Manufacturers are growing more optimistic about sales and production over the coming year, but rising input costs, transportation expenses and continued global uncertainty are keeping pressure on the sector, according to a .

NAM’s Q3 2026 Manufacturers’ Outlook Survey found that manufacturers expect raw material and other input costs to increase 5% over the next 12 months. Increased raw material costs ranked as manufacturers’ top business challenge for the second consecutive quarter, followed by rising health care costs and trade uncertainty.

The results illustrate a manufacturing economy in which stronger expectations for demand are colliding with persistent cost pressures.

“ĂŰĚŇ´«Ă˝appanufacturers are ready to grow, invest and compete, but the cost of doing business remains a significant challenge,” Arizona Manufacturers Council Executive Director Grace Appelbe said. “Whether it’s raw materials, energy, transportation or health care, rising costs ultimately affect manufacturers’ ability to invest in their operations and their workforce. And the uncertainty surrounding tariffs isn’t helping. Tariffs are import taxes, and manufacturers pay them when they source key inputs from abroad, putting additional pressure on costs that can ultimately be passed along to consumers. The encouraging news is that manufacturers remain optimistic about what lies ahead, and policymakers can help sustain that momentum by advancing policies that provide greater certainty and keep Arizona and the United States competitive.”

That optimism is reflected in manufacturers’ expectations for the coming year. Survey respondents projected sales, production, capital investment and exports to grow at their fastest rates in more than four years.

Manufacturers expect sales to increase 4.3% over the next 12 months and production to rise 3.8%, the highest projected growth rates for both measures since the second quarter of 2022.

“Strong demand is fueling a notable increase in anticipated sales and production growth, both projected to rise 4.3% and 3.8%, respectively, the highest growth rates for both indexes since Q2 2022,” NAM Chief Economist Victoria Bloom said. “Because of a strengthening sales forecast, manufacturers remain optimistic, though growth in the industry would likely be stronger if cost pressures eased.”

Global disruptions continue to complicate that outlook.

Among manufacturers surveyed about the conflict in the Middle East, 60.6% said conditions related to the conflict had not improved from the previous quarter, while 33.2% said challenges had worsened.

Transportation expenses are adding to those pressures. More than three-quarters of manufacturers, 77.3%, identified freight rates as a challenge, while 74.1% cited fuel costs. Trucks are especially important to the sector, with 98.6% of respondents reporting that they rely on trucking to move goods.

Manufacturers also appear prepared to make significant investments in their operations.

Nearly two-thirds of respondents, 63%, said they plan to import industrial machinery, parts or components during the next year to support existing or planned manufacturing operations. Among those companies, 69.2% expect to use the equipment to upgrade or replace existing machinery, while 63.6% said the machinery would support new or expanded operations.

NAM said the findings demonstrate the importance of policies that allow manufacturers to secure the equipment needed to expand and modernize their facilities. The organization is advocating for a U.S. Manufacturing Investment Accelerator Program designed to improve manufacturers’ access to industrial machinery.

“Manufacturers are seeing encouraging signs for growth, but they are also facing some strong headwinds such as rising costs and global uncertainty that continue to place pressure on global supply chains,” NAM President and CEO Jay Timmons said.

Timmons called for action on several priorities important to manufacturers, including surface transportation reauthorization, permitting reform, health care costs and greater trade certainty.

The quarterly results come as Arizona continues to expand its advanced manufacturing footprint, with semiconductor, aerospace and defense, electronics and other manufacturers playing an increasingly prominent role in the state’s economy.

NAM conducted its Q3 Manufacturers’ Outlook Survey from Aug. 11 through Aug. 27.

Photo: Pete unseth, , via Wikimedia Commons

The post Input costs, transportation expenses drive uncertainty for manufacturers appeared first on ĂŰĚŇ´«Ă˝app.

A group of bills introduced during Arizona’s 2026 legislative session could have imposed more than $31 billion in new annual costs on the state’s economy if enacted, according to a new analysis from Common Sense Institute Arizona and the Arizona ĂŰĚŇ´«Ă˝app Foundation. 

The annual identified 119 bills involving taxes, labor policy, energy and environmental regulations and other requirements affecting businesses. Researchers were able to quantify the potential costs of 88 of those measures, estimating a combined impact of at least $31.5 billion annually. 

