Who’s Really Behind The Super Secret Solar Tariffs Petition?
The US solar industry is in an uproar over a group of petitions before the Department of Commerce, which seek to impose heavy new tariffs on imported solar panels and solar cells. The writers of the petitions have chosen to remain anonymous and now the guessing game is on. So, who is behind those solar tariff petitions?
What’s The Big Deal About Solar Panel Tariffs?
If you’re new to the topic of solar panel tariffs, all you need to know is one thing: the number of actual soup-to-nuts solar manufacturers in the US is vanishingly small. Almost all of the domestic manufacturing in the US is done with imported panels and cells, among other parts. That means tariffs can make or break key players and put a damper on the entire domestic industry.
It’s not quite that simple, because other elements can come into play. The Trump administration put a crimp in the industry when it imposed new solar tariffs in January 2018, but technology improvements, new solar financing instruments, and the use of solar panels not covered by the tariffs helped keep the industry up and running.
Supply chain security is another complicating factor. As with the Obama administration, the Biden administration is trying to ramp up domestic supplies of key parts and materials. That’s going to take time. As things stand now, the US is going to have to continue relying on imports to accelerate solar installation in accord with the President’s ambitious climate action plan.
So, Who’s Really Behind The New Solar Panel Tariffs?
Into this picture steps a group of anonymous companies petitioning the Department of Commerce to impose new tariffs of 50% to 250% on imports of crystalline silicon photovoltaic panels and cells from Malaysia, Vietnam, and Thailand, according to an angry letter fired off by the Solar Industries Association of America earlier this week. The letter was signed by 190 or so US solar stakeholders.
In the letter, SEIA demanded to know who was behind the petitions. If you know how to look up petitions at the Department of Commerce, have at it. We searched under “crystalline silicon photovoltaic” and came up with four recent and not-so-anonymous requests for relief.
The first occurred in 2017 during the Trump administration and was filed on behalf of Suniva. The next one popped up in 2019, on behalf of “United States Trade Representative.”
Then it was radio silence until last month, when two petitions popped up. One was filed on behalf of Suniva and Auxin Solar, and the other was filed on behalf of Hanwha Q Cells USA, LG Electronics USA, and Mission Solar Energy.
If you’re having an a-ha moment, you might have to guess again. Auxin, Suniva, Hanwha, and LG were not among the 190 solar companies that signed on to the SEIA letter, but Mission Solar does appear on the list.
So, either Mission is playing both sides against the middle, or it has one hand that doesn’t know what the other is doing, or there are two different companies called Mission Solar. Or something else is going on.
Either way, neither of the August petitions are the ones upon which SEIA is aiming its wrath. According to news reports last month, several petitions were that were filed in August have yet to be published by the Commerce Department.
Who Really Supports Solar Panel Tariffs?
One might look for a hint among the solar companies that publicly supported the Trump administration on solar panel tariffs. One was Suniva, which later filed for bankruptcy. In 2019 our friends over at Quartz reported that Suniva later-later successfully reorganized through the New York firm Lion Point Capital.
Quartz also noted that the German company SolarWorld Industries’ wholly owned subsidiary SolarWorld Americas supported the Trump tariffs before it, too, filed for bankruptcy. Its assets were purchased by SunPower in 2018.
SolarWorld Americas did surface again in 2020, when the D.C. law firm Wiley represented it in a tariff case against the Chinese company Sunpreme in California (more on that in a sec).
What Is The American Solar Manufacturers Against Chinese Circumvention?
As for the identities of the anonymous petitions, the answer still lies somewhere deep within the halls of Wiley, which is also representing those filers. In a press release dated August 16, Wiley cites the organization American Solar Manufacturers Against Chinese Circumvention as the entity behind the anonymous petitions.
By circumvention, they allege that Chinese companies have off-shored much of their solar business to Malaysia, Thailand and Vietnam, while continuing to hold a firm grip on subsidized manufacturing and R&D at home. The Wiley press release names many names including affiliates of Jinko Solar in Malaysia, Canadian Solar Manufacturing in Thailand, and Trina Solar in Vietnam.
Wiley’s August press release was widely reported, but nobody seems to have found a website or any other background information about an organization named the American Solar Manufacturers Against Chinese Circumvention, other than there are reportedly several solar companies in the group.
