Cheap imports threaten US solar panel production boom
US companies have announced plans to build dozens of solar panel factories across the country since last year when President Joe Biden’s signature climate law unleashed billions of dollars of subsidies, raising hopes a clean energy boom can provide tens of thousands of good paying jobs.
But global solar panel prices have collapsed due to a wave of new Asian production capacity in recent months, leading many in the US solar industry to worry many of these proposed factories may be uneconomical. As many as half may soon be delayed or canceled, a figure not previously reported, according to Reuters interviews with industry analysts, solar companies, and trade groups.
Changing market forces have already derailed solar manufacturing operations in Europe. In recent days, the US race for a clean energy transition has already been hit by huge writedowns and project cancellations the offshore wind industry.
“The more prices decline in the global market, the more difficult it is to build US local manufacturing,” said Edurne Zoco, executive director for clean energy technology at S&P Global Commodity Insights. “If the cost gap between imported modules and locally manufactured modules is too big … many of these announcements might not happen.”
Solar shipments into the US more than doubled through August to $10bn from about $4bn a year earlier, according to the US International Trade Commission.
The domestic industry’s souring outlook could hurt Biden’s climate agenda and hinder reelection efforts for a president who has hailed solar project plans as proof his clean energy policies can create millions of good-paying jobs.
US solar manufacturers and trade groups have said they need more government help at the federal and state levels or those jobs may not materialise, and the US will keep relying on panels made with mainly Chinese components. US officials have repeatedly warned that over-reliance on Chinese clean energy technology could pose a security risk similar to Europe’s historical dependence on Russian natural gas.
A White House spokesperson did not respond to questions about recent market challenges facing domestic solar manufacturers, but said Biden’s policies had generated a huge wave of investment and were revitalising American manufacturing.
Companies have announced over three dozen solar factories since passage of the Inflation Reduction Act in August 2022 that collectively promised to create 17,000 jobs and bring in nearly $10bn in investment, according to projects tracked by the clean energy business advocacy group E2.
Of eight solar company representatives, trade groups and researchers who spoke to Reuters, all eight agreed the market has worsened. Energy research firm Wood Mackenzie shared its new forecast that just 52% of the 112 gigawatts of solar module capacity companies planned will be online by the target date of 2026, a projection it has not previously made public.
Mike Carr, executive director of the Solar Energy Manufacturers for America trade group, said factories could be delayed, extending US dependence on China.
“A misunderstanding of the policy opportunity here could really undermine a signature initiative of this administration, which is to restore manufacturing competitiveness to the United States, and particularly in such a key industry,” Carr said.
Globally, the solar industry has already absorbed a 26% drop in panel prices this year to about 19 cents per watt, according to S&P Global Commodity Insights. US prices have been more resilient, but SEMA and analysts say spot prices are declining for those without long-term contracts.
The increase in solar imports stems partly from a
temporary waiver of tariffs on Malaysia, Thailand, Cambodia and Vietnam, which expires in June, 2024. Imports are also up sharply from India, Mexico and other nations unaffected by that move.
The IRA provides a decade of tax incentives worth 30% of a project’s cost. But industry consultant Brian Lynch said that could be outweighed by the glut of cheap panels and worries about rising costs for labor, raw materials and financing.
“It’s almost like Dr Jekyll and Mr. Hyde. The incentives to site and open up a US factory are phenomenal,” Lynch said. “But if pricing is going to continue to go down, if the continued gamesmanship on the trade is going to continue, they can’t justify it.”
The US Commerce Department said imported panels and cells remained important to the clean energy transition.
“Commerce is committed to holding foreign producers accountable to playing by the same rules as US producers,” a Commerce spokesperson said.
The IRA also contains a 10% bonus credit for panel manufacturers using American-made components. This perk is critical for domestic panels that may command a 40% price premium to imported alternatives, according to Wood Mackenzie.
But so few components are produced domestically that much of the industry cannot secure that bonus. So far, solar module factory announcements have been more than double those for solar cells, the crucial components that transform sunlight into energy.
The industry needs more government help, including “the right tax and trade policies that build on the IRA and similar state laws that create the space for emerging US solar manufacturers to compete on a global scale,” said Danny O’Brien, president of corporate affairs at Hanwha Qcells, which is making one of the largest investments in the domestic solar supply chain.
Meyer Burger, which plans to build a factory in Colorado, said the government needs to help domestic manufacturers deal with “underpriced products that are coming from Asia”.
