, in an indirect manner though, that unless the pact brings massive benefits for the American economy, there is no way the country is joining back the TPP.

American reconsideration of getting back in the TPP is a strategic step to deal with its growing trade war with China. As per the initial outline of the pact, designed under Obama administration, it was supposed to eliminate or reduce tariffs on the ‘Made-in-America’ exports to TPP countries (e.g. automotive, ITC, agriculture products, etc.). However, by backing out of the TPP, Trump government ended up making a rod for its own back, and may have opened doors for China, if it wishes to enter the pact in the future. In order to safeguard its own interest against China, it seems that rejoining the pact would be a smart move on the USA’s part.

But the re-entry to the TPP will not be easy for the USA, and dictating its own terms for getting back into the agreement does not seem to work in favor of the Trump government either. With the member countries just signing their own trade deal very recently, setting terms and conditions for re-negotiating the pact again with the USA would be difficult and cumbersome. While some countries such as, Japan, Australia, and New Zealand appreciated the USA’s interest to return back to TPP, they are not very keen on altering the agreement, and even if the terms were to be amended again, this is unlikely to happen in the near future. Despite the fact that the American participation will make the deal stronger, member countries do not trust Trump’s trade policies and USA’s re-consideration of TPP membership again is being viewed with hostility, to a certain extent.

Taking into consideration the fact that the deal already took six years to finalize (five years prior to USA’s exit and one year to amend the agreement after its withdrawal), altering the deal again as per USA’s convenience seems unrealistic. The idea of starting negotiations from square one in order to fit in the USA, might be too much to ask for from the member countries. Now that the USA has lost an upper hand in the TPP, many countries may be in favor of the country joining back only if it accepts the existing agreement, which definitely does not seem to go down well with Trump. However, there is a slight possibility that member countries might be willing to contemplate the terms of the pact, if they are given better access to the American market (e.g. with the reduction in tariff rates), which is also unlikely to happen considering that the USA wants things to be its way.

Now that the trade agreement is already in place sans the USA, the American position to re-negotiate the terms has weakened. If this decision was made earlier, the country would have had a stronger bargaining power. Also, for the CPTPP member countries, unlike for the USA, bringing the existing agreement into force as early as possible is an immediate priority.

At this stage, the future of the USA joining TPP again is a question mark. Though both sides, the USA and the participating member countries, stand to benefit from this move – the member countries would benefit in terms of increased trade and the USA would be able to thwart China from entering the pact and to increase own exports – the current attitude and mindset of both sides seem to make the re-negotiations unlikely, at least under current circumstances. All participating countries are open to the USA re-joining the pact, provided it agrees to the terms originally negotiated, gives up wanting to call the shots, and agrees to mellow down its supremacy inclinations in the pact, none of which can be expected to be happening anytime soon, at least under the Trump administration.

by EOS Intelligence EOS Intelligence No Comments

NAFTA 2.0 – Mexico Left with Little Choice but to Renegotiate, and Fast

369views

Over the years, NAFTA has been one of the most contentious FTAs that have ever been inked, especially for the USA. While the treaty and its merits (or mostly alleged lack of them) featured in political campaigns of a few previous US presidential candidates, NAFTA’s shape and scope have never been revisited in its many years of existence – until now. Mexico, along with Canada, wishes to maintain the NAFTA as is, however US president Donald Trump has strongly condemned the treaty and, though earlier threatened to walk away from it completely, has agreed to attempt a renegotiation. Any possible changes to the shape of NAFTA might have profound impact especially on Mexico, however, the country has little choice but to renegotiate. Some of the negotiation objectives, such as tougher ‘rules of origin’, can be greatly damaging to Mexico’s several sectors, including the automobile industry. The upcoming elections in Mexico in July 2018 may further complicate matters – if the renegotiations are not completed by then (which is a highly probable scenario), they may be brought to a standstill, especially if the government changes. This presents a great deal of uncertainty for companies that have investments in Mexico.

The North America Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), which came into force in 1994, removed trade tariffs and duties on most goods for trade between the USA, Mexico, and Canada. While the deal has been mostly considered a positive in Mexico and Canada, its benefits have often been debated in the USA. The main reason behind this remains the high US trade deficit with Mexico (which stood at around US$64 billion in 2016) and the loss of several US manufacturing jobs to the south of the US border.

