#Hi cspv

[juliannemonson-blog]

OBAMA Similar Articles.

WASHINGTON (AP) - Veterans Issues Assistant David Shulkin, who is under inspection for taking a 10-day journey to Europe that blended company with sightseeing, is actually certainly not being taken into consideration for the best job at Health and also Human Solutions, the White Residence pointed out Wednesday. To start with, a roach is going to stumble upon a grimy surface area, including the cooking area flooring, and also will at that point be left behind for 2 hrs prior to the swab is actually had. This is actually certainly not simply the concern from your personal comfort (despite the fact that one needs to feel comfy while scrolling via the Instagram and being in the restroom) however likewise of our home security and water productivity. The records, shown to The New york city Moments through a government official critical of the Clinton administration, show how often times Huang got into and also left behind the White Home substance, but not along with who he encountered or why. If your roommate does not mind obtaining his food off behind a mountain range from things included on a filthy refrigerator shelve; as well as you want all your fruit extracts facing out and on a well-maintained shelve, distinct shelves could produce a large variation. Once you find that your favored abode is attacked by a team from ants which prey on the recurring food or even refuse stored uselessly in the home this becomes important to ward all of them off coming from your house through having efficient procedures.

Given that your house is actually looked at the essential need of the life as well as every person has desired that he or she could contend the very least one own residence. In the 1920s, the 2 very most renowned homes in The United States were Pickfair as well as the White Property. Our home rates and individuals wish to come by as well as visit An idyllic image of joy and happiness. Like all well-known individuals, Sarah Palin possesses a stellium in her astrology chart and also this simply occurs to be because seventh property from her graph. Possessing 3 little ones, I know why that is actually so important for your residence to become without dangerous seethes. Occurring the Third summer season at club Pacha, these parties give everything you require: A trendy and rested crowd, folks that adore residence popular music, an impressive principle, a wonderful nightclub, an outstanding stereo and also extraordinary music musicians coming from around the globe.

The very best technique to begin a beach home enhancing job is to have cues from information, textures and colours located outside. The White Home will certainly help make the final decision of solutions, if any sort of, to be imposed on CSPVs. Consequently the Lagos State Residence from Assembly was having the chance to pass the initial finances in the country since the return to noncombatant rule.

White yoga jeans do not soak up the temp in the setting and also that is actually absolute best for women, little ones as well as guys considering that relaxation is 1 essential portion of doing yoga use. If you live in the kind of house necessary for the opposite team, you could never ever become rich during that home. Offering a property might possess become a little less complicated over times, however it is still often a nightmare for a minimum of one of the parties involved. Next week I'm heading to discuss http://todaytime4you.info/consomem-Apenas-onde-comprar-frutas/ some last before and also after images from the condominium in addition to some evaluations of the brand new house vs the old.

[cakandivali]

Trump says now he will decide who is a developing nation

Latest Updates - CA Mitesh New Delhi: In a move to end benefits enjoyed by developing countries including India, US President Donald Trump has directed his administration to change rules in the next 90 days to prevent “self-declared developing countries from availing themselves of flexibilities” in global trade.He said that nearly two-thirds of the members of the World Trade Organization (WTO) have been able to avail themselves of special treatment and to take on weaker commitments under the WTO framework by designating themselves as developing countries. “The WTO is BROKEN when the world’s RICHEST countries claim to be developing countries to avoid WTO rules and get special treatment. NO more!!! Today I directed the U.S. Trade Representative to take action so that countries stop CHEATING the system at the expense of the USA!,” Trump said in a tweet.He directed the United States Trade Representative (USTR) to “use all available means to secure changes at the WTO that would prevent self-declared developing countries from availing themselves of flexibilities in WTO rules and negotiations that are not justified by appropriate economic and other indicators” in a presidential memoranda on Friday.Citing China and seven out of the 10 wealthiest economies in the world as measured by Gross Domestic Product per capita having claimed the developing-country status, Trump directed the USTR to not support any such country’s membership in the OECD.Though India is not named in the memoranda, the US had removed New Delhi from the list of developing countries exempt from application of the safeguard measures on certain crystalline silicon photovoltaic (CSPV) products and large residential washers while withdrawing the duty free benefits to Indian exporters under the Generalized System of Preferences.“They have already stopped treating India as dveloping country for the safeguard investigation. Even if India is not mentioned, it is already under threat,” said an expert on WTO issues.Another expert said that this move means the US has taken the right to declare the developing status of a country.Developing country status ensures special and differential treatment (S&DT) or provisions which allow them more time to implement agreements and commitments, include measures to increase trading opportunities, safeguard their trade interests, and support to build capacity to handle disputes and implement technical standards.New format Instead of floating a proposal in the WTO, the US has unilaterally decided to review the developing country status, something that is unprecedented, experts said.“Instead of engaging in the WTO to reform it by appointing judges and help the crippled dispute settlement mechanism, the US is trying to bring in unilateralism in multilateralism by issuing directives. This is a new format of negotiations,” another expert said.Earlier, the US had proposed withdrawal of special rights and exemptions for emerging economies which are members of the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), Group of 20 (G20), classified as “high income” by the World Bank or account for more than 0.5% of global merchandise trade. Brazil had renounced its developing country status in lieu of OECD membership.Such disregard for adherence to WTO rules, including the likely disregard of any future rules, cannot continue to go unchecked.“Where appropriate and consistent with law, the USTR shall pursue this action in cooperation with other like-minded WTO Members,” he said in the memoranda. Chartered Accountant For consultng. Contact Us: http://bit.ly/bombay-ca

[thephandragon]

USTR Panel Shows Interest in Solar Tariff Alternative

A divided U.S. solar industry had its last chance to sway President Trump’s decision on solar tariffs at a hearing in Washington, D.C. on Wednesday. 

More than 60 witnesses testified in a cramped conference room at the Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR) during a final, eight-hour public hearing on the Section 201 trade case. The USTR is tasked with advising the president on how to handle the controversial trade remedies recommended by the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) in October.

United States Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer, a Trump appointee who heads the USTR, did not attend the hearing, however.

Solar executives, lawmakers and foreign diplomats presented their arguments instead to an eight-person panel comprised of representatives from several federal agencies, including the Energy, Commerce and Labor departments. The vast majority of witnesses urged the panel not to recommend solar tariffs or quotas, saying they would put American jobs at risk.

“It makes no sense to effectively tax tens of thousands of good-paying U.S. jobs out of existence, solely to benefit the commercially unskilled Chinese and German owners of Suniva and SolarWorld, who will cut and run,” said Michael O'Sullivan, senior vice president of development at NextEra Energy. 

U.S.-based manufacturers Suniva and SolarWorld brought the case earlier this year, citing serious financial harm due to cheap solar imports. The companies chose to invoke Section 201 of the 1974 Trade Act, which is an obscure part of U.S. trade law that could allow the president to implement tariffs, minimum prices or quotas on solar products from anywhere in the world.

“Over the last five years almost 30 U.S. solar manufacturers have closed,” testified Matt Card, executive vice president of commercial operations at Suniva. “That’s not conjecture. That’s not theory about what may happen.”

Suniva filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection in April, while SolarWorld raised $6 million to keep its doors open and its factory operational while fighting the trade case.

Members of the panel showed particular interest in a proposal by the Solar Energy Industries Association (SEIA) to implement an import license fee system for crystalline silicon PV (CSPV) panels instead of tariffs. The fees would be collected from foreign solar manufacturers and redistributed to U.S. manufacturers.

SEIA pitched the licensing fee previously to the ITC, where the idea gained momentum with one of the four commissioners. In her recommendations to President Trump, Commissioner Meredith Broadbent proposed selling import licenses at a minimum price of 1 cent per watt.

“Are any of the remedies recommended by the ITC commissioners likely to result in a positive net-revenue stream for domestic producers?” asked Ian Steff, who serves as deputy assistant secretary for manufacturing at the Department of Commerce.

“We think that only Commissioner Broadbent’s would result in that outcome,” replied Abigail Ross Hopper, SEIA's president and CEO. “The only way to get money directly to petitioners is through the ILF (import license fee).”

“Could you walk through the cash-flow here … what’s the timeline look like?” asked Charlie Gay, director of the Department of Energy’s Solar Energy Technologies Office.

“We forecasted that at least $833 million would be collected in ILF revenues over the next four years,” said Sunrun co-founder Ed Fenster. He contended that license fee revenues would reach solar manufacturers within three months, while it could take more than a year for companies to see a financial benefit from tariffs.

“Our opponent’s proposal relies on China and their proxies to supply the U.S. market with solar,” said Card, who denounced the plan.

More than 200 solar workers and industry advocates marched from the USTR building to the White House on Wednesday afternoon, waving signs that read, “don’t bail out losers” and “solar feeds my family.” The trade agency has received more than 1,500 public comments from industry groups, businesses and solar workers, the vast majority of which called on the government to reject the tariffs.

“I’m worried about everybody’s job, realistically,” said Matt Kata, 32, who works as an electrical designer for Cypress Creek Renewables in Durham, North Carolina. Kata was among dozens of Cypress Creek employees who traveled to Washington to demonstrate against the tariffs.

“We don’t want that tariff to go through. It’s going to hurt not only the solar industry, but American jobs as well,” said Kata. “If they really want to help American solar panel companies, they should create subsidies like they do for the oil industry.”

The proposed remedies offered by trade commissioners in October were less severe than the tariff rates requested by Suniva and SolarWorld, but SEIA says they could still wipe out tens of thousands of solar jobs.

Two out of four commissioners were in favor of placing a 30 percent ad valorem tariff on imported crystalline silicon PV (CSPV) modules, to decline by 5 percentage points per year over four years. For imported solar cells, they agreed on a four-year "tariff-rate quota" that would allow for up to 1 gigawatt of tariff-free cell imports. Any imports over 1 gigawatt would be subject to a 30 percent tariff. Each subsequent year, the tariff rate would decrease by 5 percentage points and the in-quota amount would increase by 0.2 gigawatts.

Numerous industry executives testified that the threat of tariffs and quotas has already impacted their businesses.

Robert Rynar, a chief engineer with DEPCOM power, said his company started working on two 100-megwatt projects between 24 and 36 months ago. “Due to the uncertainty of this case and its effect on the cost of modules … both of those projects are teetering on collapse,” he said.

“There’s a chilling effect on the market that started a few months ago, and it has rippled across the whole country. Solar demand destruction is already happening, and most of 2018 is getting damaged,” said O'Sullivan. “2019 and 2020 is what’s at stake here.”

Fenster said the recent tax bills passed in the House and Senate “carve about 10 cents a watt of value out [of solar]… and would obviously make the effects of trade restraint more substantial.”

