Trade ruling could lead to steep tariffs on China solar panels
WASHINGTON — A federal trade panel found China responsible Wednesday for harming the U.S. solar panel industry, clearing the final hurdle for U.S. attempts to impose steep tariffs on Chinese solar companies.
The U.S. International Trade Commission voted unanimously that Chinese companies have materially injured manufacturers, affirming its 2011 vote that triggered an inquiry into low-cost Chinese products that manufacturers blame for putting them on the brink of collapse.
Chinese companies that export billions of dollars of solar products to the United States each year will face tariffs of up to nearly 250 percent. The Obama administration imposed those tariffs in October after finding that China's government is subsidizing companies that are flooding the U.S. market with low-cost products — a tactic known as “dumping.” Wednesday's vote means that those tariffs, along with anti-subsidy fees of up to 16 percent, will stand.
The stiff penalties affirmed Wednesday will be good for five years. The government will then re-evaluate the situation.
“With this relief, combined with an aggressive domestic enforcement regime, there is hope that the United States can maintain a viable solar manufacturing base,” said Gordon Brinser, president of Oregon-based SolarWorld Industries America Inc. and head of an alliance of American companies that implored the government to take action.
More than $3.1 billion in Chinese solar panels and cells were imported in 2011, the Commerce Department has said. That number doubled from 2010, a year in which China's government spent more than $30 billion to subsidize its solar industry, U.S. energy officials said.
Tense trade relations with China have been exacerbated by the case. The complaint has also caused a rift at home between manufacturers, who say unfair Chinese subsidies make it impossible for them to compete, and solar panel installers, who stand to gain when their customers have access to low-cost products.
A group of companies, including China-based Suntech Power Holdings Co., fought the complaint, arguing that U.S. companies are blaming China for their own failures — namely, poor business decisions such as failing to adapt their products to the needs of utility companies. The group's president, Jigar Shah, said he was disappointed by the resolution of the case.
Supporters of the penalties warned that their effectiveness could be blunted by a loophole that the Commerce Department declined to close. That loophole, according to U.S. manufacturers, allows Chinese companies that outsource a part of the production process to other countries to circumvent punitive tariffs.
In another silver lining for the tariff's opponents, the ITC declined to make a finding of “critical circumstances,” which would have made the penalties retroactive.
An appeal is still possible to the U.S. Court of International Trade in New York or the World Trade Organization.
China's government has bristled at the complaint, noting that the United States has long pushed China to adopt green energy as a way to reduce pollution, and has begun its own disputes with both the United States and the EU over solar product subsidies.
Scrutiny of the U.S. solar industry has been magnified by indignation over Solyndra Inc., a California-based solar panel maker that won a half-billion-dollar loan from the Obama administration and then went bankrupt. Solyndra is not involved in the trade case, but it cited Chinese competition as a prime reason it flopped.
The United States has sought to promote renewable energy sources as a way to boost exports and create high-paying jobs. The United States and China are two of the world's largest markets for such technologies, but weak demand has left solar companies struggling to find buyers.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- Fleury’s career-best 6th shutout lifts Penguins over Avalanche in overtime
- Elizabeth Forward marks 35th year of senior holiday breakfast
- Students reference positive ‘Frozen’-themed lessons
- McKeesport Area fourth-grader thrilled with gift from White Oak Lions Club
- Rossi: Brawl for ADs between Pitt and WVU
- Steelers must be creative in providing snaps for linebackers
- Analysis: Misunderstood Chryst served Pitt well
- Veteran tight end Miller’s blocking skill crucial to success to Steelers running game
- Samples show Plumcreek gas leaks aren’t methane
- House fire quickly snuffed in Ford City
- Time is of essence for Pitt in finding football coach, athletic director