The World's #1 Renewable Energy Network for News & Information
Sign In or Register
Renewable Energy World Logo
Saturday, May 25, 2013
  • Sections
    • Home
      • News
      • Opinion & Commentary
      • Featured Blogs
      • Research & Reports
      • Video
      • Press Releases
      • All Blogs
      • Events
      • Products
      • Finance
    • Solar
      • News
      • Opinion & Commentary
      • Featured Blogs
      • Research & Reports
      • Video
      • Press Releases
      • All Blogs
      • Events
      • Products
      • Finance
    • Wind
      • News
      • Opinion & Commentary
      • Featured Blogs
      • Research & Reports
      • Video
      • Press Releases
      • All Blogs
      • Events
      • Products
      • Finance
    • Geothermal
      • News
      • Opinion & Commentary
      • Featured Blogs
      • Research & Reports
      • Video
      • Press Releases
      • All Blogs
      • Events
      • Products
      • Finance
    • Bio
      • News
      • Opinion & Commentary
      • Featured Blogs
      • Research & Reports
      • Video
      • Press Releases
      • All Blogs
      • Events
      • Products
      • Finance
    • Hydro
      • News
      • Opinion & Commentary
      • Featured Blogs
      • Research & Reports
      • Video
      • Press Releases
      • All Blogs
      • Events
      • Products
      • Finance
    • Careers
    • Companies
      • Company Directory
      • Press Releases
      • Products
      • Events Calendar
      • White Papers
    • Webcasts
      • Upcoming Webcasts
      • Featured Webcasts
      • Archived Webcasts
      • Events Calendar
    • White Papers
    • Magazines
      • Renewable Energy World
      • Wind Technology
      • Large Scale Solar
      • Hydro Review
      • HRW - Hydro Review Worldwide
      • Renewable Energy World (North America Edition)
      • Photovoltaics World
    • Awards
  • Account
    • Sign In
    • Register
  • Search
Don't Miss The Great Solar Debate: Where Does the Global Solar Industry Stand? Click Here to Register! ×

Will Chinese Solar Module Tariffs Restore Balance to the Industry?

Some argue the new tax on chinese solar cells is too high, while others feel it is still too low. Who's right?

Steve Leone, Associate Editor, RenewableEnergyWorld.com
May 18, 2012  |  19 Comments

In the quest to "level the playing field," the 31 percent anti-dumping tariff announced Thursday was a good start, said SolarWorld President Gordon Brinser, but even more is needed to bring the industry back into balance.

Brinser said for an industry that has seen 50 percent drop in panel prices over the past year, the preliminary ruling is just part of the remedy. And his company feels that between now and later this year when a final determination is made, Chinese panels will be taxed at an even higher rate. By then we’ll start to see a “rebuilding of American solar manufacturing.” And it’s when, he said, the market will emerge as free of intervention, and with a renewed focus on innovation that will be stimulated by the growing manufacturing base.

But many of the leading Chinese manufacturers are adamant that they haven’t been dumping their products and they are publicly confident that the final numbers will in fact be lower than what we saw Thursday.

For an industry desperately seeking clarity, the notion that the issue is not really resolved underscores the bitter divide that’s been drawn and the enormous scale of what’s at stake.

The preliminary rulings for both the lower countervailing duties (CVD) and the much steeper anti-dumping duties will go through further Department of Commerce (DOC) scrutiny, and Chinese manufacturers are sure to make the case that the numbers are higher than they ought to be, while SolarWorld will argue they are still too low. The rate at which tariffs are initially set often differs from the final determination, so there is still a lot of push and pull to be had.

According to Vishal Shah of Deutsche Bank, this process is currently unfolding for the CVD case with the DOC investigating glass subsidies and potentially excessive rebates of value added tax.

The issue has dominated the solar landscape from American rooftops to Chinese production lines. And it’s been watched intently across boardrooms in Europe and even in growing markets like India, whose domestic solar manufacturers are also having trouble competing on price in an industry increasingly dominated by China.

