SunEdison is exiting its India business by selling 1.7 gigawatts of wind and solar farms to Greenko Energies Pvt.
Greenko is backed by the sovereign wealth funds of Abu Dhabi and Singapore. The two sites include one with 440 megawatts of capacity already operating and another 1,200 mw of projects still under development including a 500 mw solar project. Reports pegged the projects total assets value at about $500 million. Read more
Well we all knew that the Volkswagen admissions scandal was the story that was going to run and run, so it should come as no surprise that the media is full of the latest allegations being made against Fiat Chrysler by the Environmental Protection Agency.
The Washington Post, the Economist and the Financial Times all report the EPA’s announcement that they are in discussions with the automaker over software which they say, might be illegal. The EPA has held back from calling the technology a “defeat device” in the terms used in last year’s cases against VW.
But in broad terms the operation of the software appears to work in a similar way to that of VW’s in that it also has the characteristics of the emissions controls under certain circumstances. Contrary to what many others believed, in fact, emission control equipment is allowed some pretty wide parameters of operation.
Diesel’s Easier… To Pollute With
In Europe where the rules are less rigorous, the testing regime allows diesel cars up to 14 times more noxious gases on the road under test conditions. According to the Economist, they are allowed to shut down their emission controls on the grounds that not doing so might damage engines when the ambient temperature is low. But in some cases this ambient threshold could be as high as 17 degrees, a temperature not reached for months in many Northern European countries. Read more
The Obama administration also launched a formal complaint Thursday against the Chinese government with the World Trade Organization over subsidies it says Beijing provides to the country’s vast aluminum industry.
The move against the stockpile of aluminum connected to Chinese billionaire Liu Zhongtian, the owner and CEO of aluminum company China Zhongwang, is the strongest action yet by federal authorities probing whether U.S. companies connected to the Chinese magnate illegally avoided nearly 400% tariffs by routing the metal through other countries.
An aluminum stockpile like this one has been seized by Homeland Security.
We previously reported the whereabouts of the aluminum stockpile as it curiously moved around the globe. China Zhongwang has denied any connection to the stockpile or its movements, but hundreds of shipping containers of aluminum were seized this week by the Department of Homeland Security. The containers are owned by Perfectus Aluminum, Inc., a California company founded by Mr. Liu’s son, Liu Zuopeng. Perfectus is now run by one of Liu’s close business associates, Jacky Cheung, who runs several companies with connections to Liu.
Homeland Security is conducting laboratory tests on the aluminum to determine whether the metal is restricted under U.S. law, according to federal court documents. The seized aluminum is in the form of pallets and court records don’t state which company manufactured the aluminum. The WJ saw shipping records which show that a separate company called Peng Cheng — which later became part of Perfectus in a merger—imported the metal from an affiliate of China Zhongwang in 2013 and 2014.
Homeland Security and the Justice Department are investigating whether the companies committed criminal or civil violations that could include smuggling, conspiracy and wire fraud. The WSJ reported that Homeland Security agents have also questioned former employees of the companies associated with Liu, according to people familiar with the investigation.
WTO Case Against Chinese Aluminum Subsidies
As for the subsidies case, the U.S. Trade Representative‘s office said in a formal complaint that China’s actions in the aluminum sector violate WTO rules prohibiting subsidies that cause “serious prejudice” to other members of the trade body. Read more
Ore production jumped 22% between April and October, according to figures released by the government. Iron ore production stood at 100 million metric tons during the resurgence, against 81 mmt during the same April to October period a year ago. What’s brought even more cheer is the news that exports, too, jumped 9 times their previous level, to 9 mmt from last April to September, as compared to 1 mmt, the same period last year.
With a steep price hike in global markets aided by protectionist measures for the domestic steel industry, will India see a resurgence in iron ore exports? Not so fast.
India has plentiful iron ore stockpiled but taxes are holding up exports. Source: Adobe Stock/nikitos77.
The protectionist measures imposed by India’s government previously included an export duty tax of 30% on high-grade iron ore. Many within the mining sector are of the opinion that the export tax must go, or at the very least be reduced, to boost exports. Read more
There are many in the business community who share a sense of anxiety as to what trade policies the new administration of President-elect Donald Trump will introduce in the year ahead but, if it’s any consolation, the U.S. is not alone in pandering to populist calls for limits on free trade.
Here in Europe there is a quieter but no less disturbing war being fought between the European Union Commission and the European Parliament and the E.U. member states. Historically, the European Commission handled trade negotiations on behalf of the single market, but the 2009 Lisbon Treaty, intended to make the EU more efficient and transparent, also gave all the EU’s 38 National and regional parliaments essentially the right of veto on any new trade accord.