A representative from the Embassy of Canada said Canadian modules should be exempt from tariffs, even if they are assembled using cells from Asia, citing the rules of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA).  Two state lawmakers from Minnesota, Senator Justin Eichorn and Representative Jason Metsa, threw their support behind Canada. 

“Restrictive trade measures against Canada … would injure Minnesota workers and families,” said Eichorn. Ontario-based solar manufacturer Heliene “has saved American manufacturing jobs that otherwise would have been lost.”

Suniva’s lawyer, Matthew McConkey, said no such exception should be made for Canada.

“If you take a Korean cell and send it to Canada and put it into a module in Canada, that product has to be covered by this order,” he said. 

Representatives from South Korea, China, Taiwan and the European Union also testified against the trade remedies.

It is not known how the Trump administration will rule on this case. The president has made it a priority to support American jobs, the question is whether or not he believes protectionist policies are they best way to do that in this case. 

Speaking at an event in September, Lighthizer said he agrees with President Trump on trade policy and believes the U.S. “must use all instruments … to make it expensive to engage in non-economic behavior.”

“I know that many sincerely believe that the prevailing world trade policy has been great for America and that those who complain are often people who are victims of economic progress,” said Lighthizer. “Most of you know that I am not in that group.”

Last week Lighthizer asked the ITC to prepare a supplemental report to help the President determine an appropriate way to help the domestic industry adjust to import competition “and provide greater economic and social benefits than costs.” He also asked the commission to detail any "unforeseen developments" that caused domestic solar manufactures to be injured by cheap foreign imports.

The request for extra information pushes the deadline for Trump's final decision on import duties from January 12 to January 26, 2018. He has the authority to adopt one of the ITC's recommendations, devise an alternative, or do nothing. 

from RSSMix.com Mix ID 8265708 http://ift.tt/2BIW12i via IFTTT

[kiimmmchhi]

USTR Panel Shows Interest in Solar Tariff Alternative

A divided U.S. solar industry had its last chance to sway President Trump’s decision on solar tariffs at a hearing in Washington, D.C. on Wednesday. 

More than 60 witnesses testified in a cramped conference room at the Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR) during a final, eight-hour public hearing on the Section 201 trade case. The USTR is tasked with advising the president on how to handle the controversial trade remedies recommended by the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) in October.

United States Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer, a Trump appointee who heads the USTR, did not attend the hearing, however.

Solar executives, lawmakers and foreign diplomats presented their arguments instead to an eight-person panel comprised of representatives from several federal agencies, including the Energy, Commerce and Labor departments. The vast majority of witnesses urged the panel not to recommend solar tariffs or quotas, saying they would put American jobs at risk.

“It makes no sense to effectively tax tens of thousands of good-paying U.S. jobs out of existence, solely to benefit the commercially unskilled Chinese and German owners of Suniva and SolarWorld, who will cut and run,” said Michael O'Sullivan, senior vice president of development at NextEra Energy. 

U.S.-based manufacturers Suniva and SolarWorld brought the case earlier this year, citing serious financial harm due to cheap solar imports. The companies chose to invoke Section 201 of the 1974 Trade Act, which is an obscure part of U.S. trade law that could allow the president to implement tariffs, minimum prices or quotas on solar products from anywhere in the world.

“Over the last five years almost 30 U.S. solar manufacturers have closed,” testified Matt Card, executive vice president of commercial operations at Suniva. “That’s not conjecture. That’s not theory about what may happen.”

Suniva filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection in April, while SolarWorld raised $6 million to keep its doors open and its factory operational while fighting the trade case.

Members of the panel showed particular interest in a proposal by the Solar Energy Industries Association (SEIA) to implement an import license fee system for crystalline silicon PV (CSPV) panels instead of tariffs. The fees would be collected from foreign solar manufacturers and redistributed to U.S. manufacturers.

SEIA pitched the licensing fee previously to the ITC, where the idea gained momentum with one of the four commissioners. In her recommendations to President Trump, Commissioner Meredith Broadbent proposed selling import licenses at a minimum price of 1 cent per watt.

“Are any of the remedies recommended by the ITC commissioners likely to result in a positive net-revenue stream for domestic producers?” asked Ian Steff, who serves as deputy assistant secretary for manufacturing at the Department of Commerce.

“We think that only Commissioner Broadbent’s would result in that outcome,” replied Abigail Ross Hopper, SEIA's president and CEO. “The only way to get money directly to petitioners is through the ILF (import license fee).”

“Could you walk through the cash-flow here … what’s the timeline look like?” asked Charlie Gay, director of the Department of Energy’s Solar Energy Technologies Office.

“We forecasted that at least $833 million would be collected in ILF revenues over the next four years,” said Sunrun co-founder Ed Fenster. He contended that license fee revenues would reach solar manufacturers within three months, while it could take more than a year for companies to see a financial benefit from tariffs.

“Our opponent’s proposal relies on China and their proxies to supply the U.S. market with solar,” said Card, who denounced the plan.

More than 200 solar workers and industry advocates marched from the USTR building to the White House on Wednesday afternoon, waving signs that read, “don’t bail out losers” and “solar feeds my family.” The trade agency has received more than 1,500 public comments from industry groups, businesses and solar workers, the vast majority of which called on the government to reject the tariffs.

“I’m worried about everybody’s job, realistically,” said Matt Kata, 32, who works as an electrical designer for Cypress Creek Renewables in Durham, North Carolina. Kata was among dozens of Cypress Creek employees who traveled to Washington to demonstrate against the tariffs.

“We don’t want that tariff to go through. It’s going to hurt not only the solar industry, but American jobs as well,” said Kata. “If they really want to help American solar panel companies, they should create subsidies like they do for the oil industry.”

The proposed remedies offered by trade commissioners in October were less severe than the tariff rates requested by Suniva and SolarWorld, but SEIA says they could still wipe out tens of thousands of solar jobs.

Two out of four commissioners were in favor of placing a 30 percent ad valorem tariff on imported crystalline silicon PV (CSPV) modules, to decline by 5 percentage points per year over four years. For imported solar cells, they agreed on a four-year "tariff-rate quota" that would allow for up to 1 gigawatt of tariff-free cell imports. Any imports over 1 gigawatt would be subject to a 30 percent tariff. Each subsequent year, the tariff rate would decrease by 5 percentage points and the in-quota amount would increase by 0.2 gigawatts.

Numerous industry executives testified that the threat of tariffs and quotas has already impacted their businesses.

Robert Rynar, a chief engineer with DEPCOM power, said his company started working on two 100-megwatt projects between 24 and 36 months ago. “Due to the uncertainty of this case and its effect on the cost of modules … both of those projects are teetering on collapse,” he said.

“There’s a chilling effect on the market that started a few months ago, and it has rippled across the whole country. Solar demand destruction is already happening, and most of 2018 is getting damaged,” said O'Sullivan. “2019 and 2020 is what’s at stake here.”

Fenster said the recent tax bills passed in the House and Senate “carve about 10 cents a watt of value out [of solar]… and would obviously make the effects of trade restraint more substantial.”

A representative from the Embassy of Canada said Canadian modules should be exempt from tariffs, even if they are assembled using cells from Asia, citing the rules of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA).  Two state lawmakers from Minnesota, Senator Justin Eichorn and Representative Jason Metsa, threw their support behind Canada. 

“Restrictive trade measures against Canada … would injure Minnesota workers and families,” said Eichorn. Ontario-based solar manufacturer Heliene “has saved American manufacturing jobs that otherwise would have been lost.”

Suniva’s lawyer, Matthew McConkey, said no such exception should be made for Canada.

“If you take a Korean cell and send it to Canada and put it into a module in Canada, that product has to be covered by this order,” he said. 

Representatives from South Korea, China, Taiwan and the European Union also testified against the trade remedies.

It is not known how the Trump administration will rule on this case. The president has made it a priority to support American jobs, the question is whether or not he believes protectionist policies are they best way to do that in this case. 

Speaking at an event in September, Lighthizer said he agrees with President Trump on trade policy and believes the U.S. “must use all instruments … to make it expensive to engage in non-economic behavior.”

“I know that many sincerely believe that the prevailing world trade policy has been great for America and that those who complain are often people who are victims of economic progress,” said Lighthizer. “Most of you know that I am not in that group.”

Last week Lighthizer asked the ITC to prepare a supplemental report to help the President determine an appropriate way to help the domestic industry adjust to import competition “and provide greater economic and social benefits than costs.” He also asked the commission to detail any "unforeseen developments" that caused domestic solar manufactures to be injured by cheap foreign imports.

The request for extra information pushes the deadline for Trump's final decision on import duties from January 12 to January 26, 2018. He has the authority to adopt one of the ITC's recommendations, devise an alternative, or do nothing. 

from RSSMix.com Mix ID 8265708 http://ift.tt/2BIW12i via IFTTT

[kimberlydenis]

USTR Panel Shows Interest in Solar Tariff Alternative

A divided U.S. solar industry had its last chance to sway President Trump’s decision on solar tariffs at a hearing in Washington, D.C. on Wednesday. 

More than 60 witnesses testified in a cramped conference room at the Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR) during a final, eight-hour public hearing on the Section 201 trade case. The USTR is tasked with advising the president on how to handle the controversial trade remedies recommended by the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) in October.

United States Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer, a Trump appointee who heads the USTR, did not attend the hearing, however.

Solar executives, lawmakers and foreign diplomats presented their arguments instead to an eight-person panel comprised of representatives from several federal agencies, including the Energy, Commerce and Labor departments. The vast majority of witnesses urged the panel not to recommend solar tariffs or quotas, saying they would put American jobs at risk.

“It makes no sense to effectively tax tens of thousands of good-paying U.S. jobs out of existence, solely to benefit the commercially unskilled Chinese and German owners of Suniva and SolarWorld, who will cut and run,” said Michael O'Sullivan, senior vice president of development at NextEra Energy. 

U.S.-based manufacturers Suniva and SolarWorld brought the case earlier this year, citing serious financial harm due to cheap solar imports. The companies chose to invoke Section 201 of the 1974 Trade Act, which is an obscure part of U.S. trade law that could allow the president to implement tariffs, minimum prices or quotas on solar products from anywhere in the world.

“Over the last five years almost 30 U.S. solar manufacturers have closed,” testified Matt Card, executive vice president of commercial operations at Suniva. “That’s not conjecture. That’s not theory about what may happen.”

Suniva filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection in April, while SolarWorld raised $6 million to keep its doors open and its factory operational while fighting the trade case.

Members of the panel showed particular interest in a proposal by the Solar Energy Industries Association (SEIA) to implement an import license fee system for crystalline silicon PV (CSPV) panels instead of tariffs. The fees would be collected from foreign solar manufacturers and redistributed to U.S. manufacturers.

