Staff Report

Total Page:16

File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb

Staff Report Public Version of the Staff Report _________________________________________________________________ UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION Washington, DC _________________________________________________________________ CRYSTALLINE SILICON PHOTOVOLTAIC CELLS (WHETHER OR NOT PARTIALLY OR FULLY ASSEMBLED INTO OTHER PRODUCTS) Staff Report Investigation No. TA-201-75 CONTENTS Page Part I: Introduction ................................................................................................................ I‐1 Background ................................................................................................................................ I‐1 Statutory criteria and organization of the report ..................................................................... I‐2 Summary data ........................................................................................................................... I‐4 Previous and related investigations .......................................................................................... I‐8 Crystalline Silicon Photovoltaic Solar Cells and Modules from China (Investigation Nos. 701‐TA‐481 and 731‐TA‐1190) (November 2012) ................................. I‐8 Certain Crystalline Silicon Photovoltaic Solar Cells and Modules from China and Taiwan (Investigation Nos. 701‐TA‐511 and 731‐TA‐1246‐1247) (February 2015) ........................... I‐8 The product ............................................................................................................................. I‐10 The imported articles described in this investigation ......................................................... I‐10 Like or directly competitive articles .................................................................................... I‐12 Physical properties .............................................................................................................. I‐15 Manufacturing facilities and processes ............................................................................... I‐24 Uses ..................................................................................................................................... I‐33 Marketing channels ............................................................................................................. I‐37 Discussion of specific products ............................................................................................ I‐42 U.S. tariff treatment ............................................................................................................ I‐52 The U.S. market ....................................................................................................................... I‐53 U.S. producers ..................................................................................................................... I‐53 U.S. importers ...................................................................................................................... I‐56 U.S. purchasers .................................................................................................................... I‐59 i CONTENTS Page Third‐country market import restraints .................................................................................. I‐60 The European Union ............................................................................................................ I‐61 India ..................................................................................................................................... I‐63 Australia ............................................................................................................................... I‐65 Canada ................................................................................................................................. I‐65 China .................................................................................................................................... I‐66 Turkey .................................................................................................................................. I‐67 Part II: Information relating to increased imports ................................................................. II‐1 U.S. imports .............................................................................................................................. II‐1 Country‐of‐origin based on cell manufacture location ........................................................ II‐1 Country‐of‐origin based on cell manufacture location except for NAFTA countries ........... II‐7 U.S. imports from China ..................................................................................................... II‐12 Forms of imported CSPV products ..................................................................................... II‐14 Importers' CSPV technology ............................................................................................... II‐16 U.S. importers’ imports subsequent to December 31, 2016 ................................................. II‐18 Imports by U.S. producers and related firms ......................................................................... II‐20 U.S. imports relative to production ....................................................................................... II‐28 U.S. imports from Canada, China, and Mexico ...................................................................... II‐17 Part III: Serious injury or threat of serious injury ................................................................. III‐1 Overview ................................................................................................................................. III‐1 U.S. producers’ ownership and related or affiliated firms .................................................. III‐1 Reported changes experienced and anticipated by the industry ....................................... III‐3 U.S. production, capacity, and capacity utilization ................................................................. III‐9 CSPV cells ............................................................................................................................. III‐9 CSPV modules .................................................................................................................... III‐23 U.S. producers’ shipments .................................................................................................... III‐27 CSPV cells ........................................................................................................................... III‐27 ii CONTENTS Page CSPV modules .................................................................................................................... III‐29 U.S. commercial shipments, by form of CSPV product ..................................................... III‐31 U.S.