If the bills had taken effect together, the report estimates Arizona could have lost 424,400 jobs, seen per-capita income fall by as much as $4,100 annually and experienced a $48 billion reduction in state gross domestic product. 

None of the 119 bills included in the report became law. 

“Arizona’s economic success is not an accident. It reflects years of policy choices that have kept taxes competitive, preserved a flexible labor environment, cut red tape, and given businesses the confidence to invest and hire here,” Arizona ĂŰĚŇ´«Ă˝app of Commerce & Industry President and CEO Danny Seiden said. “We’re fortunate none of these bills became law. If they had, Arizona’s competitive advantages could have been dramatically undermined. Arizona’s competitive position is strong, but we can’t take it for granted.” 

Among the measures analyzed was an effort to repeal Arizona’s right-to-work protections, which CSI identified as the single proposal with the largest estimated economic impact. The report projected repeal could cost the state between 30,000 and 40,000 jobs and reduce annual economic growth by 21%. 

The analysis also identified nearly $3.8 billion in potential new taxes, including proposals for an additional 3.5% tax on personal income above $250,000 and an 8% tax on income above $1 million. Other measures would have changed corporate tax policy or imposed new payroll taxes on employers. 

Labor-related proposals accounted for more than $17.5 billion in estimated costs. Those bills included mandatory paid-leave programs, changes to scheduling and overtime requirements, minimum wage increases, and additional workplace mandates. 

Another 20 bills related to energy and environmental policy carried an estimated $7.1 billion in costs. Among them were proposals requiring electric utilities to generate at least half of their electricity from renewable sources and imposing new renewable energy and battery storage requirements on data centers. 

Legal and administrative proposals accounted for another estimated $3.3 billion. The measures included rent-control policies, requirements that retailers accept cash, restrictions on pharmacy benefit managers, and other business regulations. 

Katie Ratlief, executive director of CSI Arizona, said the report is intended to examine the cumulative effect of policy decisions rather than any one proposal in isolation. 

“No single policy determines the entire direction of an economy, but policy choices compound over time,” Ratlief said. “That’s exactly why we do this analysis every year. A tax here, a new mandate there, another regulatory requirement somewhere else may not seem significant on its own. But put them all together, and the economic picture can change dramatically.” 

The report also compares Arizona’s recent economic performance with Colorado, pointing to differences in the policy approaches taken by the two states. 

According to the analysis, Arizona’s inflation-adjusted GDP has grown 20% faster than Colorado’s since 2016, reversing the relationship seen during the previous decade. Arizona’s net interstate migration since 2020 is also up 18.5% compared with its average during the 2010s, while Colorado’s has declined by more than 90%. 

CSI estimates Arizona would have about 154,405 fewer workers and $26.4 billion less in real GDP today if the state had followed Colorado’s economic growth trajectory since 2019. 

The report says Colorado has enacted at least 50 measures in recent years that CSI considers detrimental to economic growth, while legislation appearing on Arizona’s annual “Job Killers” lists has not been enacted. 

Arizona ĂŰĚŇ´«Ă˝app Executive Vice President Courtney Coolidge said maintaining the state’s competitiveness will remain important as policymakers address issues including affordability, workforce, energy and water. 

“Arizona’s competitive advantage is something we have built over decades, but it is not permanent,” Coolidge said. “As lawmakers tackle real challenges around affordability, workforce, energy and water, the answer cannot be to make it more expensive to hire people, build projects and grow businesses. We need to solve problems without sacrificing the policies that have made Arizona one of the best states in the country to invest and create jobs.” 

. 

The post Report estimates rejected Arizona bills could have cost 424,000 jobs, $48 billion in GDP appeared first on ĂŰĚŇ´«Ă˝app.

Arizona State University is partnering with Philip Morris International’s U.S. businesses on a new national initiative aimed at finding and funding innovative, community-driven solutions to some of the challenges facing communities across the country.

The , announced this week by PMI U.S., will award five $50,000 grants to nonprofit organizations developing practical ideas to strengthen their communities.

ASU will serve as a key partner in administering the competition and its judging process, bringing the university’s expertise in innovation and entrepreneurship to an initiative that will reach all 50 states.

“Innovation is most impactful when rooted in the needs and strengths of communities,” said Dr. Sethuraman “Panch” Panchanathan, University Professor of Technology and Innovation and Foundation Chair in Computing and Augmented Intelligence at ASU. “The Community Futures Challenge reflects a shared commitment to identifying those ideas, advancing innovation with purpose, and supporting efforts that can deliver meaningful impact across the country.”

