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! ×

BREAKING: ITC Makes Unanimous Decision on Chinese Cell & Modules

Tariffs will stand as International Trade Commission votes that Chinese cells and modules are harming the U.S. solar industry. Critical circumstances were not found so tariffs won't be retroactive.

Charles W. Thurston, Contributor with updates by REW.com Editors
November 07, 2012  |  28 Comments

The International Trade Commission (ITC) has voted 6-0 that imports of Chinese solar cells have harmed U.S. solar manufacturers. The ruling means that tariffs will indeed be added to solar modules that include cells manufactured in China. Further, the ITC has determined that there were no critical circumstances, and thus no reason to apply the tariffs retroactively, a move applauded by the Coalition for Affordable Solar Energy (CASE).

Responding to the ITC ruling, E.L. “Mick” McDaniel, Managing Director of Suntech America offered this statement: 

The continued growth of trade barriers represents a serious challenge to the U.S. solar industry, for American jobs, and for energy consumers globally. SolarWorld’s hypocritical campaign has forced the fast-growing American solar industry to foot the bill for SolarWorld’s competitive failures. Further damage can be prevented if governments engage in constructive dialogue to roll back protectionist barriers that limit our industry’s ability to compete against fossil fuels. As a U.S. manufacturer and global company, Suntech will continue to oppose unnecessary solar taxes and promote affordable solar energy everywhere. As a global company with global supply chains and manufacturing in China, Japan, and the U.S., we remain committed to our U.S. customers and will continue to supply hundreds of megawatts of high-quality, affordable solar panels that will not be subject to these U.S.-China tariffs.

Our original story, published on October 10, 2012:

The U.S. Commerce Department today returned a hawkish decision on its investigation into the dumping and subsidization of Chinese solar exports, levying associated import tariffs on several billion dollars worth of the imports, ranging from 18.32 percent to 249.96 percent of declared value. The dumping complaint was initiated by Bonn's SolarWorld, and has been joined by several other U.S. manufacturers. The politically and economically contentious case positioned "injured" solar cell and photovoltaic module makers in the United States on one side of the legal action, while solar developers, distributors and installers were lined up on the other side, seeking to keep lower prices in the global solar industry.

Rhone Resch, president and CEO of the Solar Energy Industries Association (SEIA), commented that, “While today’s decision rightly shows that the U.S. will protect its rights in the global trading system, trade litigation alone is not enough to solve the complex challenges that exist between the U.S. and China. What is immediately clear is that for solar to thrive globally, there is a need to build consensus on acceptable forms of government support for industry.“ He added that, "Prior to these trade cases, the U.S. and Chinese solar industries enjoyed a strong, productive working relationship. For both sides to succeed going forward, we must return to our collaborative roots at both the industry and government levels."

Early reports on the damages dished out by Commerce indicate that among the most affected Chinese companies, Suntech Power Holdings was assigned a cumulative anti-dumping (AD) import duty of 31.73 percent plus a countervailing (CVD), or anti-subsidy, duty of 14.78 percent. Similarly, Trina Solar was assigned a cumulative 18.32 percent anti-dumping import duty plus a 15.97 percent anti-subsidy duty. These two companies imported the lion's share of the Chinese solar goods in question during the investigation period. According to Bloomberb news, an additional 59 Chinese companies will be subject to an anti-dumping penalty of 25.96 percent, based on a determination by the Commerce Department of how much below cost they were selling their goods. All other Chinese producers will be subject to a 249.96 percent rate to deter dumping. There was a 10.54 percent reduction in the AD rate to avoid double counting of anti-subsidy rates. 

Because the duties are complicated and were altered from the prelimary duties assigned, the Washington-based Coalition for Affordable Solar Energy (CASE) released the folliowing chart to provide more clarification.