SEIA pitched the licensing fee previously to the ITC, where the idea gained momentum with one of the four commissioners. In her recommendations to President Trump, Commissioner Meredith Broadbent proposed selling import licenses at a minimum price of 1 cent per watt.

“Are any of the remedies recommended by the ITC commissioners likely to result in a positive net-revenue stream for domestic producers?” asked Ian Steff, who serves as deputy assistant secretary for manufacturing at the Department of Commerce.

“We think that only Commissioner Broadbent’s would result in that outcome,” replied Abigail Ross Hopper, SEIA's president and CEO. “The only way to get money directly to petitioners is through the ILF (import license fee).”

“Could you walk through the cash-flow here … what’s the timeline look like?” asked Charlie Gay, director of the Department of Energy’s Solar Energy Technologies Office.

“We forecasted that at least $833 million would be collected in ILF revenues over the next four years,” said Sunrun co-founder Ed Fenster. He contended that license fee revenues would reach solar manufacturers within three months, while it could take more than a year for companies to see a financial benefit from tariffs.

“Our opponent’s proposal relies on China and their proxies to supply the U.S. market with solar,” said Card, who denounced the plan.

More than 200 solar workers and industry advocates marched from the USTR building to the White House on Wednesday afternoon, waving signs that read, “don’t bail out losers” and “solar feeds my family.” The trade agency has received more than 1,500 public comments from industry groups, businesses and solar workers, the vast majority of which called on the government to reject the tariffs.

“I’m worried about everybody’s job, realistically,” said Matt Kata, 32, who works as an electrical designer for Cypress Creek Renewables in Durham, North Carolina. Kata was among dozens of Cypress Creek employees who traveled to Washington to demonstrate against the tariffs.

“We don’t want that tariff to go through. It’s going to hurt not only the solar industry, but American jobs as well,” said Kata. “If they really want to help American solar panel companies, they should create subsidies like they do for the oil industry.”

The proposed remedies offered by trade commissioners in October were less severe than the tariff rates requested by Suniva and SolarWorld, but SEIA says they could still wipe out tens of thousands of solar jobs.

Two out of four commissioners were in favor of placing a 30 percent ad valorem tariff on imported crystalline silicon PV (CSPV) modules, to decline by 5 percentage points per year over four years. For imported solar cells, they agreed on a four-year "tariff-rate quota" that would allow for up to 1 gigawatt of tariff-free cell imports. Any imports over 1 gigawatt would be subject to a 30 percent tariff. Each subsequent year, the tariff rate would decrease by 5 percentage points and the in-quota amount would increase by 0.2 gigawatts.

Numerous industry executives testified that the threat of tariffs and quotas has already impacted their businesses.

Robert Rynar, a chief engineer with DEPCOM power, said his company started working on two 100-megwatt projects between 24 and 36 months ago. “Due to the uncertainty of this case and its effect on the cost of modules … both of those projects are teetering on collapse,” he said.

“There’s a chilling effect on the market that started a few months ago, and it has rippled across the whole country. Solar demand destruction is already happening, and most of 2018 is getting damaged,” said O'Sullivan. “2019 and 2020 is what’s at stake here.���

Fenster said the recent tax bills passed in the House and Senate “carve about 10 cents a watt of value out [of solar]… and would obviously make the effects of trade restraint more substantial.”

A representative from the Embassy of Canada said Canadian modules should be exempt from tariffs, even if they are assembled using cells from Asia, citing the rules of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA).  Two state lawmakers from Minnesota, Senator Justin Eichorn and Representative Jason Metsa, threw their support behind Canada. 

“Restrictive trade measures against Canada … would injure Minnesota workers and families,” said Eichorn. Ontario-based solar manufacturer Heliene “has saved American manufacturing jobs that otherwise would have been lost.”

Suniva’s lawyer, Matthew McConkey, said no such exception should be made for Canada.

“If you take a Korean cell and send it to Canada and put it into a module in Canada, that product has to be covered by this order,” he said. 

Representatives from South Korea, China, Taiwan and the European Union also testified against the trade remedies.

It is not known how the Trump administration will rule on this case. The president has made it a priority to support American jobs, the question is whether or not he believes protectionist policies are they best way to do that in this case. 

Speaking at an event in September, Lighthizer said he agrees with President Trump on trade policy and believes the U.S. “must use all instruments … to make it expensive to engage in non-economic behavior.”

“I know that many sincerely believe that the prevailing world trade policy has been great for America and that those who complain are often people who are victims of economic progress,” said Lighthizer. “Most of you know that I am not in that group.”

Last week Lighthizer asked the ITC to prepare a supplemental report to help the President determine an appropriate way to help the domestic industry adjust to import competition “and provide greater economic and social benefits than costs.” He also asked the commission to detail any "unforeseen developments" that caused domestic solar manufactures to be injured by cheap foreign imports.

The request for extra information pushes the deadline for Trump's final decision on import duties from January 12 to January 26, 2018. He has the authority to adopt one of the ITC's recommendations, devise an alternative, or do nothing. 

from RSSMix.com Mix ID 8265708 http://ift.tt/2BIW12i via IFTTT

[markssailingthecrisscolfership]

USTR Panel Shows Interest in Solar Tariff Alternative

A divided U.S. solar industry had its last chance to sway President Trump’s decision on solar tariffs at a hearing in Washington, D.C. on Wednesday. 

More than 60 witnesses testified in a cramped conference room at the Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR) during a final, eight-hour public hearing on the Section 201 trade case. The USTR is tasked with advising the president on how to handle the controversial trade remedies recommended by the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) in October.

United States Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer, a Trump appointee who heads the USTR, did not attend the hearing, however.

Solar executives, lawmakers and foreign diplomats presented their arguments instead to an eight-person panel comprised of representatives from several federal agencies, including the Energy, Commerce and Labor departments. The vast majority of witnesses urged the panel not to recommend solar tariffs or quotas, saying they would put American jobs at risk.

“It makes no sense to effectively tax tens of thousands of good-paying U.S. jobs out of existence, solely to benefit the commercially unskilled Chinese and German owners of Suniva and SolarWorld, who will cut and run,” said Michael O'Sullivan, senior vice president of development at NextEra Energy. 

U.S.-based manufacturers Suniva and SolarWorld brought the case earlier this year, citing serious financial harm due to cheap solar imports. The companies chose to invoke Section 201 of the 1974 Trade Act, which is an obscure part of U.S. trade law that could allow the president to implement tariffs, minimum prices or quotas on solar products from anywhere in the world.

“Over the last five years almost 30 U.S. solar manufacturers have closed,” testified Matt Card, executive vice president of commercial operations at Suniva. “That’s not conjecture. That’s not theory about what may happen.”

Suniva filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection in April, while SolarWorld raised $6 million to keep its doors open and its factory operational while fighting the trade case.

Members of the panel showed particular interest in a proposal by the Solar Energy Industries Association (SEIA) to implement an import license fee system for crystalline silicon PV (CSPV) panels instead of tariffs. The fees would be collected from foreign solar manufacturers and redistributed to U.S. manufacturers.

SEIA pitched the licensing fee previously to the ITC, where the idea gained momentum with one of the four commissioners. In her recommendations to President Trump, Commissioner Meredith Broadbent proposed selling import licenses at a minimum price of 1 cent per watt.

“Are any of the remedies recommended by the ITC commissioners likely to result in a positive net-revenue stream for domestic producers?” asked Ian Steff, who serves as deputy assistant secretary for manufacturing at the Department of Commerce.

“We think that only Commissioner Broadbent’s would result in that outcome,” replied Abigail Ross Hopper, SEIA's president and CEO. “The only way to get money directly to petitioners is through the ILF (import license fee).”

“Could you walk through the cash-flow here … what’s the timeline look like?” asked Charlie Gay, director of the Department of Energy’s Solar Energy Technologies Office.

“We forecasted that at least $833 million would be collected in ILF revenues over the next four years,” said Sunrun co-founder Ed Fenster. He contended that license fee revenues would reach solar manufacturers within three months, while it could take more than a year for companies to see a financial benefit from tariffs.

“Our opponent’s proposal relies on China and their proxies to supply the U.S. market with solar,” said Card, who denounced the plan.

More than 200 solar workers and industry advocates marched from the USTR building to the White House on Wednesday afternoon, waving signs that read, “don’t bail out losers” and “solar feeds my family.” The trade agency has received more than 1,500 public comments from industry groups, businesses and solar workers, the vast majority of which called on the government to reject the tariffs.

“I’m worried about everybody’s job, realistically,” said Matt Kata, 32, who works as an electrical designer for Cypress Creek Renewables in Durham, North Carolina. Kata was among dozens of Cypress Creek employees who traveled to Washington to demonstrate against the tariffs.

“We don’t want that tariff to go through. It’s going to hurt not only the solar industry, but American jobs as well,” said Kata. “If they really want to help American solar panel companies, they should create subsidies like they do for the oil industry.”

The proposed remedies offered by trade commissioners in October were less severe than the tariff rates requested by Suniva and SolarWorld, but SEIA says they could still wipe out tens of thousands of solar jobs.

Two out of four commissioners were in favor of placing a 30 percent ad valorem tariff on imported crystalline silicon PV (CSPV) modules, to decline by 5 percentage points per year over four years. For imported solar cells, they agreed on a four-year "tariff-rate quota" that would allow for up to 1 gigawatt of tariff-free cell imports. Any imports over 1 gigawatt would be subject to a 30 percent tariff. Each subsequent year, the tariff rate would decrease by 5 percentage points and the in-quota amount would increase by 0.2 gigawatts.

Numerous industry executives testified that the threat of tariffs and quotas has already impacted their businesses.

Robert Rynar, a chief engineer with DEPCOM power, said his company started working on two 100-megwatt projects between 24 and 36 months ago. “Due to the uncertainty of this case and its effect on the cost of modules … both of those projects are teetering on collapse,” he said.

“There’s a chilling effect on the market that started a few months ago, and it has rippled across the whole country. Solar demand destruction is already happening, and most of 2018 is getting damaged,” said O'Sullivan. “2019 and 2020 is what’s at stake here.”

Fenster said the recent tax bills passed in the House and Senate “carve about 10 cents a watt of value out [of solar]… and would obviously make the effects of trade restraint more substantial.”

A representative from the Embassy of Canada said Canadian modules should be exempt from tariffs, even if they are assembled using cells from Asia, citing the rules of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA).  Two state lawmakers from Minnesota, Senator Justin Eichorn and Representative Jason Metsa, threw their support behind Canada. 