Panchanathan, who previously served as director of the National Science Foundation, will chair the Challenge’s judging panel.

The competition is open to eligible U.S.-based 501(c)(3) nonprofit organizations with projects serving adults age 21 and older. Projects may be in the early-stage, pilot or scaling phase.

The Challenge will also include a four-city “innovation hub” tour intended to highlight local problem-solvers and bring together business, civic and community leaders. Phoenix will serve as one of the four stops, along with Stamford, Connecticut; Pittsburgh; and Jacksonville, Florida.

“At PMI U.S., we believe America’s next chapter will be shaped by the people not afraid to tackle difficult problems, turn bold ideas into action, and open up new routes to progress for their communities,” PMI U.S. CEO Stacey Kennedy said. “As our businesses continue to invest in American jobs, manufacturing, and innovation, the Community Futures Challenge extends that commitment by backing the people and ideas helping build what comes next.”

The initiative comes as the United States approaches its 250th anniversary and is part of PMI U.S.’s broader “Invested in America” effort. The company says it has invested more than $1 billion in U.S. operations, workforce expansion and innovation capabilities since 2022.

The Challenge is built around the premise that some of the most promising solutions to community challenges originate with the people and organizations closest to them.

A recent nationwide survey commissioned by PMI U.S. and conducted by The Harris Poll found that 86% of U.S. adults believe the most meaningful innovation solves real-world problems people encounter in their daily lives. The survey also found that 87% believe communities understand their own challenges better than outside experts, while 90% believe companies should act as community partners rather than assume they have all the answers.

ASU will help oversee a selection process designed to identify ideas with the potential to produce meaningful and scalable results.

Joining Panchanathan on the judging panel are retired Chief Master Sergeant of the Air Force JoAnne S. Bass; journalist Steve Clemons; longtime SXSW executive Hugh Forrest; University of Silicon Valley President and CEO Dr. Mark Naufel, who founded ASU’s Luminosity Lab; Atlantic Council Nonresident Senior Fellow Leah Pisar; Black ĂŰĚŇ´«Ă˝app of Arizona President and CEO Dr. Velma Trayham; entrepreneur Ted Yang; and Neuro co-founder and CEO Kent Yoshimura.

The inclusion of both Panchanathan and Trayham on the panel, along with Phoenix’s selection as an innovation hub, gives Arizona a prominent role in the national initiative.

For ASU, the partnership is also consistent with the university’s longstanding emphasis on entrepreneurship, applied research and using innovation to address real-world challenges.

Eligible nonprofits can apply for one of the five $50,000 grants at .

The post PMI launches national Community Futures Challenge with ASU appeared first on ĂŰĚŇ´«Ă˝app.

As calls for a moratorium on data center development gain traction in Arizona, the Arizona ĂŰĚŇ´«Ă˝app of Commerce & Industry is offering supporters a chance to take that position to its logical conclusion.

The ĂŰĚŇ´«Ă˝app’s new Arizona Offline Pledge asks those calling for a blanket moratorium to also commit to giving up the many everyday technologies and services made possible by data center infrastructure.

“If you’re willing to call for a moratorium on data centers, it stands to reason you’d be willing to give up all the modern conveniences they make possible,” said Arizona ĂŰĚŇ´«Ă˝app Executive Vice President Courtney Coolidge. “So we decided to put together a pledge for anyone who wants to put that position into practice.”

The pledge asks moratorium supporters to commit to going without things like social media, artificial intelligence, streaming services, online banking and digital payments, cloud storage, GPS navigation, video conferencing, telehealth, and other cloud-based services.

Though tongue-in-cheek, the pledge highlights a broader point: data centers support far more than AI. They provide the digital infrastructure behind banking, cybersecurity, health care, logistics, advanced manufacturing, public safety communications, and many of the online services Arizonans use every day.

The ĂŰĚŇ´«Ă˝app argues that Arizona should have serious conversations about where data centers are located, how they’re developed and what responsible growth looks like, but that a blanket moratorium would ignore both the role this infrastructure already plays in daily life and its growing importance to Arizona’s economy.