‐origin U.S. shipments for apparent consumption ..................................................... III‐33 Inventories maintained by U.S. producers and U.S. importers ............................................ III‐35 U.S. producers’ inventories ............................................................................................... III‐35 U.S. importers’ inventories ................................................................................................ III‐37 U.S. employment, hours, and wages .................................................................................... III‐38 CSPV cells ........................................................................................................................... III‐38 CSPV modules .................................................................................................................... III‐39 Financial condition of the U.S. industry ................................................................................ III‐40 Background ........................................................................................................................ III‐40 Operations on CSPV products ........................................................................................... III‐41 Capital expenditures, research and development expenses, and investment in productive facilities ........................................................................................................... III‐56 Capital and investment ...................................................................................................... III‐59 Part IV: U.S. market and foreign industries .......................................................................... IV‐1 Apparent U.S. consumption and market shares ..................................................................... IV‐1 Country‐of‐origin based on cell manufacture location ....................................................... IV‐1 Alternative NAFTA country presentation ............................................................................ IV‐6 Foreign industries .................................................................................................................... IV‐9 Global installations and production .................................................................................... IV‐9 The industries in North America ....................................................................................... IV‐16 Canada .......................................................................................................................... IV‐16 Mexico
Recommended publications
  • Town of Amherst Request for Proposals
    TOWN OF AMHERST REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS FOR OLD LANDFILL REUSE PROPOSAL Presented by: In partnership with: Letter of Transmittal............................................................................................................... 5 Executive Summary ................................................................................................................ 8 1. Evaluation Criteria ............................................................................................................ 10 1.1. Proposal protects the existing landfill caps. ...............................................................................10 1.2. Proposal protects operation of landfill gas systems...................................................................10 1.3. Experience of team proposing project........................................................................................10 1.4. Risk to human, health and the environment..............................................................................11 1.5. Effect on the environment..........................................................................................................11 1.6. Project compatibility with neighboring properties.....................................................................12 1.7. Noise levels from use of site.......................................................................................................12 1.7. Best compensation to Town of Amherst ....................................................................................13
    [Show full text]
  • BNEF Long Form
    THE EVOLVING LANDSCAPE FOR EPCS IN US RENEWABLES 14 OCTOBER 2014 SECTION 4. THE PLAYERS This section of the report analyzes players in EPC for solar and wind in the US. About this analysis This section is based mostly on data gathered from companies’ websites. Much of this analysis relies on linking firms to projects in our database, which contains nearly 3,000 wind and solar projects in the US at various stages of development. The information mapping projects to their EPCs is captured in our Industry Intelligence database, available to subscribers of our service. There are a number of assumptions, caveats, and methodological points that are important to note in the context of this analysis; an Appendix at the end of this report identifies these. 4.1. LEAGUE TABLES The charts below show the top EPC firms for solar and wind, ranked strictly in terms of historic activity – ie, this does not reflect any kind of qualitative assessment about firms’ competencies. • Top-ranked solar EPCs includes the three vertically-integrated giants – SunPower, First Solar, and SunEdison – and some EPC specialists, like Bechtel and Fluor, that have performed a small number of very large projects. • The league tables for wind are headlined by Mortenson, IEA, RES Americas, and Blattner (with Blattner under-represented, as explained in the Appendix). Figure 8: Top EPC firms for US utility-scale solar (GW of Figure 9: Top EPC firms for US wind (GW of ‘active’ ‘active’ projects) projects) 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 0 4 8 12 SunPower MA Mortenson Co First Solar Inc IEA / White Construction MA Mortenson Co RES Americas E Light Wind and Solar Michels Corp Abengoa Blattner Energy Inc Bechtel Power Corp Wanzek Construction SunEdison Fluor Rosendin Electric Inc AMEC Tetra Tech Construction Inc Strata Solar LLC Signal Energy LLC Blymyer Engineers Dashiell Swinerton Inc TVIG / American Helios Blattner Energy Inc Reed & Reed Inc Baker Electric S&C Electric Co Blue Oak Energy Inc Barton Malow Co ARB Jay Cashman, Inc.