The NAFTA issue also found itself at the center of Donald Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign, as he called the treaty one of the worst trade deals ever signed by the USA and talked about withdrawing from it once he came to power. Although several previous presidential campaigns also involved talks of renegotiating NAFTA (including campaigns of both Democratic candidates – Barrack Obama and Hilary Clinton, in 2008), none has been as strong-worded as Trump’s campaign. Therefore, with Trump coming to power in 2016, revisiting the 23-year old treaty became largely inevitable.

Chapter 19

Initially threatening to back out from NAFTA, Trump agreed to renegotiations, which according to him would ensure bringing jobs back to the USA. However, a few aspects on the renegotiation agenda are a hard line for Mexico. Firstly, the USA wishes to eliminate Chapter 19 of the treaty, which encompasses a dispute settlement mechanism wherein dispute resolution (in cases such as anti-dumping and countervailing duty disagreements) is undertaken by independent and binational panels instead of domestic courts. This prevents NAFTA countries from putting unfair duties on products from other NAFTA countries to protect their own industries. While the USA is trying to disregard this clause, Mexico is largely opposing it, as without Chapter 19, it would become much easier for the USA to implement protectionist policies and duties that would inherently threaten free trade. However, Mexico is not alone in pushing back this change as Canada also strongly opposes any change in the dispute settlement mechanism.

Impact of NAFTA on Mexico

NAFTA Minimum Wage

Another negotiation objective (where Canada stands in support of the USA), is to incorporate some kind of standardization for trade-related labor issues and wages, by introducing a minimum wage across the three NAFTA participants. This will be greatly damaging for Mexico, which has for long benefited from lower wage rates that have incentivized several industries, such as automobiles, to shift base to Mexico to reduce costs and maximize profits. Stating that wage-related policies are an internal matter, Mexico has strongly opposed any such amendments and may make this a non-negotiable aspect.

Rules of Origin

However, one of the most dampening renegotiation objectives, especially for Mexico and in particular for its the automobile industry, are the restrictive changes to the rules of origin. As per the current NAFTA rules, for a car to qualify for a tariff-free entry in the NAFTA region, 62.5% of the value of the car must have originated in NAFTA countries. Thus, over the years, automobile manufactures have perfected their value chains, wherein auto components such as body-works, engines, gear panels, etc., are manufactured in various parts of NAFTA countries, and then assembled in another part of the region, to attain greatest benefits in terms of costs and quality. However, the current US administration is proposing changes to these rules, which may wash away a great deal of efficiencies and synergies attained by global automobile manufacturers under the current rules. As per the proposal, the US government aims to increase the US content in the finished vehicles to 50% for these products to attain tariff-free entry into the USA. In addition to going against the basic fabric of a free-trade agreement, this will jeopardize the competitiveness of the North American auto industry, which has greatly depended on integrated supply chains that also have deep roots in Mexico. This definitely spells bad news for Mexico, as the economy has significantly benefited from investments made by global automobile manufacturers in the country.

Moreover, apart from increasing the share of US content requirement to 50%, the US administration has also proposed raising the regional content requirement for NAFTA to 85% as against the current 62.5%. While this may seem to be a positive amendment for the region in general, analysts call it largely counter-productive as not all components can be competitively sourced from the North American region. If brought into action, automobile companies would have to spend huge sums to try to source/produce most components in the North American region at competitive prices. However, if they fail to accomplish that (which is quite likely) and as a result are unsuccessful in qualifying for tariff-free entry into NAFTA, they would shift to suppliers outside NAFTA and pay WTO tariff of 2.5% to access the North American market (which they will pass onto the consumers). Such developments might mean that by increasing regional content requirements, the region may end up pushing automobile players away from the region rather than encouraging them to continue and intensify their operations. This will be catastrophic not only for the Mexican automobile sector, but also for the US and Canadian auto market. To make matters tougher, the new proposal asks for technology-based automotive parts, electric vehicle batteries, etc., that are currently not included in the origin tracing list (as they did not exist when the NAFTA was originally negotiated). Most of these products are now sourced from Asian markets.

Due to the US president’s known cold sentiment towards NAFTA, the onus of ensuring the treaty remains unterminated is on Mexico and Canada. While Mexico (along with Canada) has previously mentioned that the American demands to change the rules of origin are unworkable with and unacceptable, the Mexican government is working on a compromise proposal to toughen the rules of origin clause in hope to meet the USA somewhere half-way. As per the proposal, Mexico is willing to accept the extensive tracing list and is also willing to negotiate on the 85% North American content requirement in exchange for the USA withdrawing from the 50% US content provision. The tracing list proposal will be drawn in a manner ensuring that low-cost technology-based components that are currently sourced from Asian countries would be sourced from within North America, especially Mexico. However, the proposal, which is not finalized yet, is not expected to be presented in the current (fifth) round of talks.