“Restrictive trade measures against Canada … would injure Minnesota workers and families,” said Eichorn. Ontario-based solar manufacturer Heliene “has saved American manufacturing jobs that otherwise would have been lost.”

Suniva’s lawyer, Matthew McConkey, said no such exception should be made for Canada.

“If you take a Korean cell and send it to Canada and put it into a module in Canada, that product has to be covered by this order,” he said. 

Representatives from South Korea, China, Taiwan and the European Union also testified against the trade remedies.

It is not known how the Trump administration will rule on this case. The president has made it a priority to support American jobs, the question is whether or not he believes protectionist policies are they best way to do that in this case. 

Speaking at an event in September, Lighthizer said he agrees with President Trump on trade policy and believes the U.S. “must use all instruments … to make it expensive to engage in non-economic behavior.”

“I know that many sincerely believe that the prevailing world trade policy has been great for America and that those who complain are often people who are victims of economic progress,” said Lighthizer. “Most of you know that I am not in that group.”

Last week Lighthizer asked the ITC to prepare a supplemental report to help the President determine an appropriate way to help the domestic industry adjust to import competition “and provide greater economic and social benefits than costs.” He also asked the commission to detail any "unforeseen developments" that caused domestic solar manufactures to be injured by cheap foreign imports.

The request for extra information pushes the deadline for Trump's final decision on import duties from January 12 to January 26, 2018. He has the authority to adopt one of the ITC's recommendations, devise an alternative, or do nothing. 

from RSSMix.com Mix ID 8265708 http://ift.tt/2BIW12i via IFTTT

[nerdydisneynerd]

USTR Panel Shows Interest in Solar Tariff Alternative

A divided U.S. solar industry had its last chance to sway President Trump’s decision on solar tariffs at a hearing in Washington, D.C. on Wednesday. 

More than 60 witnesses testified in a cramped conference room at the Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR) during a final, eight-hour public hearing on the Section 201 trade case. The USTR is tasked with advising the president on how to handle the controversial trade remedies recommended by the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) in October.

United States Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer, a Trump appointee who heads the USTR, did not attend the hearing, however.

Solar executives, lawmakers and foreign diplomats presented their arguments instead to an eight-person panel comprised of representatives from several federal agencies, including the Energy, Commerce and Labor departments. The vast majority of witnesses urged the panel not to recommend solar tariffs or quotas, saying they would put American jobs at risk.

“It makes no sense to effectively tax tens of thousands of good-paying U.S. jobs out of existence, solely to benefit the commercially unskilled Chinese and German owners of Suniva and SolarWorld, who will cut and run,” said Michael O'Sullivan, senior vice president of development at NextEra Energy. 

U.S.-based manufacturers Suniva and SolarWorld brought the case earlier this year, citing serious financial harm due to cheap solar imports. The companies chose to invoke Section 201 of the 1974 Trade Act, which is an obscure part of U.S. trade law that could allow the president to implement tariffs, minimum prices or quotas on solar products from anywhere in the world.

“Over the last five years almost 30 U.S. solar manufacturers have closed,” testified Matt Card, executive vice president of commercial operations at Suniva. “That’s not conjecture. That’s not theory about what may happen.”

Suniva filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection in April, while SolarWorld raised $6 million to keep its doors open and its factory operational while fighting the trade case.

Members of the panel showed particular interest in a proposal by the Solar Energy Industries Association (SEIA) to implement an import license fee system for crystalline silicon PV (CSPV) panels instead of tariffs. The fees would be collected from foreign solar manufacturers and redistributed to U.S. manufacturers.

SEIA pitched the licensing fee previously to the ITC, where the idea gained momentum with one of the four commissioners. In her recommendations to President Trump, Commissioner Meredith Broadbent proposed selling import licenses at a minimum price of 1 cent per watt.

“Are any of the remedies recommended by the ITC commissioners likely to result in a positive net-revenue stream for domestic producers?” asked Ian Steff, who serves as deputy assistant secretary for manufacturing at the Department of Commerce.

“We think that only Commissioner Broadbent’s would result in that outcome,” replied Abigail Ross Hopper, SEIA's president and CEO. “The only way to get money directly to petitioners is through the ILF (import license fee).”

“Could you walk through the cash-flow here … what’s the timeline look like?” asked Charlie Gay, director of the Department of Energy’s Solar Energy Technologies Office.

“We forecasted that at least $833 million would be collected in ILF revenues over the next four years,” said Sunrun co-founder Ed Fenster. He contended that license fee revenues would reach solar manufacturers within three months, while it could take more than a year for companies to see a financial benefit from tariffs.

“Our opponent’s proposal relies on China and their proxies to supply the U.S. market with solar,” said Card, who denounced the plan.

More than 200 solar workers and industry advocates marched from the USTR building to the White House on Wednesday afternoon, waving signs that read, “don’t bail out losers” and “solar feeds my family.” The trade agency has received more than 1,500 public comments from industry groups, businesses and solar workers, the vast majority of which called on the government to reject the tariffs.

“I’m worried about everybody’s job, realistically,” said Matt Kata, 32, who works as an electrical designer for Cypress Creek Renewables in Durham, North Carolina. Kata was among dozens of Cypress Creek employees who traveled to Washington to demonstrate against the tariffs.

“We don’t want that tariff to go through. It’s going to hurt not only the solar industry, but American jobs as well,” said Kata. “If they really want to help American solar panel companies, they should create subsidies like they do for the oil industry.”

The proposed remedies offered by trade commissioners in October were less severe than the tariff rates requested by Suniva and SolarWorld, but SEIA says they could still wipe out tens of thousands of solar jobs.

Two out of four commissioners were in favor of placing a 30 percent ad valorem tariff on imported crystalline silicon PV (CSPV) modules, to decline by 5 percentage points per year over four years. For imported solar cells, they agreed on a four-year "tariff-rate quota" that would allow for up to 1 gigawatt of tariff-free cell imports. Any imports over 1 gigawatt would be subject to a 30 percent tariff. Each subsequent year, the tariff rate would decrease by 5 percentage points and the in-quota amount would increase by 0.2 gigawatts.

Numerous industry executives testified that the threat of tariffs and quotas has already impacted their businesses.

Robert Rynar, a chief engineer with DEPCOM power, said his company started working on two 100-megwatt projects between 24 and 36 months ago. “Due to the uncertainty of this case and its effect on the cost of modules … both of those projects are teetering on collapse,” he said.

“There’s a chilling effect on the market that started a few months ago, and it has rippled across the whole country. Solar demand destruction is already happening, and most of 2018 is getting damaged,” said O'Sullivan. “2019 and 2020 is what’s at stake here.”

Fenster said the recent tax bills passed in the House and Senate “carve about 10 cents a watt of value out [of solar]… and would obviously make the effects of trade restraint more substantial.”

A representative from the Embassy of Canada said Canadian modules should be exempt from tariffs, even if they are assembled using cells from Asia, citing the rules of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA).  Two state lawmakers from Minnesota, Senator Justin Eichorn and Representative Jason Metsa, threw their support behind Canada. 

“Restrictive trade measures against Canada … would injure Minnesota workers and families,” said Eichorn. Ontario-based solar manufacturer Heliene “has saved American manufacturing jobs that otherwise would have been lost.”

Suniva’s lawyer, Matthew McConkey, said no such exception should be made for Canada.

“If you take a Korean cell and send it to Canada and put it into a module in Canada, that product has to be covered by this order,” he said. 

Representatives from South Korea, China, Taiwan and the European Union also testified against the trade remedies.

It is not known how the Trump administration will rule on this case. The president has made it a priority to support American jobs, the question is whether or not he believes protectionist policies are they best way to do that in this case. 

Speaking at an event in September, Lighthizer said he agrees with President Trump on trade policy and believes the U.S. “must use all instruments … to make it expensive to engage in non-economic behavior.”

“I know that many sincerely believe that the prevailing world trade policy has been great for America and that those who complain are often people who are victims of economic progress,” said Lighthizer. “Most of you know that I am not in that group.”

Last week Lighthizer asked the ITC to prepare a supplemental report to help the President determine an appropriate way to help the domestic industry adjust to import competition “and provide greater economic and social benefits than costs.” He also asked the commission to detail any "unforeseen developments" that caused domestic solar manufactures to be injured by cheap foreign imports.

The request for extra information pushes the deadline for Trump's final decision on import duties from January 12 to January 26, 2018. He has the authority to adopt one of the ITC's recommendations, devise an alternative, or do nothing. 

from RSSMix.com Mix ID 8265708 http://ift.tt/2BIW12i via IFTTT

[smoresswift]

USTR Panel Shows Interest in Solar Tariff Alternative

A divided U.S. solar industry had its last chance to sway President Trump’s decision on solar tariffs at a hearing in Washington, D.C. on Wednesday. 

More than 60 witnesses testified in a cramped conference room at the Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR) during a final, eight-hour public hearing on the Section 201 trade case. The USTR is tasked with advising the president on how to handle the controversial trade remedies recommended by the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) in October.

United States Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer, a Trump appointee who heads the USTR, did not attend the hearing, however.

Solar executives, lawmakers and foreign diplomats presented their arguments instead to an eight-person panel comprised of representatives from several federal agencies, including the Energy, Commerce and Labor departments. The vast majority of witnesses urged the panel not to recommend solar tariffs or quotas, saying they would put American jobs at risk.

“It makes no sense to effectively tax tens of thousands of good-paying U.S. jobs out of existence, solely to benefit the commercially unskilled Chinese and German owners of Suniva and SolarWorld, who will cut and run,” said Michael O'Sullivan, senior vice president of development at NextEra Energy. 

U.S.-based manufacturers Suniva and SolarWorld brought the case earlier this year, citing serious financial harm due to cheap solar imports. The companies chose to invoke Section 201 of the 1974 Trade Act, which is an obscure part of U.S. trade law that could allow the president to implement tariffs, minimum prices or quotas on solar products from anywhere in the world.

“Over the last five years almost 30 U.S. solar manufacturers have closed,” testified Matt Card, executive vice president of commercial operations at Suniva. “That’s not conjecture. That’s not theory about what may happen.”

Suniva filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection in April, while SolarWorld raised $6 million to keep its doors open and its factory operational while fighting the trade case.

Members of the panel showed particular interest in a proposal by the Solar Energy Industries Association (SEIA) to implement an import license fee system for crystalline silicon PV (CSPV) panels instead of tariffs. The fees would be collected from foreign solar manufacturers and redistributed to U.S. manufacturers.

SEIA pitched the licensing fee previously to the ITC, where the idea gained momentum with one of the four commissioners. In her recommendations to President Trump, Commissioner Meredith Broadbent proposed selling import licenses at a minimum price of 1 cent per watt.

