October 9, 2026
October 9, 2026
The United States is not one market – why the state you choose matters
Listen to this article
When companies discuss their US exposure, the conversation usually starts in Washington. What happens if tariffs change? Should we keep investing? How would another shift in trade policy affect our suppliers?
These are sensible questions. But they do not tell you what it costs to run a plant in Louisiana, hire in Michigan or expand a site in North Carolina.
Federal policy matters. So does the location beneath the country label.
The United States is one national market with very different conditions across states, regions and individual sites. For procurement and supply chain teams, the useful question is not simply whether a supplier is in the US. It is where — and what that location means for cost, capacity and delivery.
Start with the electricity bill
In September 2025, EIA data showed average industrial electricity prices of 25.50 cents per kilowatt-hour in California and 6.06 cents in Louisiana. More than four times as much, in the same country and the same month. Those monthly figures were preliminary.
For a chemical plant, a smelter or an industrial gas operation, a difference of that size deserves attention before a location decision goes very far.
It is not, however, a price quote.
The published figures are averages of revenue per kilowatt-hour, not the tariff a particular plant can secure. They provide a useful comparison, but not a substitute for the terms offered to an individual site.
Before making a decision, ask what the plant would actually pay: for its expected consumption, demand charges, connection requirements and contract terms.
The averages tell you where to ask more questions. The contract tells you what you will pay.
Taxes and employment rules tell a similar story
In the Tax Foundation’s 2026 State Tax Competitiveness Index, Wyoming and South Dakota rank first and second; New Jersey and New York rank last. The index compares more than 150 features of state tax systems, using a snapshot from July 2025. It evaluates tax structure, not the actual tax bill of a particular business.
That distinction matters. A strong position in a tax ranking does not automatically make a state the best place for your plant. It gives you a reason to investigate — alongside the workforce, infrastructure and customer access the business needs.
Employment rules differ too. Twenty-six states have right-to-work laws, which restrict compulsory union payments as a condition of employment. Michigan’s repeal took effect in February 2024, following legislation passed in 2023.
For a European buyer or investor, the term can be misleading. It does not mean unions are prohibited. It describes a particular rule governing union-related obligations, not the whole employment environment.
The practical questions are broader: what skills are available, what will they cost, and how dependable is the workforce your supplier needs?
How quickly can the site actually operate?
Infrastructure received the largest weighting in CNBC’s 2026 ranking of states for business, at 17.6 percent. The methodology also added permitting speed alongside measures of electrical-grid capacity, reliability and other infrastructure. Ohio ranked first overall, followed by North Carolina and Virginia.
The ranking is useful context, not a delivery schedule.
Before relying on a new site, the questions need to become more specific. Can the utility supply the required load? What work is needed before connection? Which permits remain outstanding? Who is responsible for the infrastructure, and when will it be ready?
A state can look attractive on paper while a particular project still has important conditions to meet.
From investment announcement to production
Recent industrial projects make the difference between a country decision and a site decision easier to see.
In September 2026, HYUNDAI-POSCO Louisiana Steel marked the launch of its $5.8 billion mill project in Louisiana. Commercial production is targeted for 2029. The site’s Mississippi River access and a planned deep-water dock are concrete advantages for a plant expected to produce 2.7 million tonnes of steel annually. These are attributes of the location, not of a national business-climate score.
Aurubis offers a different example. Its roughly $800 million multimetal recycling plant in Augusta, Georgia, began its production ramp-up in September 2025. With its expansion, the plant is designed to process up to 180,000 tonnes of complex recycling materials annually, including circuit boards and copper cables. Aurubis points to the availability of recycling material and good local conditions as reasons the US market is attractive.
Neither project proves that federal policy was irrelevant. Nor do the announcements provide a complete account of how the locations were chosen.
They do show why the analysis needs to continue below country level. A steel mill needs access to incoming materials and outgoing customers. A recycling plant needs suitable feedstock. A buyer relying on either needs to distinguish between announced capacity, a project under development and production that is actually available.
Choosing the United States and choosing a site within it are related decisions. They are not the same decision.
