March 2026 | Market Update
March in Motion: Your Market Update
From Chuck Hoop, Business Director, Star Plastics
Check out what’s inside:
- Resin Pricing & Feedstock Trends
- Capacity & Supply Chain Developments
- Trade & Tariff Landscape
- Corporate Restructuring & Industry Performance
- Construction & Housing Outlook
- U.S. Manufacturing Trends
- Canadian Plastics Regulation Update
- Automotive & Metals Market Update
- AI, Data Centers & Semiconductor Expansion
- Energy & Power Market Implications
- European Recycling Policy Developments
On the resin pricing front
– Geon announced a 2 CPP increase for implementation on March 2. Additionally, they announced a 2 CPP increase for generic products and 1 CPP additional for products with tin stabilizers. (Read Geon’s letter here).
– American Styrenics announced on February 18, an increase of 5 CPP, effective March 1. (Check out AmSty’s letter here).
I would expect more increases, and benzene is on the move, consistently moving up. It is part of the backbone for nylon 6, 66, PC, and ABS.
Polycarbonate: In February, North American PC prices moved up for both 3 CPP for GP and 3 CPP for optical media. The increase was primarily cost-push, with benzene and propylene continuing to lift PC costs even though demand is described as stagnant/soft and inventories remain elevated.
ABS: In February, North American ABS prices rose 4 CPP for both GP and extrusion grades. This as a volatile cost-push month, driven by a “triple-threat” of styrene, butadiene, and ammonia/feedstock-related cost increases, which were amplified by severe weather disruptions (Winter Storm Fern) that drove a sharp natural gas/utility-cost spike and created operational/logistics friction across the Gulf Coast.
Nylon 6: North American nylon 6 increased 5 CPP in February with the main “why” this month being again feedstock-driven cost pressure/volatility: February cash costs for nylon 6 (and 66) rose materially due to feedstock fluctuations, implying pricing followed costs rather than a demand-led tightening.
Nylon 66: North American nylon 66 rose 3 CPP in February and, similar to nylon 6, feedstock volatility pushed cash costs up in February (with expectations for some cost relief in March). The monthly increase reads as cost pass-through more than a demand surge.
PBT: North America PBT was flat in February though pricing is more tied to supply/demand than feedstock swings, and with weak demand (automotive as being soft and buying cautious, sellers haven’t been able to move prices meaningfully despite some underlying cost movement.
Overall, February was mostly a cost-push month across engineering resins. PC, ABS, and nylons – all are projected to move higher because of key upstream inputs which are now more expensive (and in ABS, weather-related disruptions added extra chaos and cost), so producers pushed through increases even though demand didn’t suddenly get better. PBT was the exception – it stayed flat, largely because demand is still soft (automotive) and that market is behaving more like a supply/demand story than a straight feedstock pass-through right now.
Sabic Shut Down starting March 1
A planned shutdown for the Burkville, Alabama location is set to start on March 1 and is expected to last six weeks. This is one of the two most significant PC plants, the other being Mount Vernon, Indiana. Who wants to take a stab at when they really come back up? This will put more pressure on Mount Vernon to operate more efficiently.
Subscribe to Star’s Monthly Market Updates
Supreme Court rejects Trump IEEPA tariffs
In a February 20 article in Plastics News, the Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that President Trump went too far by using the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to apply “Liberation Day” tariffs on global trading partners, saying that law doesn’t give a president this broad power to impose tariffs whenever they want. The decision only knocks out tariffs that were specifically imposed under IEEPA—it doesn’t undo other tariffs put in place using different trade tools like Section 232 or Section 301. One of the companies involved in the case was Genova Pipe, a plastic pipe maker. A big open question now is refunds: some justices warned the government could end up owing billions back to importers, and the process could get messy, especially if costs were already passed along to customers. The Liberty Justice Center says it’s preparing resources to help businesses figure out whether they can pursue refunds, and there’s also a related Court of International Trade case that suggests the court can order refunds even on finalized entries and keep jurisdiction over claims for at least two years.
For the plastics industry, this likely means short-term volatility and paperwork (possible refund opportunities for companies that paid IEEPA tariffs), but not a clean “tariffs are gone” outcome. The administration can still lean hard on Section 232 and 301, so tariff risk just shifts lanes instead of disappearing—especially for plastics machinery and factory equipment. The industry has warned added tariffs could raise costs and slow investment (and the U.S. imports a big share of plastics machinery). Net-net: some near-term relief for certain importers, but continued uncertainty on equipment, tooling, and supply chains if replacement tariffs roll out under other statutes. You can read the full article here.
