Input Stories

Prices paid by businesses to goods and services producers in the U.S. rose by slightly less than anticipated in March, according to Investing.com.

What’s going on: “The producer price index for final demand rose 0.2% last month, after rising by 0.6% in February, the Labor Department’s Bureau of Labor Statistics said. Economists had expected the PPI to gain 0.3%. In the 12 months through January, the PPI increased 2.1%, below the 2.2% expected, after climbing 1.6% in February.”

• “Core” PPI, which excludes food and energy prices, rose 0.2% on the month, for an annual increase of 2.4%.
• The data comes just a day after the release of a higher-than-anticipated consumer price index for last month.

The details: Services inflation stayed elevated, with a gain of 0.3% in prices in March, Barron’s reports.

• Goods prices, however, edged down 0.1%.
• A 1.6% decline in energy prices made up much of March’s overall decrease and outweighed a 0.8% increase in food prices.

Why it’s important: The news may mean an interest-rate cut from the Federal Reserve will come later than previously thought.

Prices paid by consumers for goods and services rose last month, according to CNBC.

What’s going on: The consumer price index, “a broad measure of goods and services costs across the economy, rose 0.4% for the month, putting the 12-month inflation rate at 3.5%. Economists surveyed by Dow Jones had been looking for a 0.3% gain and a 3.4% year-over-year level.”

• March’s seasonally adjusted CPI increase was the same as February’s.

Core CPI: Core CPI, which excludes often volatile food and energy costs, also increased 0.4% on a monthly basis.

• Core CPI for March was 3.8% higher than it was in March 2023.

Why it’s important: CPI is the most widely used measure of inflation, and these data “indicat[e] that inflation is staying stubbornly higher and likely keeping the Federal Reserve on hold with interest rates.”

The EPA late last week awarded $20 billion to community development banks and nonprofit organizations to combat climate change in disadvantaged communities in the U.S., the Associated Press reports.

What’s going on: Money from the “green bank” initiative “could fund tens of thousands of eligible projects ranging from residential heat pumps and other energy-efficient home improvements to larger-scale projects such as electric vehicle charging stations and community cooling centers.”

• Previously called the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund, the $27 billion “green bank” overseeing the grants was created by the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act. Its aim is “to reduce climate and air pollution and mobilize public and private capital in the communities that need it most.”

Where the money went: At least $14 billion of the funding is reserved for low-income and rural areas, neighborhoods of color and communities with shuttered coal mines, among other locations.

• One of the bank’s funds is the National Clean Investment Fund. Grants from that pot include nearly $7 billion to help consumers, schools and small businesses and farms, $5 billion to “leverage the existing and growing national network of green banks” and $2 billion for decarbonized, affordable housing, according to Axios.
• Another fund, the $6 billion Clean Communities Investment Accelerator, is for centers that offer technical help and lending to clean-technology projects.

How it works: “Recipients committed to spending $7 in private sector funding for each $1 from the federal investment money, to ‘reduce or avoid’ 40 million metric tons of carbon dioxide each year and earmark 70% of the money for disadvantaged and low-income communities. These groups are often passed over by commercial banks and investors yet are  disproportionately impacted by climate change.”

A newly finalized rule from the EPA will require chemical and plastics plants to slash emissions of two widely used compounds, according to The Wall Street Journal (subscription).

What’s going on: The EPA’s final rule, released Tuesday, requires manufacturing facilities to curb emissions of chemicals including ethylene oxide and chloroprene. These two chemicals have broad applications, from sterilizing medical equipment to producing synthetic rubber.

• The rule would affect about 200 plants across the U.S. and include a requirement for “fenceline monitoring,” the use of technology to measure the ambient air concentration for certain chemicals.
• Once in effect, the regulation could reduce emissions of both compounds by almost 80% annually, the EPA said.

The background: The news comes less than a month after the EPA finalized a rule to regulate the use of ethylene oxide as a sterilizing agent, a decision that will affect the way most medical devices—including complex, lifesaving ones, such as artificial heart valves—are sterilized.

Regulatory onslaught continues: “While the EPA listened to some of manufacturers’ concerns, such as allowing more time for companies throughout the supply chain to assess the impact on their operations, the rulemaking adds to the ongoing regulatory onslaught our industry has been facing,” said NAM Managing Vice President of Policy Chris Netram.

Effect on supply chains: The fenceline monitoring schedule will be a “significant burden” to manufacturers, as will the EPA’s requirement that operations be fully shut down for small plant repairs, Netram continued.

• “The potential disruption to supply chains could make it more difficult to create jobs in communities across the country.”

The House passed a health care package on Monday that includes measures to curb some practices by pharmacy benefit managers, according to STAT News.

What’s going on: The Lower Costs, More Transparency Leadership Act, which passed on a bipartisan vote, “would equalize payment between hospital outpatient departments and doctors’ offices for administering medicines in Medicare, rein in some practices by pharmacy benefit managers and codify health care price transparency rules.” 