Thursday’s ruling and reaction indicate how Chinese and domestic companies alike view the lucrative American solar market. The U.S. installed just shy of 2 gigawatts of solar in 2011 and barring a repeal of the Investment Tax Credit (ITC), most analysts see significant growth ahead — even without the recently expired 1603 grant. The basis for much of this growth — past, present and certainly future — has been low-cost Chinese panels that have dominated the market at the expense of American producers.

For Trina Solar, the world’s fourth largest supplier of PV modules, the American market is labeled as “strategic,” meaning it expects it to sustain itself without the need for subsidies within the next three to five years.

“Our investment in the U.S. won’t get smaller,” said Mike Grunow, Trina’s Marketing Director for the Americas. “We’ll be here in a major way and we’re very bullish on this market.”

In Search of Winners

A day after the announcement, the industry is grappling with a new reality. What will change because of these tariffs. Will America become a manufacturing leader because of this? How will these changes impact price and installation? And how will China respond?

Tony Clifford, CEO of developer and EPC contractor Standard Solar, isn’t so sure higher prices will do anything to significantly help American panel manufacturers. There will be winners, he said. But they’re just as likely to be panel makers based in Japan, Korea and other countries where large-scale operations are starting to thrive.

“Chinese companies are not the only foreign manufacturers shipping cells and modules to the United States,” he said. “I'm sure that solar manufacturers in other Asian and European countries will be able to profitably offer solar modules in the U. S. market at prices well within the ‘cost-plus-31-percent-tax’ that will be applied to Chinese modules.”

He also noted that the industry has a real deadline hanging over its head, and that’s the time left before the federal ITC expires at the end of 2016. He fears the trade dispute has distracted the industry from its collective objective — to become cost-competitive without subsidies in key markets within the next four and a half years.

“If we don't, it will not matter who wins or loses a trade war in 2012,” he said.

Brinser said SolarWorld should benefit from the new tariff and that prices industrywide will likely go up, but that ultimately the free market will decide on pricing. He admits that while the intent was to eliminate practices that harm American manufacturers, companies outside the U.S. are just as likely to benefit from the ruling and fill the capacity gap.

What Happens Next?

Analyst Jesse Pichel of Jeffries expected that a ruling of at least 15 percent would have pushed Chinese manufacturers to shift production to a third party country. That the tariff is currently twice as high only makes such a move that much more financially appealing. As the ruling reads, cells imported into China and turned into modules will not be subject to the tariff. The likely beneficiary would be Taiwan, though Pichel warned the new demand itself may increase the pricing of cells coming out of that country.

Grunow said Trina, which because of its size has a well-established global supply chain, is prepared to “comply with the ruling and get the best price for our customers.”

Chinese companies may also choose to set up manufacturing operations close to the American market. Jinko Solar and Canadian Solar have facilities north of the border and Suntech has a facility in Arizona. Mexico, meanwhile, could be a possibility for Chinese companies looking to build operations capable of serving the North American market.

However, the New York Times cited an anonymous Chinese banker as saying such a shift in production won’t be so easy. The source told the paper that state-owned banks are reluctant to continue the heavy lending that has spurred an industry-wide overcapacity. 

Brinser noted that his company will work with federal officials to ensure that any method Chinese companies use to avoid the tariffs be through legal means. “We’ll be monitoring it pretty closely,” he said.

The Political Fallout

Politics have always been at the center of this debate. Even before SolarWorld officially filed the complaint, its hometown senator, Ron Wyden, a Democrat, wrote a letter to President Obama urging legal action aimed at China’s solar policy. Obama himself, shortly after the investigation launched, condemned China’s trading practices and began laying the groundwork for a new election year push to bring solar manufacturing jobs back to America.

Sen. Sherrod Brown, D-Ohio, has long been a vocal advocate of the need for America’s solar industry to be supplied predominantly by American-made products. He and colleague Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., this week introduced legislation that would exclude Chinese solar panels that do not meet a domestic requirement from qualifying for the 30 percent ITC. Chances are the measure won’t go far, but it does serve to heighten the rhetoric that continues to heat up between Beijing and Washington.