Sunset Clause

Mexico and Canada’s openness to negotiate can also be gauged by their willingness to work around the sunset clause proposed by the US administration during the fourth round of negotiations. As per the proposed clause, the treaty will expire every five years unless the member countries agree to keep it in place. While the remaining two parties refused to accept this clause when proposed, they have softened their stance on the matter during the current negotiations and counter-proposed a five-yearly review system. This showcases Mexico and Canada’s keen desire to ensure NAFTA is preserved and their willingness to work around USA’s fixed stance. While the review proposal may be a better option compared with the sunset clause, purely from a business or investment point of view, it still leaves room for a great amount of uncertainty for companies looking to invest, as five-year horizon is too short for several heavy-investment industries such as automobiles.

2018 Mexican Elections

Lastly, it is extremely critical that the negotiations are completed by the set date of March 2018 as any delay will result in their overlap with the 2018 Mexican elections and that will further complicate the matters. NAFTA has not only been instrumental in providing Mexico with economic stability, but has also played a significant political role, especially in terms of economic policy. The basic framework of the treaty has ensured protection for investments and, to an extent, economic equity as over the years it restricted the government from granting protections, incentives, and subsidies to a set of companies or industries, while discriminating against others. The termination of NAFTA would allow the future government to modify the current economic framework of the country, and this will directly impact Mexico’s attractiveness as an investment destination. This becomes all the more relevant in case the leftist candidate, Lopez Obrador, comes to power in 2018.

Mexico’s Contingency Plans

While Mexico is certainly hopeful and is working towards retaining the NAFTA, it is not putting all its eggs in that one basket alone. Mexican government is looking at deepening Mexico’s ties globally and reducing its dependence on the USA. Mexico is currently negotiating with the EU to modernize its existing FTA which is expected to be completed by the end of 2017. Moreover, it is looking at Argentina and Brazil as alternative sources of agricultural imports to replace those from the USA. In a similar move, Mexico’s foreign minister, Luis Videgaray, met with his Russian counterpart in Mexico to discuss Mexico’s openness to do business with nations other than the USA. In November 2017, Mexico participated in a meeting of the nations that were formerly a part of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), which ceased to exist in its previous form in early 2017 (we talked about it in our article TPP 2.0 – Minus the USA in May 2017). This meeting resulted in an official announcement that the TPP nations will negotiate a new deal, without the USA, and that it will be called the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP). The creation of CPTPP will provide a much-needed cushion to Mexico’s automobile industry in case NAFTA fails. Also, in case NAFTA toughens its rules of origin but the CPTPP relaxes them, Mexico may continue to be part of the global automobile supply chain (this time in combination with CPTPP members such as Japan, Canada, and Chile – instead of the USA).

EOS Perspective

It is safe to say that Mexico and its automobile industry have a lot riding on the NAFTA negotiations. While Mexico along with Canada are working hard to ensure NAFTA stays, US president’s tough stand on several aspects and his willingness to walk out of the deal in case his demands are not met, complicate the negotiations greatly. It is uncertain how the situation is going to develop, and even if NAFTA continues, new provisions that might find their way into the revised treaty may not offer a great deal of benefits for companies to invest and for intra-regional trade to flourish.

The pressure of upcoming elections in Mexico in 2018 makes the situation even tighter. If the negotiations are not completed before the elections, all progress made up till then can easily go in vain in the event of the government change. Therefore, companies are extremely cautious about investing/expanding in Mexico at the moment, and are likely to wait at least up till mid-next year. They may find respite in the fact that the Mexican government is trying to do its best – both in terms of being flexible during negotiations as well as diversifying its export markets and import sources – but this respite might just not be enough to ease investors’ minds and businesses’ worries over the operating and trade environment within the North American region.

by EOS Intelligence EOS Intelligence No Comments

US Smart Water Meters Roll-out – Do Utility Companies Stand a Chance amid User Resistance and Funding Shortage?