“Concerns from communities shouldn’t be dismissed, and we aren’t suggesting a data center belongs on every corner,” Coolidge said. “But Arizona has never responded to difficult growth challenges by simply stopping. We solve problems.”

Arizona is already showing what that can look like, from water-efficient technologies to policies designed to ensure large energy users pay the infrastructure costs associated with their growth.

“Arizona has spent decades building a reputation as a state that tackles difficult problems and welcomes innovation,” Coolidge said. “Leadership means addressing legitimate concerns, protecting Arizona families and building responsibly without losing sight of the infrastructure our residents and economy increasingly depend on.”

The post Amid calls for data center moratorium, Arizona ĂŰĚŇ´«Ă˝app ribs critics with introduction of ‘Arizona Offline Pledge’ appeared first on ĂŰĚŇ´«Ă˝app.

The Arizona ĂŰĚŇ´«Ă˝app of Commerce & Industry has joined a coalition asking the U.S. Supreme Court to review a federal air-quality rule that business groups say could make it more difficult to permit new manufacturing, energy and infrastructure projects. 

The petition, filed Friday, challenges a 2024 Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) National Ambient Air Quality Standard (“NAAQS”) revision that tightened the national standard for fine particulate matter, commonly known as PM2.5. The revision lowered the annual standard from 12 micrograms per cubic meter to 9, a 25% reduction.    

PM2.5 refers to microscopic particles in the air that are small enough to be inhaled deep into the lungs. Under the Clean Air Act, communities that do not meet federal air-quality standards can face additional regulatory requirements, while businesses seeking to build or expand major facilities can face more stringent permitting requirements. 

For businesses, the practical effect is in permitting. The new standard can tighten pre-construction permitting even in areas that met the previous standard, requiring companies to demonstrate that a new or expanded facility will not push air pollution above the federal limit. In areas deemed out of compliance, or “nonattainment,” new projects can face even stricter emissions requirements. 

“Arizona can protect clean air and continue to grow, but we have to be realistic about what these rules mean on the ground,” Arizona ĂŰĚŇ´«Ă˝app President and CEO Danny Seiden said. “When a federal standard makes it harder to permit a new manufacturing plant, energy project or piece of critical infrastructure, that has consequences for investment, jobs and our ability to compete. Businesses need tough rules to also be clear, lawful and workable.” 

The case centers on the process EPA used to adopt the stricter standard. 

The Clean Air Act directs EPA to conduct a “thorough review” of national ambient air-quality standards every five years. The business coalition argues that when the Biden administration’s EPA revised the NAAQS outside that normal cycle, EPA did not complete the same comprehensive scientific review required for a regular five-year revision. The petition says it was the first time EPA had revised a national air-quality standard without completing such a review. In doing so, the EPA also failed to consider the costs of undertaking a discretionary off-cycle review.  

“The issue here is whether EPA can make a major change to an air-quality standard without going through the full review Congress required,” said Vanessa Pomeroy, deputy general counsel and chief counsel of the Arizona ĂŰĚŇ´«Ă˝app Legal Center. “Our position is that it can’t. When a rule can affect permitting, investment and major projects across the country, the process matters.” 

The case has taken an unusual turn since the rule was adopted. 

After initially defending the 2024 rule, the current EPA reversed its position and asked the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit to vacate the rule, agreeing that the prior administration had not followed the required process and had failed to properly consider costs associated with initiating an off-cycle review. The D.C. Circuit rejected both the business groups’ challenge and EPA’s request and left the rule in place in June. 

The Arizona ĂŰĚŇ´«Ă˝app, U.S. ĂŰĚŇ´«Ă˝app of Commerce, National Association of Manufacturers and other industry groups are now asking the Supreme Court to review that decision. Arizona legislative leaders are also among the petitioners. 

The permitting challenge is compounded by the fact that much of the particulate matter in the air comes from sources businesses cannot directly control. More than 84% comes from non-point sources such as wildfires, construction and road dust, while industrial sources and power plants account for about 16%. 

For Arizona, the case could help determine how easily federal air-quality standards can be tightened outside the normal review cycle and what that means for permitting, investment and major projects. 

The post Arizona ĂŰĚŇ´«Ă˝app joins Supreme Court challenge over federal air-quality rule   appeared first on ĂŰĚŇ´«Ă˝app.

The Maricopa County Stadium District has appointed senior business executive Mark Winkleman as Executive Director.