CASE is an opponent of the trade case and President Jigar Shah responded to the final Commerce rulings saying, "We are gratified that the scope of today’s decision is limited only to solar cells made in China and that the [Commerce] Department did not significantly increase the tariff from its preliminary decision in May. We are hopeful that continued innovations in technology, a competitive global marketplace, and demand-generated pressure for lower prices will take precedence moving forward. At the same time, we remain concerned about the growing global trade war, which will only hurt American solar industry jobs, growth and consumers."

CASE and other opponents to the anti-dumping investigation laid out an argument that continuing lower costs in solar are inevitable, and have positive effects for the surviving players in the industry. "On behalf of 97 percent to 98 percent of the U.S. solar industry that fought against SolarWorld, we are all looking forward to ending this distraction and returning to our everyday focus of creating jobs and lowering renewable energy costs,” Shah added.

“We’re pleased with the margins calculated by the Commerce Department, particularly the subsidy margins which increased significantly on the entire Chinese industry,” Timothy Brightbill, an attorney for Wiley Rein LLP in Washington who represents manufacturers led by SolarWorld, said in an interview with Bloomberg news.

“Only fair competition can provide sustainable gains in technological efficiency, cost reduction and end-user pricing.  Commerce’s decision raises the industry’s chances of reclaiming equal footing for domestic, sustainable and environmentally sound solar-technology producers and their jobs,” said Gordon  Brinser, President of SolarWorld America in a statement.

The U.S.-China Solar Trade War is far from over. The U.S. International Trade Commission ITC will determine on November 7 whether U.S. manufacturers have been harmed by Chinese imports. If the ITC does determine injury has occurred, tariffs imposed by the U.S. Commerce Department would continue. In retaliation, China in May filed a complaint against U.S. subsidies that affected over $7 billion worth of Chinese products.

The European Union, in a separate set of proceedings also is investigating the dumping of Chinese solar products on the continent, albeit considering a broader scope of products than those considered in the U.S. cases, affecting some 26.5 billion worth of imports. The EU proceedings are expected to take several more months.

Image: Gavel via Shutterstock.

Related Links

  • Can We Really Blame China for Solar Manufacturer Bankruptcies?
  • CASE Companies Rail Against China "Trade War"
  • Solar Panel Tariffs – No Benefit, Only Problems

28 Comments

Register To Comment
Gerry Wootton
Gerry Wootton
November 9, 2012
The logic of the ITC seems to be that there is no value in cell efficiency. At the module level, two factors have a strong effect on the overall module cost of production expressed in $/W: efficiency of the cells, geometry of the cells (fill factor of the array) and number of cells. The first is a function of cell efficiency plus properties of glass, laminate and backsheet which can be improved at relatively nominal cost, and the latter on the technical quality of the cells. The average SolarWorld module has 14.5% aperture efficiency while the average Sunpower module has 19.3% efficiency. If one were to compare modules of the same physical size and general construction, the $/W manufacture cost would be 25% less. When you factor in all system costs, the more efficient module has a higher value to the system owner 19%/15% ~= 11% price premium. At a fixed margin, 19% modules should have a fair price that is ~30% less expressed as $/W. Try to tell that to a bean counter - unless he's working on a solar farm where that difference works out to 10s of millions. When you're trying to compete with 60 cell modules using low efficiency cells against 72 and 96 cell modules using high efficiency cells, the going gets tough. If you're still depending on 60 cell modules to drive sales, give your head a shake. Of course,some small Chinese companies were trying to get by making small modules using 5' cells - they're dead or dying too.
Joel Fairstein
Joel Fairstein
November 8, 2012
Is photovoltaic technology worth the trouble? Here's a relevant discussion:

www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/blog/post/2012/11/is-photovoltaic-technology-worth-the-trouble
Alfred Shaw
Alfred Shaw
October 25, 2012
I installed a solar system using US made solar panels because I support US jobs. I am glad to see the dumping of Chinese panels stopped. Solar installers should lobby congress to get the playing field is leveled including subsidies to oil companies.

Aleop
PHILIP MCCRACKEN
PHILIP MCCRACKEN
October 23, 2012
In China,
1) the lifetime efficiency of the panels is not guaranteed.
2) the chemicals and other possible pollutants are not completely contained and controlled? Prevented from entering the environment.
3) Deeply lower wages, government subsidies and low quality materials and processes do not guarantee the quality of the panels.