“Are any of the remedies recommended by the ITC commissioners likely to result in a positive net-revenue stream for domestic producers?” asked Ian Steff, who serves as deputy assistant secretary for manufacturing at the Department of Commerce.

“We think that only Commissioner Broadbent’s would result in that outcome,” replied Abigail Ross Hopper, SEIA's president and CEO. “The only way to get money directly to petitioners is through the ILF (import license fee).”

“Could you walk through the cash-flow here … what’s the timeline look like?” asked Charlie Gay, director of the Department of Energy’s Solar Energy Technologies Office.

“We forecasted that at least $833 million would be collected in ILF revenues over the next four years,” said Sunrun co-founder Ed Fenster. He contended that license fee revenues would reach solar manufacturers within three months, while it could take more than a year for companies to see a financial benefit from tariffs.

“Our opponent’s proposal relies on China and their proxies to supply the U.S. market with solar,” said Card, who denounced the plan.

More than 200 solar workers and industry advocates marched from the USTR building to the White House on Wednesday afternoon, waving signs that read, “don’t bail out losers” and “solar feeds my family.” The trade agency has received more than 1,500 public comments from industry groups, businesses and solar workers, the vast majority of which called on the government to reject the tariffs.

“I’m worried about everybody’s job, realistically,” said Matt Kata, 32, who works as an electrical designer for Cypress Creek Renewables in Durham, North Carolina. Kata was among dozens of Cypress Creek employees who traveled to Washington to demonstrate against the tariffs.

“We don’t want that tariff to go through. It’s going to hurt not only the solar industry, but American jobs as well,” said Kata. “If they really want to help American solar panel companies, they should create subsidies like they do for the oil industry.”

The proposed remedies offered by trade commissioners in October were less severe than the tariff rates requested by Suniva and SolarWorld, but SEIA says they could still wipe out tens of thousands of solar jobs.

Two out of four commissioners were in favor of placing a 30 percent ad valorem tariff on imported crystalline silicon PV (CSPV) modules, to decline by 5 percentage points per year over four years. For imported solar cells, they agreed on a four-year "tariff-rate quota" that would allow for up to 1 gigawatt of tariff-free cell imports. Any imports over 1 gigawatt would be subject to a 30 percent tariff. Each subsequent year, the tariff rate would decrease by 5 percentage points and the in-quota amount would increase by 0.2 gigawatts.

Numerous industry executives testified that the threat of tariffs and quotas has already impacted their businesses.

Robert Rynar, a chief engineer with DEPCOM power, said his company started working on two 100-megwatt projects between 24 and 36 months ago. “Due to the uncertainty of this case and its effect on the cost of modules … both of those projects are teetering on collapse,” he said.

“There’s a chilling effect on the market that started a few months ago, and it has rippled across the whole country. Solar demand destruction is already happening, and most of 2018 is getting damaged,” said O'Sullivan. “2019 and 2020 is what’s at stake here.”

Fenster said the recent tax bills passed in the House and Senate “carve about 10 cents a watt of value out [of solar]… and would obviously make the effects of trade restraint more substantial.”

A representative from the Embassy of Canada said Canadian modules should be exempt from tariffs, even if they are assembled using cells from Asia, citing the rules of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA).  Two state lawmakers from Minnesota, Senator Justin Eichorn and Representative Jason Metsa, threw their support behind Canada. 

“Restrictive trade measures against Canada … would injure Minnesota workers and families,” said Eichorn. Ontario-based solar manufacturer Heliene “has saved American manufacturing jobs that otherwise would have been lost.”

Suniva’s lawyer, Matthew McConkey, said no such exception should be made for Canada.

“If you take a Korean cell and send it to Canada and put it into a module in Canada, that product has to be covered by this order,” he said. 

Representatives from South Korea, China, Taiwan and the European Union also testified against the trade remedies.

It is not known how the Trump administration will rule on this case. The president has made it a priority to support American jobs, the question is whether or not he believes protectionist policies are they best way to do that in this case. 

Speaking at an event in September, Lighthizer said he agrees with President Trump on trade policy and believes the U.S. “must use all instruments … to make it expensive to engage in non-economic behavior.”

“I know that many sincerely believe that the prevailing world trade policy has been great for America and that those who complain are often people who are victims of economic progress,” said Lighthizer. “Most of you know that I am not in that group.”

Last week Lighthizer asked the ITC to prepare a supplemental report to help the President determine an appropriate way to help the domestic industry adjust to import competition “and provide greater economic and social benefits than costs.” He also asked the commission to detail any "unforeseen developments" that caused domestic solar manufactures to be injured by cheap foreign imports.

The request for extra information pushes the deadline for Trump's final decision on import duties from January 12 to January 26, 2018. He has the authority to adopt one of the ITC's recommendations, devise an alternative, or do nothing. 

from RSSMix.com Mix ID 8265708 http://ift.tt/2BIW12i via IFTTT

[betterthaneverbeforee]

USTR Panel Shows Interest in Solar Tariff Alternative

A divided U.S. solar industry had its last chance to sway President Trump’s decision on solar tariffs at a hearing in Washington, D.C. on Wednesday. 

More than 60 witnesses testified in a cramped conference room at the Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR) during a final, eight-hour public hearing on the Section 201 trade case. The USTR is tasked with advising the president on how to handle the controversial trade remedies recommended by the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) in October.

United States Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer, a Trump appointee who heads the USTR, did not attend the hearing, however.

Solar executives, lawmakers and foreign diplomats presented their arguments instead to an eight-person panel comprised of representatives from several federal agencies, including the Energy, Commerce and Labor departments. The vast majority of witnesses urged the panel not to recommend solar tariffs or quotas, saying they would put American jobs at risk.

“It makes no sense to effectively tax tens of thousands of good-paying U.S. jobs out of existence, solely to benefit the commercially unskilled Chinese and German owners of Suniva and SolarWorld, who will cut and run,” said Michael O'Sullivan, senior vice president of development at NextEra Energy. 

U.S.-based manufacturers Suniva and SolarWorld brought the case earlier this year, citing serious financial harm due to cheap solar imports. The companies chose to invoke Section 201 of the 1974 Trade Act, which is an obscure part of U.S. trade law that could allow the president to implement tariffs, minimum prices or quotas on solar products from anywhere in the world.

“Over the last five years almost 30 U.S. solar manufacturers have closed,” testified Matt Card, executive vice president of commercial operations at Suniva. “That’s not conjecture. That’s not theory about what may happen.”

Suniva filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection in April, while SolarWorld raised $6 million to keep its doors open and its factory operational while fighting the trade case.

Members of the panel showed particular interest in a proposal by the Solar Energy Industries Association (SEIA) to implement an import license fee system for crystalline silicon PV (CSPV) panels instead of tariffs. The fees would be collected from foreign solar manufacturers and redistributed to U.S. manufacturers.

SEIA pitched the licensing fee previously to the ITC, where the idea gained momentum with one of the four commissioners. In her recommendations to President Trump, Commissioner Meredith Broadbent proposed selling import licenses at a minimum price of 1 cent per watt.

“Are any of the remedies recommended by the ITC commissioners likely to result in a positive net-revenue stream for domestic producers?” asked Ian Steff, who serves as deputy assistant secretary for manufacturing at the Department of Commerce.

“We think that only Commissioner Broadbent’s would result in that outcome,” replied Abigail Ross Hopper, SEIA's president and CEO. “The only way to get money directly to petitioners is through the ILF (import license fee).”

“Could you walk through the cash-flow here … what’s the timeline look like?” asked Charlie Gay, director of the Department of Energy’s Solar Energy Technologies Office.

“We forecasted that at least $833 million would be collected in ILF revenues over the next four years,” said Sunrun co-founder Ed Fenster. He contended that license fee revenues would reach solar manufacturers within three months, while it could take more than a year for companies to see a financial benefit from tariffs.

“Our opponent’s proposal relies on China and their proxies to supply the U.S. market with solar,” said Card, who denounced the plan.

More than 200 solar workers and industry advocates marched from the USTR building to the White House on Wednesday afternoon, waving signs that read, “don’t bail out losers” and “solar feeds my family.” The trade agency has received more than 1,500 public comments from industry groups, businesses and solar workers, the vast majority of which called on the government to reject the tariffs.

“I’m worried about everybody’s job, realistically,” said Matt Kata, 32, who works as an electrical designer for Cypress Creek Renewables in Durham, North Carolina. Kata was among dozens of Cypress Creek employees who traveled to Washington to demonstrate against the tariffs.

“We don’t want that tariff to go through. It’s going to hurt not only the solar industry, but American jobs as well,” said Kata. “If they really want to help American solar panel companies, they should create subsidies like they do for the oil industry.”

The proposed remedies offered by trade commissioners in October were less severe than the tariff rates requested by Suniva and SolarWorld, but SEIA says they could still wipe out tens of thousands of solar jobs.

Two out of four commissioners were in favor of placing a 30 percent ad valorem tariff on imported crystalline silicon PV (CSPV) modules, to decline by 5 percentage points per year over four years. For imported solar cells, they agreed on a four-year "tariff-rate quota" that would allow for up to 1 gigawatt of tariff-free cell imports. Any imports over 1 gigawatt would be subject to a 30 percent tariff. Each subsequent year, the tariff rate would decrease by 5 percentage points and the in-quota amount would increase by 0.2 gigawatts.

Numerous industry executives testified that the threat of tariffs and quotas has already impacted their businesses.

Robert Rynar, a chief engineer with DEPCOM power, said his company started working on two 100-megwatt projects between 24 and 36 months ago. “Due to the uncertainty of this case and its effect on the cost of modules … both of those projects are teetering on collapse,” he said.

“There’s a chilling effect on the market that started a few months ago, and it has rippled across the whole country. Solar demand destruction is already happening, and most of 2018 is getting damaged,” said O'Sullivan. “2019 and 2020 is what’s at stake here.”

Fenster said the recent tax bills passed in the House and Senate “carve about 10 cents a watt of value out [of solar]… and would obviously make the effects of trade restraint more substantial.”

A representative from the Embassy of Canada said Canadian modules should be exempt from tariffs, even if they are assembled using cells from Asia, citing the rules of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA).  Two state lawmakers from Minnesota, Senator Justin Eichorn and Representative Jason Metsa, threw their support behind Canada. 

“Restrictive trade measures against Canada … would injure Minnesota workers and families,” said Eichorn. Ontario-based solar manufacturer Heliene “has saved American manufacturing jobs that otherwise would have been lost.”

Suniva’s lawyer, Matthew McConkey, said no such exception should be made for Canada.