Winkleman will serve as the Stadium District’s CEO and administrative lead – overseeing the organization’s finances and operations, and representing the group with public officials, community stakeholders and the Arizona Diamondbacks. He reports to a 9-member Stadium District Board of Directors that was created as part of legislation signed into law last year by Gov. Katie Hobbs. Chief of among the Stadium District’s responsibilities: managing $500 million worth of tax-funded renovations at Chase Field, home of the Arizona Diamondbacks in downtown Phoenix.

Winkleman called his appointment “an honor,” adding: “My goal is to further the District’s mission by protecting and enhancing this important public asset, providing disciplined and transparent stewardship of public resources, and working collaboratively with the Arizona Diamondbacks. I believe we can successfully modernize Chase Field while maintaining strong accountability to taxpayers and ensuring that the stadium continues to provide long-term value to our community and the State of Arizona.”

Danny Seiden, president & CEO of the Arizona ĂŰĚŇ´«Ă˝app of Commerce & Industry, welcomed Winkleman to the leadership role, and said the Stadium District has a vital mission to ensure Chase Field remains an essential community asset and landmark.

“Arizona loves the Diamondbacks, and the business community has worked hard to ensure they continue to have a great home right here in downtown Phoenix,” Seiden said. “I can’t wait to see the results as the Diamondbacks and Maricopa County Stadium District modernize Chase Field for the millions of people who visit this beautiful facility every year.’

Winkleman brings to the position more than four decades of executive, public-sector, real estate, legal and governance experience. He’s the founder and President of MGS Realty Partners, Inc., through which he has advised boards, investors and family offices on real estate strategy, governance, acquisitions, financing, redevelopment and asset management. Earlier, Winkleman served as Arizona State Land Commissioner, a role in which he led the Arizona State Land Department and managed State Trust land totaling 9.3 million acres.

“More than 500 people applied for this position, and Mark’s experience in leading both private and public organizations set him apart from the other candidates” said Board Chairman John Graham. “The Board is pleased to have such an experienced and qualified individual to be our chief executive.”

Winkleman, who earned his business degree from the University of Kansas and law degree from the University of Virginia, has held numerous Arizona civic and nonprofit leadership positions. He is former chairman of ULI Arizona, the McDowell Sonoran Conservancy and Valley Partnership, and served on boards of directors for the City of Phoenix Industrial Development Authority and Arizona State Parks.

Photo courtesy: “” by ,

The post Maricopa County Stadium District names executive director to lead group, help oversee Chase Field improvements appeared first on ĂŰĚŇ´«Ă˝app.

For years, employers and working parents have understood the practical challenges created by a shortage of affordable, accessible child care. New research and polling suggest those challenges are increasingly becoming something else, too: an economic issue with growing political salience.

The numbers help explain why.

A finds that more than eight in 10 likely voters — 82% — consider the cost of childcare part of the nation’s broader concerns with the cost of living. More than three-quarters, 76%, say the cost of care for families with young children is either a crisis or a major problem.

For parents who actually pay for childcare, the issue is even more immediate. Asked to identify the two biggest cost pressures they face, 38% named childcare, putting it virtually even with groceries at 40% and behind only housing at 56%.

Those findings come as new data illustrate the size of the challenge here in Arizona — and recent economic research makes the case that childcare isn’t simply a family issue but increasingly a workforce and economic competitiveness issue as well.

Arizona families feel the squeeze

Arizona is home to more than 481,000 children age 5 and younger, according to the First Five Years Fund, and 62% have all available parents participating in the workforce.

For those families, care can represent a significant household expense. The annual price of center-based childcare in Arizona is $16,384, or about $1,365 per month. Home-based care is less expensive, but still averages $9,339 annually, or $778 per month. FFYF estimates a 17% gap between the supply of childcare and potential need in Arizona and puts the annual economic impact of the state’s childcare challenges at $3.3 billion.

Those figures align with that found Arizona’s supply of licensed child care providers has declined dramatically even as the state’s population has grown.

Arizona had 5,126 licensed childcare providers in 2002. By 2024, that number had fallen to 2,779 — a 46% decline. Meanwhile, the median daily cost of licensed center-based infant care increased from $43.03 in 2018 to $61.40 in 2024.

The problem is especially acute in some rural areas, but it isn’t confined to them. CSI found that even Maricopa County has licensed capacity sufficient for only about 13% of its infant population.