The Solar Energy Industries Association (SEIA), a large solar trade group that has long opposed tariffs, is also advocating for more support for manufacturers, warning it does not expect that every proposed factory will be built.
Convalt Energy plans next year to open 2 gigawatts of module capacity in New York and Maine followed by a facility for components in 2025. CEO Hari Achuthan said module production lines are already about four months behind schedule because the company’s financiers are waiting for the Treasury Department to issue crucial rules on how to secure the IRA tax credits.
“Our country has done a phenomenal job seeing through the IRA bill. But now it’s going to come down to the details of the IRA and how we execute it and the support that we need to get from the Commerce Department and anybody else with regard to tariffs on imports,” he said. — Reuters
NEW HAVEN – Now that the falsehoods and obfuscation of climate denialism have finally been silenced, addressing climate change has become the world’s top priority. But time is running out, and the International Monetary Fund warns that any further delays on implementing policies to mitigate global warming will only add to the economic cost of the transition to a low-emissions economy. Worse, we still lack a concrete, pragmatic strategy for tackling the problem. Although economists have made a robust case for why carbon taxes are the best solution, this option has proven politically infeasible, at least in those countries that account for some of the highest emissions (namely, the United States).
Commentators have also stressed that climate change is a shared problem involving important cross-border externalities that must be addressed through a multilateral approach to global coordination. But, as with carbon taxes, this argument has fallen on deaf ears. And, given the current geopolitical climate and the increasing fragmentation of the global economy, there is little hope that the message will get through anytime soon.
Having committed to assisting developing economies as they confront climate change, the World Bank finds itself limited by the country-based model underlying its financing operations. It is earnestly weighing its options and considering how it could coordinate climate-related financing across borders. But while such efforts are well meaning and consistent with the spirit of multilateralism, they inevitably will delay concrete action. World Bank financing would have to be completely restructured, and coordinating action across multiple countries that have limited financial resources and often conflicting interests seems an impossible task. For example, while some developing economies are rich in fossil fuels, others are starved for energy sources.
Given these limitations, pragmatism dictates focusing on the biggest polluters. Global carbon dioxide emissions are concentrated among only a handful of countries and regions. China, the US, the European Union, Japan, and Russia collectively account for 63% of the total, and none of these top polluters is a low-income country anymore. China, the poorest of the group, represents around 30% of all emissions, making it by far the world’s largest current polluter in absolute terms. But its government is taking steps to accelerate the transition to green energy – a winning strategy, given the country’s abundance of rare earth metals.
India, the third-largest emitter, currently accounts for approximately 7% of global CO2 emissions, and its size and growth trajectory imply that it could easily surpass China as the leading polluter, barring stronger climate policies. In fact, when it comes to helping developing countries decarbonize, considerable progress could be made simply by targeting India alone. The big advantage of this strategy is that it would avoid the paralysis associated with attempts to adopt a multilateral approach in an increasingly fragmented world.
This does not mean that we should eschew projects aimed at climate mitigation or adaptation in other countries. But we would not need to wait until everyone is on board before doing anything. Those insisting on a multilateral approach should learn from the experience of the ultimate multilateral institution: the World Trade Organization. Its requirement that every single provision in every multilateral agreement gain unanimous support has left it increasingly paralyzed, prompting demands for institutional reform.
Of course, India is not low-hanging fruit. It is rich in coal and has little incentive (beyond the health of its citizens) to hasten the transition to green energy. In focusing on India, we would need to employ the carrot, not the stick.
Since the stick generally takes the form of pressure to implement carbon taxation, it is a non-starter. A tax would be ineffective, because it would incite massive domestic opposition (as has been the case in the US). It would also be morally objectionable, because it is unfair to ask a lower-middle-income country to bear the burden of reducing CO2 emissions when rich countries (like the US) have failed to do the same. Moreover, even if China and India are now two of the world’s biggest polluters, they bear little responsibility for the past, cumulative emissions that led to the current climate crisis.
That leaves the carrot, which would come in the form of tax incentives or subsidies to support green energy. When paired with other policies, these can ease firms into adapting to higher environmental standards (such as those associated with a cap-and-trade program). But such policies are expensive, which means that tackling climate change will require richer countries to help finance them. Whether or not India becomes the new China, it is still in our power to ensure that it does not become the new outsize polluter.
https://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/climate-change-prioritize-top-emitters-over-multilateralism-by-pinelopi-koujianou-goldberg-2023-05