Posts Tagged ‘Solar politics’

Weighing Both Sides of the China-U.S. Solar Panel Manufacturers Trade Dispute

Wednesday, January 25th, 2012

In recent years, the price for solar PV panels has plummeted, falling 30% in 2011 alone. The drop in prices can be attributed in part to cheap, imported panels produced by Chinese manufacturers who benefit from billions of dollars of cheap credit from the Chinese government. But while solar installers benefited from inexpensive panels, manufacturers suffered. The flood of cheap panels into U.S. markets drove a significant number of U.S. manufacturers into bankruptcy, contributing to job loss and jeopardizing the ability of the U.S. to compete in renewable technologies.

In a dramatic move, several U.S. firms, most of which remain anonymous, filed a suit in October of last year with the U.S. Department of Commerce and the U.S. International Trade Commission, “alleging the unfair importation of crystalline silicon photovoltaic cells and modules from China.”  SolarWorld USA is leading the group of firms that have formed the Coalition for American Solar Manufacturing, demanding President Obama impose tariffs and duties on Chinese panel and silicon cell makers to offset their losses. According to the Coalition, China can undercut all other producers, put them out of business, and end up with a monopoly on the solar sector by heavily subsidizing panel production. Gordon Brinser, president of SolarWorld, alleges that this is their whole intention; to “gut it and own it.

SolarWorld claims that its installations, like this 600+kW facility in Yosemite National Park, will slow or cease in the face of unfair Chinese competition. Image via www.solarworld-usa.com

China has denied any allegations of wrongdoing, essentially calling the U.S. a bad sport in a losing market. Though reports accusing China of pledging $30 to $40 billion dollars in cheap credit to its companies drove allegations against the industry, evidence suggests that not only have Chinese solar companies hardly touched the financing, but that the interest rates have been quite reasonable as well. Some reports say companies have tapped as little as 3 percent of the billions of dollars made available to them, and data from actual loans indicate that interest rates fall between 3 to 9 percent depending on maturities and currencies used – hardly cut-rate lending.  While Chinese companies have access to other sources of financing, there still exists little evidence that points to the “all-encompassing range of illegal subsidies from the Chinese government, including massive cash grants” alleged in the complaint by U.S. solar companies.

And it gets more complicated. After the group of U.S. companies filed the suit, China countered with a claim that the U.S. has been illegally dumping polysilicon feedstock in Chinese markets, putting some of their companies out of business. Chinese authorities have the exact same complaints against American companies – that U.S. manufacturers are selling products below productions costs in a malicious attempt to hurt Chinese business. Fair competition, or illegal trade? It’s a complicated question involving “money, business, and patriotism,” and most importantly, jobs. Some argue that although manufacturers in the U.S. are losing out, the U.S. might actually benefit in terms of job growth from cheap panels since a majority of the estimated 100,000 U.S. solar jobs occur “downstream” or after the panels are manufactured.

In terms of the case itself, the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) announced on December 2nd that it agreed unanimously that Chinese solar panels were harming U.S. solar panel manufacturers.   The ITC is slated to make its final determination in July for the anti-dumping question, and in May to determine countervailing duties. Further findings in these areas could result in retroactive duties on imported solar panels. Some Chinese companies are responding to the situation by hedging their bets, with some planning to move their assembly operations outside of China to avoid future tariffs. And just last night during his State of the Union address, President Obama announced the creation of a “Trade Enforcement Unit” intended to root out unfair trade practices, not just in solar manufacturing but in intellectual property and other areas as well. While avoiding mention of the case directly, the statement seems to indicate his willingness to see it proceed.

If the case does continue, it could easily spark an international trade war. Recent events already indicate movement in that direction. Wind turbine manufacturers in the U.S. have joined in with a trade complaint regarding subsidized turbine imports, specifically from China and Vietnam. And on December 15th, China enacted a tariff on large-engine cars made in the U.S., an apparent response to the complaints over solar manufacturing. While this tariff affects only a sliver of U.S. exports, the trend is unsettling.

Reality states that both sides have an enormous amount to lose from a trade war, and it is unlikely the situation will devolve to such a state. Relying more heavily on WTO rulings to govern the relationship in this politically strained situation is one way both sides could diffuse the tension. Unfortunately, that means that U.S. manufacturers will continue to face harsh competition, fair or not, from imported panels. Manufacturers of advanced solar technologies can take comfort in the fact that Chinese manufacturers have mostly targeted the lower end of the solar panel market, producing basic crystalline silicon modules. Higher-value manufacturing – and jobs – has yet to compete directly with Chinese panels on the same scale as more basic models. Unfortunately, consumers have demonstrated that many will still choose the lowest priced panel instead of paying more for a potentially more efficient system.