    [Show full text]
  • Solar Technical Appendix
    STRUCTURAL TECHNICAL APPENDIX 01/15/2015 for Residential Rooftop Solar Installations Structural Technical Appendix for Residential Rooftop Solar Installations (Appendix to California's Solar Permitting Guidebook's Toolkit Structural Document, based on the 2013 California Residential Code and 2013 California Building Code) STRUCTURAL TECHNICAL APPENDIX 01/15/2015 for Residential Rooftop Solar Installations Table of Contents Introduction 4 Overall Intent 4 Criteria for Expedited Permitting are not Limits for other Systems 4 Background/History 4 Purpose of the Structural Technical Appendix 5 Code Basis 5 California Residential Code (CRC) versus California Building Code (CBC) 5 Design Wind Speeds in CRC versus CBC 5 Organization of the Remainder of this Technical Appendix 6 Part 0. Region and Site Checks 8 Assumptions Regarding Snow and Wind Loads 8 Optional Additional Site Checks in Atypical Regions 9 Part 1. Roof Checks 15 Code Compliant Wood-framed Roof 15 1.A. Visual Review 15 Site Auditor Qualifications 15 Digital Photo Documentation 16 1.A.(1). No Reroof Overlays 16 1.A.(2). No Significant Structural Deterioration or Sagging 17 1.B. Roof Structure Data: 18 1.B.+ Optional Additional Rafter Span Check Criteria 18 Choose By Advantage 19 Horizontal Rafter Span Check 20 Prescriptive Rafter Strengthening Strategies 21 Roof Mean Height 22 Part 2. Solar Array Checks 24 2.A. "Flush-Mounted" Rooftop Solar Arrays 24 2.B. Solar Array Self-Weight 24 2.C. Solar Array Covers No More than Half the Total Roof Area 27 2.D. Solar Support Component Manufacturer's Guidelines 27 2.E. Roof Plan of Module and Anchor Layout 27 2.F.
    [Show full text]
  • NEW to Acquire First Australian Asset: Manildra Solar Power Plant 25 June 2018
    RENEWABLE ENERGY. SUSTAINABLE INVESTING NEW to acquire first Australian asset: Manildra Solar Power Plant 25 June 2018 Questions to the New Energy Solar management team can be addressed to [email protected] 1 Manildra Solar Power Plant – May 2018 Disclaimer This document is prepared by New Energy Solar Manager Pty Limited (ACN 609 166 645) (Investment Manager), a corporate authorised representative (CAR No. 1237667) of Walsh & Company Asset Management Pty Limited (ACN 159 902 708, AFSL 450 257), and investment manager for New Energy Solar Fund (ARSN 609 154 298) (Trust), and New Energy Solar Limited (ACN 609 396 983) (Company). The Trust and the Company (together with their controlled entities) are referred to as the ‘Business’, ‘NEW’ or ‘New Energy Solar’. This document may contain general advice. Any general advice provided has been prepared without taking into account your objectives, financial situation or needs. Before acting on the advice, you should consider the appropriateness of the advice with regard to your objectives, financial situation and needs. This document may contain statements, opinions, projections, forecasts and other material (forward looking statements), based on various assumptions. Those assumptions may or may not prove to be correct. The Investment Manager and its advisers (including all of their respective directors, consultants and/or employees, related bodies corporate and the directors, shareholders, managers, employees or agents of any of them) (Parties) do not make any representation as to the accuracy or likelihood of fulfilment of the forward-looking statements or any of the assumptions upon which they are based. Actual results, performance or achievements may vary materially from any projections and forward looking statements and the assumptions on which those statements are based.
    [Show full text]
  • Design P2P Energy Trading
    Design a Peer to Peer Energy Trading Model: Can Residents Trade Excess Renewable Solar Energy with Industrial Users? William Jackson, Lara Basyouni, Joseph Kim, Anar Altangerel, Casey Nguyen Microgrid Exchange System After 100%, energy goes into the ground. Excess Renewable Solar Excess Renewable Wasted Solar Energy Energy Solar Energy Area =2503 kWh Area =520 kWh 1 Overview • Context Analysis • Stakeholders • Problem/Need Statement • Confluence Interaction Diagram • Gap Analysis • Concept of Operations • IDEF0 Diagram • Model Simulation • System Requirements • Physical Hierarchy • Model Results • Model Verification Plan • Graphical User Interface • Business Case • System Applications • Conclusion 2 Context Analysis-Cheap Solar • Installed Solar: Price of Solar Energy Trend is projected to drop Opportunity: Lower upfront solar costs goes down to below $50 per mWh in 2024 from $350 per mWh in 2009 . for residential users. Challenge: Technology gap still exists with distribution battery energy storage systems. Those limitations on storage capacity could result in excess solar energy production during peak daytime hours going into the ground. Wasted Solar Energy 1200.00 1000.00 ) 800.00 W n Residential k ( Demand y 600.00 g r e n Residential n “The greatest challenge that solar power faces is energy storage. E 400.00 Solar Generated GMU ENGR Solar arrays can only generate power while the sun is out, so they 200.00 Demand can only be used as a sole source of electricity if they can produce 0.00 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