A workforce issue hiding in plain sight

For the business community, perhaps the most consequential aspect of the childcare debate is its effect on the labor force.

When parents cannot find care, cannot afford it, or cannot find care that accommodates their work schedules, the consequences eventually reach employers. Workers may reduce their hours, turn down jobs or promotions, miss shifts, or leave the workforce altogether.

The latest polling suggests the effects extend well beyond parents themselves. Nearly 40% of all voters surveyed said their own ability to work is affected by coworkers’ childcare challenges. Almost half of working parents said childcare challenges affect their ability to work, and one in five parents with young children said those challenges frequently do so.

CSI attempted to put an economic value on addressing that problem.

Its analysis estimates that making childcare sufficiently affordable and accessible could draw between 15,500 and 87,800 additional Arizonans into the labor force. Under CSI’s midpoint scenario of 50,000 new workers, the effects ripple well beyond those individuals: The modeling projects 131,700 additional jobs by year five, approximately $17.5 billion in additional state GDP, more than $13.5 billion in additional personal income and an estimated $188 million in additional state income tax revenue.

Those are significant numbers in a state where employers regularly identify access to talent as one of their most important considerations when deciding whether to expand, relocate or invest.

Political salience is growing

None of this means there is an obvious policy answer.

The childcare market presents a particularly difficult economic equation. Care is expensive for parents while wages for childcare workers remain comparatively low. Providers operate in a labor-intensive business with narrow margins, and regulations intended to ensure children’s health and safety can also increase operating costs and create barriers to adding capacity.

CSI’s research cautions against viewing increased subsidies as the only answer. It points to regulatory reform, expansion of home-based and alternative models, and policies that encourage more providers to enter the market as ways to increase supply and put downward pressure on costs.

But what does appear to be changing is the political environment surrounding the issue.

The FFYF poll found broad support for several basic objectives: 83% support ensuring that parents can choose the type of childcare that works best for their family, 73% support lowering monthly child care costs, and 71% support expanding the supply of care. Nearly half of Democratic voters surveyed said congressional Democrats should work with Republicans and President Donald Trump to pass childcare legislation.

That is noteworthy at a time when affordability is likely to remain central to the political conversation.

Housing, groceries, energy and other household expenses tend to dominate discussions about the cost of living, but for many families with young children, childcare increasingly belongs in that conversation, representing one of the largest bills they pay.

And unlike many other household expenses, the availability and price of childcare can determine whether a parent is able to work in the first place.

That makes childcare unusual in the affordability debate: Addressing it has the potential not only to reduce pressure on household budgets, but also to increase labor-force participation and expand the pool of workers available to employers.

This latest research suggests policymakers should expect childcare to command greater attention, not simply as a family issue, but as an affordability, workforce, and economic growth issue with increasingly significant political implications.

Image courtesy Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License

The post New research underscores child care’s growing economic stakes appeared first on ĂŰĚŇ´«Ă˝app.

The Arizona ĂŰĚŇ´«Ă˝app of Commerce & Industry and Arizona Manufacturers Council have opened nominations for two statewide competitions recognizing standout products, companies, and leaders across Arizona’s manufacturing sector.

The fourth annual competition, , invites manufacturers of all sizes to nominate products made in the state. Eligible entries can come from global companies, small businesses, artisan producers and independent makers.

Competition winners will be announced at an as part of the Arizona Manufacturers Council’s Manufacturing Month programming.

“ĂŰĚŇ´«Ă˝appanufacturers are building everything from advanced aerospace and defense systems to semiconductors, lifesaving medical devices and everyday products that shape how we live and work,” said Grace Appelbe, executive director of the Arizona Manufacturers Council. “This competition is our chance to show people just how much is being made here, recognize the skilled teams behind those products and have a little fun deciding which one deserves the title of Hottest Thing Made in Arizona.”

The competition returns as Arizona continues to attract major manufacturing investment and international attention.

recently announced an additional $100 billion investment in its Phoenix operations, bringing the company’s planned Arizona investment to $265 billion. The expanded plans include six semiconductor fabrication facilities, two advanced packaging facilities and a research and development center.

Amkor Technology’s planned $7 billion advanced semiconductor packaging and testing campus in Peoria was also named the for 2025 by Site Selection magazine. The project is expected to create as many as 3,000 jobs.