According to China Daily, the nation’s Ministry of Commerce called the ruling “trade protectionism” and “unjustified.” MOC spokesman Shen Danyang also alleges that U.S. officials disregarded evidence supplied by the Chinese companies that would have impacted the dumping margins.

“The big question now is how the Chinese will respond,” said Chris Brown, an analyst with Asia Cleantech Gateway. “I expect to see increased tariffs on U.S. polysilicon [going into China].”

Pichel agrees, saying such a move may disrupt global pricing. And the ruling could broaden the dispute to include Europe. Reports earlier this year indicated that SolarWorld in Germany was working to drum up industry support for a European Union-based trade investigation.

But so far, no trade complaint has been filed as the global solar industry watches to see how the U.S.-China dispute unfolds.

Lead image: Tug of War via Shutterstock

Related Links

  • 31 Percent Anti-Dumping Tariffs Announced for Chinese Solar Panels

19 Comments

Register To Comment
ANONYMOUS
May 24, 2012
'Will America become a manufacturing leader because of this? How will these changes impact price and installation? And how will China respond?'

Chinese has responded today: 'U.S. renewable energy subsidies violate WTO rules,' as announced by the Ministry of Commerce of China, http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/china/2012-05/24/c_131608450.htm

If this conflict continues to become a trade war in the solar industry, there will be no winner. Everyone loses. The cost of every step, from tool manufacturing and polysilicon to sales and installation, will increase, if China and the US become two separate, self-protected markets for the global solar industry.
WHITE KEN
WHITE KEN
May 23, 2012
Make the greedy power companies pay rebates and who cares about cost. It's all a big political game anyway you shape it. Either way the dice roll, it doesn't matter. It's a dog eat dog world and the greedy bastards always control the bs. It doesn't matter whether its DC or Beijing. Sure I'm not happy either way the crow flys at the moment. You're not going to control the power house momentum. We are screwed as installers and the US government is bs and China wins either way. I'm just going to have another drink and sob. lol
Yann Brandt
Yann Brandt
May 23, 2012
Aside from the opinions that everyone has regarding the tariffs, there is a real impact to the end owner/user/recipient of the solar asset/energy. The tariff will mean a direct or an indirect cost to the levelized cost of solar energy. See my blog post on my opinion as to the importance at yannbrandt.com
ANONYMOUS
May 23, 2012
bill-marcus:
That is one dumb comment. Did you make it past 6th grade?
ANONYMOUS
May 23, 2012
Reshuffling the deck to benefit big Oil. Is anybody really surprised at this level of incompetence has been achieved? SolarWorld exists due to the very supports that it now feels to be unfair. EPCs have ways to work around the tariff but at a cost that will of course be born by the offtaker of the power (rate payers in the U.S.).
Vote with your feet/$ and NEVER buy another product from SolarWorld.
Any time you hear the name just say these words: "SolarWorld is dead to me" and end the conversation on that note.
Bill Marcus
Bill Marcus
May 23, 2012
I am so happy that we are going to Tariff these panels, I wish it was higher. The Chinese government is unfairly subsidizing this industry to try to destroy all other countries from manufacturing Solar panels. The Result, just like everything else coming out of China, it's low quality crap, that will not hold up well throughout the years, and then homeowners will be upset when their system is not producing well at all 7 to 10 years from now.
At least with the cost going up, now the homeowner can choose a better quality panel, which in turn may also give them a better contractor who may install a better producing system as well.
David Fuglseth
David Fuglseth
May 23, 2012
It's strange how much feelings influence decisions. There has been many good comments to this article, and among them are the one stating 'How can the 97% of solar jobs be put at risk for the 3% in manufacturing?'

People, politicians and investors have, for some reason, become emotionally attached to manufacturing of solar panels. We see the same in my country, Norway, where the demise of REC has become a big issue. We should accept that fact that a norw. worker at 35$/hour simply cannot compete with Chinese working for like 5$/day.

No punitive tariffs can change this, and we also should remember that, at this moment, the value-creation in the solar-chain is in the country which installs and uses them. I would gladly leave to the Chinese to manufature these products, while "we" in the West should install as much as possible and reap the benefits of installing/connecting/constructing and of course lower co2-emissions.