“If you take a Korean cell and send it to Canada and put it into a module in Canada, that product has to be covered by this order,” he said. 

Representatives from South Korea, China, Taiwan and the European Union also testified against the trade remedies.

It is not known how the Trump administration will rule on this case. The president has made it a priority to support American jobs, the question is whether or not he believes protectionist policies are they best way to do that in this case. 

Speaking at an event in September, Lighthizer said he agrees with President Trump on trade policy and believes the U.S. “must use all instruments … to make it expensive to engage in non-economic behavior.”

“I know that many sincerely believe that the prevailing world trade policy has been great for America and that those who complain are often people who are victims of economic progress,” said Lighthizer. “Most of you know that I am not in that group.”

Last week Lighthizer asked the ITC to prepare a supplemental report to help the President determine an appropriate way to help the domestic industry adjust to import competition “and provide greater economic and social benefits than costs.” He also asked the commission to detail any "unforeseen developments" that caused domestic solar manufactures to be injured by cheap foreign imports.

The request for extra information pushes the deadline for Trump's final decision on import duties from January 12 to January 26, 2018. He has the authority to adopt one of the ITC's recommendations, devise an alternative, or do nothing. 

from RSSMix.com Mix ID 8265708 http://ift.tt/2BIW12i via IFTTT

[resveriie]

USTR Panel Shows Interest in Solar Tariff Alternative

A divided U.S. solar industry had its last chance to sway President Trump’s decision on solar tariffs at a hearing in Washington, D.C. on Wednesday. 

More than 60 witnesses testified in a cramped conference room at the Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR) during a final, eight-hour public hearing on the Section 201 trade case. The USTR is tasked with advising the president on how to handle the controversial trade remedies recommended by the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) in October.

United States Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer, a Trump appointee who heads the USTR, did not attend the hearing, however.

Solar executives, lawmakers and foreign diplomats presented their arguments instead to an eight-person panel comprised of representatives from several federal agencies, including the Energy, Commerce and Labor departments. The vast majority of witnesses urged the panel not to recommend solar tariffs or quotas, saying they would put American jobs at risk.

“It makes no sense to effectively tax tens of thousands of good-paying U.S. jobs out of existence, solely to benefit the commercially unskilled Chinese and German owners of Suniva and SolarWorld, who will cut and run,” said Michael O'Sullivan, senior vice president of development at NextEra Energy. 

U.S.-based manufacturers Suniva and SolarWorld brought the case earlier this year, citing serious financial harm due to cheap solar imports. The companies chose to invoke Section 201 of the 1974 Trade Act, which is an obscure part of U.S. trade law that could allow the president to implement tariffs, minimum prices or quotas on solar products from anywhere in the world.

“Over the last five years almost 30 U.S. solar manufacturers have closed,” testified Matt Card, executive vice president of commercial operations at Suniva. “That’s not conjecture. That’s not theory about what may happen.”

Suniva filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection in April, while SolarWorld raised $6 million to keep its doors open and its factory operational while fighting the trade case.

Members of the panel showed particular interest in a proposal by the Solar Energy Industries Association (SEIA) to implement an import license fee system for crystalline silicon PV (CSPV) panels instead of tariffs. The fees would be collected from foreign solar manufacturers and redistributed to U.S. manufacturers.

SEIA pitched the licensing fee previously to the ITC, where the idea gained momentum with one of the four commissioners. In her recommendations to President Trump, Commissioner Meredith Broadbent proposed selling import licenses at a minimum price of 1 cent per watt.

“Are any of the remedies recommended by the ITC commissioners likely to result in a positive net-revenue stream for domestic producers?” asked Ian Steff, who serves as deputy assistant secretary for manufacturing at the Department of Commerce.

“We think that only Commissioner Broadbent’s would result in that outcome,” replied Abigail Ross Hopper, SEIA's president and CEO. “The only way to get money directly to petitioners is through the ILF (import license fee).”

“Could you walk through the cash-flow here … what’s the timeline look like?” asked Charlie Gay, director of the Department of Energy’s Solar Energy Technologies Office.

“We forecasted that at least $833 million would be collected in ILF revenues over the next four years,” said Sunrun co-founder Ed Fenster. He contended that license fee revenues would reach solar manufacturers within three months, while it could take more than a year for companies to see a financial benefit from tariffs.

“Our opponent’s proposal relies on China and their proxies to supply the U.S. market with solar,” said Card, who denounced the plan.

More than 200 solar workers and industry advocates marched from the USTR building to the White House on Wednesday afternoon, waving signs that read, “don’t bail out losers” and “solar feeds my family.” The trade agency has received more than 1,500 public comments from industry groups, businesses and solar workers, the vast majority of which called on the government to reject the tariffs.

“I’m worried about everybody’s job, realistically,” said Matt Kata, 32, who works as an electrical designer for Cypress Creek Renewables in Durham, North Carolina. Kata was among dozens of Cypress Creek employees who traveled to Washington to demonstrate against the tariffs.

“We don’t want that tariff to go through. It’s going to hurt not only the solar industry, but American jobs as well,” said Kata. “If they really want to help American solar panel companies, they should create subsidies like they do for the oil industry.”

The proposed remedies offered by trade commissioners in October were less severe than the tariff rates requested by Suniva and SolarWorld, but SEIA says they could still wipe out tens of thousands of solar jobs.

Two out of four commissioners were in favor of placing a 30 percent ad valorem tariff on imported crystalline silicon PV (CSPV) modules, to decline by 5 percentage points per year over four years. For imported solar cells, they agreed on a four-year "tariff-rate quota" that would allow for up to 1 gigawatt of tariff-free cell imports. Any imports over 1 gigawatt would be subject to a 30 percent tariff. Each subsequent year, the tariff rate would decrease by 5 percentage points and the in-quota amount would increase by 0.2 gigawatts.

Numerous industry executives testified that the threat of tariffs and quotas has already impacted their businesses.

Robert Rynar, a chief engineer with DEPCOM power, said his company started working on two 100-megwatt projects between 24 and 36 months ago. “Due to the uncertainty of this case and its effect on the cost of modules … both of those projects are teetering on collapse,” he said.

“There’s a chilling effect on the market that started a few months ago, and it has rippled across the whole country. Solar demand destruction is already happening, and most of 2018 is getting damaged,” said O'Sullivan. “2019 and 2020 is what’s at stake here.”

Fenster said the recent tax bills passed in the House and Senate “carve about 10 cents a watt of value out [of solar]… and would obviously make the effects of trade restraint more substantial.”

A representative from the Embassy of Canada said Canadian modules should be exempt from tariffs, even if they are assembled using cells from Asia, citing the rules of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA).  Two state lawmakers from Minnesota, Senator Justin Eichorn and Representative Jason Metsa, threw their support behind Canada. 

“Restrictive trade measures against Canada … would injure Minnesota workers and families,” said Eichorn. Ontario-based solar manufacturer Heliene “has saved American manufacturing jobs that otherwise would have been lost.”

Suniva’s lawyer, Matthew McConkey, said no such exception should be made for Canada.

“If you take a Korean cell and send it to Canada and put it into a module in Canada, that product has to be covered by this order,” he said. 

Representatives from South Korea, China, Taiwan and the European Union also testified against the trade remedies.

It is not known how the Trump administration will rule on this case. The president has made it a priority to support American jobs, the question is whether or not he believes protectionist policies are they best way to do that in this case. 

Speaking at an event in September, Lighthizer said he agrees with President Trump on trade policy and believes the U.S. “must use all instruments … to make it expensive to engage in non-economic behavior.”

“I know that many sincerely believe that the prevailing world trade policy has been great for America and that those who complain are often people who are victims of economic progress,” said Lighthizer. “Most of you know that I am not in that group.”

Last week Lighthizer asked the ITC to prepare a supplemental report to help the President determine an appropriate way to help the domestic industry adjust to import competition “and provide greater economic and social benefits than costs.” He also asked the commission to detail any "unforeseen developments" that caused domestic solar manufactures to be injured by cheap foreign imports.

The request for extra information pushes the deadline for Trump's final decision on import duties from January 12 to January 26, 2018. He has the authority to adopt one of the ITC's recommendations, devise an alternative, or do nothing. 

from RSSMix.com Mix ID 8265708 http://ift.tt/2BIW12i via IFTTT

[andrewbertolucci]

USTR Panel Shows Interest in Solar Tariff Alternative

A divided U.S. solar industry had its last chance to sway President Trump’s decision on solar tariffs at a hearing in Washington, D.C. on Wednesday. 

More than 60 witnesses testified in a cramped conference room at the Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR) during a final, eight-hour public hearing on the Section 201 trade case. The USTR is tasked with advising the president on how to handle the controversial trade remedies recommended by the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) in October.

United States Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer, a Trump appointee who heads the USTR, did not attend the hearing, however.

Solar executives, lawmakers and foreign diplomats presented their arguments instead to an eight-person panel comprised of representatives from several federal agencies, including the Energy, Commerce and Labor departments. The vast majority of witnesses urged the panel not to recommend solar tariffs or quotas, saying they would put American jobs at risk.

“It makes no sense to effectively tax tens of thousands of good-paying U.S. jobs out of existence, solely to benefit the commercially unskilled Chinese and German owners of Suniva and SolarWorld, who will cut and run,” said Michael O'Sullivan, senior vice president of development at NextEra Energy. 

U.S.-based manufacturers Suniva and SolarWorld brought the case earlier this year, citing serious financial harm due to cheap solar imports. The companies chose to invoke Section 201 of the 1974 Trade Act, which is an obscure part of U.S. trade law that could allow the president to implement tariffs, minimum prices or quotas on solar products from anywhere in the world.

“Over the last five years almost 30 U.S. solar manufacturers have closed,” testified Matt Card, executive vice president of commercial operations at Suniva. “That’s not conjecture. That’s not theory about what may happen.”

Suniva filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection in April, while SolarWorld raised $6 million to keep its doors open and its factory operational while fighting the trade case.

Members of the panel showed particular interest in a proposal by the Solar Energy Industries Association (SEIA) to implement an import license fee system for crystalline silicon PV (CSPV) panels instead of tariffs. The fees would be collected from foreign solar manufacturers and redistributed to U.S. manufacturers.

SEIA pitched the licensing fee previously to the ITC, where the idea gained momentum with one of the four commissioners. In her recommendations to President Trump, Commissioner Meredith Broadbent proposed selling import licenses at a minimum price of 1 cent per watt.

“Are any of the remedies recommended by the ITC commissioners likely to result in a positive net-revenue stream for domestic producers?” asked Ian Steff, who serves as deputy assistant secretary for manufacturing at the Department of Commerce.