But the loss of one side of the solar industry is a win for the other – installations, especially when aided by incentives like SRECs, will continue to benefit from inexpensive panels, gradually increasing the share of renewables in the energy mix. If the solar industry has collectively agreed on anything, it is the need for a coherent U.S. energy policy to guide investment and steady markets. Current trends indicate that installations are increasing as installation and panel costs become cheaper, creating jobs and solidifying solar energy’s foothold in the U.S. energy mix. The appeal of solar energy is reaching more consumers than ever before, but using the industry as a test case for larger questions of trade policy could erode this progress and threaten the future of solar energy in the U.S.

About Sol Systems
Sol Systems is a solar energy finance and development firm that was built on the principle that solar energy should be an economically viable energy solution. With thousands of customers and hundreds of partners throughout the United States, Sol Systems is the largest and oldest SREC aggregator. We provide homeowners, businesses, solar installers, and developers with sophisticated financing solutions that help make solar energy more affordable. Sol Systems also helps energy suppliers and utilitiesmanage and meet their solar RPS requirements efficiently by providing them with access to diverse portfolios of SRECs. For more information, please visit http://www.solsystemscompany.com.

Share

Magic and Sunrays in the Air

Monday, August 15th, 2011

In a neighborhood where painting your door a different color requires approval from a presidentially appointed commission, Georgetown Energy is aiming to permanently change the view of dozens of houses – from the sky.

Georgetown Energy, a student consultancy devoted to helping residents convert to solar electricity, is heading a monumental solar project that involves turning 43 quintessential student townhouse residences to solar electricity in the midst of Washington DC’s historic Georgetown district. Although it is a long-term project to be enjoyed by the generations after many of the current members of the group have graduated, Georgetown Energy students believe that the rewards of such an innovative project are well worth the effort.

What magic surrounding solar coaxed students to become involved so profoundly?  First, there is a substantial payback for the investment. In a solar lease contract signed between Georgetown University, which owns the student townhouses, and Solar City, a leading national solar installation company, adding 96.6 kW of solar capacity to 43 townhouses will require an initial investment of about $164,000, much less than if the University were to purchase the solar panels. Although Georgetown Energy has partnered with SolarCity for this project and used its solar lease scheme as a model, the project will be offered to various installers at its final stages. In the innovative solar lease scheme, the University will “lease” the roof of each townhouse to the installer, which will design, own, and operate a solar photovoltaic system on each townhouse.  The installer will then sell the electricity produced from each solar project to the residents of the townhouse at a lower price than the traditional competing utility. Savings increase every year and over the 20 years duration of the solar lease contract, students would save a total of $458,856 in their electricity cost. After the contract is over, the student body can decide whether to buy the panels at a low price.

Indeed, another charming aspect of the proposal is that everything is student-owned. Originating from the need to allocate a 3.4 million dollar defunct student endowment, the solar investment will take up only a portion of the available fund and coexist with other student proposals as well as generate profit. Ideally, Georgetown Energy sees the proceeds creating a fund for related projects to further environmental awareness and energy studies on campus.

Is there anything else in it for the university, the students, and the DC area? Sol Systems, a strong force in the fight for better solar incentives in DC, believes so. Not only is being involved in such a movement ideal preparation for a career in renewable energy (two recent graduates and former members of Georgetown Energy actually work at Sol Systems), but there is much potential for the greater DC area too. Of course, cleaner air for the district tops the list. It may even attract more students interested in environmental and energy issues and demonstrate the feasibility of clean energy investments, creating a virtuous cycle of environmental awareness and action in the university community. Perhaps the project may even set an example of a successful clean energy investment that some students may follow individually in the future. Lastly, it is a modern display of service to the community, the crux of the founding Jesuit ideals of Georgetown University.

What stage is the project at right now? In April 2011, a student commission voted in support of the proposal. Now Georgetown Energy students are working with University officials on the details. These include contractual issues, billing mechanisms, pricing, and structural and electrical issues with the houses. The Georgetown Energy students are learning some concrete skills needed for evaluating any type of construction investment. The work done from June-August 2011 will culminate in a final recommendation to be handed to the University on September 1st after which Georgetown Energy students will have to persuade the rest of the student body off their feet for a concluding student referendum and choose from final proposals from competing vendors and permitting.  If all goes well, the battle will be won one year from today. The panels will be constructed in Fall 2012 and convert ordinary sunrays to a unique opportunity for revenue and intellectual growth – truly magic!