Anyone Can Veto… Anything
As Carnegie Europe in a recent post observed the sheer complexity of trade deals, which cover many topics that are not included within the European Commission’s powers, means that ratification is becoming a de facto requirement of any new trade deal. As politics becomes more populist in the E.U., as in the U.S., an array of interest groups can challenge any deal on the grounds of environmental, health, cultural, employment concerns, or any combination of the above. Read more
The incoming Trump administration campaigned on and has, since winning the election, robustly promoted an anti-free trade platform saying the North American Free Trade Agreement is “the worst trade deal maybe ever signed anywhere,” bullying GM, Ford Motor Company and various other multinationals into rethinking strategic investments planned for Mexico and forcing them to be shelved or amended. Read more
As President-elect Donald Trump fills out the remaining cabinet posts in his administration before taking office in a little more than two weeks, it’s become abundantly clear that Trump meant business when he said his administration would pursue better deals for the American people.
Recently, Trump named University of California-Irvine Economist Peter Navarro, the co-author of the trade “Death by China” as head of his newly created National Trade Council. He also received widespread praise from the domestic steel industry for naming longtime trade attorney and former Reagan administration official Robert Lighthizer as the new U.S. Trade Representative. If there really was any doubt going in — and, after that campaign, who really thought there was? — it’s become obvious that Trump does, indeed intend to go after China on its trade policies and possibly even upend existing trade deals such as NAFTA.
Is the Trump administration the end of free trade? It already is the demise of free trade as a platitude. Source: Adobe Stock/Argus.
In addition to being a longtime China critic, Navarro is an interesting appointment by Trump because he also happens to be a democrat. Trump’s populist policies were always built for a general election win and they eschewed traditional republican stances that supported free trade and, generally, trade pacts such as NAFTA.
President-elect Donald Trump named Robert Lighthizer, a former trade official in the Reagan administration and a harsh critic of China’s trade practices, to be his U.S. Trade Representative today, the chief trade negotiator responsible for better deals aimed at reducing U.S. trade deficits.
Trump, who promised during his presidential campaign to renegotiate international trade deals like NAFTA and punish companies that ship work overseas, said in announcing his choice that Lighthizer would help “fight for good trade deals that put the American worker first.”
Lighthizer is a former deputy U.S. trade representative under former Republican President Ronald Reagan who helped to stem the tide of imports from Japan in the 1980s with threats of quotas and punitive tariffs. His return to the agency follows nearly three decades as a lawyer representing U.S. steelmakers and other companies in anti-dumping and anti-subsidy cases.
“The American Iron and Steel Institute welcomes the president-elect’s nomination of Robert Lighthizer as the U.S. Trade Representative,” said Thomas J. Gibson, president and CEO of the AISI. “Bob’s nomination sends a strong signal regarding the incoming administration’s commitment to address the injury that the steel industry has suffered from unfairly traded imports.”
Gibson went on to say Bob Lighthizer is eminently qualified to serve in this position and his dedication not only to the steel industry — but to the manufacturing sector as a whole — will enable him to have a strong and prominent role in addressing the critical issues that face our companies and workers. He also said AISI looks forward to working with Lighthizer and the new administration on trade enforcement issues in the new year.
The U.S. Steel Granite City Works captured by Google Street View in September, 2014 — a year and two months before the latest idling of the mill.
See the latest multimedia version of this story here.
This is our final top-rated post of 2016. Chinese market economy status was a huge issue for the entire year and this interactive package, originally published in May, put all facets of the problem into one package. How China will change its economy to compete with the rest of the world without overproduction for export is still an open question and a major threat to market stability. — Jeff Yoders, editor
Dan Simmons has seen a lot during the 38 years he’s worked at U.S. Steel’s Granite City Works in Illinois, just outside St. Louis.
From starting out as a general laborer, to swinging hammers on the track gang, to “feeling like Mr. Haney from Green Acres” while trucking around the mill, Simmons took it all in. There were days “you were whistling when you came in, and whistling when you left,” he said.
But nothing compares to what he’s seeing now.
“I have grown men coming into my office, crying,” said Simmons. “You see the pain, the ‘what ifs,’ the blank stares…”
Simmons, who just turned 56, is now the president of the United Steelworkers Local 1899, and some of the grown men coming to him are pipefitters just like he had become during his long tenure, which began in 1978.
However, those men and women aren’t coming to him because they’ve been hurt on the job. They are coming to plead for help, because they have lost their jobs, and in many cases still don’t know when they’ll land their next one.
