There are about 86,000 steel mill jobs in the United States, down from a decade ago when it was about 100,000. At its nadir in early 2017, steel mill jobs were under 81,000. About 6,000 jobs have come back since tariffs were introduced, but the producer price index (PPI) for steel mill products also soared as a result. The value of U.S. steel mill output was about $78 billion before tariffs while the producer price index for steel mill products has risen just over 20% since tariffs . Those numbers imply a cost of tariffs to purchasers of U.S. steel mill products (U.S. companies and governments) of about $16 billion, as well as a cost per job saved of about $2.7 million. If instead of tariffs the U.S. had offered each of the 6,000 laid-off steel mill workers a generous $100,000 stipend per year for 3 years to replace lost pay and benefits and to retrain, it would have cost $1.8 billion, saving U.S. companies and governments $14.2 billion in tariff-related costs. A less than 1% surcharge on imported and U.S. steel mill products could have paid for such a policy without adding to government debt. I’m not arguing for such a policy but that 1% seems like a small price to pay to avoid punishing 20% price hikes.
Posted tagged ‘Energy prices’
How Much Should We Pay to Save a Steel Mill Job?
November 16, 2018How Much of a Benefit is Low Oil Prices?
March 7, 2016Low oil prices have provided an economic windfall to households in New Hampshire and across the nation. Based on actual 2014 energy consumption and expenditure data for NH, changes in 2015 energy prices, and forecasts of 2015 energy consumption (actual data won’t be released for another year), I estimate that businesses and households saved about $1 billion in 2015 as a result of lower oil prices (Figure 1).
Households saved over $800 million – largely as a result of lower gasoline prices – and businesses saved nearly $200 million. In 2015 households in NH spent about $665 million less on gasoline than they did in 2014 and about $800 million less than they did in 2012 (Figure 2).
Here I am talking about the monetary impacts of lower oil prices, the distribution of impacts among states, between business and households, by different income levels, and how increased U.S. oil production is changing the demand for imported oil. While the overall impact is a net positive on the U.S. economy – especially consumers – the net benefits to our nation’s economy have been smaller than many anticipated. This is not a full accounting, I do not consider any environmental implications (I will write about some of those in future posts on carbon emissions, carbon taxes and climate change that are sure to incite the unstable) or the fact that low oil prices make Vladimir Putin only slightly more scary or any number of petroleum states that much less stable.
There was a time not long ago when low oil prices would have provided a stronger stimulus to the U.S. economy, as every dollar saved by businesses and individuals as a result of lower oil prices translated into nearly a dollar of benefits to the U.S. economy as more of the dollars saved were dollars not being sent overseas. But today many more of the petro dollars saved are dollars that would have gone to U.S. businesses and workers, reducing the overall net benefits that lower oil prices have on the U.S. economy. Figure 3 shows the dramatic increase in U.S. oil production beginning late in the last decade along with a concomitant decline in oil imports.
Regional Impacts
Make no mistake, lower oil prices are a good thing for U.S. economy overall, but the boom in oil and gas production in the U.S. includes states that are relatively new to energy production, spreading the negative impacts of a downturn in energy markets more broadly across the U.S., as well as some states who have gone from very small to more significant energy producers, deepening the negative impacts from low prices in those states. Texas, Oklahoma, Alaska, Louisiana are used to economic disruptions caused by fluctuations in oil prices (although much of Texas is now much more diverse) , North Dakota and other states not so much. Figure 4 shows the volume of oil production in 2014 by state and thus the relative exposure that these state have to fluctuations in oil prices.