Past winners of the Hottest Thing Made in Arizona competition include:

• Boeing’s AH-64 Apache helicopter in 2023
• The Dexcom G7 continuous glucose monitor in 2024
• Honeywell Aerospace’s 131-9 auxiliary power unit in 2025

Nominations are also open for the 2026 Arizona Manufacturer of the Year Awards, which recognize companies, industry leaders, and achievements in seven categories:

• Small Manufacturer of the Year
• Medium Manufacturer of the Year
• Large Manufacturer of the Year
• Excellence in Innovation
• Excellence in Sustainability
• Champion of the Year
• Arizona Success Story

“These awards recognize the companies and people translating Arizona’s manufacturing momentum into real products, high-quality jobs and stronger communities,” Appelbe said. “Whether they employ thousands of people or a few dozen, ĂŰĚŇ´«Ă˝appanufacturers are solving difficult problems, investing in their teams and proving that our state can compete with anyone.”

The Hottest Thing Made in Arizona competition will include a series of public voting rounds, allowing employees, customers and communities to rally behind their favorite Arizona-made products.

Nominations can be submitted at .

The post ĂŰĚŇ´«Ă˝appanufacturing competitions return for 2026 appeared first on ĂŰĚŇ´«Ă˝app.

This opinion column from Arizona ĂŰĚŇ´«Ă˝app of Commerce & Industry President and CEO Danny Seiden was originally published by .

There’s an argument gaining traction in Arizona that sounds simple enough. We live in the desert. The Colorado River is drying up. So maybe Arizona needs to stop growing.

I understand why that resonates. If you’re watching Lake Mead fall, hearing about federal water cuts, and then reading about another semiconductor plant, housing development or data center, it’s easy to assume they’re all fighting over the same shrinking glass of water.

They’re not.

 in The Republic last week. He’s right about the seriousness of the situation. He’s right that Arizona could face the deepest cuts in the basin. He’s right that not every project penciled out on paper deserves to be built. But he’s dead wrong about the most important thing: Arizona’s growth is not the cause of the shortage, and building less won’t fix it.

Start with the water itself. Arizona doesn’t have one giant bucket that every home, farm and employer draws from. Different communities rely on different combinations of Colorado River water, groundwater, in-state surface water, reclaimed water and stored supplies.

Agriculture is by far the largest user of water in Arizona.  of the state’s total. That doesn’t mean industry gets a free pass or that every project belongs everywhere. It means that when someone tells you Arizona’s water crisis is a growth problem, they’re pointing at the smallest slice on the plate.

Here’s the part almost nobody explains. In much of Arizona, when irrigated farmland becomes housing, that land uses less water than it did before. An acre of cotton uses more water than an acre of houses. The new subdivision isn’t adding demand. It’s reducing it. That’s the entire premise behind the ag-to-urban law the Legislature and Gov. Katie Hobbs .

That kind of efficiency is nothing new for us. Arizona has added millions of residents over the past 40 years while using roughly the same amount of water it used decades ago. We did it by investing in conservation, reuse, recharge and storage. Growth didn’t prevent those investments. Growth helped pay for them.

Data centers deserve a straight answer, because they’ve become the villain in this story. They are not all built or cooled the same way, and newer facilities increasingly use closed-loop and air-cooled systems designed to cut water demand. Large industrial projects should also be expected to help pay for the treatment, reuse, and infrastructure their growth requires. If those expectations need to be tougher, make them tougher. It’s not a reason to stop building.

What gets lost in that debate is what growth actually pays for.

When a major employer invests billions of dollars here, it hires people, supports suppliers and small businesses and pays into the tax base at a higher rate than a homeowner does. Those revenues help pay for roads, schools and public safety. Take that growth off the table and those bills don’t disappear. They just fall more heavily on the people already here.

Housing is part of this equation too. Arizona already has an affordability problem. If our answer to water scarcity is simply to build less, we should be honest about what comes with that: fewer homes, tighter supply and your kids priced out of the state they grew up in.

None of this means Arizona should approve every development proposed anywhere.

A 100-year assured water supply designation shouldn’t, in fact, count as proof of anything if it rests on optimistic assumptions about water nobody has found yet. A designation is a document. It is not water. If a project can’t demonstrate a real supply, it shouldn’t be built.

That’s responsible growth. It’s a completely different argument from “Arizona’s growth is the problem.”