Cheap price could mean cheap quality.
JP   -Jon Pierce
JP -Jon Pierce
October 22, 2012
At the current moment inn us economics, SHOW ALL THE CITIZENS we care , NOT SUPPORTING subsidies by bossy forces...
Properly adding tariffs , balancing the global slave-labor-rate forced-employee pays.

in another post there are applauds for China this or That in solar..., while WE who do not benefit - get to pay a subsidy-as-in-taxation under P.Obama, we- who for over 90% WONT BENEFIT FROM, as not connected to the benefits.

The other point is if we quit killing off 5500 daily , we will have more to benefit with, if managed better than so many handouts and credits and subsidies and loopholes for a few supported by current government.
Richie Judas
Richie Judas
October 16, 2012
Solution is easy. Make a production based tax incentive rather than the installed cost model. The higher percentage of us made components in a system receive a higher production tax rate. This is by far the easiest way to ensure the value of our kilowatt hours and benefits to the economy are maximized.
Bill Marcus
Bill Marcus
October 12, 2012
I am so happy the US did this, the Chinese Government has been subsidizing the manufacturers there to intentionally hurt Solar Panel manufacturers elsewhere in the world. Unfair trade practices. Aside from the fact that Chinese panels will end up hurting the industry in a different way. They are cheaply made, and 5 to 7 years after install will start to fail. Then homeowners will think Solar is not good. Especially if some of the Chinese factories shut down to not have to replace all those poorly made panels.
As we level the playing field, now homeowners may end up with an American made panel. or German made.
No difference then a salary cap in sports, or tariffs on Japanese Pickup trucks, so that Chevy, and Ford can compete. Why is that OK and this isn't? explain.
Tim Dolan
Tim Dolan
October 12, 2012
All I am concerned by this is does it affect the cost of SunTech's panels manufactured in Arizona?
JP   -Jon Pierce
JP -Jon Pierce
October 12, 2012
"improve" I think by your use is truly looking at where those wonderful monies rolled off of those backs of persons from forced (by poor class) lifestyle up and throughout private capitalisms, globally...

Chinese tend to do things that are good for business. Not the same philosophy in the USA.
>>>?
You have had contracts or no?

and WHO SUBSIDIZES, ultimately as 'the first domino' ?
Is the 1 child rule, neglecting the choice of a human (inside), -is it really "good" -- for subsidies?
"good" or "fascist" for business/govt? how about maybe some, yours, or who's business...?

For now the growing population is the progeny given (already alive) their right to choose, however innocent as well as just small in size, we all can see.

I ask, what of that 5500 small humans taken just in the USA, daily lost among the businesses of the folks allowing a large person (or govt, ,,) to over control a small person inside.

Those supporting business by keeping the freedom of choice available to the smaller humans (inside, and partially born) are growing by 5500 daily in the USA.
Let subsidies rise voted on by those masses (already growing in number dramatically).
John Nistler
John Nistler
October 12, 2012
@PaulD. I understand your point about floating currency. Question is, why should the Chinese float their currency? Chinese tend to do things that are good for business. Not the same philosophy in the USA.

The question is related to dumping of Chinese panels on the USA marketplace. Since I deal with US, Canadian and Chinese panel manufacturers, I can honestly tell you that they are all looking at making a profit. There are major Chinese companies who also are not competitive against other Chinese solar PV companies. Primarily due to high overhead and low efficiency or performance panels. Any company, USA, European or Chinese who are presently offering only 14.5% efficient or less solar panels are not competitive.

