Quantcast
Channel: Reshoring – MADE IN USA NEWS

RIP Manufacturing Renaissance (and Reshoring) Claims

0
0

RIP Manufacturing Renaissance (and Reshoring) Claims

Because manufacturers (and others) don’t always do what they say, surveys of their intentions on hiring and investment and the like should always be taken with a big boulder of salt – the more so since the questions are often asked and the answers given in a political and policy context.

So when one of these surveys clashes with manufacturing reshoring and renaissance claims that America’s most powerful manufacturers – the offshoring multinationals – have been energetically pushing, they deserve special attention. That’s why it’s worth looking closely at a new sounding on where new factories are likely to be built from a major consulting firm and a leading manufacturers association.

As the nation has heard endlessly from the biggest names in American industry and their witting and unwitting political dupes, U.S. domestic manufacturing is either enjoying an historic comeback, or is on the verge of one. These boasts and predictions have become a little less common lately, as manufacturing data keeps disappointing, but they haven’t been recanted or simply dropped because they serve two powerful purposes.

First, at a time of continued U.S. economic weakness, contentions that American-owned manufacturing firms are boosting their U.S. production and employment counter fears and accusations that they have abandoned their home country wholesale. Second, a crucial feature of these renaissance claims – that China’s competitiveness has faltered so dramatically that American industry is actually abandoning the PRC and returning stateside – helps the multinationals defend the offshoring-friendly trade deals they worked so hard to pass by indicating that they did little, if any, long-term harm to the U.S. economy despite critics’ accusations.

It’s hard, however, to read the Footprint 2020 study just released by Deloitte and the Manufacturers Alliance for Productivity and Innovation (MAPI), and take any of the above seriously for one minute longer.

Take the reshoring narrative so central to the renaissance story. According to the Deloitte-MAPI report, “reshoring is a real phenomenon.” But get a load of this kicker: “[A] common misconception is it represents a return of previously offshored operations to US soil. In practicality, reshoring may include returning operations to Mexico. This offers greater access to the US market, but allows companies to maintain advantageous operating cost structures. Sixty-six percent of survey respondents offshored their operations in the past 20 years, and a third are now considering bringing them back to North America. These moves focus on primary production and assembly operations currently located in China, India, and/or Brazil. Mexico is the first choice destination to re-shore operations, followed by the US.”

To be fair, there is a respectable argument made that even reshoring (and other) investment in Mexico helps domestic U.S. industry, too. The supposed reason: Manufactured goods made in Mexican factories, especially if they’re owned or related to American firms, use much more in the way of Made in the USA parts and components than similar products made in Asia and elsewhere.

But this argument overlooks the reality that the U.S. content of America’s imports from Mexico has been falling, and that this trend will accelerate if Congress approves the Pacific Rim trade deal just concluded by the Obama administration. That Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) will make it easier for countries like Japan to send more goods, like automobiles from Mexican assembly plants into the United States that contain more parts and components from outside Mexico and “North America.”

The idea that investing in Chinese manufacturing doesn’t make much sense nowadays also takes a body blow from Footprint 2020. The study found that 98 percent of the companies surveyed plan to expand operations in countries where they’re already in business, either through adding on to existing facilities, or by opening new factories or labs or warehousing and distribution centers. The country that will get the biggest share of this new capital? China. (The United States is second.) Moreover, between the 2002-2007 period (before the financial crisis struck) and the 2010-2015 period (when the American manufacturing renaissance was supposed to have taken off), “North America’s” appeal to American-owned companies increased only slightly, while “Asia’s” (meaning largely China) nearly doubled.

Of course, for literally years, manufacturing renaissance claims have been steadily punctured by the most authoritative data available on production, trade balances, productivity, and wages. With hitherto cheerleading multinational manufacturers themselves now throwing cold water on this idea, too, it’s legitimate to wonder whether domestic industry is closer to suspended animation than to rebirth.