What a country score misses
A country-level assessment can help organise questions about federal policy. On its own, it cannot explain the operating conditions at a particular supplier or plant.
If two suppliers appear simply as “US exposure,” the assessment may tell you too little about either one.
Consider an established operation with confirmed utility capacity and another supplier whose planned expansion still depends on a connection date. Both carry the same country label. They do not offer the same certainty about future supply.
This is not an argument against country analysis. It is an argument against stopping there.
Nor is every answer determined by the state. The relevant detail may sit with a county, a utility, a port or the supplier itself. The state is a useful next layer, not the final one.
Follow the analysis through to the site
For procurement teams, the first step is straightforward: identify where critical suppliers actually manufacture, rather than relying on the address of their US headquarters.
Then separate what you know about the country from what you know about the operation.
For each important site, ask:
What electricity terms apply, and is capacity available for expansion?
Which skills are difficult to recruit or retain?
Which permits and infrastructure commitments remain unresolved?
What would a delayed opening or expansion mean for your supply?
Which incentives depend on investment, hiring or other targets?
Rankings and published averages can help narrow the search. Before committing capital or depending on new capacity, ask for the documents behind the assumptions: utility terms, tax calculations, permit schedules and incentive conditions.
Put a cost against delays rather than treating the opening date as a fixed planning assumption. Separate benefits already secured from those still dependent on approval or performance. And do not count future production as available supply simply because the investment has been announced.
These questions attract less attention than the next tariff announcement. They are also questions a procurement team can act on.
The location matters
A national assessment can look complete while leaving a basic question unanswered: what does this particular location mean for the business?
That is the gap worth closing.
Washington belongs in the analysis. So do the state, the local infrastructure and the site itself. The point is not to watch federal policy less closely. It is to look just as carefully at the conditions your suppliers and operations depend on.
At PROCUREMENT reWIRED, we approach US exposure through those practical questions: where production happens, what its costs depend on, and what could interrupt delivery.
Want a first look at your own supply chain risks? Start with our Supply Chain Risk Analyzer.
Listen to this article
When companies discuss their US exposure, the conversation usually starts in Washington. What happens if tariffs change? Should we keep investing? How would another shift in trade policy affect our suppliers?
These are sensible questions. But they do not tell you what it costs to run a plant in Louisiana, hire in Michigan or expand a site in North Carolina.
Federal policy matters. So does the location beneath the country label.
The United States is one national market with very different conditions across states, regions and individual sites. For procurement and supply chain teams, the useful question is not simply whether a supplier is in the US. It is where — and what that location means for cost, capacity and delivery.
Start with the electricity bill
In September 2025, EIA data showed average industrial electricity prices of 25.50 cents per kilowatt-hour in California and 6.06 cents in Louisiana. More than four times as much, in the same country and the same month. Those monthly figures were preliminary.
For a chemical plant, a smelter or an industrial gas operation, a difference of that size deserves attention before a location decision goes very far.
It is not, however, a price quote.
The published figures are averages of revenue per kilowatt-hour, not the tariff a particular plant can secure. They provide a useful comparison, but not a substitute for the terms offered to an individual site.
Before making a decision, ask what the plant would actually pay: for its expected consumption, demand charges, connection requirements and contract terms.
The averages tell you where to ask more questions. The contract tells you what you will pay.
Taxes and employment rules tell a similar story
In the Tax Foundation’s 2026 State Tax Competitiveness Index, Wyoming and South Dakota rank first and second; New Jersey and New York rank last. The index compares more than 150 features of state tax systems, using a snapshot from July 2025. It evaluates tax structure, not the actual tax bill of a particular business.
That distinction matters. A strong position in a tax ranking does not automatically make a state the best place for your plant. It gives you a reason to investigate — alongside the workforce, infrastructure and customer access the business needs.
Employment rules differ too. Twenty-six states have right-to-work laws, which restrict compulsory union payments as a condition of employment. Michigan’s repeal took effect in February 2024, following legislation passed in 2023.