While Solar World is claiming Chinese dumping practices, large Chinese companies such as Yingli and Jinko are having problems even within China. Does not sound like dumping, just poor management. Why do we want to pretend that companies from other countries or even within the USA are not competitive? ASP is quite competitive right now, they are a USA company and did not join Solar World on this filing, even though they were asked to do so.
GARY UDHWANI
GARY UDHWANI
October 12, 2012
What is unfair subsidy
sub·si·dy/?s?bsid?/
Noun:
1.A sum of money granted by the government or a public body to assist an industry or business so that the price of a commodity or service...
2.A sum of money granted to support an arts organization or other undertaking held to be in the public interest.
How can this be fair or unfair. Its sole intent is to improve business.
JP   -Jon Pierce
JP -Jon Pierce
October 12, 2012
??'True'
'True Freedom'
'Unfair'

Absolutes? or absolutely relative?

What I mean to ask is
are the 'enlightened-ones' in any neighborhood business, globally or right next door on a street in the USA,
--- still only serving,
-employing a better 'freedom' (in their minds) for all the near penny-less back-broken workers of an obviously poorer class compared to the shoppers?

If yes,
then why not raise the bar (import+duty, or a new equivalent) of which then is allowing local companies
in a free-er capitalism
to causually be a part of
avoiding a CAPIT-O-LISM, -similarly (I judge fascist) competitive market?


One can EASILY hire, especially in these last 2 years of 'FORWARD' wretchedly poor souls for 10 bucks an hour to assist with any solar installation... - quite EASILY, among those not having jobs now that were happily employed for 3x's that in 2010...


Contracts are signed with smiles of those solar/ greeni shopper-savers... so will more governments 'credit' the situation(s), to only grow government with the VERY VERY FEW who can even buy any contracts. The rest down the street who can not afford a solar contract initially will push for more government subsidies. Still ONLY A VERY FEW PERCENT get a 'deal' because the MONEY LARGELY COMES FROM THE REST OF THE WORKERS PAYING TAXES WHO CAN NOT AFFORD THE CONTRACTS.


Let's go to the -Mart for the barest-acceptance of pieces-parts for your one-year parts and labor warranty, and the very same parts for your 10-year/ or lifetime- 'all-inclusive' warranty ($+ as an adder, option of a solar or wind or geothermal or energy equipment contract).

Relativel? or Absolutely? - just 'TRUE' by a few human imaginings, or biz that is inspired by revealed Truth itself.

The ONLY starting point of all arguments seems two-sided:
Imagined- or Real. ( I believe living ) Truth.

Business, by a Majority seems frequently just not necessarily to even relatively mean 'True'.
~ That's my absolute duty.
MICHAEL FLETCHER
MICHAEL FLETCHER
October 12, 2012
The one question that stands out to me is whether or not the Chinese government is unfairly subsidizing production of solar panels. If they are, this makes it possible for the Chinese companies to sell below cost yet still remain a viable business. I realize that there are a plethora of things involved to get to the bottom of whether or not this is the case. I just hope that these were reviewed before making this type of decision. I am in general against duties as they increase the cost of doing business. In this particular case, I am a potential consumer of solar panels so obviously would like to see the price come down as far as possible but can see the point of the manufacturers in the US as well IF the companies in China were being unfairly subsidized.
GARY UDHWANI
GARY UDHWANI
October 12, 2012
True freedom will be when all countries remove all their duties for a true free world market. I don't see a reason for these duties. To create a fair market for US manufacturers (of any product not only solar) all Chinese goods must have duties to balance the labor cost difference. Is it not the Chinese government who decides on minimum wages in their country? Is it not that they do not want to raise their pay rates so they can be competitive in the world market?
Does not the US provide loans and subsidies to US manufacturers to improve the industry in our country? what is wrong if Chinese did the same for their manufactures. The only difference it Chinese rebates worked and ours were abused.
David Bergeron
David Bergeron
October 12, 2012
http://ia.ita.doc.gov/download/factsheets/factsheet_prc-solar-cells-ad-cvd-finals-20121010.pdf
ANONYMOUS
October 12, 2012
Why doesn't REW include a link to the DOC website for a full list of final AD and CVDs for each company? That would be more useful reporting.
Paul Dennis
Paul Dennis
October 11, 2012
@john-nistler I am talking generally but you insist on specifics and this has nothing to do with banking on the auto industry. Tell me why the Chinese won't float their currency?
Ron Peterson
Ron Peterson
October 11, 2012
I can find the ruling at the Commerce web site, but can't find the Commerce department rationale for making the ruling and who was responsible for the ruling.