1.5kviews

The global smart water management market is expected to grow at a CAGR of 18.9% during 2016-2021, reaching US$20.1 billion by 2021, with USA expected to be one of the leading markets. Water utility companies across the country are focusing on installing smart water meters and replacing the old ones. Swapping the meters is a step towards deploying the infrastructure that manages water usage smartly, however, monetary, administrative, technological, and user acceptance challenges associated with adoption of this technology tend to overwhelm the public utility companies.

In the USA, just as in several other markets globally, the growth of the smart water metering industry can be attributed to the increased concern about water scarcity, reduction of water leakage, and upgrading the aging water infrastructure. Also with drought conditions becoming a common scenario in major parts of the country, the need for smart water meters to monitor both the usage and wastage of water has escalated.

Several water utilities across the USA have pursued automated metering infrastructure to monitor water usage. However, the cost of implementing smart technology is a concern for these utility companies, and acts as a major barrier to country-wide adoption. Some areas in the USA have succeeded in adopting and implementing advanced water metering solutions with the help of government funds. One such initiative was taken in 2016, when the New York Department of Environmental Protection awarded a US$68.3 million contract to ESCO’s Aclara RF Systems, a supplier of utility solutions, to provide advanced metering infrastructure solution for the city’s water service territory with 875,000 meters serving nearly eight million customers.

While such initiatives are helpful, the extent and availability of the government funds is limited, and it seems that support in the form of public funds to deploy smart water meters is crucial in driving the change on a nationwide scale. Indeed, the last period, in which US utilities saw an upsurge in spending on smart metering infrastructure, was around 2010, when US smart water meter investment reached US$395 million, coinciding with stimulus funding programs from public agencies, such as Department of Energy and Environmental Protection Agency.

As such funding flow from public programs slows down, so does the infrastructure investment, clearly indicating the inability by the utility companies to carry out such major upgradations by themselves. And they are not to be blamed, as there is a major resistance from their customers (especially residential users) to accept higher prices for such basic necessities as water, in the event the utility companies would want to generate funds through such a route. Many customers, in general, throw roadblocks at utilities’ smart metering roll out plans. Frequently, they simply do not want such meters, following reports of water bills doubling after smart meters installation for some residential users. Moreover, many residents raise questions with regards to health, privacy, overbilling issues, with resistance resulting in the rise of organizations such as StopSmartMeters.org, an advocacy group originating from California. With such a sentiment in some communities, it is virtually impossible to convince the users to accept higher prices to generate funds needed by utility companies for smart infrastructure investments.

The needs for funding are vast and frequently the availability of funds at public utilities does not match the requirement to roll out and integrate an extensive network of smart meters with the existing infrastructure. Such roll outs can only be done in phases, to accommodate for both availability of funds and network integration. For instance, Memphis Light, Gas and Water (MLGW), a three service municipal public utility company, first started rolling out the smart meter program in 2013, when about 60,000 customers in Memphis area had the new meters installed. The initiative moved to the next phase only in 2016, when Honeywell, a technology conglomerate, was selected to deploy smart meters over next five years for MLGW. The US$200 million contract included deploying one million meters (across three utilities) in MLGW’s service territory and providing the customers with access to their consumption data in order for them to manage the utilities usage in real time rather than seeing it after receiving the bill.

The MLGW service area is not fully covered with smart meters yet, as many layers of infrastructure must be developed simultaneously or ahead of time of the roll out. The smart grid project is still under way at MLGW, and includes development of fiber optic communications system required before even a single smart meter is operational in a particular area. MLGW received public funding for this section of the project, however it is only partially covered by a federal grant. The rest of the funds to develop these complex systems that require broader IT environment, including fiber optic or wireless connections, repeaters and gateways, analytical software, hydraulic modelling and network monitoring, must be typically generated by the utility companies.

Smart Water Meters

EOS Perspective

Many US water utility companies are switching from traditional mechanical meters for water reading to smart meters that capture real-time or near-real-time data about water usage and leakage. However, the transition has unquestionably been slower than desired, mainly because of the high cost of installing smart meters and related infrastructure, a major issue that continues to delay the deployment of smart meters across the country. The cost difference is indeed considerable – according to DC Water, a water services company based in Washington, DC, it costs an average of US$180 to install a smart meter in the capital as against a regular analog meter that costs around US$25. Replacing the old water lines with the new automated metering infrastructure also calls for a huge investment. As per a survey conducted in 2016 by West Monroe Partners, a US-based consulting firm, only 20% of the water utilities in the country adopted the automated water meters citing cost as a barrier to implementing smart meter technology.

