Connect with us

Business

How Hard It Is to Make Trade Deals

Published

on

How Hard It Is to Make Trade Deals

President Trump has announced wave after wave of tariffs since taking office in January, part of a sweeping effort that he has argued would secure better trade terms with other countries. “It’s called negotiation,” he recently said.

In April, administration officials vowed to sign trade deals with as many as 90 countries in 90 days. The ambitious target came after Mr. Trump announced, and then rolled back a portion of, steep tariffs that in some cases meant import taxes cost more than the wholesale price of a good itself.

Advertisement

The 90-day goal, however, is a tenth of the time it usually takes to reach a trade deal, according to a New York Times analysis of major agreements with the United States currently in effect, raising questions about how realistic the administration’s target may be. It typically takes 917 days, or roughly two and a half years, for a trade deal to go from initial talks to the president’s desk for signature, the analysis shows.

Roughly 60 days into the current process, Mr. Trump has so far announced only one deal: a pact with Britain, which is not one of America’s biggest trading partners.

Advertisement

He has also suggested that negotiations with China have been rocky. “I like President XI of China, always have, and always will, but he is VERY TOUGH, AND EXTREMELY HARD TO MAKE A DEAL WITH!!!” Mr. Trump wrote on Truth Social on Wednesday. China and the United States agreed last month to temporarily slash tariffs on each other’s imports in a gesture of good will to continue talks.

Part of what the president can accomplish boils down to what you can call a deal.

The pact with Britain is less of a deal than it is a framework for talking about a deal, said Wendy Cutler, the vice president of the Asia Society Policy Institute and a former U.S. trade negotiator. What was officially released by the two nations more closely resembled talking points for “what you were going to negotiate versus the actual commitment,” she said.

Advertisement

During his first term, Mr. Trump secured two major trade agreements, both signed in January 2020. One was the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement, which was a reworking of the North American free trade treaty from the 1990s that had helped transform the economies of the three nations.

U.S.M.C.A. is an all-encompassing, legally binding agreement that resulted from a lengthy and formal process, according to trade analysts.

Advertisement

Such deals are supposed to cover all aspects of trade between the respective nations and are negotiated under specific guidelines for congressional consultation. Closing the deal involves both negotiation and ratification — modifying or making laws in each partner country. The deals are signed by trade negotiators before the president signs the legislation that puts it into effect for the United States.

Mr. Trump’s other major agreement in his first term was with China, in an echo of the current trade war. The pact, unlike previous deals, came about after Mr. Trump threatened tariffs on certain Chinese imports. This “tariff first, talk later” approach, said Inu Manak, a trade policy fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, is part of the same playbook the administration is currently using.

The result was a nonbinding agreement between the two countries, known as “Phase One,” that did not require approval from Congress and that could be ended by either party at any time. Still, it took almost one year and nine months to complete. China ultimately fell far short of the commitments it made to purchase American goods under the agreement.

Advertisement

A comparison of the two first-term Trump deals shows the drawn-out and sometimes winding paths each took to completion. Fragile truces (including ones made for 90 days) were formed, only for talks to break down later, all while rounds of tariffs injected uncertainty into the diplomatic relations between countries.

The Times analysis used the date from the start of negotiations to the date when the president signed to determine the length of deal making for each major agreement dating back to 1985 that’s currently in effect. The median time it took to get to the president’s signature was just over 900 days. (A separate analysis published in 2016 by the Peterson Institute for International Economics used the date of signature by country representatives as the completion moment and found that the median deal took more than 570 days.)

Advertisement

With roughly one month before the administration’s self-imposed deadline, Mr. Trump’s ability to forge deals has been thrust into sudden doubt. Last week, a U.S. trade court ruled he had overstepped his authority in imposing the April tariffs.

For now, the tariffs remain in place, following a temporary stay from a federal appeals court. But in arguing its case, the federal government initially said that the ruling could upset negotiations with other nations and undercut the president’s leverage.

Advertisement

In a statement on Wednesday, Kush Desai, a White House spokesman, said that trade negotiators were working to secure “custom-made trade deals at lightning speed that level the playing field for American industries and workers.”

But in other recent public statements, White House officials have significantly pared back their ambitions for the deals.

In April, Scott Bessent, the Treasury secretary, hedged the number of agreements they might reach, suggesting that the United States would talk to somewhere between 50 and 70 countries. Last month he said the United States was negotiating with 17 “very important trading relationships,” not including China.