That thing about anonymity brings up another case of interest involving Wiley and privacy. Last March, the firm issued a press release that describes two amicus briefs it filed in support of organizations challenging a California law that requires all charities operating within the state to disclose their major donors to the California Attorney General.
One was filed in support of the Thomas More Law Center and the Americans for Prosperity Foundation. The other was filed jointly with the American Legislative Exchange Council.
If ALEC rings a bell, it should. Among other issues, the organization has been linked to obstruction on climate action, leading climate activists and other stakeholders to try and shed light on its donors.
Wily’s amicus brief with ALEC goes beyond First Amendment issues to describe why anonymity is so important to charitable organizations like ALEC.
“…ALEC’s brief highlights an organized campaign to defame, harass, and boycott ALEC members as well as members of other organizations over several decades using compulsory disclosure as a tool,” Wiley explains in its press release.
“The brief details how public officials allied with private activists tried to obtain rosters of ALEC’s ‘members and private contributors’ for the purpose of using that information ‘to ruin ALEC and eliminate its ideas from the public square,’” Wiley adds.
Do tell! Let’s go back to those anonymous circumvention petitions that Wiley filed in August. PV Magazine’s reporting included an interview with Wiley partner Timothy Brightbill, who explained the reasoning behind the anonymity:
“[Brightbill] declined to name members of the antidumping organization, saying that ‘Given the Chinese control of the entire solar supply chain, retaliation is likely if their identities are revealed.’ In such situations, the companies who make up the coalition ‘are allowed under U.S. law to remain confidential,’ he said.”
That seems to settle that. Wiley and Brightbill also represented SolarWorld Americas in that 2020 legal action, so it seems that anonymity cuts a fine cloth in matters such as these.
The Commerce Department has until September 30 to answer the anonymous petitions, so stay tuned for more on that.
Follow me on Twitter @TinaMCasey.
Photo: Solar panels via US Department of Energy.
Appreciate CleanTechnica’s originality? Consider becoming a CleanTechnica Member, Supporter, Technician, or Ambassador — or a patron on Patreon.
Subaru is the latest Japanese automaker to announce it will “re-evaluate” its EV plans. The company is rethinking its strategy with slowing sales and a potential multi-billion-dollar hit from Trump’s auto tariffs. The tariffs might not even be Subaru’s biggest threat.
Subaru and other Japanese automakers adjust EV plans
Within the past week, Japanese automakers, including Nissan, Honda, Toyota, and now Subaru, have announced major adjustments to their EV plans.
After releasing fiscal year financial results on Wednesday, Subaru’s CEO, Atsushi Osaki, said, “We are re-evaluating our plans, including the timing of investments.” Osaki added that the move is due to “today’s rapidly changing environment” and other external factors.
Like most of the industry, Subaru is bracing for a shift under the Trump administration, which could cost it billions. With around half of its vehicles sold, the US is key for the Japanese automaker.
Subaru said Trump’s new auto tariffs could cost the company up to $2.5 billion this year. The automaker is looking at ways to boost US production, but it won’t be easy.
Tomoaki Emori, Subaru’s senior managing executive director, said (via Automotive News), “Under the current circumstances, there is probably no way not to expand in the US. We must think about how to go about that.”
Emori added that the company still has the production capacity, “so we would like to mitigate the impact of tariffs while making use of it.”
Subaru joins a growing list of automakers in pulling its earnings forecast, citing “developments in US tariff policy” make it hard to forecast.
The company’s global sales fell 4.1% to 936,000 units over the past year. In North America, deliveries also fell 4.1% to 732,000 vehicles. Subaru anticipates global sales will continue dropping to around 900,000 this year, or another 4% drop. A part of the forecast is due to downtime at its Yajima plant as Subaru prepares to produce EV batteries.
Osaki said Subaru is “making various preparations for a BEV-dedicated plant,” but added it may add a mix of gas-powered vehicles.
Subaru unveiled its second EV for the US at last month’s NY Auto Show, the 2026 Trailseeker. The Outback-sized electric SUV will go on sale in 2026, joining the smaller Solterra in Subaru’s EV lineup in the US.