Cyclicality in steel production is nothing new, but it wasn’t until 2008 — when the global markets began crashing — that USS Granite City Works endured its first indefinite idling in its history.
“We had the unemployment office cycling 400 people through at a time,” Simmons told MetalMiner. “The biggest fear is not knowing. If I could have given them a definitive timeframe, they would’ve said, ‘OK, I can handle that.’ But after two to three months, people come to me and don’t know what to do with themselves.”
And now, after the mill went idle a second time in December 2015, some of those workers have been without a job for nearly half a year. Last December, 1,500 people were laid off — 75% of the mill’s total workforce. Across the country, a total of 13,500 steel workers have been laid off over the past year.
Simmons knows what it’s like to feel that fear firsthand. “I got a brother that works here, a brother-in-law that works here, so it’s personal. You worry about where your whole family will be.”
So what’s different today, compared to 2008?
For Simmons and scores of others in the country’s steel sector and other manufacturing industries, much of the pain can be traced back to one main source: China.
A History of Unfair Trade?
The world may have never encountered a more crucial Year of the Monkey than 2016.
That is, at least as far as global trade between China and the Western world is concerned. At the end of this year, China believes it ought to receive Market Economy Status (MES). This would allow China to enjoy the same market status as the U.S. and European Union when it comes to anti-dumping investigations before the World Trade Organization.
In its quest to grow its economy over the past two decades, China has become the leading producer — by far — of steel, aluminum, cement and other industrial materials. Read more
Anti-dumping actions were once again a hot topic this year. Back in February India imposed a minimum import price for nearly all foreign steel entering the country. This was only one of many anti-dumping actions taken this year with both the U.S. and European Union tightening tariffs this year. — Jeff Yoders, editor
It’s a problem that’s dogged almost all the major economies as well as developing nations – the dilemma of steel cheap imports. Steelmakers in the U.S. have, in the past, not only cried foul at the World Trade Organization but also imposed steep anti-dumping duties on cheap imports from China, Korea and India making their way into the U.S. market, thus further depriving an already-stressed out market.
A few days ago, as reported by MetalMiner, seven EU nations asked the European Commission to intervene to stop cheap imports of steel, particularly from China and Russia.
India has imposed a minimum import price on most steel products. Source Adobe Stock/Jovanning.
In India, a market where steel consumption continues to grow bucking global trends, the situation is no different. So, finally giving in to the loud protests by domestic steel companies against cheap imports, the Indian government recently imposed a minimum import price (MIP) ranging from $341 to $752 per metric ton on 173 steel products as a “temporary” measure.
Minimum Import Prices
The MIP conditions are valid for six months from the date of the notification or until further orders, whichever is earlier. The MIP, though, will not be applicable on imports under the advance authorization scheme and high-grade pipes used for pipeline transportation systems in the petroleum and natural gas industry are exempt.
The move seems to have gone down well with a majority of the steel trade bodies and a large section of India’s steel industry, but some have called it simply a band-aid for the hemorrhaging steel sector.
India’s domestic steel production between April-January 2016 dropped 1.8 % to 75.66 million mt, while imports rose 24.1% to 9.3 mmt. Consumption grew 4.2% to 65.91 mmt. For domestic steelmakers, apart from the MIP, the import duty has also been raised to 10% for flat products and 7.5% for long products.
The rationale behind the MIP was explained by Steel Secretary Aruna Sundararajan, in an interview with The Economic Times. She said the move would give India’s steel industry much-needed breathing space to get healthy.
Over the last couple of years, India had seen a spurt in steel imports, leading to a decline in prices. According to the Steel Secretary, India had over 400 mmt of surplus steel. All that surplus has put the domestic steel industry into distress.
While imposing the MIP, the Indian government also took care to ensure that downstream users were not affected. That’s why certain categories of steel — required by end-user industries — not manufactured in India, were exempted.
The government’s decision to impose MIP will, however, reduce the benefit of lower commodity prices for automobile companies, according to many experts. Also, according to the engineering goods exporters’ body, EEPC India, the MIP will lead to further erosion in engineering exports. It has thus sought from the government a compensatory mechanism to make up for the increased raw material price (about 10%) for the distressed exporters, mostly in the small and medium-sized enterprises segments.
The Indian government has dubbed the MIP an “emergency provision.” In the next six months, it will be looking at anti-dumping duties and moving toward more stable, longer-term measures. It will also be keeping a close watch on imports after the MIP, as well as the response of domestic steel companies and consumers.