Advertisement

“I think when the administration first started, they thought they could actually do these binding and enforceable deals within 90 days and then quickly realized that they bit off more than they could chew,” Ms. Cutler said.

The administration told its negotiating partners to submit offers of trade concessions they were willing to make by Wednesday, in an effort to strike trade deals in the coming weeks. The deadline was earlier reported by Reuters.

Advertisement

The current approach to deal making may be strategic, Ms. Manak said. One of the benefits of not doing a comprehensive deal like U.S.M.C.A. is that the administration can declare small “victories” on a much faster timeline, she said.

“It means that trade agreements simply are just not what they used to be,” she added. “And you can’t really guarantee that whatever the U.S. promises is actually going to be upheld in the long run.”

Advertisement

Data and graphics are based on a New York Times analysis of information from the Congressional Research Service, the U.S. Trade Representative, the Organization of American States’ Foreign Trade Information System and public White House communications.

Advertisement

Business

Disney warns that ESPN, ABC and other channels could go dark on YouTube TV

Published

on

Disney warns that ESPN, ABC and other channels could go dark on YouTube TV

Walt Disney Co. is alerting viewers that its channels may go dark on YouTube TV amid tense contract negotiations between the two television giants.

The companies are struggling to hammer out a new distribution deal on YouTube TV for Disney’s channels, including ABC, ESPN, FX, National Geographic and Disney Channel. YouTube TV has become one of the most popular U.S. pay-TV services, boasting about 10 million subscribers for its packages of traditional television channels.

Those customers risk losing Disney’s channels, including KABC-TV Channel 7 in Los Angeles and other ABC affiliates nationwide if the two companies fail to forge a new carriage agreement by Oct. 30, when their pact expires.

“Without an agreement, we’ll have to remove Disney’s content from YouTube TV,” the Google Inc.-owned television service said Thursday in a statement.

Advertisement

Disney began sounding the alarm by running messages on its TV channels to warn viewers about the blackout threat.

The Burbank entertainment company becomes the latest TV programmer to allege that the tech behemoth is throwing its weight around in contract negotiations.

In recent months, both Rupert Murdoch’s Fox Corp. and Comcast’s NBCUniversal publicly complained that Google’s YouTube TV was attempting to unfairly squeeze them in their separate talks. In the end, both Fox and NBCUniversal struck new carriage contracts without their channels going dark.

Univision wasn’t as fortunate. The smaller, Spanish-language media company’s networks went dark last month on YouTube TV when the two companies failed to reach a deal.

“For the fourth time in three months, Google’s YouTube TV is putting their subscribers at risk of losing the most valuable networks they signed up for,” a Disney spokesperson said Thursday in a statement. “This is the latest example of Google exploiting its position at the expense of their own customers.”

Advertisement

YouTube TV, for its part, alleged that Disney was the one making unreasonable demands.

“We’ve been working in good faith to negotiate a deal with Disney that pays them fairly for their content on YouTube TV,” a YouTube TV spokesperson said in a statement. “Unfortunately, Disney is proposing costly economic terms that would raise prices on YouTube TV customers and give our customers fewer choices, while benefiting Disney’s own live TV products – like Hulu + Live TV and, soon, Fubo.”

Disney’s Hulu + Live TV competes directly with YouTube TV by offering the same channels. Fubo is a sports streaming service that Disney is in the process of acquiring.

YouTube said if Disney channels remain “unavailable for an extended period of time,” it would offer its customers a $20 credit.

The contract tussle heightens tensions from earlier this year, when Disney’s former distribution chief, Justin Connolly, left in May to take a similar position at YouTube TV. Connolly had spent two decades at Disney and ESPN and Disney sued to block the move, but a judge allowed Connolly to take his new position.

Advertisement

YouTube TV launched in April 2017 for $35 a month. The package of channels now costs $82.99.

To attract more sports fans, YouTube TV took over the NFL Sunday Ticket premium sports package from DirecTV, which had been losing more than $100 million a year to maintain the NFL service. YouTube TV offers Sunday Ticket as a base plan add-on or as an individual channel on YouTube.

Last year, YouTube generated $54.2 billion in revenue, second only to Disney among television companies, according to research firm MoffettNathanson.

The dispute comes as NFL and college football is in full swing, with games on ABC and ESPN. The NBA season also tipped off this week and ESPN prominently features those games. ABC’s fall season began last month with fresh episodes of such favorite programs as “Dancing with the Stars” and “Abbott Elementary.”