SOURCE: Equites.com

 

DISCLOSURE: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the authors, and do not represent the views of equities.com and/or Certified Inc. Readers should not consider statements made by the author as formal recommendations and should consult their financial advisor before making any investment decisions. To read our full disclosure, please go to: http://www.equities.com/disclaimer

Filed under: Domestic Sourcing, Economy, Jobs, Made in USA, Manufacturing, Outsourcing, Production, Reshoring, Supply Chain, Trans-Pacific Partnership

Reshoring Data Reveals Progress, Problems for Reclaiming Jobs

0
0

The Reshoring Initiative, a not-for-profit organization that helps manufacturers recognize the profit potential for adopting local sourcing and production, issued its 2015 Reshoring Report, documenting progress that the U.S. manufacturing sector has made over the past decade in offsetting the job losses and capital investment, and recognized that “rapid job loss” has been curtailed, while conceding that “huge challenges to bringing back the 3-4 million manufacturing jobs previously lost to offshore.”

The report includes data on reshoring of formerly offshore jobs and foreign direct investment (FDI) by companies establishing new domestic manufacturing for 2007-2015. Both factors are keyed to manufacturers’ determination to produce goods in the market where they are intended to be distributed, known as ‘localization.’

The complete— Reshoring Initiative Data Report: Reshoring and FDI Continue Strong in 2015 — is available online.

For 2015, the combination of reshoring and FDI continued to be strong, adding 67,000 domestic manufacturing jobs. Since February 2010 (a low point for U.S. manufacturing employment), more than 249,000 manufacturing since the manufacturing employment low of February 2010, the group indicated.

However, the overall trend fell 6% from 2014 due to a strong U.S. dollar; low oil prices and shipping rates; and weaker economies in competitor manufacturing countries.

Among the reasons for reshoring and FDI documented for 2015 are government incentives, ecosystems/localization, proximity to customers, and a skilled workforce. Offshore problems that companies cited included lower quality, supply interruption, high freight costs, and delivery.

Regionally, the reshoring trend remained strongest in the Southeast and Texas, though in 2015 the West overtook the Midwest for second place among regions gaining the most jobs from offshore.

Despite the downturn, 2015 was the second consecutive year that manufacturing jobs returning to the U.S. remains equal to or slightly higher than the number of jobs leaving. By comparison, for 2000-2007, the U.S. market lost about 220,000 manufacturing jobs annually due to offshoring.

“We publish this data annually to show companies that sourcing domestically is an increasing trend in the United States,” stated Reshoring Initiative founder and president Harry Moser. “With 3 to 4 million manufacturing jobs still offshore, as measured by our $500 billion/year trade deficit, we see potential for even more growth, and we hope this data will motivate more companies to reevaluate their sourcing and siting decisions.”

Moser, the former president of machine tool builder GF AgieCharmilles, established the Reshoring Initiative to help manufacturers recognize the profit potential of embracing local sourcing and production. Among the resources it offers companies to make supply chain sourcing decisions is its Total Cost of Ownership Estimator®, a calculating tool to help account for and understand relevant offshoring costs (e.g., inventory carrying costs, shipping expenses, intellectual property risks, etc.)

SOURCE: American Machinist


Filed under: Domestic Sourcing, Economy, Insourcing, Jobs, Made in USA, Manufacturing, Reshoring, Supply Chain

Counterfeit on Amazon

0
0

forearm-forklift

Amazon.com (AMZN) is finally taking counterfeiters to court.

The e-commerce giant for the first time has filed lawsuits against counterfeit sellers, after a number of businesses on Amazon voiced concern that knockoffs were killing their sales and endangering consumers.

On Monday, Amazon filed suit against a group of sellers for infringing on athletic training equipment developed by TRX. In a second case, Amazon sued sellers who are offering fake versions of a patented moving product called Forearm Forklift.