The increase in U.S. oil production was spurred by high world oil prices that made it economically viable to extract oil using more costly methods, as well as improved technologies that made it possible to extract oil that could not be obtained through traditional drilling techniques. A few years ago I worked on an energy project in the Permian Basin of West Texas and Eastern New Mexico that involved enhanced oil recovery (EOR) techniques. At that time the price of oil was around $100 bbl while the break-even price of EOR was approximately $67 bbl. In that environment it is not surprising that a boom in production would occur in areas with even difficult to extract oil reserves. Continued improvements in technology have no doubt lowered the break-even price of EOR below the $67 that it was back in 2012, but probably not as low as the $48 per bbl that was the average price for U.S. crude in 2015, and certainly not as low as the $32 bbl average of January 2016. The sharp decline in oil prices since 2014 is affecting the profitability, production, and employment of energy companies and those that service and supply them. Low oil and gas prices don’t help energy producing states the way they help NH and other non-energy producing states because the benefits of lower oil and gas prices to households and businesses are mitigated by the reduction in investment and employment in oil and gas extraction, transportation, and the industries that support them – including financial industries, professional and technical industries (engineering etc.) and many others. Figure 5 shows states at the bottom of private sector job growth in 2015 – all but Vermont and Illinois are significant energy producing states.
Income Support
The benefits of lower energy prices on households nationally have been large. Energy spending dropped from 6.1% of total expenditures of households in 2008 to 4.4% through mid-2015. All households benefit from lower energy prices but the benefits are not evenly distributed. Low-income consumers devote a larger share of their budgets to energy and thus lower energy prices provide a greater relative benefit to households lower on the income scale. Data from the Consumer Expenditure Survey of the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics show that consumers in the bottom half of the income distribution devoted 10.7% of their budget to energy expenses, while consumers in the top half of the distribution devoted 8.1% of their budgets to energy (the figures are higher in the Northeast where households spends more on heating and much more on oil heat than the national average). To some extent these differences may overstate the benefits of lower energy prices to lower-income households because the largest difference in the percentage of household expenditures on energy by income level is for electricity; lower oil prices have had little impact on electricity prices, but the benefits to lower income households are still signficant. Figure 6 shows the percentage of total household expenditures in the U.S. that are devoted to energy among households in four different income ranges.
Geopolitics
The most important implication of U.S. oil production may be for U.S. foreign policy. Not only are oil imports on the decline as U.S. production has increased, but the sources of imported oil are also changing. Persian Gulf states are a declining source of oil imported in the U.S., while Canada is a rapidly increasing source (Figure 7).
The historical role that concerns about oil supplies have played in U.S. policies toward Persian Gulf states is debatable but a declining dependence on Persian Gulf oil at least offers the possibility that whatever U.S. involvement continues in the region will be less energy dependent. If current trends in U.S. production and imports continue, it is possible that the only country that the U.S. imports oil from in 10 years is Canada. If I have learned one thing from this presidential primary season it is that not all Canadian imports are a good thing. But, I grew up along the Canadian border and I would be pretty comfortable only relying on the great white north to meet our nation’s demand for imported oil.
Energy Prices Won’t Be Our Savior
March 24, 2014For as long as anyone can remember New Hampshire (and most of New England and the Northeast) has had high energy prices compared to most other states. We may narrow the gap some but as sure as tomorrow will be Tuesday, compared to most other states and regions of the country, our energy prices will be higher. There are a number of reasons for that and they can’t be adequately covered here so for now let’s move on to the real concern of this post. Many will disagree with me about the prospects for relative energy costs in the state but even if I am wrong, and NH and New England could somehow be truly energy price competitive with the rest of the country, we are likely to be very disappointed in the resulting economic benefits. I am all for lowering energy prices and doing whatever we can do to accomplish that. Reducing energy costs will give households more discretionary income, ease the burden high energy prices place on many households, and benefit the cash flow of many businesses. These are real economic benefits but based on op-eds and comments about how high electricity and energy prices are killing business, including by people and groups I like and respect, you might think that reducing the price of electricity will bring a new industrial revolution to the state. The problem is, a new industrial revolution has been occurring and it is one that relies less on energy and is, in part, a result of those high energy prices.
Energy prices are becoming less important to the success of the New Hampshire economy all the time. As the chart above shows, the energy content of what the state produces has been declining for decades. More of what we produce relies less on energy content and the lower energy intensity of the NH economy indicates a lower price or cost of converting energy into GDP. Reducing the price of an input that is becoming less important each year to the output of the NH economy is not a prescription for revitalizing the NH or any state’s economy.