Implementation of automated water meters is a complex task not only from the point of view of finances required but also with regards to the technological advancement, which is an ongoing process. Current generation of smart water devices have in-built capabilities that easily track water usage and detect leaks, but the technology continues to develop. As technological advancements intensify, it will not take long till the existing so-called smart meters will not support the features required in the future, making the present-day water meters obsolete. This is a considerable challenge for water companies when engaging in costly infrastructure projects. No utility provider will spend huge amount of money on smart meter today, only to replace them in a couple of years.

The limited government funding further complicates the situation for public utilities, putting a break on the smart meters systems truly taking off. With no clear funding policies, the road ahead is bumpy to achieve the goal of installing automated water metering systems throughout the country. US administration’s limited commitment to support installations, makes it difficult to anticipate by when the US water systems will be benefiting from smart technology. This uncertainty about the political will, clear resistance by some users, paired with high costs and the installations being outpaced by changing technology, make it hard to arrive with reasonable expectations of the timeframe in which consistent and widespread installations will be completed across the country. Till then, despite the fact that smart water metering can help reduce water loss and generate significant savings, a system that is only partially run with smart meters will not offer savings and smart management to its full potential.

by EOS Intelligence EOS Intelligence No Comments

USA-China Solar Dispute – Will Sanctions Really Aid the US Solar Market?

626views

Trade disputes are not a rare sight in the current competitive era. Especially the USA and China have a history of such disputes in last couple of decades and both have locked horns again, this time over solar equipment trade. Chinese manufacturers are being accused of unfair trade practices as they sell solar modules at a considerably lower prices than producers from other countries, using government subsidies to finance their operations and to create a glut of imports. In response to such a practice, American manufactures filed a petition with US International Trade Commission (USITC) seeking steep tariffs and a floor price for the Chinese solar imports. The commission voted on the merits of the petition in late September 2017, and decided that there has indeed been a considerable damage to the US manufacturers. The USITC’s recommendations for sanctions will be sent to the White House to decide the course of action in the following month. If sanctions are introduced, will the US producers be the ultimate winner after the final verdict in November?

The solar power generation technology was invented in the USA which have dominated the solar industry for last three decades of 20th century. The global solar industry is now a US$100 billion market, a fact that leads to a large number of players being interested in grabbing their share of this mammoth opportunity. As solar energy is considered clean and renewable, countries suffering from high pollution levels increasingly demand efficient and cheap solar energy generation equipment.

This strong demand is expected to continue, luring many players around the globe towards venturing into solar equipment manufacturing and this in turn has led to intense competition in this market. With China rising as a manufacturer of cheaper solar equipment since 2011, it has become increasingly difficult for other players to compete with China, and many producers, especially in the USA, are not very pleased with that.

This strong demand is expected to continue, luring many players around the globe towards venturing into solar equipment manufacturing and this in turn has led to intense competition in this market.

This is not the first solar battle between the USA and China. The countries were in a solar dispute back in 2011 when the USA hit China with 25-70% tariffs on solar module exports. It was due to a trade complaint filed by SolarWorld Americas along with six other US manufacturers about unethical trade practices undertaken by their Chinese counterparts. And now, Suniva, a Georgia-based solar cell and module manufacturer, filed a Safeguard Petition with the USITC in April 2017, just one week after it had filed for chapter 11 bankruptcy.

The USITC, in its unanimous vote, agreed that the US companies suffered injury from cheap imports. Following these developments, the markets are waiting for the president Trump’s decision over the case in November, and if the White House follows with sanctions and remedies, this might be the beginning of a significant wave of changes in the solar equipment market.

China has not always been the market leader for solar products. Way back in 1990s, when Germany could not meet its rising domestic demand for solar equipment, it started working with Chinese players to manufacture the equipment for German market. Germany did not only provide the capital and technology but also some of their solar energy experts to those Chinese manufacturers.

The high demand was a result of German government’s incentive program to use the rooftop solar panels. Needless to say, those Chinese players happily accepted the opportunity. Further they got lured with the rising demand for solar equipment in other European countries such as Spain and Italy, where similar incentive programs started to be rolled out. The Chinese producers started hiring experts and expanding their capacities to tap the surge in demand.

With rising pollution levels and global demand for cleaner energy, solar industry became an attractive opportunity for China, and this resulted in the government’s willingness to invest as much as US$47 billion to develop China’s solar industry. With the beginning of 21st century, China started inviting foreign companies to set up plants in the country and take benefit of its cheap labor.