Last month, CNBC.com featured Forearm Forklift , a Southern California company that has been crushed in recent years from counterfeiting on Amazon. Mark Lopreiato, the founder of the company, which makes straps for lifting and moving heavy equipment, said he submitted more than 100 cease-and-desist letters to sellers and takedown notices to Amazon, yet fakes have continued to proliferate.

“When customers purchase counterfeit goods, it undermines the trust that customers, sellers, and manufacturers place in Amazon, thereby tarnishing Amazon’s brand and causing irreparable reputational harm,” the Seattle-based company said in the suits.

There’s no way Amazon can litigate away the problem. The company generates over $75 billion a year in commerce, and about half the volume now comes from third-party sellers. However, with Amazon showing its willingness to take abusers to court, the company can at least hope to deter counterfeit sellers with the threat of potential legal action.

An Amazon spokesperson declined to comment on the cases.

Both suits were filed in the Superior Court of the State of Washington in King County. In the TRX suit, Fitness Anywhere, the creator of the training equipment, joined Amazon as a plaintiff.

Amazon is the lone plaintiff in the case involving Forearm Forklift. The company claims that in addition to selling fake versions of patented products, the “defendants tried to further their fraudulent scheme by submitting forged invoices to Amazon purporting to show that their products were authentic.”

Lopreiato called the lawsuit a public relations stunt, and said it’s unlikely to have any real impact for his business.

For one, there’s no monetary reward available to him — he’s not a plaintiff — despite a plunge in his company’s revenue from sales of cheaper knockoffs. Furthermore, he’s concerned that because Forearm Forklift was named in the suit, the average consumer is going to think that his products are counterfeits along with all the others.

Rather than taking legal action, Lopreiato said Amazon should be working with the brands, responding to complaints and systematically removing counterfeits and suspending the sellers. As is, even if the businesses listed as defendants lose the suit, there are more than 100 infringers still on Amazon, he said.

“Where do I benefit in this at all?” Lopreiato asked. “There are dozens and dozens still listed on Amazon that can easily beat my price because they never paid for the patent, nor the pictures I took with my camera to market the Forearm Forklift, nor did they have to pay for product liability or workers’ comp insurance policies.”

Perhaps Amazon is just trying to make a statement heading into the holiday rush.

In the suits, Amazon said it invests tens of millions of dollars in developing and deploying technology to weed out counterfeiters. When sellers sign up on the marketplace, “Amazon’s automated systems scan information about the sellers for signals that the sellers might be bad actors, and Amazon blocks those sellers during registration before they can offer any products for sale.”

Original Article
https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/first-amazon-suing-companies-sell-192002335.html


Filed under: Business, Certifications, Consumer Alert, Consumer Products, COOL Country of origin labeling, Made in USA, Manufacturing, Product Development, R&D, Reshoring, Slave Labor

An iPhone made in the US? Apple is considering it….

0
0

iphone-mfg

Apple has reportedly asked key iPhone manufacturer,partners, namely Foxconn and Pegatron, to investigate ways to bring the iPhone assembly supply chain into the United States. Today, all iPhones (and almost all Apple products) are manufactured and assembled in China.

Is Apple looking into manufacturing the iPhone in the US?

On Thursday, the Japan-based business publication cited an anonymous source in reporting that Apple had asked the two Asia-based firms that assemble the device to examine the possibility of moving production to the States.

That request, to Foxconn Technology Group and Pegatron, came in June, the news outlet said.

Apple didn’t immediately reply to a request for comment on the report.

 Moving production to the States would address campaign rhetoric from now President-elect Donald Trump, who said in a speech in January that a Trump administration would “get Apple to build their damn computers and things in this country instead of in other countries.”

 

In a memo to employees last week, Apple CEO Tim Cook addressed strong reactions to Trump’s win and said, “We only do great work and improve the world by moving forward.”