Looking at one of the Chinese companies, it looks like it is making a profit on its sales, so how is it getting a subsidy to sell below cost in the US?

If a Chinese solar company raised its prices by 30%, it wouldn't have any sales and if it absorbed the 30% tariff, it would soon go bankrupt.
John Nistler
John Nistler
October 11, 2012
@PaulD and it has nothing at all to do with the bonus paid to chief executives or their decision to invest or not invest. Sorry, worked in high tech for too long. The story does not fit.

Solar world brought charges with 6 other companies not the entire solar industry in the USA. Dumping is a legal move when you are not competitive. Previously it was flash memory against the Japanese, all the while, Micron Technologies effectively competed against the Japanese and was the number one supplier throughout the world.

In the USA, we wish to blame others for incompetence. Just like the bailout of the banking industry and auto industry, this is a bail out, just called something else.
Paul Dennis
Paul Dennis
October 11, 2012
@john-nistler. "Solar World's management is to blame for not properly funding engineering and improving their overall performance capability and manufacturing skills"

The point is you need to make a profit to fund engineering and improve performance. The drip drip of lower prices removes the profitability of US firms they cannot invest and overtime close up. That's why the tariffs were introduced.

A better option would be a blanket tariff against all countries that do not have a free and floating exchange rate.
Forrest Jones
Forrest Jones
October 11, 2012
The real question here is how does a Free Market Economy deal with a "Non-market Driven Economy?" I have the utmost respect for the Chinese and repsect their work ethic and diligence. Their Solar products are excellent. But their manufacturing economy is not based on financial, free market economic principles as we know them. They can "up-profitably" produce a commodity indefinitely, just by ordering it to be produced. In a free market economy, functioning for even a couple of months at a loss is disasterous. To play fair, they just need to sell their modules at a reasonable price. There clearly are American-made Solar companies that suffered due to the undercutting. There are a couple of other points to add to the article also. Although SolarWorld does have a parent company in Germany, they have their headquarters and larger manufacturing plant in Oregon with additional facilities in California, and are the largest producer of Solar panels in North America. They have been producing modules here in the US for 35+ years. Also, SolarWorld is not the only American-made solar mnufacturer that petitioned the Department of Commerce to investigate, but rather the biggest. "All" of the American-made manufacturers were opposed to dumping, and broadly came together as a group called CASM. Conversely the Chinese manufacturers put together an opposing group called CASE. There is probably no need to quote anything from CASE since they are biased and just exist to oppose the free market efforts. In short, every country has to play fair and to protect their own economies.
John Nistler
John Nistler
October 11, 2012
Sorry, PaulD, I disagree. This is about a lack of proper management and competition. Solar World provides 14.5% solar panels. So does Yingli. Neither can compete in the market place based on performance or cost. One is German, the other is Chinese. Solar World's management is to blame for not properly funding engineering and improving their overall performance capability and manufacturing skills. There are plenty of Chinese companies in trouble due to poor performance and cost structure. It goes hand in hand with high competition markets.
Paul Dennis
Paul Dennis
October 11, 2012
This is about manufacturing PV panels not about PV versus other forms of energy which is a different argument. This is straightforward case of ensuring a level playing field for manufacturers. Cheap Chinese output is achieved through an artificially low currency. The currency is kept low by the Chinese government buying up US dollars which the Federal reserve prints. It makes American public feel good but over time you lose your ability to manufacture hence the trade deficit. America and much of Western Europe are way down a very slippery slope. China is in this for the long run.
David Bruderly
David Bruderly
October 11, 2012
There is NO FREE MARKET IN ENERGY. This is a FACT. It is also the problem that critics of the clean / renewable energy industry are NOT willing to recognize and fix. Until policy is changed so energy producers MUST pay the full life-cycle cost of externalities created by the manufacture and use of ALL forms of energy (electricity and motor fuels), such as the cost of pollution to society. Example: POLLUTION IS FREE!. Just get a permit to pollute, buy cheap natural gas and you are in the electricity business; this is economically inefficient. It is also counter-productive! Until indirect subsidies (that make American clean energy sources and manufacturing less competitive than in subsidized, low-labor cost regions) are offset there will be no 'level playing field', no 'free market' in any clean energy system. Example: The US government is spending BILLIONS to dredge US ports to handle super-sized containerships and aircraft carriers while discounting ecological costs. This subsidy reduces the cost of shipping more cheap PV from China to the US and Europe. BTW - who pays the military? American taxpayers! PV manufacturers, unemployed workers and consumers lose! By the way, the highest and best uses of that cheap natural gas (for consumers and taxpayers) are direct uses that break the market power of OPEC --- by replacing expensive OIL -- liquid petroleum-based motor fuels -- with domestically produced CNG and LNG. Federal and state governments should structure market policy so PV and solar thermal competes with coal electricity rather than inefficient uses of natural gas to make electtricity in central power stations. Lovins is right: American energy policy is to use fossil fuels in the dirtiest, least efficient ways possible while shifting costs to the public sector to maximize profits for established industries / campaign donors. And the GOP has replaced Adam Smith's teachings with a libertarian, supply-side economic philosophy based on the writings of Ayn Rand.
Robert Hilbun
Robert Hilbun
October 11, 2012
UUUUUUUhhhhhh what ..... this goobly gook of a tarriff ..... If I'm the Chinese, I'm just amazed the level of bullshit the US can dream up to try to make money off not doing anything except more regulations and taxes on other peoples work and industries. We can't even reform the soft cost in our own country, every other day a new dept comes forward with there hand out..... And PaulD says the Chinese are still buying our debt, does that mean loaning us money or what excactly?
Paul Dennis
Paul Dennis
October 11, 2012
Well Done America. The west cannot go on with a permanent trade deficit to China. Everybody deserves a level playing field including the investors, owners and employees of the US solar companies. The benefit to the American consumer through low prices of Chinese panels is short-term and benefits the individual whilst society loses out through unemployment and low investment.