ABC stations also air popular newscasts including “Good Morning America” and “World News Tonight with David Muir.” Many ABC stations, including in Los Angeles, run Sony’s “Wheel of Fortune” and “Jeopardy!”

Advertisement

“We invest significantly in our content and expect our partners to pay fair rates that recognize that value,” Disney said. “If we don’t reach a fair deal soon, YouTube TV customers will lose access to ESPN and ABC, and all our marquee programming – including the NFL, college football, NBA and NHL seasons – and so much more.”

Continue Reading

Business

10 years since Aliso Canyon: Disaster was wake-up call for U.S. on dangers of underground gas

Published

on

10 years since Aliso Canyon: Disaster was wake-up call for U.S. on dangers of underground gas

On an evening 10 years ago, Porter Ranch resident Matt Pakucko stepped out of his music studio and was walloped by the smell of gas — like sticking your head in an oven, he recalled.

Pakucko called the fire department. It turned out crews had already been up to the Aliso Canyon gas storage facility in the Santa Susana Mountains behind the neighborhood, responding to a report of a leak. Many of his neighbors were beginning to feel ill, reporting issues such as heart palpitations, vomiting, burning eyes and bloody noses.

“I swear I thought I was standing behind a 747 with its engines blowing — it was not just gas, it was oil smell, it was chemical smell that permeated,” recalled Pakucko, who went on to co-found the advocacy group Save Porter Ranch. “I couldn’t stay out there for 30 seconds. It tasted like f— gasoline.”

Soon it was clear that this wasn’t just a leak — it was a blowout. Over the course of 112 days, the Aliso Canyon facility would spew an estimated 120,000 tons of methane and toxic chemicals into the atmosphere. It was the worst natural-gas well blowout in U.S. history, and an environmental disaster whose effects will be unpacked for generations.

The event was widely seen as a wake-up call to the dangers of methane and underground natural gas storage. Methane, a planet-warming greenhouse gas, is about 80 times more potent than carbon dioxide and is responsible for about a quarter of all the human-caused climate change we are experiencing. A study published by UCLA researchers last month found that women in their final trimester of pregnancy who were living within 6.2 miles downwind of the blowout in 2015 had a nearly 50% higher-than-expected chance of having a low birth-weight baby.

Advertisement

The blowout ushered in a wave of new regulations to strengthen the governance of natural gas storage facilities in California and the United States, as well as new tools and technology to monitor methane emissions.

But 10 years later, some Porter Ranch residents say the wounds still feel fresh, and too many promises have been broken. After the disaster, then-Gov. Jerry Brown called for the permanent closure of Aliso Canyon by 2027 — a goal his successor, Gavin Newsom, called a top priority and vowed to meet even sooner.

Instead, Aliso Canyon remains open, with regulators voting in December to continue using the facility for years — probably into the 2030s — citing the need for natural gas to help maintain affordable energy rates and grid reliability in California.

Advertisement

The facility is a key asset for Southern California Gas. In an emailed statement, the company said the state would struggle to meet electricity demand without Aliso Canyon’s storage. The site fuels 17 power plants and helps keep the lights on during the hours that can’t yet be met by solar, wind and other renewable resources, the company said. Natural gas still represents about 40% of the state’s electricity supply.

“There’s a lot of work to do to get off natural gas and oil in California,” said Adam Peltz, senior attorney with the nonprofit Environmental Defense Fund. “That work is underway, but it’s not complete. If you’ve built an economy on fossil fuels, it takes awhile to get off of it.”

Aliso Canyon was originally drilled as an oil field in the late 1930s before SoCalGas converted it to natural gas storage in the early 1970s. Utilities often use played out crude oil fields as places to pump gas downward under pressure and hold it until it is needed.

Aliso Canyon is one of the largest natural gas storage facilities in the U.S.

In the lead-up to the blowout, SoCalGas was filling the site in preparation for the winter heating season. Crews were using tremendous force to pump gas down a well that was more than 60 years old. But a metal casing on well SS-25 had corroded, and gas began blowing out at very high volumes.

Methane is not visible to the naked eye, but aerial images captured with infrared cameras and released by the Environmental Defense Fund showed a geyser-like eruption of the flammable, climate changing gas — making it clear to the whole world the magnitude of the disaster.

Advertisement
A man with glasses, in a dark jacket and red shirt, stands near people holding a sign and a banner

Matt Pakucko, right, founder of Save Porter Ranch, and other protesters against SoCalGas hold a rally at the intersection of Tampa Avenue and Rinaldi Street on Sept. 28, 2021, in Porter Ranch.