Made in USA Certified Seal

 


Filed under: COOL Country of origin labeling, Currency Manipulation, Domestic Sourcing, Economy, Industry, Jobs, Made in America, Made in USA, Manufacturing, Production, R&D, Reshoring

Ford NOT moving Lincoln SUV to Mexico

0
0
reuters
By David Shepardson | WASHINGTON

 

On Thursday, Trump posted on Twitter: “I worked hard with Bill Ford to keep the Lincoln plant in Kentucky. I owed it to the great State of Kentucky for their confidence in me!”

“He will be keeping the Lincoln plant in Kentucky – no Mexico,” the President-elect tweeted.

But Ford has repeatedly said it has no plans to close any U.S. plants and likely could not do so under the terms of the current United Auto Workers contract that expires in 2019.

This is not the first time Trump’s comments about Ford production have been called into question. Laslincoln-suvt year, he took credit for Ford moving work from Mexico to Ohio, while the automaker had already made the decision in 2011 – long before Trump announced a run for president.

Spokeswoman Christin Baker said Ford “confirmed with the President-elect that our small Lincoln utility vehicle made at the Louisville Assembly plant will stay in Kentucky”.

“We are encouraged that President-elect Trump and the new Congress will pursue policies that will improve U.S. competitiveness and make it possible to keep production of this vehicle here in the United States,” she added, in a statement.

 

The company builds both the Ford Escape and Lincoln MKC SUV at its Louisville Assembly Plant in Kentucky, which Trump refers to as the “Lincoln plant” and where Ford employs about 4,700 people. It also has a separate truck plant in Louisville, where it builds pickups and larger SUVs.

It is not clear how many jobs would have been impacted if the low-selling MKC had moved to Mexico.

Ford has sold about 20,000 MKC SUVs this year in the United States, compared with 258,000 Escape SUVs.

Ford said last month it would suspend production of the Escape and MKC at its Louisville Assembly Plant in Kentucky for two weeks because of low demand.

In 2015, it told workers at the plant that it planned to phase out MKC production by 2019 and move it elsewhere.

The U.S. No. 2 automaker is planning to move some small-car production south of the border.

SCATHING CRITICISM

Ford has endured scathing criticism from Trump over its Mexican investments for nearly 18 months.

He has said at times incorrectly that Ford planned to fire American workers because of its Mexican investments. During his presidential campaign, the Republican candidate also said that if elected he would not allow Ford to open a new plant in Mexico and would slap hefty tariffs on any Ford vehicles made there.

A Trump spokeswoman did not immediately respond to questions about whether Ford’s decision to keep production of an SUV in the United States would cause him to drop plans to impose tariffs on some Ford vehicles built in Mexico.

In April 2015, Ford said it planned to invest $2.5 billion to build two new plants in Mexico, adding 3,800 jobs in all. Earlier this year, Ford said it will invest a further $1.6 billion in Mexico for small-car production to start in 2018.

In September, Ford confirmed that all of the company’s small-car production will leave U.S. plants and head to lower-cost Mexico by 2019, but no plants would be closed as a result.

Ford has repeatedly said no U.S. jobs will be lost because of the move – and it will produce two new vehicles at a Detroit area plant that built the small cars.

In October, Bill Ford said he had met with Trump to talk about his extensive attacks on Ford’s investments in Mexico.

Ford said Trump’s criticism was “infuriating” and “frustrating” because of the company’s extensive investments and employment in the United States.

(Reporting by Eric Beech and David Shepardson; Editing by Sandra Maler, Bill Rigby and Himani Sarkar)

 

Made in USA Certified Seal

 

 

 

Original Post

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-ford-motor-idUSKBN13D08J


Filed under: Automotive, Business, COOL Country of origin labeling, Currency Manipulation, Domestic Sourcing, Industry, Jobs, Made in America, Made in USA, Manufacturing, Mexico, Production, Reshoring, Supply Chain

Trump tells manufacturers he will cut regulations, taxes, but must reshore

0
0

reuters

Reuters

 