A simple solution would be for China to float its currency. But they won't. They carry on buying US government debt why I don't know it's never going to get paid back.
John Nistler
John Nistler
October 11, 2012
I have to seriously question if opponents to solar energy are not the true reason for this ridiculous action. The tariffs hurt more people involved in solar energy then those it supposedly helps. Higher priced solar panels will not sale and the financial difficulties of Solar World and others will continue due to their lack of being competitive. The real reason behind their failure in the market place. While fossil fuel advocates continue to point at the low penetration of solar in the USA, they are truly scared because solar power is the one thing that individuals can do to reduce their high power costs.
Steve Yang, P.E.
Steve Yang, P.E.
October 11, 2012
There can be different ways of looking at this situation. The American solar industry(and end customers) benefited from Chinese subsidy, from a record gigawatts of added PV installations. Then the retro-active import tariff brings hundreds of millions dollars into the US Treasury. If the ITC finds harm done to U.S. manufacturers, the tariff amount will expand. Some economist should give us an over-all balance sheet accounting, as further trade war continue.

Add Your Comments

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

  • Create a Free Account!
  • Sign-In
Charles Thurston

Charles Thurston

Charles W. Thurston is a journalist who specializes in renewable energy, from finance to technological processes. He has been active in the industry for over 25 years, living and working in locations ranging from Brazil to Papua New Guinea...
  • About
  • Articles
  • 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
  • Creotecc Solar Mounting Systems
  • Talesun Solar USA, Ltd.
  • Solmetric Corporation
  • Borrego Solar Systems, Inc.
  • Enerquip
  • Stoel Rives LLP
  • GreenBrilliance
  • Westinghouse Solar
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