The anti-dumping tariffs are not levelling the playing field, as much as they are destroying it, strangely on behalf of big oil, coal and gas.
Sam Salamay
Sam Salamay
May 23, 2012
The COG (coal,oil,gas) industry controls our Congress and continues to be highly subsidized eventhough their profits are enormous. The people demand clean energy and our leaders do nothing. The needs of the solar and biofuels industry to produce energy on par with COG can easily be attained with leadership. A balance of subsidies from COG to clean energy industry players should alleviate the tariff tension. LEADERSHIP and not trade wars. Subsidize US manufacturers to level the playing field now. We the People demand action and Romney will only keep profits for COG in place. Obama is our only hope and we must gather our forces and TAKE the COG subsidies away. This should be our focus. COG is sitting back and cashing in on dirty energy while Congress continues to do its job of protecting their interests. We must vote with our hearts to rid the elephants from the room.
ANONYMOUS
May 22, 2012
There is a flip side of the argument of how this will negatively impact solar installers and the profits procured with these subsidized low price panels. States have assisted in funding solar because the overall cost benefit of this financial assistance is either neutral at worst or positive overall to the State.

How this works. The State either raises a tariff or charge on the utility rates to fund rebate programs or requires utilities or suppliers in competitive states to procure solar electricity through the RPS and certificates. These incentives are available to any company and manufacturer regardless of where they are from or who they are.

These incentives cause the electric rates to increase. In a macro sense this lowers the overall economic potential of the State. The State also seeks to site solar manufacturing jobs with the same charges and programs. These increased manufacturing jobs pay taxes and increase other spending and revenues in the state. These solar manufacturing jobs raise the economic potential of the state making the overall cost benefit including the negative impacts of increasing electric rates positive.

The temporary solar installation jobs, the avoided environmental costs benefits from clean generation and the avoided T & D costs do not offset the loss of economic potential without solar manufacturing. At some point in a worst case scenario without these positive benefits from solar manufacturing jobs, States will stop funding solar, installer will have no jobs and the Chinese panel manufacturers will sell no product in the US.
In this suit none was asking for an unfair advantage to subsidize one manufacturer over another - just a level playing field to compete - FAIRLY. Or conversely allow states to do exactly what the Chinese are doing subsidize manufacturing to artificially lower the price. But we have a Constitution we have to follow fairly.
Phil Manke
Phil Manke
May 22, 2012
You may consider the advantages of SREC's here. They pay for production of watts of energy. The states that have employed them strategically have made solar advent big. It/they cost government nothing but to allow, or mandate PSC's or Ute regs to adopt the program by a RES or RPS, and with a solar carve-out and SACP.
Carbon producers pay a little, solar entrepreneurs earn allot. No gold-standard eguipment, no cost to govt., except to the graft and kick-back establishment of 'ute' and 'petro' to 'your' representatives. Why does no one give a shit about this???
I believe the real fear in this is the advent of peaceful non-polluting energy across the country. The ego's of the world (and we all have one,) fear greatly the possibility of peace.
J GIBBLE
J GIBBLE
May 22, 2012
Yes it is very strange that the administration took such drastic measures affecting the global solar industry at the urging of a small group of US solar manufacturers. I work in the solar industry and all of my colleagues are concerned that this will not have the intended effect of increasing US solar manufacturing, but will be a distraction from our goal of reaching grid parity. China has a role to play in this goal, and I don't see how imposing rules and tariffs is a "free market". Take action here: http://coalition4affordablesolar.org/?page_id=15
ANONYMOUS
May 22, 2012
Why should US works for Genmany? If the Solarworld is not competitive, should we try to save it by injecting more pain to us? All we know most solar manufacturing jobs are outside of US. The majority employment is thru installation and sale. This tariff would create a hardship for us and for my company. 31% increase in cost would means drop 50% of solar employment. There is no benefit by applying such high tariff to make us unemployed. Let's tell our Congressmen to save our jobs by getting rid of those bad companies!!!!!
ANONYMOUS
May 22, 2012
'When you think they're looking out for you, you ain't even number 2'. Sankar references economy of scale ... that would be an economic argument - this has nothing to do with that. Trade wars are of little benefit and, in war, the outcomes are often not what you'd hope for. The reason that a lot of tea is produced in Africa can be traced directly to British and US trade wars with China that got out of hand. Not surprisingly, politicians can do things that affect everyone, typically where it benefits them, everyone else being expendable. There's no more popular political tactic than the sucker punch - the usual way that wars get started.