Filed under: Aerospace, Automotive, Border Tax, Canada, Certifications, Chemical, Computers, COOL Country of origin labeling, Currency Manipulation, Domestic Sourcing, Government, Industry, Insourcing, Jobs, Labor, Made in America, Made in USA, Manufacturing, Mexico, NAFTA/CAFTA, Outsourcing, Political, Power of Consumers, President Trump, R&D, Reshoring, Supply Chain, Tariff, Tax, Technology, Trans-Pacific Partnership, WTO

Auto Chiefs Concerned with NAFTA Stance

0
0

The auto industry has warned that significant changes to the so-called rules of origin could undercut the president’s America-first goals.

Top executives from Detroit automakers met Monday with Vice President Mike Pence and other administration officials and aired their concerns about changes the Trump administration is seeking to the North American Free Trade Agreement.

Trump has pushed for companies to construct more auto assembly plants in the U.S., while also pushing for major changes to NAFTA that the automakers oppose. U.S. negotiators have proposed significant changes to the so-called rules of origin for autos in a bid to ensure more U.S.-made parts are used in vehicles assembled in North America, a change that the auto industry has warned could undercut Trump’s America-first goals.

“We view the modernization of NAFTA as an important opportunity to update the 23-year-old agreement and set the stage for an expansion of U.S. auto exports,” Matt Blunt, a former Missouri governor who leads the American Automotive Policy Council, a trade association representing Ford Motor Co., General Motors Co., and Fiat Chrysler Automobiles NV said in a statement. “We also appreciate the opportunity to directly address the industry’s concerns with the administration’s rule of origin proposal.”

Blunt said there are other things the group would like to have added to NAFTA, including a provision to guard against currency manipulation by Mexico and Canada.

Fiat Chrysler Chief Executive Officer Sergio Marchionne, GM CEO Mary Barra and Joe Hinrichs,  Ford’s president of global operations, attended the White House meeting. U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer and National Economic Council Director Gary Cohn were also scheduled to attend the meeting, Pence’s office said earlier on Monday.

By Ryan Beene Bloomberg: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-11-27/auto-chiefs-air-concerns-with-trump-nafta-stance-in-white-house

 

 

Adam Reiser: Trump administration struggles to enforce ‘Buy American’ EO 13788

0
0

Nearly eight months after President Donald J. Trump signed his executive order “Buy American and Hire American,” an expert on certifying whether goods are made in the United States shared with Big League Politics the challenges in certification and enforcing Trump’s intentions.

 

 

 

Adam Reiser, the CEO and founder of Certified, Inc., told Big League Politics he is seeing no action in the executive branch to move the president’s executive order forward.

A source familiar with how the White House drafted the executive order told Big League Politics: “There are zero teeth in it, you know? Let’s of fanfare, lots of publicity, back-slapping and hand-shaking with Trump–and now, it is getting resisted, like as if it meant nothing.”

According to the president’s directive, all agencies were supposed to have turned into both the Department of Commerce and the Office of Management and Budget how they plan to comply. These plans are to include, searchable databases of certified vendors, storage arrangements for the documents and simplifications of their internal procurement procedures.

Reiser said Trump’s executive order was the president’s attempt to bring federal procurement back in synch with the law.

The Buy American Act of 1933 was signed by President Herbert Hoover the day before he handed over the White House to President Franklin D. Roosevelt. The Act was championed by Rep. Joseph W. Byrne, (D.-Tenn.), then the chairman of the House Appropriations Committee and later Speaker of the House.

Byrne’s idea was that given support by the Hearst newspapers and by Hoover’s Commissioner of Customs Francis F.A. Eble, who would go on to start the Buy American Club.

“The law says that the U.S. government has to show preferential treatment to U.S. manufacturers,” Reiser said. “It is so the government has to buy from its own.”

Reiser said that from the 1970s, the federal government has been providing waivers to the 1933 law. “In the 1980s and 1990s, it has picked up big-time.”

