INDUSTRY I ISSUES
up in the USA, rather than China deciding that the cost difference in labour was offset by building closer to demand. The company has found itself in financial difficulty with their inability to compete with cheaper imports and feels that the Chinese companies sidestep U.S.-level manufacturing standards for labour, quality, and the environment. All reasons the company gave when explaining the decision to go against the industry grain and build in the USA.
Gordon Brinser, president of SolarWorld America based in Hillsboro, Oregon said. “China’s wrongful tactics run systematically across the board; central planning has subsidized most facets of these companies’ business. China actually has no production cost advantage. Labour makes up a modest share of solar-industry costs, China’s labour is less productive, its raw material and equipment have come from the West and China must pay for long-distance shipping.”
SolarWorld felt they did their mathematics correctly and the Chinese companies should not be able to undersell them if they are playing by the rules and state that the cheaper imports are being sold below cost in huge volumes. The Department of Commerce decided there was a case to review and proceedings began.
Two handed replies
Now you would expect that the Chinese would respond to the accusations and they did but what made the situation more interesting was the response within the USA and especially from other sectors of the industry that CASM purported to represent. One of the first to respond was the PV arm of semiconductor industry body SEMI who represent the tool and materials suppliers in the PV market place. They did not see the trade complaint as a positive move and felt it sent a strong message that the action was in fact damaging to the US industry.
Whilst strongly defending the need for strong trade rules SEMI also mentioned their advocacy to promote the deployment of solar PV as an answer to energy challenges or the long term view of solar goals. The industry body made it clear that they and their members were concerned over the recent filing of an antidumping and countervailing duty case against Chinese manufacturers of crystalline silicon solar PV cells. In fact they assert that the case could lead to significant price increases on the value chain.
The two areas they mention, upstream added equipment and materials as well as downstream service providers, such as installers, highlight two divisions within the industry that leads to the disagreement in perspective the industry has been seeing.
The SEMI statement ended with a plea to common sense and an offer to act as a go between; For these reasons, SEMI urges that the case currently under review proceed on a factual basis and that the process not become politicized. Moreover, to the extent possible, SEMI would support efforts by involved parties to reach a mutually acceptable accord that will serve the legitimate interests of all parties.
This was not what CASM was hoping for but worse was to come when another coalition was set up specifically to challenge the CASM perception of the industry and events. The Coalition for
There is no doubt that the recent market turmoil has been very tough on companies whose business plan was sound and there was reason to trust in the process that enabled early
growth.The changing dynamics left many on the wrong side of the financial fence and the
apparent easy risks evaporated and companies found themselves unable to compete in a market that was clouded by financial
supports at different and differing points of the value chain
Affordable Solar Energy made it clear that it was being formed in direct opposition and stated they were speaking on behalf of more of the industry than CASM was and accused the trade petition of being a protectionist move which is what CASM was accusing China of. The new coalition felt that the global competition that was in fact a major driver of affordability and uptake for the solar market and saw the driving down of prices an excellent thing as it drove the overall industry closer to grid parity which was the long term goal of the industry. Some pundits believe the whole escapade is a smoke screen for a wider trade deal that Europe, USA and China are bargaining for and the solar industry has become a pawn in those developments.
The industry and authorities in China were not so convinced of the proposition to pursue an anti dumping process and a number of prominent players were quick to respond. Li Junfeng, Deputy Director of the Energy Research Institute under the National Development and Reform Commission (NDRC) made it clear the potential damage to the solar industry in China stating that if the filing is successful it would close the USA door to the Chinese solar industry. Yingli Solar were quick to point out that the petitions presented only the views of one side and only a partial view of a very complicated story, whilst the tier one players in China made it clear that any issues would be case by case and that they felt confident they were following international rules. Government spokespersons saw the issue as a broader concern and warned that the action sent an inappropriate protectionist signal that could cast a shadow over world economic recovery.
Issue I 2012 I
www.solar-international.net 17
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40