To be sure, US manufacturing is hurting. The decline in the last 20 years has been spectacular. Fake productivity in the financial sector is now 3 times real productivity in the manufacturing sector. At the same time, government benefits to O&G have escalated, matching the pace of energy imports (but somehow it's easier to beat up China than Saudi Arabia). Pair that up with a lackadaisical approach to STEM education by all and a great disinterest in investing in innovation from financial institutions and you end up with 20th century industry struggling in a 21st century economy. Let's make no mistake, true productivity is in the production of real goods and services. Outsourcing is just another symptom of over-paid and under-performing management of the economy. In business, everything has a price and that includes service, speed, precision and efficiency. If the other team can beat you, "effect the head" ... it's the American way.
WHITE KEN
WHITE KEN
May 22, 2012
With the prices plummeting at the current low, our company has taken a huge hit on excess inventories we purchased durring the dumping affect. We have cases of panels worth about half what we originally paid. We got slammed first with state rebates expiring and PPA's pulling out of the market to go elsewhere. Now we are totally screwed. It's been a hard sell without the help of the state mandatory rebates required of the power company's, most everyone was taking advantage of. The only saving grace for us, would be for panel prices to go up and state rebates to come back. At this point, we are looking for an exit strategy. Maybe consulting will be a better avenue?
Allen Gerhardt
Allen Gerhardt
May 22, 2012
As a consumer, I see the results of price increases as another delay in the acceptance and installations of home PV systems. The majority of people in this country would be better served by low costs of installation. For widespread purchasing of solar the price is still a bit high, leaving only the wealthier people able to use home solar. This price increase will reduce or slow sales of PV.
j krishna sankar
j krishna sankar
May 22, 2012
J Krishna Sankar CMD Eastern Power
easternpowers@gmail.com

A classic case against the 31% CVD ruling is the Apple IPhone. On a pricing of $ 499 less than $ 4 goes to China as manufacturing cost where the phone is assembled. Balance is distributed to other countries with the major share retained in USA

Allow the solar panels a free fall to finds its own bottom price. Even at today's prices the cost of One Unit of power KWH is above 16 US Cents. We all talk of grid parity and this is very vague term. In Germany grid parity could be 28 Euro cents, in US it could be 12 US cents or may vary from state to state.

What is required for solar to compete hands on with convention power is generation parity. And with fully depreciated plants this could be as low as US Cents 3 or 4 per KWH

Solar has a long way to go and we should allow the prices to fall so that the real economies of scale are fully available to the market
BaBa Gates
BaBa Gates
May 19, 2012
The above comments are both right. Once again follow the money to find the truth. Who contributes to which canidates. This is all about crony capitalism and nothing more.

The whole climate change fear mongering is nothing more than crony capitalist using the ignorance of the general public to make money by buying politicans.

Lets face it the military industrial complex and the wars we fight are for the profit of crony capitalists. The war on drugs is to promote crony capitalist and political bureaucracy. The climate change war is nothing but the same game. We never win these wars just waste American blood and treasure. Declare a enemy start a war so crony capitalists can fleece the public in the name of the better good, it is the American business model of the crony capitalist.

The small business man or woman has to understand the rules to the game, in this case crony capitalism, and only then can you play that game and be winner. If you don't know the rules to any game you will be a sure loser.

The point here is once you take a macro view of American business and politics you start to get a sense of why the EOC made the descision they did on tariffs on Chinese panels.


Ok I will get off my soap box about crony capitalism.