To cite just one example, high energy prices have hurt but certainly didn’t kill the pulp and paper industry in New Hampshire. Industrial electricity rates in Georgia are almost exactly one-half (5.97 cents/kwh) what they are in New Hampshire (11.97 cents/kwh avg. as of Dec. 2013) but Georgia lost 10,000 pulp and paper jobs (40% of the industry in that state) over the last 11 years. Industrial electricity rates are 40% lower in Wisconsin and Pennsylvania than they are in New Hampshire and those states lost 11,000 and 10,000 jobs respectively in paper-making industries. California lost more than 13,000 jobs in the paper industry, Illinois 12,000, Ohio 10,000 etc., etc. etc., to the tune of about 200,000 jobs lost across the country and in states with both high and low energy prices. So if you thought that lower electricity prices would reverse that industry you would be wrong.
I hope NH does lower electricity prices and if we do, congratulations, we will have won a battle for the 1970’s and 1980’s. Maybe then we can turn our attention to the battle for the future. If you want an example of a NH paper company that is fighting (and winning) today’s and tomorrow’s battles consider Monadnock Paper, you can read an excellent online Forbes article about them here.
The future is as much or more about reducing energy intensity as it is about lowering energy prices. In fact, while lowering energy prices would have been great for NH circa 1980, it might also have delayed the long-term economic adjustments and reductions in energy intensity needed for our state and region to thrive. An industry that can’t thrive in NH because of energy prices is an industry that probably could not thrive in a global economy for a number of other cost-related reasons. Maine’s industrial electricity prices are about one-third lower than they are in the rest of New England and I don’t think it is a coincidence that Maine is the only state in the region with an economy as energy intensive as the rest of the nation (chart below). Maine’s reliance on more energy intensive natural resource industries hasn’t served that state’s economy well in recent decades.
Our state’s (and our region’s) comparative advantage will never be natural resources or lower costs such as electricity. For the most part, state economies have been adjusting to account for that fact in what has been at times a painful but necessary adjustment. As the chart below shows, states with high electricity prices also generally use less electricity per dollar of gross state product.
Although it can, becoming a less energy and electricity intensive economy does not just mean ‘de-industrializing” or becoming a more services-oriented economy. The dollar value of what New Hampshire’s manufacturers produce continues to climb in real dollars, they just do so just using less electricity every year. As the chart below shows, the electricity content per dollar of manufacturing output in the state continues to decline and it is not a coincidence that our manufacturing sector has been evolving from traditional to more advanced manufacturing.
Although much of this trend in manufacturing has to do with the loss of more energy-intensive industries and the emergence of newer, less energy intensive industries, as Monadnock Paper demonstrates, some is also about traditionally energy-intensive industries adapting to the state’s less competitive energy climate. In either case, the NH economy and individual businesses are way ahead of energy policies in the state. The question is whether energy policies can catch-up enough to help facilitate the energy and economic transitions and adaptations that are occurring in the state’s economy
Burn More Gas to Burn Fewer Dollars
October 15, 2012The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration is forecasting over 20 percent more heating degree days for East of the Rockies and depending on your fuel, heating costs could be up by as much as 19% over last year (if you heat with oil). That’s bad news for the almost 50% of NH households that heat with oil (compared to just 6% nationally).
The growing disparity between oil and natural gas prices during the past decade ( graph above) has led to greater use of natural gas in the commercial, industrial, and electric industries in NH and elsewhere, but NH still lags in natural gas usage as a percentage of all energy use in the state.
That is unfortunate because later this decade growth in domestic supply of natural gas (led by dramatic increases in the supply of shale gas) is forecast by the U.S. Energy Information Agency to outstrip growth in demand. Prices, although expected to rise gradually, are still forecast to be lower in 2035 than they were in 2005.
Stable natural gas prices should make investment in natural gas conversions more attractive to NH households. Lending programs by NH banks and credit unions, directed at energy efficiency, could facilitate that. But it is in transportation that conversion to natural gas could have the biggest impact on NH’s and the nation’s energy expenditures and our need for oil imports. The last time I checked, however, there were no dealerships in NH offering the one natural gas powered passenger vehicle produced by major auto manufacturers, there are less than a dozen natural gas “filling stations” in the state, and there are no rules and regulations in place for homeowners to make use of the natural gas lines to their homes by installing already commercially available residential natural gas auto refilling equipment.