(Irfan Khan / Los Angeles Times)

It took nearly four months for crews to stop the leak. By that time, damage was done. More than 8,000 households were temporarily displaced, businesses were shut down, and two schools were relocated for several months.

Researchers are still working to unpack the health outcomes of the event. SoCalGas, meanwhile, has paid about $2 billion in settlements and agreed to operate the facility at a lower maximum pressure.

Officials with the gas company said they have shored up the facility, including replacing the inner steel tubing on all operating wells and conducting continuous ambient methane monitoring. All wells at the site are subject to real-time pressure readings and visual inspections four times a day, among other protocols, SoCalGas said.

Advertisement

“Over the past 10 years, SoCalGas has conducted comprehensive safety reviews and implemented multiple safety layers that protect one of California’s most important assets for energy reliability and affordability,” the company said.

While the maximum allowable operating pressure at the site remains reduced — about 3,183 pounds per square inch compared with 3,600 pounds per square inch in 2015 — state officials recently voted to let SoCalGas increase storage at the facility to 68.6 billion cubic feet of natural gas from 41 billion cubic feet, outraging many in the community.

But experts say there are silver linings to the disaster. California overhauled its underground natural gas storage regulations to make them the strongest in the nation and among the strongest in the world, according to Peltz, of the Environmental Defense Fund. The changes include more thoughtful rules for well construction, better monitoring and risk management, and improved planning and emergency response.

Congress reacted to the disaster by requiring its regulatory agency, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, to issue safety standards for natural gas storage nationwide. In 2016, it adopted best practices recommended by the American Petroleum Institute, which were strengthened at the beginning of this month.

Many states with natural gas storage previously had no regulations at all, Peltz said.

Advertisement

“On a national basis, the systems will be safer as a result of that change,” he said.

There have been technological advancements too. The infrared aerial recording of the leak captured in 2015 was a relatively new technique at the time, but has now become commonplace. The California Air Resources Board conducted its first large-scale statewide aerial methane survey in 2016, identifying many of the largest methane sources in the state.

There have also been considerable advancements in the ability to observe methane super-emitters through satellites and remote sensors, according to Seth Shonkoff, executive director at the science research institute PSE Healthy Energy and an associate researcher at the UC Berkeley School of Public Health.

“The rub is that we know more than we ever have, and we’re perhaps controlling more than we would have if we didn’t have the technology to see them, but we’re still seeing more and more of these large-scale emission events all across the United States and all across the world,” he said.

Methane concentrations in the atmosphere are still rising. It is streaming, often constantly, from facilities associated with the oil and gas industry, landfills and dairy farms, among other sources.

Advertisement
View of a storage facility in a hilly area with winding roads

The Aliso Canyon Southern California Gas storage facility on May 28, 2020.

(Robert Gauthier / Los Angeles Times)

Methane isn’t the only concern either. Researchers now have a better understanding of what’s in the gas that blew from Aliso Canyon and that continues to be stored in natural gas facilities around the country. Although it is primarily composed of methane, roughly 99% of samples analyzed by Shonkoff and his team have contained hazardous air pollutants such as benzene, hexane and toluene, largely as a result of commingling with depleted oil and other subsurface materials.

Moving forward, he said, it will be critically important for gas companies to disclose to regulators and risk managers what their gas is composed of, so that if it leaks, responders can quickly determine the appropriate response.

“If we had had that with Aliso Canyon, we could have, within a matter of hours, understood whether people should get out of the way or stay inside, and we wouldn’t have had as many people suffering from health symptoms,” Shonkoff said.

Advertisement

In 2024, the Biden administration passed the first comprehensive rules to limit methane pollution by fining oil and gas developers for excessive emissions. But this year, the Trump administration revoked the rule, which it described as a tax.

At the same time, many natural gas storage facilities across the country are old and require retrofitting to meet current regulations, but such upgrades can be slow and expensive — often leaving ratepayers on the hook.

Residents near Aliso Canyon have also long feared an earthquake or wildfire in the area. The gas field sits along the Santa Susana fault and is in a high fire hazard severity zone. SoCalGas says it has numerous safety plans and procedures in place.

Perhaps the greatest tension remains between those who wish to see Aliso Canyon shuttered and the officials who say the facility is critically important to California’s energy supply, which is increasingly trying to serve power-hungry artificial intelligence data centers.

People sitting on a road, holding large posters of officials. Behind them are people in dark uniforms and a hilly landscape

Dozens of Porter Ranch protesters chant “shut it all down,” as they demonstrate at the Aliso Canyon gas storage facility in Porter Ranch on May 15, 2016.