What do you think?
ANONYMOUS
May 19, 2012
Its not about jobs its about politics. 97% of the solar jobs in the US are outside of manufacturing and instead are comprised of finance, sales, installation, engineering - these are the jobs that are now at risk when the government artificially increases the cost of imports. How can the 97% of solar jobs be put at risk for the 3% in manufacturing?

With a country that is so broken in education, budgets, housing, banking, construction, taxes, how is it that the US government so quickly reacted to a complaint by a few solar panel manufacturers to move on a major trade dispute that will have ripple effects well beyond solar - and yet this same government is so impotent in solving the real problems at hand.

The truly stupid part of this whole issue is that solar panel manufacturing is a global process. China has already begun moving cell sourcing to Taiwan and thus won't be subject to tariffs going forward. You know who wins? The Taiwanese...You know who loses? The American consumer.
Kevin Clements
Kevin Clements
May 19, 2012
This is all politics. The main goal of solar is to generate clean energy without pollution. To this end cost reductions are the most important path to grid parity and increased solar deployment. Solar isn't about US manufacturing jobs, it's about installing as much solar as possible. Most PV plants are automated these days and these tariffs will cause the loss of more US jobs in solar sales, marketing, distribution and installation than they will create in manufacturing. SolarWorld is headquartered in Germany and all we are doing is protecting their margins at the expense of US consumers. Natural gas and oil companies win big with these tariffs as well. I think installers whose business will shrink as a result of these tariffs might think twice about ever using solar world panels again. There is growing ill will towards solar world these days... Everyone loses in a trade war.

Add Your Comments

To add your comments you must sign-in or create a free account.

  • Create a Free Account!
  • Sign-In
Steve Leone

Steve Leone

Steve Leone has been a journalist for more than 15 years and has worked for news organizations in Rhode Island, Maine, New Hampshire, Virginia and California.
  • About
  • Articles
  • Blog
  • Contact
  • FOLLOW
  • CONTACT
Stay Connected
         
To register for our free e-Newsletters, create your free account here:

Editors' Picks

  • EU Debate Over Climate Change Policy Could Dampen Renewable Energy Growth
  • The Future of Solar in Latin America
  • Fighting Blackouts: Japan Residential PV and Energy Storage Market Flourishing
  • The Economic Case for Divesting from Fossil Fuels
  • Are Run-of-River Hydroelectric Systems Ready to Ride US Currents?
  • Moniz Unanimously Confirmed As New DOE Chief

Most Commented

  • 8
    San Antonio Solar Fans Delay Introduction of SunCredit Program
  • 6
    Renewable Energy Research Initiative Launched in UK
  • 3
    Texas Legislature Passes Commercial and Industrial PACE Bill
  • 3
    French and German Ministers Call for 2030 Renewable Energy Targets

Total Access Partners

Growing Your Business? Learn More about Total Access
  • Enecsys
  • Standard Solar Inc.
  • Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo North America
  • EnergyDreams LLC
  • Johnson Controls, Inc.
  • Affordable Solar Group, LLC
  • Eaton
  • 2GreenEnergy.com
News
  • Renewable Energy
  • Solar Energy
  • Wind Energy
  • Bioenergy
  • Geothermal Energy
  • Hyrdo Power
  • Blogs
  • Video
  • Finance
Resources
  • Companies
  • Products
  • Careers
  • Events
  • Webcasts
  • White Papers
  • Magazines
  • Press Releases
  • e-Newsletters
Company
  • About Us
  • Our Team
  • Contact Us
  • Advertising & Services
  • Privacy Policy
  • Terms & Conditions
  • Site Map
Network Partners - Magazines
  • Hydro Review Magazine
  • Hydro Review Worldwide Magazine
  • Renewable Energy World Magazine
Network Partners - Events
  • Power-Gen International
  • Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo North America
  • Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo Europe
  • Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo Asia
  • Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo Africa
  • Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo India
  • HydroVision International
  • HydroVision Brazil
  • HydroVision India
  • HydroVision Russia
© Copyright 1999-2013 RenewableEnergyWorld.com - All rights reserved.
RenewableEnergyWorld.com - World's #1 Renewable Energy Network for news & Information