    [Show full text]
  • Celebrating U.S. Solar Contractors
    July 2017 www.solarpowerworldonline.com Technology • Development • Installation CELEBRATING U.S. SOLAR CONTRACTORS Cover_July 2017_Vs3.indd 1 6/30/17 8:32 AM HONORING THE BEST OF THE INDUSTRY The 2017 class of Top Solar Contractors is dedicated to bringing solar to the United States. The following pages honor the hard-working efforts of 500 solar companies across the country. The Top 500 List Begins On The Next Page Lists By Market p.52 Lists By Top States p.87 Lists By Service p.68 Contractors Across America p.105 INTRO Top 500_Vs2kp.indd 1 6/30/17 9:16 AM = UTILITY CONTRACTOR = RESIDENTIAL CONTRACTOR = COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL CONTRACTOR = OFF-GRID CONTRACTOR = EPC = INSTALLATION SUBCONTRACTOR = ELECTRICAL SUBCONTRACTOR = DEVELOPER = ROOFTOP CONTRACTOR Pie pieces represent all services and markets in which a company works RANK & STATE/ PRIMARY TOTAL KILOWATTS ALL ALL PRIMARY COMPANY CITY TERRITORY FOUNDED EMPLOYEES MARKET INSTALLED INSTALLED SERVICES MARKETS SERVICE KILOWATTS IN 2016 OFFERED SERVED 21 CSI Electrical Contractors Santa Fe Springs CA 1990 1000 1,231,825 281,805 22 E Light Electric Services Englewood CO 1998 255 1,752,050 276,430 23 Moss Fort Lauderdale FL 2004 600 790,015 244,015 24 Vivint Solar Lehi UT 2011 5000 680,000 221,500 25 DKD Electric Albuquerque NM 1978 129 370,120 220,400 26 Bombard Renewable Energy Las Vegas NV 1982 800 420,033 219,494 27 SunEnergy1 Mooresville NC 2009 211 706,000 214,000 28 DEPCOM Power Scottsdale AZ 2013 84 390,000 205,000 29 Cantsink Lilburn GA 1988 50 416,000 197,387 30 CSW Contractors Scottsdale AZ 1982 350 1,669,000 195,000 31 HCS Renewable Energy Round Rock TX 2014 425 553,000 189,000 32 Primoris Renewable Energy Denver CO 2013 20 479,000 186,000 33 The Ryan Company Greenwood Village CO 1949 100 536,496 182,294 34 juwi Boulder CO 2008 60 420,000 182,089 35 ESA Renewables Sanford FL 2002 25 615,000 165,011 36 Hypower Fort Lauderdale FL 1991 450 425,000 165,000 37 J&B Solar Cocoa FL 2013 85 360,000 160,000 38 J.
    [Show full text]
  • GREEN AMERICAN GREENAMERICA.ORG in COOPERATION the Big Picture: Green America's Mission Is to Harness Economic Power for a Just and Sustainable Society
    SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 2013 ISSUE 95 LIVE BETTER. SAVE MORE. INVEST WISELY. GREEN MAKE A DIFFERENCE. AMERICAN INSIDE 4 GMO INSIDE You want to eat organic, buy what you need TARGETS green and Fair Trade, and support renewable CHOBANI energy. But you worry that green can be YOGURT expensive. Is it possible to... REAL GREEN LIVING 6 Go Green FRACKING: THE SITUATION IS GETTING on a Budget? WORSE Page 12 REAL GREEN INVESTING 8 THE FOSSIL-FREE DIVESTMENT MOVEMENT EXPANDS 10 LEAD FOUND IN LIPSTICK SHOWS NEED FOR REFORM DID YOU KNOW? Growing your own salad mix can save you $17.55 for every square foot you plant. Tips for organic 4 ECO ACTIONS on a budget, 10 ACROSS GREEN AMERICA p. 16 23 GREEN BUSINESS NEWS 24 LETTERS & ADVICE Photo by zoryanchik / shutterstock Invest as if our planet depends on it Fossil Fuel Free Balanced Fund You should carefully consider the Funds’ investment objectives, risks, charges, and expenses before investing. To obtain a Prospectus that contains this and other information about the Funds, please visit www.greencentury.com, email [email protected], or call 1-800-93-GREEN. Please read the Prospectus carefully before investing. Stocks will fluctuate in response to factors that may affect a single company, industry, sector, or the market as a whole and may perform worse than the market. Bonds are subject to risks including interest rate, credit, and inflation. The Green Century Funds are distributed by UMB Distribution Services, LLC. 3/13 2 SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 2013 GREEN AMERICAN GREENAMERICA.ORG IN COOPERATION The Big Picture: Green America's mission is to harness economic power for a just and sustainable society.