The Chinese government also introduced loans and tax incentives for renewable energy equipment manufacturers. By 2010, the solar equipment production in China increased at such levels that there were almost two panels made for every one demanded by an importer. In 2011, China took the German route and started incentivizing domestic rooftop solar installations, which rocketed the domestic demand so much that it surpassed Germany’s in 2015 to become the largest globally. China deployed 20 GW capacity in the first half of 2016, whereas the entire US capacity at that time was 31 GW.

The Chinese government started perceiving solar power generation as a strategic industry. It started a range of initiatives to help the domestic manufacturers to increase production of solar equipment, be it through subsidies for the purchase of the land for factories or through lower interest loans from banks. These moves and gigantic Chinese production capacities drove the global solar panel prices down by 80% from 2008 to 2013, which further increased China’s exports as its prices were the lowest.

Before 2009, the USA used to import very little from China in the solar domain and by the end of 2013, the Chinese imports rose to over 49% of total solar panels deployed in the USA. This increase in the imports resulted in 26 US solar manufacturers filing for bankruptcy in 2011, one of which was SolarWorld which also filed a trade complaint. The situation was not very different in several European countries.

The Chinese government started perceiving solar power generation as a strategic industry. It started a range of initiatives to help the domestic manufacturers to increase production of solar equipment.

China was accused of unfair trading and dumping exports below market prices which led the Obama government and EU to imposing import duties of 25-70% on Chinese solar products in 2011 for the following four years. In return, in 2012 China threatened to impose tariffs on US imports of polysilicon used in solar cells, and actually announced tariffs of 53.5% to 57% in 2013. Also, finding loopholes in the tariff system imposed by the Americans, Chinese manufacturers set up facilities in countries such as Malaysia and Vietnam, as the tariffs were not applicable for imports from those countries. The US imports of Chinese solar products continued.

The current Suniva’s case has received a mixed support within the US solar industry. While the US solar installers, for obvious reasons, will not support the case, some of the well-known manufacturers in the country have also stood up against it. They think the tariffs will almost double the prices of solar equipment in the USA which will eventually lower the demand of their products as well.

Following the USITC vote agreeing with Suniva’s petition, the industry is awaiting the final decision on the extent of the recommended tariffs and remedies, which are expected to affect jobs, innovation, and growth of the solar industry in various ways.

Impact of tariff decision on jobs in solar industry

Out of the total 260,000 US solar jobs, installers accounted for more than 80%, and around 38,000 people were working in manufacturing in 2016, a 26% increase over 2015. As the prices of solar panels dropped to around US$0.4/watt in 2016 from US$0.57/watt in 2015 thanks to the availability of cheap Chinese imports, solar installations boomed in the USA.

Manufacturers and experts supporting the Suniva case (supporters) argue that if the suggested tariffs of US$0.4/watt on imported cells and a minimum price of US$0.78/watt on panels are implemented, it will help the domestic manufacturing and around 114,800 new jobs will be created. The installers and some manufacturers opposing the case (adversaries) say that the tariffs on import will hurt everyone including the manufacturing sector. If the prices increase, this will cause the demand to go down which is likely to affect around 88,000 jobs in the US solar industry.

A group of 27 US solar equipment manufacturers including companies such as PanelClaw, Aerocompact, IronRidge, SMASHsolar, Pegasus Solar, on behalf of their combined 5,700 employees, wrote a letter to trade commissioners not to impose new import tariffs. With Chinese solar imports as high as 49% of the total US requirement, increased prices are expected to affect thousands of jobs in the solar installation sector which is the primary sub-sector of solar industry.

However, if the Chinese imports continue at the current rate, the demand for solar equipment will eventually decrease. Over long term, the manufacturers will have to lower their production and installers will have no new clients. So, the economy of scale effect will not work after that and that might affect the US solar jobs.

Impact of tariff decision on innovation in solar industry

The one factor that genuinely seems affected with the rise of China in the solar industry is innovation. Being the pioneers of the solar power generation technology, Americans are undoubtedly good at innovation. However, with dozens of US companies being on the verge of bankruptcy and lowering sales for remaining manufacturers because of glut of cheaper Chinese imports, the innovation budgets have seen a large blow in the country.