There were multiple news and trade outlets that picked up on this including North American Manufacturers, Housing Wire Daily, WSJ, Freight Waves and many others. Each has its own opinion on what it means, and it will take time to iron out the details.
Dow is cutting 4,500 jobs, or 12% of its workforce
In a Plastics News article, Dow said on January 29 that it’s launching a big “Transform to Outperform” improvement program that will cut about 4,500 jobs (more than 12% of its global workforce) and is aimed at making the company simpler, more productive, and more competitive. The company expects the overall program to deliver about $2 billion in operating improvements, with roughly $600 million to $800 million of that tied to the job reductions, and executives said it’s meant to help Dow push through a prolonged industry downturn while still supporting customers and improving shareholder returns. The news landed the same day Dow reported results that beat analyst expectations, even though its 2025 performance was weaker overall: full-year sales were $40 billion, down 7% from 2024, and Dow swung to a $2.4 billion loss after posting $1.2 billion in earnings the prior year. In the fourth quarter of 2025, sales were $9.5 billion (down 9% year over year) and the company recorded a loss of nearly $1.5 billion. By business, packaging and specialty plastics saw quarterly sales drop 11% to $4.7 billion and operating profit fall 50% to $215 million, while Industrial Intermediates and Infrastructure had sales down 7% to $2.7 billion and posted an operating loss of $201 million. See more here.
Plastics Industry Braces for 2026 Construction Market Challenges
In a Plastics Today article, the Plastics Industry Association’s chief economist, Perc Pineda, says the overall U.S. economy has held up well lately, but the construction side of the picture is still a concern heading into 2026. Even with strong consumer spending and decent business investment supporting GDP, both nonresidential and residential construction investment have been mostly weak—nonresidential has been down for seven straight quarters, and residential has only grown in two of the last seven—creating a real headwind for plastics demand because so many plastic products feed into building activity. He notes that plastics usage in construction is meaningful (especially in single-family homes and other residential structures), and the industry should focus less on “housing sentiment” and more on actual construction-related manufacturing output, since plastics production tends to track construction supplies manufacturing closely. The good news is borrowing costs are easing a bit, with mortgage rates around 6.1% in January 2026, and some input-cost measures look more stable. Pineda expects any housing rebound to be gradual and highly dependent on labor availability, financing conditions, and whether investment in structures finally turns from a drag into a tailwind later in 2026. Find more details here.
Canada’s top appeals court upholds Ottawa’s right to label plastic products as toxic
In Plastics News and other sources, Canada’s Federal Court of Appeal just handed Ottawa a big win on plastics policy, saying the federal government was within its rights to list “plastic manufactured items” as “toxic” under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act (CEPA). The court tossed out a 2023 lower-court decision that had called the move unreasonable and unconstitutional, and it pushed back on arguments from industry and some provinces that “plastics” is too broad a category and that the feds were stepping on provincial turf. Justice Donald Rennie said the lower court basically got CEPA wrong: listing something and regulating it are two separate steps, and the law doesn’t require perfect precision at the listing stage. Importantly, the ruling doesn’t ban plastics outright—it just gives Ottawa the legal power to regulate specific plastic products later through consultation and rulemaking. The court also rejected the “only 1% of plastics leak into the environment” argument, saying the real point is how much that 1% adds up to in total pollution each year. Environmental and health groups celebrated the decision as a key tool for cutting plastic pollution and protecting public health, while Alberta and Saskatchewan’s constitutional challenge was dismissed because the order’s main purpose is environmental protection and it doesn’t create immediate penalties on its own. Even though CEPA was amended in 2023 (making the original order irrelevant), the court still ruled because the issues matter for current and future regulations, including rules like the single-use plastics ban, and it awarded costs against the industry challengers. What does this mean to the industry? I believe this is targeting single use plastics regulations or restrictions in Canada, which will be on more firm ground versus in the past. Read the full article here.ross more than 1,400 product categories—including a meaningful slice of plastics. In the plastics bucket, 79 product categories are flagged in Mexico’s tariff schedule, with many jumping to 25% and a handful to 35%. Those specific product categories represent $18.7B in Mexico’s total imports, and U.S. exports into Mexico for them were $10.8B in 2024. Because the U.S. is already Mexico’s main supplier (57.6% of Mexico’s imports for those affected plastic products), the higher cost penalty on non-FTA sources—especially China—sets up a real trade-diversion opportunity where buyers shift volumes toward USMCA partners due to price and availability. The catch is that Mexico will still assess tariffs based on country of origin and “substantial transformation,” so U.S. companies shipping from offshore operations in non-FTA countries could get clipped by the higher duty rates unless supply chains and rules-of-origin compliance are tightened up to keep USMCA benefits intact. The message is, basically, there’s a window here, but you have to move smart and document everything right.