Share

New Jersey Energy Master Plan Takes Aim at SACP

Wednesday, July 13th, 2011

New Jersey, one of the nation’s largest and fastest growing solar markets, recently released the 2011 Energy Master Plan (EMP).   The 2011 Energy Master Plan (EMP) is a 10-year non-binding proposal that lays out the energy agenda and guides legislators on energy policy decisions. The plan calls to reduce the 2016 Solar Alternative Compliance Payment (SACP) by 20 percent and then by 2.54 percent each year thereafter. Additionally, the EMP suggests lowering the Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) target to 22.5 percent of energy generated from renewable sources, down from 30 percent. The SACP is a fee imposed on electricity providers if they fail to meet their solar requirement established in the RPS.

Governor Christie claims that the previous ten-year energy master plan was unrealistic and that a more obtainable set of standards based on the current situation is needed. Christie is concerned about what the RPS, particularly the solar carve out is doing to electricity costs for the average New Jersey customer.  Therefore, in this Master Energy Plan, Christie wants a cost-benefit analysis of the Solar Renewable Energy Credit (SREC) market in New Jersey created by the solar carve out.  To this end, his EMP proposes reducing the SACP as discussed above. Governor Christie has maintained that the projected plan is not intended to lessen the role of wind and solar energy in New Jersey but rather to set a more realistic target for the next ten years.

Opponents of the plan claim that the previous RPS goal of 30 percent is realistic and contributed to the vast solar development in New Jersey.  The solar carve out and SACP created one of the more robust SREC markets in the country.  An SREC, or solar renewable energy credit, is a tradable credit that represents all the clean energy benefits of electricity generated from a solar electric system.  Energy suppliers must procure a certain amount of solar-generated electricity, either through building their own systems or purchasing these SRECs, and so these SRECs became valuable.  NJ system owners were able to sell SRECs and decrease their payback period on solar systems significantly.

With the increasing deployment of solar energy and continually decreasing costs in the solar industry, critics of Governor Christie‘s Energy Master Plan claim now is not the time to reduce solar goals. Although the EMP itself does not impact the current NJ RPS (actual legislation would be needed for that), the proposed EMP could undermine the state’s exceptional leadership in renewable energy development and may lead to doubts on the continuing success of New Jersey’s solar market. The New Jersey Board of Public Utilities (BPU), the lead implementing agency, will hold three public hearings in July and August before Christie issues his final plan.

Share

What House Budget Means for Solar

Sunday, February 27th, 2011

Early on Saturday, February 19th, 2011, the House passed its version of this year’s budget, which was highlighted by $61 billion in cuts from federal programs. The bill will now move to the Senate where there will likely be amendments and eventual compromise before President Obama signs the bill. Nevertheless, it is an interesting time to examine what this budget and drive to reduce the federal deficit means for solar financing and the solar industry in general.

President Obama has made it clear that, although his priority is to trim the federal deficit, he is not willing to sacrifice funding for clean energy research and development. For the 2012 fiscal year, Obama unveiled a $29.5 billion budget request for the Department of Energy (DOE), which includes $3.2 billion for the DOE’s Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE)– a 44% increase over the current appropriation. This request includes an 88% increase in funding for the solar EERE program specifically.

The budget passed by the House, however, is more aggressive in its attempts to reduce the federal deficit and would cut billions of dollars from federal energy and environmental programs. In particular, the Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy, which invests in early stage and risky projects, would be hit hard. Similarly, the EERE would lose 35% of its budget relative to last year, a stark contrast to the White House’s plans. The budget would also cut funding for several DOE loan guarantee programs.

The Solar Energy Industries Association (SEIA) has characterized these cuts as “disastrous”. Currently, solar developers use the DOE loan guarantee programs to help finance solar projects at low interest rates, and these cuts could halt solar projects around the country. However, the chances of the House budget passing into law in its current form are very slim. Senate Democrats and President Obama will likely push back against dramatic reductions in the DOE loan guarantee program.

Despite the fact that House Republicans are currently proposing cuts to clean energy funding, it is important to highlight that a GOP Congress has historically supported solar. The first tax credits for solar were passed in a 2005 Energy Bill by a Republican Congress and later extended by President George W. Bush.

Both parties see the job growth opportunities in the solar industry. Solar employers expect jobs to increase by 26 percent over the next year, and lawmakers from both parties share concerns over the current U.S. unemployment rate.

It is important to note that no matter what happens with the Federal Budget, there will be states that maintain policies promoting solar deployment and allowing for job growth in the renewable energy industry. For example, more and more states are adopting a Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) that contains a solar carve-out requiring utilities to procure a certain percentage of their electricity from a solar source. These solar carve-outs create markets for Solar Renewable Energy Credits, or SRECs. An SREC is a tradable credit that represents all the clean energy benefits of electricity generated from a solar electric system. SRECs are a market-based mechanism that do not rely of state or federal funding, so SRECs will help system owners finance their solar energy systems regardless of federal cuts to clean energy programs.