China is still producing the first generation, traditional solar modules and doing little, if anything at all, to improve the efficiency of the existing products. Chinese are not known for investing much in R&D departments and top seven Chinese solar manufacturers invested a mere 1.25% of total sales in R&D in 2015. Compared with what electronics firms invested in 2015 towards R&D, this number is six times lower. Compared with US clean energy firms, Chinese firms patent 72% less.

However, the US innovation receives targeted help and support from the government, which is not the case for Chinese innovation. US Department of Energy has come up with a loan program of US$32 billion to help clean energy companies innovate efficient solar products while still being price competitive with Chinese products. Nonetheless, US innovations are expected to dry up if the Chinese solar equipment dumping continues.

US-China Solar Dispute

Impact of tariff decision on solar industry growth

Growth of the solar industry should probably be the prime factor to consider for the Trade Commission and the White House while deciding about the potential introduction of solar tariffs.

As of 2016, US solar industry is worth roughly around US$23 billion. Moreover, solar energy accounted for 40% of new generation in the US power grid and 10% of total renewable energy generated in the USA in 2016, while the recent cost declines have led American utilities to procure more solar energy. This energy has witnessed 68% of average annual growth rate in terms of new generation capacity in the USA in last decade and as of first half of 2017, over 47 GW of solar capacity is installed to power 9.1 million American houses. There are currently about 9,000 solar companies in the USA employing around 260,000 people. In 2016, solar power generation was at 0.9% of total US power generation, a share that is expected to grow to more than 3% in 2020 and hit 5% in 2022.

The Suniva case supporters believe that this growth can slow down once the solar equipment demand is satisfied through Chinese imports, which is likely to eventually lead to job cuts and no innovation that in turn will put a break on any further growth in the US sector. They also argue that the solar equipment manufacturing sector in the USA will be destroyed if the right steps are not taken to safeguard the manufacturers from cheaper imports.

After the tariffs are introduced, for some time, the prices will be parallel for locally manufactured as well as imported solar products. Later on, with innovation and competitiveness between the domestic manufacturers coming back (currently absent from US solar market), the prices are expected to go down as per the allies.

At the same time, the Suniva case adversaries believe that the dream run for solar industry’s growth in the USA should not be hindered by imposing tariffs on imports as it will jeopardize even up to half of all solar installations expected to be demanded by 2022. In case of US$0.78/watt minimum module price scenario, US solar equipment installation is expected to fall from 72.5 GW to 36.4 GW between 2018 and 2022 or to 25 GW in case of US$1.18/watt minimum price scenario.

Solar energy is believed to be price sensitive and if the government aims to motivate the clean energy development, the origin of equipment used for this development should not matter. Some of the US solar equipment manufacturers are even opposing the tariffs which means they think there is still potential in the domestic manufacturing industry and with innovation they can gradually increase their share in the market.

EOS Perspective

The US government will have to take a responsible decision on the trade tariffs. The issue looks very sensitive and can directly affect the growth of the US energy sector. A win-win situation seems impossible if the tariffs are levied, and in its deliberations the government should consider the effects of the past US tariffs imposed on Chinese products. When the USA took anti-dumping steps against Chinese steel, China fired back with tariffs on caprolactam, a textile material. China re-imposed duties on US broiler chickens, after the USA announced duties on Chinese tires in June 2015.

So, none of the trade wars have proved to be beneficial for either of the sides. In the current dispute, the stakes are also high, and the wrong decision might have repercussions in a range of sectors. For instance, China placed a US$38 billion order to Boeing for commercial aircraft in 2015, an order that has not been delivered yet. This aspect should be kept in mind by the USA.

China currently dominates solar products supply with 80% of global solar equipment manufacturing capacity. The USA need to understand that their role in the global solar market is decreasing, and is no longer what it used to be. It would be beneficial for the USA to focus on strengthening the role in innovation of solar technology rather than looking to be the leading solar equipment manufacturer by volume.

Even if the US government supports the manufacturers by slapping tariffs on imports, the country is not ready with the required infrastructure for solar generation equipment manufacturing to satisfy the domestic demand in absence of the imports from other countries. Solar equipment producers cannot instantly set up infrastructure to manufacture a number of solar products, such as solar cells, junction boxes, extruded aluminum, glass, etc., that too in a cost-effective model. President Trump’s support for reviving local manufacturing, while at the same time favoring fossil fuels over the green energy (also manifested through his withdrawal from Paris Climate Accord), makes the outcome of the case uncertain, and interesting to follow.

Top