When the president signed Executive Order 13788, the White House was optimistic.

President Donald J. Trump holding his Executive Order 13788 at the April 18, 2017 Kenosha, Wis., signing ceremony. (White House photo)

A senior administration official speaking on background on Easter Monday, the day before the executive order was signed in the headquarters of the tool company Snap-On in Kenosha, Wisconsin, said the executive order would correct the abuse of the Buy American Act waiver process.

“Okay, so the culture immediately changes across the agencies.  We have a lax enforcement, lax monitoring, lax compliance,” the official said.

“We are moving forward with a muscular new policy that we’re announcing tomorrow,” the official said. “We’re going to take a much closer look at all of those waivers.”

The administration official said the old culture of easy waivers would end.

“There are going to be fewer waivers that are going to be granted even as we’re evaluating the waiver process,” the official said.”

“We are adding, for example, this new standard for looking at the bid by taking into account the role of dumped and injuriously subsidized content that might give a low bidder an unfair advantage relative to domestic-sourced content,” the official said.

Reiser said that this confidence was misplaced and the executive order is being ignored, he said.

“My sources, the people I speak to every day, they tell me they are not doing anything with it,” he said. “They have no waivers available, but there is no enforcement—there is zero enforcement on the Buy American Act.”

At least in the past, companies would apply for the waivers, so at least there was a public record of who was doing what, not anymore, he said.

“Now, we are just getting lip-service from the administration,” he said.

“There are 750,000 prime contractors to the United States government and there are millions of small guys—and these guys don’t see any enforcement and they don’t think the administration is serious,” he said.

Action timeline for President Donald J. Trump’s Executive Order 13788. The order directed the federal bureaucracy to buy American and hire American (Chart courtesy of Certified, Inc.)

Waivers are supposed to be granted only if domestic U.S. sources cannot meet more than 50 percent of the U.S. demand or if the cost of the American product is deemed by the government contracting officer as exorbitant.

Reiser said over the years, Congress has cut out special deals by making some products completely exempt from the Buy American Act. “For instance, swords—that was a special deal for a sword company in London.”

Other exempt items are: eye piece glass for microscopes, lavender oil, bulk natural menthol, canned Mandarin oranges, metallic gold thread, crude opium, cobra venom, fine linen for an altar and olive oil, he said. “I don’t understand the olive oil—go to California, the olive oil there is the best in the world.”

Reiser said another twist is that Democrats support the Buy American Act, while the Trump administration is full of globalists, who are opposed to the Buy American Act, an example of this was the visit paid to Certified by House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer (D.-Md.) and other leading Democratic lawmakers.

The certification business started in 2008, he said. It was a reaction to his experiences at a magazine called “Made in the U.S.A., and over and over again, he would find out that people would lie to him about having their goods made in the United States.

“We started certifying people who we were putting in the magazine and we wanted to talk about U.S. manufacturing and we realized we’d become a Third World country if we didn’t produce and manufacture our own products in the United States,” he said.

“We were proved correct, as we see the middle-class going down, down, down, because the middle-class is the manufacturing stronghold,” he said.

It is not just the blue-collar jobs, he said. It is also the middle-management and first-line supervisor white collar jobs, too.

Reiser said it is folly to accept that America can have a service-based economy and at the same time have engineering jobs.

“Engineers work really close to the line, when it comes to manufacturing,” he said.

The countries, who are taking away our manufacturing jobs, are not going to be satisfied with the lower-end engineer jobs, they want the high-end, design-build engineers, so that their manufacturing sector is vertically integrated, he said.

Reiser said it is unconscionable that industries created in the United States go are completely overseas. “We don’t make an LED in the United States, we don’t make a cellphone in the United States.”

Many companies recognize the value of having the “Made in the U.S.A.” label, not just companies looking to do business with the federal government, but to get certified a company has to pay for a full audit of its complete supply chain, he said.