• The vote on the measure was scheduled for September originally but was pushed back amid a larger funding dispute.

What it means: The package would prohibit PBMs from “spread pricing”—or charging Medicaid more than they pay pharmacies for medications.

• It would also require PBMs, “clinical lab test providers, imaging providers [and] ambulatory surgical centers … to be more transparent about their pricing.”

What’s next: “Some community health advocates hope Monday’s vote will jump-start negotiations with the Senate, where leaders have signaled they’re looking for more than what’s in the House bill,” POLITICO reports.

Our view: “House passage of the Lower Costs, More Transparency Act is a step forward for PBM transparency, but Congress must continue to advance reforms that ensure PBMs pass on prescription drug discounts directly to plan sponsors and patients as well as delink their compensation from the list price of drugs,” the NAM said on Tuesday.
 

This holiday season, instead of overstocking shelves with merchandise, retailers “have pared back their inventories while trying to focus their supply chains more tightly on products that shoppers want,” The Wall Street Journal (subscription) reports.

What’s going on: “Many retailers have spent much of the year working through the stockpiles from last year and now say they have cleaned up their distribution centers and their balance sheets.”

• After the global pandemic, sellers bulked up their stocks in case of another major supply chain disruption—but it was a “strategy that left many companies saddled with goods.”

A different holiday season: Owing to high inflation and more spending on services than goods, “[h]oliday retail sales in the U.S. are expected to grow at a slower rate this year.”

• “The National Retail Federation predicted sales will rise between 3% and 4% over 2022 to between $957.3 billion and $966.6 billion. Last year, holiday sales grew 5.3% to $936.3 billion.”

​​​​​​​ What they’re doing: Retailer strategies for this year include paying close attention to consumer trends and offering “variety [over] redundancy.”

• Said one retailer’s CEO, “The customer today does not want an endless aisle. They want the best aisle.”

The U.S. and 17 other countries have agreed to “a set of guidelines to ensure AI systems are built to ‘function as intended’ without leaking sensitive data to unauthorized users,” The Hill reports.

What’s going on: The 20-page document—unveiled last Sunday and published jointly by the Department of Homeland Security’s Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency and the UK National Security Centre—enumerates recommendations for everything “from AI system design and development to its deployment and maintenance.”

• The agreement discusses threats to AI systems, how to protect AI models and data and how to release and monitor AI systems responsibly.
• Other signatories include Canada, Australia, Germany, Israel, Nigeria and Poland.

Why it’s important: “This is the first time that we have seen an affirmation that these capabilities should not just be about cool features and how quickly we can get them to market or how we can compete to drive down costs,” said U.S. Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency Director Jen Easterly.
 

The NAM is leading the charge in urging the Biden administration to walk back a proposed revision to the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for fine particulate matter (PM2.5).

With the release of a letter signed by more than 70 associations representing nearly every sector of the U.S. economy and a new video advertisement, the NAM is highlighting how these regulatory actions would devastate the economy and actively undermine President Biden’s goal to expand manufacturing in the United States.

What’s going on: When the Environmental Protection Agency set forth the tentative new air quality standards earlier this year, manufacturers quickly recognized that if enacted, the new rules would put an undue burden on the industry—and could force companies to move operations overseas.

• Soon, manufacturers and related associations across the country began to speak out about the harm to their operations and communities, even as they affirmed the industry’s longstanding commitment to a clean, safe environment for all.

The background: The EPA’s proposed changes to the National Ambient Air Quality Standards—currently under review by the White House’s Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs— would lower the primary annual particulate matter standard from 12.0 µg/m3 to between 8.0 and 10.0 µg/m3.

• The EPA has estimated the total cost of the controls required for compliance with the proposed standard at up to $1.8 billion—and that figure could go higher, the agency admitted.
• What’s more, some areas in the U.S. are already in “nonattainment” with the current PM2.5 standard, so a stricter standard will only put them further away from compliance and economic growth.

The costs: According to an analysis by Oxford Analytics and commissioned by the NAM, the revisions would:

• Threaten nearly $200 billion of economic activity and put up to a million current jobs at risk, both directly from manufacturing and indirectly from supply chain spending;
• In addition, growth in restricted areas may be constrained, limiting investment and expansion over the coming years; if the PM2.5 standard moves to 8 from the current 12, nearly 40% of the country will live in nonattainment areas, putting jobs and livelihoods at risk as factories may no longer be able to operate if located in an area that is in nonattainment, and no new facilities can be built to grow economic prospects; and
• Hit California’s manufacturing sector hardest, followed by Michigan and Illinois.

Speaking out: Many manufacturers from all sectors, along with related associations, have made their concerns public.