For molders in the United States, this can translate into more RFQs and better quoting leverage as Mexican customers look to replace higher-tariff imported components with United States Mexico Canada Agreement (USMCA)-qualified supply. It can also reward molders who can prove origin, streamline cross-border logistics, and pivot tooling and resin sourcing quickly turning compliance into a competitive advantage instead of a paperwork burden. Full story here.
U.S. Manufacturing Is in Retreat and Trump’s Tariffs Aren’t Helping
In an early February Wall Street Journal article, U.S. manufacturing is basically sliding backward instead of roaring into the “golden age” Trump promised. Factory jobs have been dropping for months, and overall employment in manufacturing is at its lowest point since the post-pandemic recovery began. The article points to a mix of long-running forces (jobs and production shifting overseas, long lead times for new plants) and newer headwinds, especially the whiplash around tariffs and policy uncertainty. Even though one key factory-activity index finally showed a bit of life in January, the broader picture still looks soft: manufacturing construction spending that had been boosted by earlier chips/clean-energy investment has been falling in Trump’s first months back in office, and economists say the country never fully got back to its pre-pandemic manufacturing output path. Tariffs might help some companies eventually by nudging production back home, but in the near term they’re raising input costs for firms that rely on imported materials and components, forcing price increases or supply scrambles. Meanwhile, overseas producers—especially China—keep exporting heavily, which pressures global prices and makes it harder for U.S. manufacturers to compete. Company examples in the piece show the squeeze: a wire-reinforcement maker can’t always get enough domestic steel even with higher tariffs, and a precision-parts supplier says tariffs add to cost pressure (metals and even precious metals), limiting cash for growth investments, while Mexico can still look more attractive for expansion because of trade rules and cost structure. Big, headline-grabbing U.S. investment announcements are happening, but they may skew toward automation and AI-enabled production, meaning fewer permanent jobs than people expect. Executives in sectors like furniture say the uncertainty alone is enough to chill new domestic investment.
Why is this a concern for those in the plastics industry? Plastics is deeply tied to manufacturing cycles (autos, appliances, housing, electronics, furniture), so when factories slow down, resin and compound demand usually softens and becomes more volatile. Tariffs can also raise costs for imported additives, fillers, pigments, catalysts, specialty polymers, and even equipment/spare parts—so converters and compounders get hit from both sides (weaker demand plus higher or less predictable inputs). On top of that, stop-and-start trade policy makes it harder to lock in pricing, plan inventory, and commit to multi-year capacity expansions, and if global oversupply pushes down prices abroad, U.S. producers can face tougher competition in both export markets and at home. Get more details here.
Fed Holds Rates Steady as Leadership Change Looms
An article from the National Association of Home Builders (NAHB) reported that the Federal Reserve held rates steady at its January meeting, as inflation remains elevated at 2.7%. Economic growth remains in the good-not-great range, as the labor market showed clear signs of cooling during the second half of 2025. Such an economic backdrop would suggest continued easing for monetary policy. The 10-year Treasury rate is near 4.25% and the 30-year fixed-rate mortgage is approximately 6.1%. Mortgage rates moved lower last week on the prior announcement that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac would acquire $200 billion in mortgage-backed securities (MBS) as part of the administration’s effort to improve housing affordability. While most market analysts expect additional rate cuts from the Fed in 2026, it is possible that the Fed will hold constant until a new chair is confirmed by the Senate. President Trump has appointed former Fed Governor Kevin Warsh as his pick to lead the Fed. Warsh is an institutional critic of the Fed, and in the past has held relatively hawkish, tight monetary policy views. Despite his hawkish perspective, we expect Warsh to favor additional rate cuts under the view that productivity growth is increasing, which will act as a deflationary force ahead. And while Warsh has previously criticized the Fed’s expansion of its balance sheet (particularly MBS), we do not expect a big change in near-term policy given the Fed’s current, ample reserves strategy. Further, we anticipate Warsh will increasingly favor less restrictive regulatory policy and oppose Fed actions in areas like climate and social policy that the Fed has stepped into in recent years. Future easing by the Fed — and potentially larger-than-expected tax refunds as part of tax filing season — should provide an economic boost moving into the spring. Learn more here.
