The U.S. Imposes Anti-Dumping Duties On Chinese Solar Cells

Others in the renewable energy sector were not that convinced and pointed to the future effect on the market. Environmentalists are disappointed with this decision because lower cost solar panels make solar energy more competitive with fossil fuels, and there are and will be, more US jobs to be had on the installation side of the solar business than in manufacturing solar cells.

The president of the Coalition for Affordable Solar Energy (CASE), Jigar Shah has therefore responded by stating: "SolarWorld received one of its biggest subsidies yet – an average 31% tax on its competitors. Fortunately, these duties are much lower than the 250% tax that SolarWorld originally requested, (but) this decision will increase solar electricity prices in the US precisely at the moment solar power is becoming competitive with fossil fuel generated electricity."

"At the same time, CASE recognizes that today's decision is ‘preliminary'. Between now and a final decision before the end of the year, there are many issues that will be addressed and whose resolution would lead to a significantly lower tariff," he added. "CASE will continue to fight SolarWorld's anti-consumer and anti-jobs efforts to ensure a better result for America's solar industry."

It was pointed out that the vast majority of the 100,000 jobs in the American solar industry are in sales, marketing, design, installation, engineering construction and maintenance of solar projects. These jobs depend on affordably-priced solar panels, and companies would have to lay-off workers if solar panel prices rise as a result of this investigation.

According to Kevin Lapidus, Senior Vice President Legal and Government Affairs for SunEdison, for example, "the US solar industry has been growing, adding new solar electric systems, creating jobs and investing billions of dollars in the US energy infrastructure. By increasing the price of modules and therefore the price of solar energy, these tariffs will undermine the success of the US solar industry and reduce the ability of solar energy to compete with electricity generated from fossil fuel."

As could also have been expected, China's Ministry of Commerce has reacted furiously to the news, calling the ruling unfair and unjustified, and commenting that it highlights a tendency for trade protectionism within the US.

While China has argued that the concurrent application by the US of AD duties determined using a non-market economy methodology and (anti-subsidy) CVDs on the same products are inconsistent with WTO rules (in which last year it was supported by the WTO's Appellate Body), Commerce Ministry spokesman, Shen Danyang, also said the US had discounted the defence and evidence presented by Chinese manufacturers when computing the ADs in this case.