For a European buyer or investor, the term can be misleading. It does not mean unions are prohibited. It describes a particular rule governing union-related obligations, not the whole employment environment.
The practical questions are broader: what skills are available, what will they cost, and how dependable is the workforce your supplier needs?
How quickly can the site actually operate?
Infrastructure received the largest weighting in CNBC’s 2026 ranking of states for business, at 17.6 percent. The methodology also added permitting speed alongside measures of electrical-grid capacity, reliability and other infrastructure. Ohio ranked first overall, followed by North Carolina and Virginia.
The ranking is useful context, not a delivery schedule.
Before relying on a new site, the questions need to become more specific. Can the utility supply the required load? What work is needed before connection? Which permits remain outstanding? Who is responsible for the infrastructure, and when will it be ready?
A state can look attractive on paper while a particular project still has important conditions to meet.
From investment announcement to production
Recent industrial projects make the difference between a country decision and a site decision easier to see.
In September 2026, HYUNDAI-POSCO Louisiana Steel marked the launch of its $5.8 billion mill project in Louisiana. Commercial production is targeted for 2029. The site’s Mississippi River access and a planned deep-water dock are concrete advantages for a plant expected to produce 2.7 million tonnes of steel annually. These are attributes of the location, not of a national business-climate score.
Aurubis offers a different example. Its roughly $800 million multimetal recycling plant in Augusta, Georgia, began its production ramp-up in September 2025. With its expansion, the plant is designed to process up to 180,000 tonnes of complex recycling materials annually, including circuit boards and copper cables. Aurubis points to the availability of recycling material and good local conditions as reasons the US market is attractive.
Neither project proves that federal policy was irrelevant. Nor do the announcements provide a complete account of how the locations were chosen.
They do show why the analysis needs to continue below country level. A steel mill needs access to incoming materials and outgoing customers. A recycling plant needs suitable feedstock. A buyer relying on either needs to distinguish between announced capacity, a project under development and production that is actually available.
Choosing the United States and choosing a site within it are related decisions. They are not the same decision.
What a country score misses
A country-level assessment can help organise questions about federal policy. On its own, it cannot explain the operating conditions at a particular supplier or plant.
If two suppliers appear simply as “US exposure,” the assessment may tell you too little about either one.
Consider an established operation with confirmed utility capacity and another supplier whose planned expansion still depends on a connection date. Both carry the same country label. They do not offer the same certainty about future supply.
This is not an argument against country analysis. It is an argument against stopping there.
Nor is every answer determined by the state. The relevant detail may sit with a county, a utility, a port or the supplier itself. The state is a useful next layer, not the final one.
Follow the analysis through to the site
For procurement teams, the first step is straightforward: identify where critical suppliers actually manufacture, rather than relying on the address of their US headquarters.
Then separate what you know about the country from what you know about the operation.
For each important site, ask:
What electricity terms apply, and is capacity available for expansion?
Which skills are difficult to recruit or retain?
Which permits and infrastructure commitments remain unresolved?
What would a delayed opening or expansion mean for your supply?
Which incentives depend on investment, hiring or other targets?
Rankings and published averages can help narrow the search. Before committing capital or depending on new capacity, ask for the documents behind the assumptions: utility terms, tax calculations, permit schedules and incentive conditions.
Put a cost against delays rather than treating the opening date as a fixed planning assumption. Separate benefits already secured from those still dependent on approval or performance. And do not count future production as available supply simply because the investment has been announced.
These questions attract less attention than the next tariff announcement. They are also questions a procurement team can act on.
The location matters
A national assessment can look complete while leaving a basic question unanswered: what does this particular location mean for the business?
That is the gap worth closing.
Washington belongs in the analysis. So do the state, the local infrastructure and the site itself. The point is not to watch federal policy less closely. It is to look just as carefully at the conditions your suppliers and operations depend on.
At PROCUREMENT reWIRED, we approach US exposure through those practical questions: where production happens, what its costs depend on, and what could interrupt delivery.
Want a first look at your own supply chain risks? Start with our Supply Chain Risk Analyzer.