And that difference matters right now, because the second version lets Washington off the hook.

The federal government is weighing Colorado River rules that could force Arizona into the deepest reductions in the basin while asking far less of other states. We’ve already conserved. We’ve already invested. We’ve already planned for a smaller river. Arizona’s leaders, Republican and Democrat, have been united in saying every state drawing from this river needs to share the responsibility.

There are hard choices ahead. Water will get more expensive. We’ll need more conservation, more reuse, more infrastructure and more new supplies. Some proposed developments won’t make sense in some places.

But retreating from growth isn’t a water strategy.

The river drew a boundary. It didn’t draw a wall around Arizona’s economy. Building less won’t refill Lake Mead. All it will do is make life more expensive for the people already living here.

Danny Seiden is the president and CEO of the Arizona ĂŰĚŇ´«Ă˝app of Commerce & Industry.

The post The argument against growth doesn’t hold water appeared first on ĂŰĚŇ´«Ă˝app.

As school choice and education savings account programs continue to expand across Arizona and the U.S., state agencies face a growing operational challenge: how to administer billions of dollars in public funding while ensuring compliance, transparency, and a streamlined experience for families.

Odyssey was built to solve exactly that problem.

Rather than simply functioning as a payments processor, the technology company developed an end-to-end platform designed specifically for public education funding programs. Its technology helps state agencies manage everything from eligibility verification and document collection to vendor management, purchasing controls, reimbursements, and financial reporting all within a single system.

With Odyssey managing school choice programs in states like Texas, Florida, and Iowa, the need for technology that can handle the complexity of program administration has become increasingly important as they scale across the country. Modern programs can serve tens of thousands of families, support thousands of education providers, and process enormous volumes of applications, receipts, and transactions. Managing that complexity through spreadsheets and dated software is no longer sustainable.

That operational focus has also positioned Odyssey to become an early adopter of artificial intelligence (AI), using it as a practical tool for improving efficiency and strengthening the integrity of its program.

“Odyssey is proud to play a key role in expanding access to high quality education for families in states across the country, regardless of income or zip code,” said Sam Ratcliffe, chief technology officer at Odyssey. “We are committed to offering our best-in-class technology and AI to better serve school choice families, schools, and program administrators. When technology is built around the needs of both government and families, it expands educational opportunity while delivering the transparency and accountability that public programs require and taxpayers deserve.”

Unlike traditional software that relies exclusively on fixed rules, Odyssey utilizes AI to interpret large volumes of unstructured information, including receipts, invoices, product descriptions, and supporting documentation. The technology helps classify purchases, identify missing information, detect unusual transaction patterns, and prioritize cases that warrant additional human review.

Every flagged transaction is routed through structured review workflows where trained specialists review the issue to make the final determination according to state policy. This approach allows agencies to automate repetitive administrative work while preserving oversight for higher-risk decisions.

Odyssey’s platform also strengthens fraud prevention by addressing improper payments before they occur rather than solely relying on audits after funds are spent.

As Odyssey’s platform has expanded across multiple states, machine learning has become increasingly effective at distinguishing between normal program activity and behavior that calls for closer examination. Operational feedback from reviewers continually
improves case prioritization while ensuring each state’s unique policy requirements remain central to every decision.

Beyond compliance, automation has significantly improved the experience for families. Instead of waiting days or weeks for application reviews, Odyssey’s automated systems can return eligibility decisions in seconds. Families can apply, upload documents, monitor balances, purchase approved educational services and track reimbursements from a mobile device — an important feature considering that roughly 85% of users access the platform via smartphone.

For state agencies operating with limited staffing resources, those efficiencies are equally meaningful. Automation handles routine processes such as application intake, document validation, transaction routing and payment reconciliation, allowing employees to focus on complex cases, policy interpretation, investigations, and constituent support.

Ultimately, Odyssey sees AI as one component of a broader technology ecosystem designed to make education funding more efficient, transparent, and accountable. By combining automation with configurable program rules, comprehensive audit trails and human oversight, the company is helping modernize how states administer rapidly growing education choice programs while strengthening safeguards for public funds.

Photo: Lucélia Ribeiro, CC BY-SA 2.0 , via Wikimedia Commons

The post How Odyssey is modernizing education funding administration appeared first on ĂŰĚŇ´«Ă˝app.