“We think that only Commissioner Broadbent’s would result in that outcome,” replied Abigail Ross Hopper, SEIA's president and CEO. “The only way to get money directly to petitioners is through the ILF (import license fee).”

“Could you walk through the cash-flow here … what’s the timeline look like?” asked Charlie Gay, director of the Department of Energy’s Solar Energy Technologies Office.

“We forecasted that at least $833 million would be collected in ILF revenues over the next four years,” said Sunrun co-founder Ed Fenster. He contended that license fee revenues would reach solar manufacturers within three months, while it could take more than a year for companies to see a financial benefit from tariffs.

“Our opponent’s proposal relies on China and their proxies to supply the U.S. market with solar,” said Card, who denounced the plan.

More than 200 solar workers and industry advocates marched from the USTR building to the White House on Wednesday afternoon, waving signs that read, “don’t bail out losers” and “solar feeds my family.” The trade agency has received more than 1,500 public comments from industry groups, businesses and solar workers, the vast majority of which called on the government to reject the tariffs.

“I’m worried about everybody’s job, realistically,” said Matt Kata, 32, who works as an electrical designer for Cypress Creek Renewables in Durham, North Carolina. Kata was among dozens of Cypress Creek employees who traveled to Washington to demonstrate against the tariffs.

“We don’t want that tariff to go through. It’s going to hurt not only the solar industry, but American jobs as well,” said Kata. “If they really want to help American solar panel companies, they should create subsidies like they do for the oil industry.”

The proposed remedies offered by trade commissioners in October were less severe than the tariff rates requested by Suniva and SolarWorld, but SEIA says they could still wipe out tens of thousands of solar jobs.

Two out of four commissioners were in favor of placing a 30 percent ad valorem tariff on imported crystalline silicon PV (CSPV) modules, to decline by 5 percentage points per year over four years. For imported solar cells, they agreed on a four-year "tariff-rate quota" that would allow for up to 1 gigawatt of tariff-free cell imports. Any imports over 1 gigawatt would be subject to a 30 percent tariff. Each subsequent year, the tariff rate would decrease by 5 percentage points and the in-quota amount would increase by 0.2 gigawatts.

Numerous industry executives testified that the threat of tariffs and quotas has already impacted their businesses.

Robert Rynar, a chief engineer with DEPCOM power, said his company started working on two 100-megwatt projects between 24 and 36 months ago. “Due to the uncertainty of this case and its effect on the cost of modules … both of those projects are teetering on collapse,” he said.

“There’s a chilling effect on the market that started a few months ago, and it has rippled across the whole country. Solar demand destruction is already happening, and most of 2018 is getting damaged,” said O'Sullivan. “2019 and 2020 is what’s at stake here.”

Fenster said the recent tax bills passed in the House and Senate “carve about 10 cents a watt of value out [of solar]… and would obviously make the effects of trade restraint more substantial.”

A representative from the Embassy of Canada said Canadian modules should be exempt from tariffs, even if they are assembled using cells from Asia, citing the rules of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA).  Two state lawmakers from Minnesota, Senator Justin Eichorn and Representative Jason Metsa, threw their support behind Canada. 

“Restrictive trade measures against Canada … would injure Minnesota workers and families,” said Eichorn. Ontario-based solar manufacturer Heliene “has saved American manufacturing jobs that otherwise would have been lost.”

Suniva’s lawyer, Matthew McConkey, said no such exception should be made for Canada.

“If you take a Korean cell and send it to Canada and put it into a module in Canada, that product has to be covered by this order,” he said. 

Representatives from South Korea, China, Taiwan and the European Union also testified against the trade remedies.

It is not known how the Trump administration will rule on this case. The president has made it a priority to support American jobs, the question is whether or not he believes protectionist policies are they best way to do that in this case. 

Speaking at an event in September, Lighthizer said he agrees with President Trump on trade policy and believes the U.S. “must use all instruments … to make it expensive to engage in non-economic behavior.”

“I know that many sincerely believe that the prevailing world trade policy has been great for America and that those who complain are often people who are victims of economic progress,” said Lighthizer. “Most of you know that I am not in that group.”

Last week Lighthizer asked the ITC to prepare a supplemental report to help the President determine an appropriate way to help the domestic industry adjust to import competition “and provide greater economic and social benefits than costs.” He also asked the commission to detail any "unforeseen developments" that caused domestic solar manufactures to be injured by cheap foreign imports.

The request for extra information pushes the deadline for Trump's final decision on import duties from January 12 to January 26, 2018. He has the authority to adopt one of the ITC's recommendations, devise an alternative, or do nothing. 

from RSSMix.com Mix ID 8265708 http://ift.tt/2BIW12i via IFTTT

[keepon--keepinon]

USTR Panel Shows Interest in Solar Tariff Alternative

A divided U.S. solar industry had its last chance to sway President Trump’s decision on solar tariffs at a hearing in Washington, D.C. on Wednesday. 

More than 60 witnesses testified in a cramped conference room at the Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR) during a final, eight-hour public hearing on the Section 201 trade case. The USTR is tasked with advising the president on how to handle the controversial trade remedies recommended by the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) in October.

United States Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer, a Trump appointee who heads the USTR, did not attend the hearing, however.

Solar executives, lawmakers and foreign diplomats presented their arguments instead to an eight-person panel comprised of representatives from several federal agencies, including the Energy, Commerce and Labor departments. The vast majority of witnesses urged the panel not to recommend solar tariffs or quotas, saying they would put American jobs at risk.

“It makes no sense to effectively tax tens of thousands of good-paying U.S. jobs out of existence, solely to benefit the commercially unskilled Chinese and German owners of Suniva and SolarWorld, who will cut and run,” said Michael O'Sullivan, senior vice president of development at NextEra Energy. 

U.S.-based manufacturers Suniva and SolarWorld brought the case earlier this year, citing serious financial harm due to cheap solar imports. The companies chose to invoke Section 201 of the 1974 Trade Act, which is an obscure part of U.S. trade law that could allow the president to implement tariffs, minimum prices or quotas on solar products from anywhere in the world.

“Over the last five years almost 30 U.S. solar manufacturers have closed,” testified Matt Card, executive vice president of commercial operations at Suniva. “That’s not conjecture. That’s not theory about what may happen.”

Suniva filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection in April, while SolarWorld raised $6 million to keep its doors open and its factory operational while fighting the trade case.

Members of the panel showed particular interest in a proposal by the Solar Energy Industries Association (SEIA) to implement an import license fee system for crystalline silicon PV (CSPV) panels instead of tariffs. The fees would be collected from foreign solar manufacturers and redistributed to U.S. manufacturers.

SEIA pitched the licensing fee previously to the ITC, where the idea gained momentum with one of the four commissioners. In her recommendations to President Trump, Commissioner Meredith Broadbent proposed selling import licenses at a minimum price of 1 cent per watt.

“Are any of the remedies recommended by the ITC commissioners likely to result in a positive net-revenue stream for domestic producers?” asked Ian Steff, who serves as deputy assistant secretary for manufacturing at the Department of Commerce.

“We think that only Commissioner Broadbent’s would result in that outcome,” replied Abigail Ross Hopper, SEIA's president and CEO. “The only way to get money directly to petitioners is through the ILF (import license fee).”

“Could you walk through the cash-flow here … what’s the timeline look like?” asked Charlie Gay, director of the Department of Energy’s Solar Energy Technologies Office.

“We forecasted that at least $833 million would be collected in ILF revenues over the next four years,” said Sunrun co-founder Ed Fenster. He contended that license fee revenues would reach solar manufacturers within three months, while it could take more than a year for companies to see a financial benefit from tariffs.

“Our opponent’s proposal relies on China and their proxies to supply the U.S. market with solar,” said Card, who denounced the plan.

More than 200 solar workers and industry advocates marched from the USTR building to the White House on Wednesday afternoon, waving signs that read, “don’t bail out losers” and “solar feeds my family.” The trade agency has received more than 1,500 public comments from industry groups, businesses and solar workers, the vast majority of which called on the government to reject the tariffs.

“I’m worried about everybody’s job, realistically,” said Matt Kata, 32, who works as an electrical designer for Cypress Creek Renewables in Durham, North Carolina. Kata was among dozens of Cypress Creek employees who traveled to Washington to demonstrate against the tariffs.

“We don’t want that tariff to go through. It’s going to hurt not only the solar industry, but American jobs as well,” said Kata. “If they really want to help American solar panel companies, they should create subsidies like they do for the oil industry.”

The proposed remedies offered by trade commissioners in October were less severe than the tariff rates requested by Suniva and SolarWorld, but SEIA says they could still wipe out tens of thousands of solar jobs.

Two out of four commissioners were in favor of placing a 30 percent ad valorem tariff on imported crystalline silicon PV (CSPV) modules, to decline by 5 percentage points per year over four years. For imported solar cells, they agreed on a four-year "tariff-rate quota" that would allow for up to 1 gigawatt of tariff-free cell imports. Any imports over 1 gigawatt would be subject to a 30 percent tariff. Each subsequent year, the tariff rate would decrease by 5 percentage points and the in-quota amount would increase by 0.2 gigawatts.

Numerous industry executives testified that the threat of tariffs and quotas has already impacted their businesses.

Robert Rynar, a chief engineer with DEPCOM power, said his company started working on two 100-megwatt projects between 24 and 36 months ago. “Due to the uncertainty of this case and its effect on the cost of modules … both of those projects are teetering on collapse,” he said.

“There’s a chilling effect on the market that started a few months ago, and it has rippled across the whole country. Solar demand destruction is already happening, and most of 2018 is getting damaged,” said O'Sullivan. “2019 and 2020 is what’s at stake here.”

Fenster said the recent tax bills passed in the House and Senate “carve about 10 cents a watt of value out [of solar]… and would obviously make the effects of trade restraint more substantial.”

A representative from the Embassy of Canada said Canadian modules should be exempt from tariffs, even if they are assembled using cells from Asia, citing the rules of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA).  Two state lawmakers from Minnesota, Senator Justin Eichorn and Representative Jason Metsa, threw their support behind Canada. 

“Restrictive trade measures against Canada … would injure Minnesota workers and families,” said Eichorn. Ontario-based solar manufacturer Heliene “has saved American manufacturing jobs that otherwise would have been lost.”

Suniva’s lawyer, Matthew McConkey, said no such exception should be made for Canada.

“If you take a Korean cell and send it to Canada and put it into a module in Canada, that product has to be covered by this order,” he said. 

Representatives from South Korea, China, Taiwan and the European Union also testified against the trade remedies.

It is not known how the Trump administration will rule on this case. The president has made it a priority to support American jobs, the question is whether or not he believes protectionist policies are they best way to do that in this case. 