Novelis Update and Aluminum for the Automotive Industry
Novelis’ Oswego/Scriba, New York plant disruption is still working through recovery, with Novelis publicly indicating the Oswego hot mill is expected to restart late in Q2 2026 and then ramp output back up afterward. Reporting also points to repairs finishing around the end of June 2026, and the reason the market still cares is that Oswego is widely described as the largest U.S. automotive aluminum sheet site, so even a partial outage tightens a niche that already runs close to capacity. To keep customers running, Novelis has said it’s leaning on its broader network and third-party sources, but that doesn’t always translate into “drop-in” supply for automotive because qualifying alternate sheet is slow and spec-heavy.
On the supply side, the biggest pain shows up as allocation, mix constraints, and schedule volatility across the OEM-to-Tier chain. OEMs most directly exposed—Ford has been especially vocal—have had to pull in alternative or imported metal and absorb meaningful incremental cost while juggling build schedules. Stellantis has also been cited as having to pause some operations earlier in the disruption. Downstream, Tier suppliers (stampers/body structure and related module suppliers) tend to feel it through shorter allocation windows, shifting priorities toward high-margin trucks/SUVs, premium freight and expediting, and longer lead times for certain gauges/finishes as other rolling assets get pushed closer to max utilization. Outside automotive, the knock-on tends to be less about total availability and more about lead-time stretching and spot tightness where non-auto markets share upstream constraints, with Novelis’ own financial disclosures underscoring that the disruption remains materially impactful until the restart and ramp up are fully behind them. This story came form a consortium of sources and consolidated above.
AI, Datacenters, and semiconductors – over the last month, we’ve seen a few articles concerning AI in North America:
Micron Is Spending $200 Billion to Break the AI Memory Bottleneck
Micron is going all-in on expanding memory-chip production because the AI boom has created what it says could become the biggest memory supply crunch in more than 40 years. In Boise, engineers are literally blasting through with millions of pounds of dynamite to prep the site for two massive new semiconductor fabs as part of a $50 billion expansion that more than doubles Micron’s 450-acre campus. The first Idaho fab is expected to start producing wafers in mid-2027, making DRAM that feeds into the high-bandwidth memory (HBM) chips AI systems rely on, and Micron expects both Boise plants to be running by the end of 2028. At the same time, the company is also starting a huge $100 billion fab complex near Syracuse, New York, plus it announced a $9.6 billion investment in Hiroshima, while competitors like SK Hynix and Samsung are ramping up too—because demand from Nvidia- and other AI-driven data centers is outpacing current clean-room capacity. The shortage has turned memory from a “commodity” into something closer to a strategic asset: Micron says it can only meet about half to two-thirds of demand for some key customers, buyers are trying to lock in multi-year contracts, and prices for certain memory types have spiked hard (with shortages expected by some to last through late 2026 into mid-2027). As a result, Micron’s profitability has jumped as it shifts toward higher-margin data-center HBM products, but the company also acknowledges there’s no quick fix—building fabs is expensive, slow, and the industry still carries the risk of boom-and-bust cycles if demand cools. Explore more details in the full article.
Big Tech is Buying Up America for Data Centers
This story highlights how the AI/data-center boom is reshaping land markets—especially in Northern Virginia—and quietly colliding with homebuilding. Builders like Stanley Martin started noticing tech and data-center developers (Microsoft, Google, Amazon and others) paying so much for land that housing projects couldn’t compete; Stanley Martin itself flipped land bought for a bit over $50M into a roughly $700M deal with Amazon. In places like Loudoun and Prince William Counties—already the world’s biggest data-center hub—land prices have surged into the millions per acre, zoning can make data centers faster/easier than housing, and a region already short tens of thousands of homes is seeing more would-be housing sites turn into server farms. The ripple effects show up elsewhere too (a demolished subdivision near Chicago, soaring suburban land prices near Atlanta, big jumps near Dallas), plus shortages of workers and materials as data-center construction outbids residential projects. Politically, residents who once fought new subdivisions now often find data centers even worse—noise, aesthetics, power-demand worries—pushing counties to tighten approvals and lawmakers to consider limiting where data centers can go, while local officials openly acknowledge that the money (including campaign donations) is becoming a major force in what gets built. Learn more.