    [Show full text]
  • 2015 Annual Report About STR
    2015 Annual Report About STR STR manufactures encapsulants for the photovoltaic solar module industry. Our Photocap® encapsulants are of high quality due to our proprietary technology developed under contract to the predecessor to the U.S. Department of Energy in the late 1970s. Since pioneering this technology, we have the longest track record of field performance for solar encapsulants in the industry. For over 35 years, we have been advancing solar energy as a key renewable, safe and clean electricity source. We strive to be the best at what we do while maintaining the highest ethical standards. For more information about STR, please visit www.strsolar.com. STR-IQ Core Value System SAFETY The safety and well-being of our employees is our highest priority. TENACITY We pursue continuous improvement with persistent determination and view every challenge as an opportunity. RESPONSIBILITY We hold ourselves and each other accountable and strive to be a responsible corporate citizen of the communities in which we operate. INTEGRITY Integrity is at the core of everything we do, every product we make and every service we offer. QUALITY Quality is an integral part of every day and every job. FORWARD-LOOKING STATEMENTS This Annual Report may contain projections or other forward-looking statements regarding future events or the future financial performance of STR Holdings, Inc. We wish to caution you that these statements are only predictions and that the actual events or results may differ materially. We refer you to Forward-Looking Statements in section 7 of the Form 10-K, Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations.
    [Show full text]
  • Audit of Solar Power Purchase Agreements December 22, 2020
    Audit of Solar Power Purchase Agreements December 22, 2020 By Onondaga County Comptroller Martin D. Masterpole Report Index Report Section Name Page Section Number I Background and Executive Summary 2 II Scope and Methodology 6 III Findings and Recommendations 7 IV Exhibits 25 V Departmental Responses 30 VI Clarification of Management Response 37 1 SECTION I BACKGROUND AND EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Background In 2013 and again in 2014, Onondaga County (County) began to pursue solar power solutions using a request for proposals (RFP) process. At the conclusion of the RFP process, the County executed Commercial Purchase and Performance Guarantee agreements (Contracts) with SolarCity Corporation (SolarCity), a company which sells large-scale solar power solutions. The County is currently contracted with Solar City and purchasing solar energy at three sites—Oak Orchard Lagoons, Oak Orchard Waste Water Treatment Plant and Jamesville Correctional Facility. The Contracts with SolarCity included the construction of arrays of solar energy collecting panels to be built at the three sites. While the County retains ownership of the land at the sites, Solar City owns and maintains the panels. Each site has a 20-year contract and upon conclusion, the County has the option to purchase the solar panel systems from SolarCity. In addition, the Contracts define the terms for the location of the panels, set-up requirements for the panels (tilt, azimuth, etc.), price per kilowatt hour (kWh) per year, expected first year and every five year production as well as having a SolarGuard readable meter at each site. The County pays SolarCity a set fee per kWh for the use of the panels (with a 2% annual accelerator increase) and the County receives credits per kWh from National Grid for the energy collected by the panels.