Reiser said part of the audit is to catch shortcuts that some companies use with foreign-made components,” he said. “Another thing people don’t know is that ‘Made in America’ is not the same as ‘Made in the U.S.A,’ because of free trade agreements, like NAFTA, Canada and Mexico are treated as ‘America, but they are obviously not in the U.S.A.”

After the initial audit, Reiser’s team follows up quarterly in order to make sure the certification is current, he said.

Note: Big League Politics reached out to administration offices, including the Department of Commerce and the White House for comment. Despite back-and-forth communications, the administration did not respond before publication.


USDA’s School Lunch program must now comply with the recently signed E.O. 13788

0
0
Buy American Act Certified

Buy American Act Certified

On April 18th, 2017, President Donald Trump signed Executive Order #13788 into effect reinforcing the Buy American Act and requiring the US government to start implementing more ‘Buy American and Hire American’ policies with additional scrutiny. This not only affects manufacturers/vendors that sell to the US government, but also farmers that supply produce to school districts, government facilities, and more. More specifically, the USDA’s School Lunch program must now comply with the recently signed EO by discontinuing waivers and preferring procurement from US Farmers.

With EO #13788 following its scheduled timeline, there is increasing pressure for the U.S. Government to implement more scrutinized procurement policies regarding the Buy American Act (BAA). Luckily, there is an easy solution for farmers to proactively meet and exceed increased procurement regulations.

Certified, Inc. is the international leader in Country of Origin verification and supply chain management, exceeding guidelines set by the Federal Trade Commissions for Made in, Service in, Product of, and Grown in USA Claims. Certified, Inc. is making it simple and affordable for businesses, farmers, and growers to comply. Certified, Inc. maintains a Managed Services Provider (MSP) platform using the latest technologies, such as hyperledger Blockchain, IBM’s Watson Artificial Intelligence (AI), and Internet of Things (IoT) devices.

Certified, Inc. is also an international Tier-1 UPC Code Database Provider with the capabilities of providing a PLU (Product Lookup) and UPC (Universal Product Code) designation along with GPS (Global Positioning Service) to a specific brand, business or farm to start the chain of custody. Certified uses its Blockchain, IoT and Verity technologies to trace produce from farm to table.

Consumers want to know the origin of their food, now the U.S. government is demanding it.

For a one-time registration and small monthly licensing fee, a farmer or producer can register their products and farms as well as obtain a unique PLU and UPC number:
Sign-up: https://goo.gl/Ky8QjJ

CERTIFIED Inc.
3651 FAU Boulevard, Suite 400
Boca Raton, Florida 33431
PHONE: +1(561) 279-2855  certified.bz  

`Made in the U.S.A.’ Turbines Cloud U.S. Offshore Wind

0
0

With state officials eyeing $56 billion of wind farm projects off the American coastline, developers are worried the turbines will need to be stamped with a big “Made in the U.S.A.”

Each structure is enormous — almost half the height of the Empire State Building. Most all of them are constructed in Europe, at least for now. As states in the U.S. Northeast jump into wind power, they’re betting they can create their own windmill industry. It’ll be a costly but perhaps necessary move, especially as President Donald Trump pushes for more factory jobs and picks fights with those making parts abroad.

“There’s no way of hiding that every single state, be it here in the U.S. or be it countries in Europe, are insisting on everything sort of being local,” said  Henrik Poulsen, CEO of Orsted A/S, the Danish company that is the world’s largest offshore-wind developer. “It is an equation that’s very difficult to solve without the whole technology becoming much more expensive.”

Initially, the cost of offshore wind farms will be 45% more than those built in Europe, partly because much of the equipment will have to be imported, according to Bloomberg New Energy Finance. The viability of any new projects will require long-term supply agreements that guarantee developers can sell their power at above-market rates, BNEF said.

