Insights

Thought leadership, news, and commentary from the front lines of the clean energy revolution.

We deliver real-world energy solutions today to build a sustainable tomorrow. - See more at: http://www.blueoakenergy.com/blog/#sthash.XOerM0Fn.dpuf
We deliver real-world energy solutions today to build a sustainable tomorrow. - See more at: http://www.blueoakenergy.com/blog/#sthash.XOerM0Fn.dpuf
We deliver real-world energy solutions today to build a sustainable tomorrow. - See more at: http://www.blueoakenergy.com/blog/#sthash.XOerM0Fn.dpuf

Three Takeaways from the August 15th ITC hearing on the Section 201 Suniva/SolarWorld petition

August 16, 2017

By Andrew Foukal, Vice President of Engineering, Coronal Energy

  1. The solar industry has mobilized against the case and behind the message. In droves.  

SEIA members showed up in force, filling three large hearing rooms. Rumor has it that this hearing had a stronger turnout than even the recent ITC hearing on NAFTA, which was a high-profile case itself.  Coronal Energy applauds all the efforts by SEIA and its members in providing well-articulated arguments and a strong presence at the hearing. We continue to actively support SEIA’s position on the case, which is, “tariffs on cells and minimum prices on modules will cause serious damage to the US solar industry. We are eager to find a better solution to help boost US solar manufacturing.”

  1. The case is about whether or not increased imports were the substantial cause of injury to the petitioners. We beg to differ.

The petition claims that “crystalline silicon (Si) photovoltaic cells are being imported into the United States in such increased quantities as to be a substantial cause of serious injury, or threat thereof, to the domestic industry producing an article like or directly competitive with the imported articles.” Note that Section 201 statute does not require the petitioners to show evidence of dumping, simply that the imports of Si cells have increased over the period being investigated and that increase has had a serious injury to the petitioners. The respondents’ rebuttal at the injury phase is essentially summarized that Suniva and SolarWorld have failed for other reasons (quality issues and meeting delivery deadlines), and increased imports was not a substantial factor in their demise.

  1. Our jury is well informed. And now we wait.

The ITC commissioners asked intelligent questions and clearly have a good handle on the issues as well as the the PV industry at large. The Determination of Injury is expected on September 22nd. If Injury is found, then the case will move into the next phase to determine Remedy. A remedy hearing would then occur in early October and a Determination of Remedy by November 13. The President would then have unilateral authority to either accept or alter the recommended remedy by January 13, 2018.

Back to blog