• Michael Canty, president and CEO of Alloy Precision Technologies of Mentor, Ohio, pointed out that these regulations may force companies to move production to other countries that don’t care about emissions reductions, unlike the U.S.
• Mark Biel, CEO of the Chemical Industry Council of Illinois, also worries that this regulation could make his state less attractive for manufacturers, despite its many assets.
• Dawn Crandall, executive vice president of government relations for the Home Builders Association of Michigan, decried the potential knock-on effects for Michigan’s suffering housing market.

The last word: The proposed changes “would risk jobs and livelihoods by making it even more difficult to obtain permits for new factories, facilities and infrastructure to power economic growth,” leadership from approximately 70 industry groups told White House Chief of Staff Jeffrey Zients yesterday.

• The revisions “would also threaten successful implementation of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, the CHIPS and Science Act and the important clean energy provisions of the Inflation Reduction Act. … We urge you to ensure the EPA maintains the existing fine particulate matter standards to [safeguard] both continued environmental protection and economic growth.”

Large companies that do business in California will soon be required to report their greenhouse gas emissions to state regulators thanks to a new state law, according to USA Today.

What’s going on: “Signed by Gov. Gavin Newsom on Oct. 7, SB 253 requires the California Air Resources Board to form transparency rules for companies with yearly revenues exceeding a billion dollars by 2025. The first of its kind law in the U.S. will
impact over 5,000 corporations both public and private … ”

• Under the law, by 2026 major companies will need to report the amount of carbon produced by their operations and electricity.
• By 2027 they will need to disclose “Scope 3” emissions, or those attributable to their customers and suppliers.

Why it’s important: The effects of the law on manufacturing will be ruinous and widespread, according to Conference of State Manufacturers Associations Chair and Utah Manufacturers Association President and CEO Todd Bingham.

• “Manufacturers are committed to commonsense regulations that protect consumers and the environment,” Bingham said. “California’s new law is unworkable and makes it more difficult for manufacturers to grow, invest and hire—not just in the state, but across the country.”
• COSMA members serve as the NAM’s official state partners in driving manufacturing-friendly policies at the state level.

Costly and inaccurate: “[M]anufacturers will spend millions of dollars to fulfill [SB 253]’s requirements,” Lance Hastings, president of the California Manufacturers & Technology Association (an NAM state partner), said in a September statement. “The uncertainty and reliability of this data and the process required to comply with the legislation will not produce complete, accurate or comparable disclosures.”

• Last month, the CMTA submitted a request for veto of the California law to Gov. Newsom.

The SEC: The California measure follows the September finalization of a similar rule from the Securities and Exchange Commission that “require[es] publicly traded companies to disclose their emissions and climate-related risks to investors.”

• The rule—which the NAM has been actively working against—not only requires numerous unfeasible moves, but also imposes significant financial burdens on manufacturers, the NAM has said.

What should be done: “We hope California’s devastating policy is reversed and are grateful for the NAM’s coordinating efforts against regulatory overreach at the national level,” Bingham continued.
 

The Federal Communications Commission voted late last week to advance a proposal that would reinstate Obama-era net neutrality rules, according to The New York Times (subscription).

What’s going on: “The commissioners at the Democratic-led agency voted 3 to 2 along party lines to kick off a monthslong process to bring back so-called net neutrality regulations.”

• In an NAM-supported move in 2018, the previous administration repealed net neutrality regulations put into place by President Obama in 2015, saying they stymied innovation.

Why it’s important: Last week’s proposal—which telecommunications companies have pledged to fight—“will ultimately enable the agency to categorize high-speed internet as a utility, like water or electricity. … The agency will then be able to police broadband providers for net neutrality violations.”

• That’s precisely why the proposal to restore the rules is problematic, critics say. A trade group representing telecom firms “wrote letters this week to the House and Senate Intelligence Committees warning of ‘mission creep’ by the F.C.C.”
• In 2017, then-FCC Chairman Ajit Pai said net neutrality laws amounted to “special interests [who] weren’t trying to solve a real problem but [were] instead looking for an excuse to achieve their longstanding goal of forcing the Internet under the federal government’s control.”

Government overreach: Indeed, the 2015 net neutrality rules—very similar to the ones now being advanced—were a prime example of agency overreach, said NAM Chief Legal Officer Linda Kelly in 2018.

• The 2015 FCC’s “heavy-handed approach … was neither appropriate nor necessary for the rapidly evolving, highly competitive broadband market,” Kelly said.
• Net neutrality laws also decrease investment in broadband, the NAM has told policymakers.

Up next: The FCC will take public comments on the proposed rules. The commission could vote to adopt new regulations as soon as early next year.

The last word: “Manufacturers are disappointed the FCC is moving forward with its proposal to regulate 21st-century broadband with rules designed for the era of the rotary phone,” said NAM Vice President of Domestic Policy Charles Crain. “Reinstating this misguided, overreaching policy of the past is a recipe for stymied innovation and outdated infrastructure.”