Speaking at an event in September, Lighthizer said he agrees with President Trump on trade policy and believes the U.S. “must use all instruments … to make it expensive to engage in non-economic behavior.”

“I know that many sincerely believe that the prevailing world trade policy has been great for America and that those who complain are often people who are victims of economic progress,” said Lighthizer. “Most of you know that I am not in that group.”

Last week Lighthizer asked the ITC to prepare a supplemental report to help the President determine an appropriate way to help the domestic industry adjust to import competition “and provide greater economic and social benefits than costs.” He also asked the commission to detail any "unforeseen developments" that caused domestic solar manufactures to be injured by cheap foreign imports.

The request for extra information pushes the deadline for Trump's final decision on import duties from January 12 to January 26, 2018. He has the authority to adopt one of the ITC's recommendations, devise an alternative, or do nothing. 

from RSSMix.com Mix ID 8265708 http://ift.tt/2BIW12i via IFTTT

[caseinpoints]

SolarWorld Americas praises ITC report showing injury to U.S. solar panel industry

SolarWorld Americas praised a U.S. International Trade Commission report for its portrayal of a pivotal but import-damaged U.S. solar cell and panel manufacturing industry and the industry’s critical need for assistance in coping with foreign overcapacities and a global import surge.

The largest U.S. solar manufacturer for more than 42 years, SolarWorld is a co-petitioner in a Section 201 global safeguards trade action. The bipartisan ITC voted 4-0 that a surge of imports is seriously injuring the domestic industry. The newly released 400-page report provides background on the ITC’s remedy recommendations to President Trump.

The report cautions that without adequate relief, the domestic industry “would likely cease to exist in the short term.” The report notes that “current CSPV cell and module technology is to a substantial degree a product of R&D and innovation in the United States, including by the petitioners,” and that “the loss of the domestic industry, and the resulting reliance of downstream industries on foreign producers of (solar) products, could have significant long-term consequences for U.S. economic and national security interests.”

According to ITC Vice Chairman David Johanson and Commissioner Irving Williamson, the loss of domestic solar cell and module manufacturing also would hurt downstream market participants who “would become more dependent on foreign suppliers of (solar) products …, leaving them vulnerable both as to price and supply.”

The report recognizes the intractable nature of the import flow. “The foreign industries have demonstrated an ability to redirect exports from one market to another and to increase exports substantially to individual markets from one year to the next,” the report says.

Commissioner Meredith Broadbent’s remedy recommendation underscores the Chinese government’s involvement in its solar industry, including through the provision of massive government subsidies. “The key driver of rapid growth and overcapacity in the Chinese industry has been a mixture of government-driven industrial policy and ad hoc provincial and local subsidies,” she says. According to Broadbent, these subsidies include tax rebates, preferential lending, grants, R&D support and subsidized inputs, including land, electricity, polysilicon, aluminum and glass — “among other incentives.”

Broadbent acknowledges that two previous trade cases led to duties on Chinese imports “designed to remedy the unfair trade resulting from the subsidies …” “Nonetheless, Chinese firms have taken deliberate steps to avoid these remedies … first by using cells produced in Taiwan while continuing to assemble modules in China, and then by investing heavily in production elsewhere in Asia, particularly in Southeast Asia and South Korea.”

President Trump now has until January 13, 2018, to issue his remedy determination.

News item from SolarWorld

Solar Power World

[caseinpoints]

ITC to recommend low tariffs, quotas on foreign solar products

The U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) has announced remedy recommendations on imported crystalline silicon solar cells and panels. The four members of the commission have different suggestions on tariffs, quotas and import license sales.

Chairman Rhonda Schmidtlein recommended a 10% tariff on solar cells with a 500-MW volume quota and a 30% tariff on imports that exceed 500 MW. For solar panels, she recommended a 35% tariff.

Commissioner Meredith Broadbent recommended a restriction on both cells and modules set at 8.9 GW the first year, increasing 1.4 GW for four years. She also recommended that President Trump sell import licenses at 1-cent per watt. The import license would generate $89 million in government revenue the first year on the 8.9-MW restriction.

Vice Chairman David Johanson and Commissioner Irving Williamson together recommended a 30% tariff on cell imports and a 30% tariff on modules, with Canadian imports excluded.

The group will submit its official recommendation to President Trump by Nov. 13, and he has the final decision.

A 30% tariff on foreign modules would be 10 to 15 cents per watt, significantly lower than what was initially requested by U.S. panel manufacturers Suniva and SolarWorld. The two companies filed a Section 201 petition earlier this year, asking the President of the United States to grant temporary import relief by raising tariffs on goods entering the United States that injure domestic production. The ITC voted 4-0 on Sept. 22 that, in fact, U.S. manufacturers had been harmed by imported crystalline silicon PV (CSPV) products. China, Mexico and South Korea were included as countries causing harm, while imports from Singapore and Canada were excluded.

See our previous Section 201 coverage here. 

Suniva was initially petitioning for a tariff of 40 cents per watt for solar cells produced outside the United States and a floor price of 78 cents per watt on all products. The co-petitioners then adjusted their request in September to 25 cents per watt for solar cells, 32 cents per watt for panels and a floor price on all imported solar products of 74 cents per watt. SolarWorld also proposed an import quota of 220 MW for cells and 5,700 MW for modules.

Ultimately, the ITC will recommend tariffs, although much lower than what was first thought. SEIA has long suggested that any major tariff implementation would result in widespread job loss–between 48,000 and 63,000 American solar jobs in 2018, and between 60,000 and 84,000 jobs by 2020. Potential job losses has not been predicted at the ITC’s lower tariff suggestion.

Abigail Ross Hopper, president and CEO of SEIA, issued the following statement after the ITC’s annoucement:

“The commissioners clearly took a thoughtful approach to their recommendations and it’s worth noting that in no case did a commissioner recommend anything close to what the petitioners asked for. That being said, proposed tariffs would be intensely harmful to our industry. While we will have to spend more time evaluating the details of each recommendation, we are encouraged by three commissioners’ reference to alternative funding mechanisms, including our import license fee proposal.

“We remain committed to working with all parties to find a solution that supports domestic cell and panel manufacturing without cratering demand for American-produced solar energy. We look forward to collaborating with the Trump administration to arrive at such a solution and we will continue to work with our broad coalition of supporters to impress upon the administration the need for an approach that will not inflate the cost of electricity for all Americans and harm workers, consumers and the U.S. economy.”

The president will receive the ITC’s official recommendation for action by Nov. 13, and he has 60 days to act. He could decide to impose the recommended remedies, ignore them or propose alternate tariffs. President Trump has been quoted as saying he wants more tariffs. His decision must be made by mid-January 2018.

SolarWorld CEO and president Juergen Stein released a statement calling for the president to enact the tariffs.

“We are pleased that a bipartisan majority of the Commission has recommended tariffs, tariff-rate quotas and funding for the domestic industry. This is a useful first step,” he said. “The process will now move forward to the President, and we continue to believe that the remedies SolarWorld has recommended are the right ones for this industry at this time. We must ensure countries cannot undermine the remedies by underpricing their products in the U.S. market. As the White House has stated, ‘The U.S. solar manufacturing sector contributes to our energy security and economic prosperity.’ We look forward to President Trump establishing remedies that will place this industry back on a path of robust growth and put manufacturing workers back to work in an industry that will be a key to our nation’s future.”

Solar Power World

[caseinpoints]

U.S. International Trade Commission finds Suniva, SolarWorld did suffer injury from imported solar cells

Much to the dismay of the majority of the U.S. solar industry, panel manufacturers Suniva and SolarWorld were found to have suffered injury from imported crystalline silicon PV cells, and a petition for tariffs on foreign solar cells and panels will be sent to President Trump’s desk.

The president will receive the U.S. International Trade Commission’s recommendation for action by Nov. 13, and he has 60 days to act.

Georgia-based panel manufacturer Suniva (which also had a plant in Michigan but was Chinese-owned) declared bankruptcy in April and then filed a Section 201 petition with the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC). Section 201 permits the President of the United States to grant temporary import relief by raising tariffs on goods entering the United States that injure domestic production. The ITC took on the case in May with the goal to “determine whether crystalline silicon photovoltaic (CSPV) cells (whether or not partially or fully assembled into other products) are being imported into the United States in such increased quantities as to be a substantial cause of serious injury, or the threat thereof, to the domestic industry producing an article like or directly competitive with the imported articles.”

Suniva asked for a tariff of 40 cents per watt for solar cells produced outside the United States and a floor price of 78 cents per watt for panels.

German-owned SolarWorld joined Suniva’s trade case shortly thereafter. With no friendly support from within the solar industry, the co-petitioners found allies in the Steel Manufacturers Association and the Alliance for American Manufacturing.

The Solar Energy Industries Association (SEIA), meanwhile, has been leading a very vocal majority against the tariffs. The group estimates that the tariffs will double the cost of solar panels and cause the United States to lose 88,000 jobs next year, which is more than one-third of the industry’s entire workforce.

Higher solar panel costs will affect solar jobs across all market segments. The utility-scale market, which has paced the industry’s growth for years, would see jobs shrink by 60%, while residential and commercial employment would fall by 44% and 46%, respectively, SEIA said.

Members of the industry who opposed the tariff showed up en masse to an ITC hearing on Aug. 15, vocalizing that Suniva and SolarWorld’s operations represented less than 1% of the American solar workforce, yet this petition affected many more jobs.

“Both companies are foreign-owned and in bankruptcy,” SEIA said. “Their financiers are looking for U.S government protection after receiving tens of millions of dollars in federal and state handouts, but failing to compete…”

SEIA long tried to push the message that Suniva and co-petitioner SolarWorld had failed to show that the rising level of imports caused them serious injury and left them unable to compete in the U.S. market, even releasing a scathing press release earlier this week saying the two module manufacturers had no plan to function as viable manufacturers if granted trade relief.

“The relief sought by Suniva and SolarWorld would exacerbate the underlying problem of an excess global supply of solar cells and modules by severely limiting the U.S. market. Raising trade barriers and inhibiting the import of fairly-traded goods will not jumpstart U.S. cell and module manufacturing,” SEIA said in a factsheet.

How President Trump will react is unknown, but he has been quoted as saying he wants more tariffs. His decision must be made by mid-January 2018.

“While we continue to believe that this is the wrong decision, based on Suniva and SolarWorld’s mismanagement, we respect the commission’s vote and we will continue to lead the effort to protect the solar industry from damaging trade relief,” said SEIA president and CEO Abigail Ross Hopper in a statement. “We expect to be front and center in the ITC remedy process, and in the administration’s consideration of this deeply-flawed case.”

Solar Power World