Data Centers Are a ‘Gold Rush’ for Construction Workers
DeMond Chambliss used to run himself into the ground juggling every part of his small contracting business in Columbus—drywall jobs, chasing payments, and managing a handful of employees. Since April, he’s been working nights at a local data center construction site, supervising a massive crew of about 200 tradespeople and making over $100K a year, which is a big jump from before. His story is basically what’s happening across the country right now: the AI investment boom is driving a huge wave of data center construction, and the people building these facilities—welders, electricians, plumbers, concrete leads, safety specialists, and project managers—are cashing in with pay increases (often 25%–30%), bonuses, and perks. Even though data centers don’t need tons of staff once they’re up and running, the build phase is intense and labor-heavy, and demand is running straight into a long-standing skilled trades shortage—so projects are backlogged, staffing issues are disrupting work, and contractors are in full-on competition for talent. Some workers travel long distances for the pay, others can work remotely in management roles, and in hot spots like northern Virginia’s “Data Center Alley,” the industry has been life-changing—boosting incomes, driving up union apprenticeships, and giving people a rare sense of job stability in a field that usually feels unpredictable. Read the full article here.
How Jet Engines are Powering AI Data Centers
This one is just for fun…. In the “Future of Everything” section of the WSJ, there was an article February 18 about using natural gas jet engines to power AI centers. (As you read this, chairs need to be in the upright position).
Jet engines are getting a second life as power plants for AI data centers, with companies like FTAI Aviation and others converting retired aircraft engines into land-based natural-gas turbines to get electricity online faster than the big turbine makers can deliver. The pitch is speed and availability: FTAI says it can convert an engine in roughly a month, using engines it already owns (like the widely used CFM56), while incumbents such as GE Vernova, Siemens Energy, and Mitsubishi face long wait lists for new equipment. Converting an engine mainly means swapping fuel nozzles so it can burn natural gas and replacing the big front fan with a smaller, better setup for power generation; these turbines can run as “peaker” units (turning on when demand surges) or used continuously for supply of electric to squeeze out more efficiency. If this scales, it could meaningfully boost global turbine supply (analysts point to thousands of engines retired annually) and eventually put pressure on turbine pricing—though the big manufacturers argue the converted, smaller units don’t really compete with their most efficient heavy-duty machines for long-term projects. The effects could be messy too: pulling more engines and parts into the power market could worsen an already tight jet-engine supply chain. For plastics markets, the most plausible impact is indirect—more gas-fired power capacity and faster data-center buildouts can lift overall electricity demand and natural-gas consumption, which can feed into petrochemical cost curves and pricing dynamics (since plastics are tied to energy and hydrocarbon markets), but the article’s main story is really about equipment supply, lead times, and who captures the AI-driven power boom. Delve into the details here.
EU Approves Mass Balance Rules for Chemical Recycling
Do you follow the European recycled plastics market and regulations? In an early February article of Sustainable Plastics, the EU states approve mass balance rules in win for chemical recycling showing that they continue to lead the world in recycling regulations. The summary is below: EU member states voted on February 6, 2026 to approve an implementing act establishing “fuel-exempt” mass balance rules for calculating recycled content in PET beverage bottles, a move seen as a major win for chemical recycling because it allows chemically recycled content to count toward the EU’s recycled-content targets. The vote, held via the European commission’s comitology process, gives the commission authority to formally adopt the act, which is expected to take effect after publication in the EU Official Journal (typically 20 days later), with sources suggesting the overall timeline is roughly two months. Compared with earlier drafts, the measure is narrowed to PET bottles, though the methodology is expected to serve as a model for future rules in other sectors (with any broader extension likely to come later through packaging legislation). The text also tightens how non-EU recycled PET can be used for compliance. Recycled PET produced outside the \EU would not count toward the Single Use Plastics Directive (SUPD) targets until November 21, 2027, after which imported recyclate could qualify only under specified conditions (including stronger requirements for non-OECD countries) and alongside other EU legal requirements. The act is intended to align the SUPD and wider EU packaging rules, and industry representatives called it an important milestone that should unlock investment and accelerate European chemical recycling capacity. Read more about the EU regulations here.