(Francine Orr / Los Angeles Times)

Advertisement

California has committed to reaching 100% carbon neutrality by 2045. But SoCalGas says it still needs Aliso Canyon.

“SoCalGas is aligned with the state of California in pursuing the technologies and infrastructure that supports California’s climate plan, including clean renewable hydrogen and renewable natural gas, that could, over time with other renewable energy projects, deliver the reliability and affordability Aliso Canyon supports today,” the utility said in a statement. However, any decision to reduce or eliminate operations at Aliso Canyon must be based on genuine reduced demand that is permanent, the company said.

Pakucko, of Save Porter Ranch, noted that the facility was offline for two years after the blowout without an interruption in service.

“Two years!” he said. “And guess what? We managed without the facility.”

Advertisement

For others in the area, it feels like the latest in string of broken promises.

Among SoCalGas’s settlement agreements was a $120-million consent decree with the state of California requiring the utility to fund methane mitigation projects, air monitoring and other initiatives to address alleged harms caused by the blowout. About $25 million of that went toward a long-term health study on the effects of natural gas exposure, which is being conducted by researchers at UCLA. The results are eagerly awaited.

About $26 million went to a program for dairy digesters in the Central Valley, which capture methane from cow manure before it enters the atmosphere. Many had hoped those funds would be spent closer to home, including former L.A. Mayor Eric Garcetti, who at one point envisioned the mitigation money being used to transform Porter Ranch into a net-zero community.

“That would have been so great,” said Patty Gleuck, a Porter Ranch resident who served on the community advisory group for the health study. Instead, “that money went to this dairy digester program that does not benefit this area.”

Like Pakucko, Gleuck recalled suffering health effects during the blowout, including a tightness in her chest and a metallic taste in her mouth that dissipated when she left the area and resumed when she returned.

Advertisement

She still suffers from a chronic cough and uses an inhaler, she said, adding that “a lot of inhalers were prescribed in the area.”

“A lot of people moved away, taking a loss on their homes because they were so sick, or their family members were sick,” she said. “I just don’t think that there has been justice.”

Continue Reading

Business

Cable giant Charter cuts 1,200 managers from its workforce

Published

on

Cable giant Charter cuts 1,200 managers from its workforce

Cable giant Charter Communications is laying off 1,200 employees nationwide as the company faces increased competition for its broadband internet packages.

The company operates Spectrum cable TV and broadband service, which was once a huge growth engine. But the company has faced a steady drumbeat of subscriber losses, including shedding 177,000 internet customers in the first and second quarters of this year.

The company has nearly 30 million internet customers.

The layoffs, equivalent to a little more than1% of its workforce, hit corporate and management positions at Charter’s headquarters in Stamford, Conn., and centers in Charlotte, Denver and St. Louis, according to a person familiar with the cuts but was not authorized to comment.

No sales or service positions were eliminated, the person said, adding the cuts were part of an effort to streamline management functions. The company is scheduled to announce its third-quarter earnings next week.

Advertisement

In addition to its internet service, Charter provides bundles of cable television channels to 12.6 million customers.

It also has nearly 11 million mobile phone subscribers.

The move comes in advance of Charter’s planned takeover of Cox Communications, which also operates in Southern California. This week’s cuts were not related to the Cox transaction, the knowledgeable person said.

Charter’s $34.5-billion industry-consolidating deal with Cox, which was unveiled in May, needs regulatory approval but that process has been slowed by the federal government shut-down.

Charter reported that it had about 94,500 active full-time workers at the end of 2024.

Advertisement

The company’s stock is down 27% since the beginning of the year. On Wednesday, shares slipped around 1% in mid-day trading.

Broadband internet has been the company’s bright spot as revenue from cable TV packages steadily declined over the years amid consumer cord-cutting and the shift to streaming.

Charter recognized that trend and began offering streaming apps to its broadband customers to help with retention efforts.

Two years ago, the company suffered huge cable TV customer losses during its 10-day blackout of Walt Disney Co. channels, including ESPN, during a tense distribution battle.

Charter was able to wrangle the ability to offer Disney’s streaming apps, including Disney+ and Hulu, to Spectrum customers.

Advertisement

The company had already been undergoing scattered instances of belt-tightening.

In August, Charter canceled its award-winning El Segundo based news show, “LA Times Today,” a collaboration with the Los Angeles Times, which ran on the cable company’s Spectrum 1 news channel.

Continue Reading

Trending