By Jacob M. Schlesinger and Erin Ailworth
WASHINGTON -- U.S. solar-panel makers Friday won backing from a
government commission in their bid for protection from imports,
handing the Trump administration fresh ammunition in its quest to
ramp up trade enforcement polices against foreign competition.
The International Trade Commission voted 4-0 to approve a
request from the domestic solar-panel industry seeking relief under
a little-used trade law that allows American companies to win
government protection if they can show they suffered "serious
injury" from a surge in imports.
The ITC members will next consider what specific policies they
believe should be implemented. That recommendation will be sent in
November to the White House, which would then be required to make a
decision by early next year on whether to impose import limits.
The Trump administration hasn't commented on the solar-panel
case. But officials have said they would consider invoking the
little-used "safeguard" law more frequently in a bid to take a more
aggressive stance on trade enforcement.
The solar industry had requested protection under the
long-dormant Section 201 of the 1974 trade law. Friday's vote was
the first time the ITC had weighed such a petition since 2001. In
that case, officials approved a request for relief from the steel
industry, and the George W. Bush administration imposed tariffs the
following year. Those were eventually removed after the World Trade
Organization concluded the protections violated global trading
rules.
After a 16-year hiatus, the law is now gaining new attention as
President Donald Trump has vowed to dust off old trade laws to
consider curbing imports.
The ITC is scheduled to vote on another Section 201 petition
from washing-machine makers on Oct. 5.
The trade case has sharply divided the U.S. solar industry, with
some panel makers arguing that they needed protections against a
flood of underpriced Asian imports, and panel installers countering
that a tariff would raise prices for American consumers and make
solar ownership less attractive.
Suniva Inc. first petitioned the ITC to levy a 40-cents-per-watt
tariff on imported solar cells in April, shortly after the company
filed for bankruptcy protection. It also asked the commission for a
minimum price of 78 cents a watt, including the 40-cent tariff, on
solar panels made by foreign manufacturers.
The company is based in Georgia, but is majority owned by
Shunfeng International Clean Energy Ltd., a company based in Hong
Kong. SolarWorld Americas Inc., an Oregon-based firm whose German
parent filed for insolvency earlier this year, later became a
co-petitioner.
Both companies have blamed their financial troubles on Asian
rivals dumping cheap solar panels into the market, pushing down
prices in recent years. A report issued in August by staff at the
ITC said nearly 30 U.S. solar production facilities have been
closed since 2012.
Trade protection, Suniva and SolarWorld say, would boost
domestic solar-panel makers and force overseas competitors to open
plants in the U.S. That activity could lead to more than 100,000
new jobs across the industry, the companies said.
Without it, "we will be extinct," said Matt Card, Suniva
executive vice president of commercial operations.
But the majority of the U.S. solar industry opposed the
petition, particularly solar installers, who have seen the adoption
of rooftop solarjump as prices for panels fell because of low-cost
imports from Asia.
In the past five years, the total cost to install solar has
fallen nearly 70%, even before federal subsidies are factored in,
according to the trade group Solar Energy Industries Association,
or SEIA.
SEIA says a tariff on imported cells is likely to hurt demand
for solar in the U.S. as equipment becomes more expensive, and
could cause the sector to shed 88,000 jobs nationwide. That's
one-third of the current U.S. solar-industry workforce.
Both sides lined up powerful allies as they tried to influence
the commission's final decision.
Conservative free-trade policy organizations, including the
American Legislative Exchange Council and the Heritage Foundation,
have come out against a tariff, as has a bipartisan group of 16
senators and 53 congressmen.
Earlier this week, a group of retired and former U.S. military
professionals wrote the ITC to say they were "deeply concerned the
petition's proposed trade remedy would be harmful to the national
and energy security efforts of the U.S. Department of Defense."
Meanwhile, the Coalition for a Prosperous America, a group that
lobbies against free trade, supported Suniva's proposed tariff, as
did the Steel Manufacturers Association and the Alliance for
American Manufacturing.
The U.S. solar market "would be well served by vibrant domestic
competition rather than an overreliance on imports from China,"
said the Alliance for American Manufacturing, which came out in
support of the tariff last week.
(END) Dow Jones Newswires
September 22, 2017 11:58 ET (15:58 GMT)
Copyright (c) 2017 Dow Jones & Company, Inc.