    [Show full text]
  • Benchmarking the Performance of Solar Installers and Rooftop Photovoltaic Installations in California
    sustainability Article Benchmarking the Performance of Solar Installers and Rooftop Photovoltaic Installations in California Dadi Wang 1,2 1 Business School, China University of Political Science and Law, Beijing 100088, China; [email protected]; Tel.: +86-10-5890-9402 2 Desautels Faculty of Management, McGill University, Montreal, QC H3A 1G5, Canada Received: 20 June 2017; Accepted: 5 August 2017; Published: 9 August 2017 Abstract: Rooftop photovoltaic (PV) systems are rapidly proliferating around the world. Whether the PV systems have been efficiently installed is an issue of utmost importance for both solar installers and policymakers. However, the impact of solar installers on PV performance is not well understood. In this paper, we investigate the performance of rooftop PV installations and the solar installers using a dataset of 1035 projects developed by 213 installers in California. Based on data envelopment analysis (DEA), our study takes the PV system capacity, electricity generation, cost, modules, solar irradiance, and ambient temperature into account simultaneously to construct a unified measure for the efficiency of PV installations. We analyze the relationship between installer characteristics and PV system performance. We find PV installations with the installer also being the module manufacturer, exhibit significantly better performance than other installations. PV installations by subsidiaries of oil firms have inferior performance. PV installations by large installers on average do not perform better than the installations by small installers. Geographic diversification of an installer’s operations is significantly and inversely related to the performance of installations. We demonstrate the aforementioned findings have significant implications for policymakers and the solar installation industry.
    [Show full text]
  • RE-Powering America's Land Initiative: Project Tracking Matrix April 2016
    RE-Powering America’s Land Initiative: April 2016 Project Tracking Matrix The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) recognizes the overall environmental RE-Powering America’s benefit of siting renewable energy projects on contaminated properties. Through Land Initiative the RE-Powering America’s Land Initiative, EPA is encouraging renewable energy development on current and formerly contaminated lands, landfills, and mine sites To provide information on renewable energy on when such development is aligned with the community’s vision for the site. contaminated land projects not currently appearing Using publically available information, RE-Powering maintains a list of completed in this document, email [email protected]. renewable energy installations on contaminated sites and landfills. To date, the To receive updates, newsletters, and other RE-Powering Initiative has identified 179 renewable energy installations on 171 information about the RE-Powering program, contaminated lands, landfills, and mine sites1, with a cumulative installed capacity of click the banner below. just over 1,124 megawatts (MW) and consistent growth in total installations since the inception of the RE-Powering Initiative. Approximately 60% of these installations are Subscribe large-scale systems with a project capacity of 1 MW or more, either exporting energy EPA’s RE-Powering Listserv onto the utility grid or offsetting onsite energy demands. This document provides summary statistics of known installations and discusses emerging trends. In addition to the completed sites listed here, EPA is tracking more than 50 renewable energy projects on contaminated or disturbed properties in various stages of planning, approval, or construction. These include a 1.1-MW solar project under construction on a Meriden, CT landfill; a 2.25-MW solar project under construction on a coal ash landfill in Beloit, WI; and an 18.6-MW solar installation underway at the U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Solar Skyspace B
    Minnesota Journal of Law, Science & Technology Volume 15 Issue 1 Article 19 2014 Solar Skyspace B Kk K. DuVivier Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.umn.edu/mjlst Recommended Citation Kk K. DuVivier, Solar Skyspace B, 15 MINN. J.L. SCI. & TECH. 389 (2014). Available at: https://scholarship.law.umn.edu/mjlst/vol15/iss1/19 The Minnesota Journal of Law, Science & Technology is published by the University of Minnesota Libraries Publishing. Solar Skyspace B K.K. DuVivier* I. Introduction ........................................................................... 389 II. The Solar Skyspace Problem ............................................... 391 A. Technology Considerations ..................................... 391 B. Solar Skyspace B ...................................................... 394 III. The Rise and Fall of Solar Access Right Legislation ........ 395 A. Strongest State Solar Access Protections ............... 399 B. State Solar Easement Statutes ............................... 403 C. State Statutes Authorizing Local Regulation of Solar Access.............................................................. 406 D. Local Solar Ordinances .............................................. 408 E. Other Solar Legislation that Has Been Eroded ........ 412 IV. A Case for Stronger Legislative Protections for Solar Skyspace B ...................................................................... 414 A. Common Law Rationales ......................................... 415 1. Ad Coelum Doctrine ..........................................
    [Show full text]