The House resolution on the budget, although likely not to pass in its current form, would certainly be detrimental to the health of the solar industry, particularly the reductions in the DOE loan guarantee program. We hope lawmakers will recognize the job growth and economic opportunity that the solar sector represents, instead of seeing it as a way to trim government spending.

Share

The End of Renewables As a Political Issue

Wednesday, August 11th, 2010

The International Energy Agency (IEA) recently noted that solar electricity could represent up to 20% to 25% of total global electricity production by 2050 based on their Solar Photovoltaic (PV) Roadmap and Concentrating Solar Power (CSP) Roadmap, which are meant to assist governments, industry and financial partners accelerate energy technology development and uptake. The report concluded that PV technology will become competitive globally by 2030 on the utility-scale in some of the areas with the best insolation given the right climatic factors. Further, the report indicates that PV has the potential to provide more than eleven percent of all electricity worldwide.

This analysis is good news for those of us in the solar energy space; however, the stated assumption is that governments, like the United States, will implement more concerted policies to facilitate solar energy. Even as some argue that solar energy will soon pass cost parity with nuclear energy, solar energy will likely remain at a competitive disadvantage to traditional fossil fuels unless governments implement policies that recognize the numerous positive externalities of solar energy.

One may wonder: is this political support likely in a country that has failed to pass a comprehensive energy bill? Are the key political drivers that change how our government engages and incentivizes the development of solar and other renewables changing? Will they in the future?

Answer: Almost certainly so. The political and economic interests that have prevented a significant comprehensive approach to solar energy and other renewable energies are changing, and will continue to change dramatically.
Perhaps the single largest driver for political change is the economic change that has taken place in this country in the last two decades. As detailed in a fascinating article in the Washington Post by David Callahan, the United States has moved from a country where thirty-seven percent (37%) of the wealth for the country’s top 400 individuals came from oil and manufacturing in 1982 to merely seventeen percent (17%) in 2006. An overwhelming number of the richest individuals (and the largest political contributors) now represent industries such as finance and technology.

The political implications of these changes are enormous. Currently, according to Open Secrets, an estimated 17.4 percent of all state and national campaign dollars come from the top 100 donors, a hugely disproportionate share. As the political clout of traditional energy wanes, the clout of other industries has grown.

As Callahan points out, although John McCain far outraised Obama among employees of energy and natural resources companies in 2008, pulling in $4 million from this group, Obama simply went elsewhere, and raised $25.5 million from the finance and technology sector. Similarly, he oil and gas industry has been a traditional source of GOP cash and was consistently among the top 10 sources of money for federal candidates for decades, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. In 2008, it moved down to 16th. The entire energy and natural resources sector gave $77 million in campaign donations while lawyers gave $234 million, more than three times as much.

Moreover, many of the individuals in the financial and technology sector are committed to renewable energy. Last year, for example, George Soros pledged to make $1 billion in renewable-energy investments and other billionaires, including Warren Buffett, Bill Gates, John Doerr and Vinod Khosla, are also investing in the sector. Companies are doing the same. Google recently became an independent power producer with the creation of its affiliate, Google Energy LLC, so that it could purchase renewable energy for its large data centers and also purchase energy futures to hedge against an increase in electricity prices.

To make things more interestingly, Google’s most recent purchase of wind energy was from NextEra Energy Resources. NextEra is none other than large utility Florida Power and Light, which changed its name in January of 2009 to better market its commitment to renewable energy. Other utilities, including Duke, First Energy, Pepco Holdings Inc. and others have all made similar commitments to developing renewable energy resources either through direct development, or by helping to finance other projects. Exelon Energy, for example, recently developed a 10 MW solar project called City Solar that will provide energy to over a thousand homes.

In sum, the economic constituency is shifting towards solar energy and other renewables, and so too will the political constituency. The new economy is producing a powerful group of companies and individuals that are committed to fundamentally changing the politics and economics of renewable energy; politicians, both Republicans and Democrats alike, will not be able to ignore this constituency.

The result is an emerging political consensus, among both Democrats and Republicans, traditional energy businesses and financial ones, that renewable energy resources like solar must be supported. This may be through a carbon cap and trade legislation, but more likely the proliferation of solar energy systems will occur through a more incremental approach such as a national renewable portfolio standard and economic incentives like solar renewable energy credits (SRECs). In either case, renewable energy will emerge in the next five years as a non-political issue, and our guess is that the required market incentives to ensure the success of solar energy and other technologies will be implemented.

Share