A senior Chinese banker, who insisted on anonymity because of the political sensitivity of the solar panel issue, said that Chinese banks were not eager to lend heavily for another round of solar panel factory investments on the large scale needed to supply the American market.
In the United States, solar panel trade cases have divided the industry in much the same way that automotive trade disputes in the 1980s split the American auto industry, when Detroit automakers seeking import restrictions were opposed by American car dealers who were making large profits from selling and servicing cars imported from Japan.
Many solar panel installers in the United States have opposed tariffs on Chinese panels, contending that inexpensive imports have helped spur many homeowners and businesses to put solar on their rooftops.
Opponents of the tariffs say that the United States benefits from cheap Chinese production.
They point out that Chinese companies often turn to American companies to buy the factory equipment and polysilicon they need to make solar panels, and installers hire local American workers to set up and service rooftop systems.
Like the anti-subsidy tariffs, the anti-dumping decision on Thursday is preliminary.
But if solar panel importers win a final review of both tariff decisions by the Commerce Department later this year, the preliminary tariffs could be reduced or even entirely refunded, although they also might be increased.
The Commerce Department calculated the 31 percent tariff by estimating Chinese manufacturers’ costs and then determining how far below cost the solar panels were being sold in the United States.
But the department’s methods for calculating costs are controversial for countries that it designates as non-market economies, where the government plays such a large role in allocating land, credit and other resources that the true costs of any given product may not be apparent.
In Thursday’s decision, the Commerce Department sided with SolarWorld in using solar manufacturing costs in Thailand as a proxy for costs in China. The Chinese industry had wanted to use India as a proxy instead.
nytimes.com
In the United States, solar panel trade cases have divided the industry in much the same way that automotive trade disputes in the 1980s split the American auto industry, when Detroit automakers seeking import restrictions were opposed by American car dealers who were making large profits from selling and servicing cars imported from Japan.
Many solar panel installers in the United States have opposed tariffs on Chinese panels, contending that inexpensive imports have helped spur many homeowners and businesses to put solar on their rooftops.
Opponents of the tariffs say that the United States benefits from cheap Chinese production.
They point out that Chinese companies often turn to American companies to buy the factory equipment and polysilicon they need to make solar panels, and installers hire local American workers to set up and service rooftop systems.
Like the anti-subsidy tariffs, the anti-dumping decision on Thursday is preliminary.
But if solar panel importers win a final review of both tariff decisions by the Commerce Department later this year, the preliminary tariffs could be reduced or even entirely refunded, although they also might be increased.
The Commerce Department calculated the 31 percent tariff by estimating Chinese manufacturers’ costs and then determining how far below cost the solar panels were being sold in the United States.
But the department’s methods for calculating costs are controversial for countries that it designates as non-market economies, where the government plays such a large role in allocating land, credit and other resources that the true costs of any given product may not be apparent.
In Thursday’s decision, the Commerce Department sided with SolarWorld in using solar manufacturing costs in Thailand as a proxy for costs in China. The Chinese industry had wanted to use India as a proxy instead.
nytimes.com
No comments:
Post a Comment