Going Offshore

Windmills aren’t new for Americans, who get more electricity from the structures than any country except China, which is investing heavily. But almost all the capacity is on land and use smaller turbines than those at sea. Building 15 miles or more offshore is appealing because breezes are stronger and more uniform, and there are no neighbors to oppose structures with rotors that at their highest are almost 600 feet above the surface of the ocean.

Massachusetts, New York, New Jersey and Maryland have proposed offshore projects primarily to meet targets for reduced pollution from fossil-fuel power plants. The states are willing to offer incentives they hope will expand supplies of renewable electricity and help spur local job growth.

Eventually, the cost of building offshore should fall, especially if domestic manufacturing takes off. In Europe, where government support helped fund offshore windmills and a domestic manufacturing industry over two decades, offshore capacity for producing electricity almost quadrupled from 2010 to 2016. Some new wind projects at sea are now cheaper than building a natural-gas or coal plant on land, according to Orsted’s Poulsen.

Cheaper Energy

The cost of building some of the biggest offshore wind projects in Europe has been cut by more than half in the past decade, though they remain more expensive to build than solar-power and onshore-wind plants, according to BNEF.

“The critical mass in the U.S. is not there yet,” said Adam Thomsen, head of U.S. market entry for MHI Vestas Offshore Wind A/S, a Denmark-based joint venture between Mitsubishi Heavy Industries Ltd. and Vestas Wind Systems A/S that wants to expand into the American market. “We believe in the long-term potential.”

The federal government has issued 14 offshore leases, and four states — Massachusetts, New York, New Jersey and Maryland — are targeting a combined addition of almost 8 gigawatts of electricity from offshore windmills by 2030. Massachusetts is already fielding bids from European developers including Orsted, as well as some domestic companies like Deepwater Wind LLC, which built a small project off the coast of Rhode Island in December 2016.

Kickstart Industry

Even if only half the proposed wind farms are developed in the next 12 years, that could generate enough demand to kickstart domestic manufacturing industries to support more than 25,000 new jobs, according to a study prepared for New York, Massachusetts and Rhode Island by BVG Associates Ltd.

“We’re doing this to attract private investment” that could make New York a “hub for the offshore industry in the U.S.,” said Alicia Barton, president of the agency that promotes renewable energy use. New York plans to build 2.4 gigawatts of offshore wind by 2030, and last month initiated a process to procure the first 800 megawatts.

Still, getting those projects built and a domestic manufacturing industry off the ground will depend on “how much the ratepayers are willing to stomach in cost increase” and “how quickly the costs can come down,” said Amy Grace, a New York-based analyst for Bloomberg New Energy Finance.

The first indication of how far states are willing to go with incentives could come in Massachusetts, which aims to install 1.6 gigawatts of offshore wind by 2027. On April 23, the state will announce the results of bids by developers that could lead to the region’s first power-purchase agreement, said Bill White, senior director for offshore wind at the Massachusetts Clean Energy Center.

Startup Costs

The Massachusetts project could come in at $100 to $120 a megawatt-hour, according to Tom Harries, wind analyst at Bloomberg New Energy Finance. That compares with $49 for a new natural-gas plant and $66 for a new coal plant.

Competition among the states could undermine efforts to create regional industries similar to those in Europe. Maryland requires that projects it approves add jobs and investment in the states. New York will spend $15 million to train workers and upgrade ports. New Jersey’s new governor, Phil Murphy, issued an executive order last month that sets the state on a path to create 3.5 gigawatts of offshore power by 2030.

States probably will “fight tooth and nail to get the crown jewels of this industry,” said Stephanie McClellan, director of the University of Delaware Special Initiative on Offshore Wind.

“Ideally, to bring costs down, you want a collective approach,” said Harries, the BNEF analyst. “What you don’t want is almost state protectionism where somebody says, ‘We want to keep all the jobs here. We want to do it all ourselves.”

By Jim Efstathiou Jr.

Source: http://www.industryweek.com/economy/made-usa-turbines-cloud-us-offshore-wind

 





Latest Images