Since “It is becoming more difficult to decide how to incorporate electrification into our production mix,” Emori said, Subaru is “thinking about how to incorporate hybrids and plug-in hybrids.”
Electrek’s Take
Subaru and other Japanese automakers are quickly falling behind Chinese EV leaders like BYD in some of their most important sales regions, like Southeast Asia.
Delaying new EV models and other projects will only set them further behind in the long run. Nissan is in crisis mode after scrapping plans to build a new battery plant in Japan. The facility was expected to produce lower-cost LFP batteries, which could have helped Nissan compete on costs with BYD and others.
Last week, Toyota’s President, Koji Sato, said the company will be “reviewing” its goal of selling 1.5 million electric vehicles by 2026. And just yesterday, Honda announced plans to pause around $15 billion in planned EV investments in Canada.
BYD and other EV leaders are expanding overseas to drive growth after squeezing foreign brands, especially Japanese automakers, out of China.
Next year, BYD is launching its first kei car, or mini EV, that’s expected to be a big threat to Japanese automakers. A Suzuki dealer (via Nikkei) warned, “Young people do not have a negative view of BYD. It would be a huge threat if the company launches cheap models in Japan.”
FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.
Porsche Cars North America has integrated over 97,000 more charging stations into its app, streamlining its Porsche Charging Service.
That brings the total number of EV charging stations available to Porsche Charging Service customers in the US to 102,000, with more scheduled to be added in 2025. That means Porsche drivers can now use the My Porsche app as a one-stop shop to easily find, use, and pay at most J1772 and CCS charging stations.
“This is a significant milestone for Porsche and the electric vehicle journey,” said Timo Resch, president and CEO of Porsche Cars North America. “We know flexibility and choice are important.”
Customers in the Porsche Charging Service inclusive period – that’s the year after you buy your EV – or who sign up for Porsche Charging Service Premium can now access the ChargePoint, EV Connect, EVgo, Flo, EvGateway, and Ionna networks, in addition to chargers in the Electrify America network.
Customers in the Porsche Charging Service Base plan will receive access later this summer.
Read more: ChargePoint unveils ‘revolutionary’ V2X EV charger tech that can double Level 2 speeds
If you live in an area that has frequent natural disaster events, and are interested in making your home more resilient to power outages, consider going solar and adding a battery storage system. To make sure you find a trusted, reliable solar installer near you that offers competitive pricing, check out EnergySage, a free service that makes it easy for you to go solar. They have hundreds of pre-vetted solar installers competing for your business, ensuring you get high quality solutions and save 20-30% compared to going it alone. Plus, it’s free to use and you won’t get sales calls until you select an installer and share your phone number with them.
Your personalized solar quotes are easy to compare online and you’ll get access to unbiased Energy Advisers to help you every step of the way. Get started here. –trusted affiliate link*
FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.
Tesla’s (TSLA) board is reportedly exploring a new CEO pay deal for Elon Musk, who might not get back his $55 billion 2018 compensation package.
According to a new Financial Times report, Tesla’s board created a new “special committee” to explore a new CEO pay package for Musk.
The report points to the committee looking at new stock options and “alternative ways” to compensate Musk if Tesla fails to reinstate his 2018 compensation package, which was rescinded by a judge who found that Musk negotiated the deal with a board under his control and then misrepresented it to shareholders.
Musk is Tesla’s largest shareholder and therefore, he stands to benefit the most when the company does well. However, he doesn’t take a salary for his role as CEO.
Historically, He has received stock compensation packages, with the one secured in 2018 being the controversial one currently under contention.
Since then, no new CEO compensation package has been approved, and Tesla has not suggested another one as it tried to appeal the judge’s decision on the 2018 package.
The company is currently attacking the decision on two fronts with an appeal to the Delaware Supreme Court and a new legislation in Delaware to try to circumvent the decision altogether.
FT reporting that the board is working on a new compensation package with backpay could point to Tesla anticipating not being able to reinstate the original compensation package.
Robyn Denholm and Kathleen Wilson-Thompson are the board members reportedly on the new committee.
Denholm took over from Musk as Tesla’s chair, and she has recently made headlines for selling her Tesla stock options for more than $530 million over the last few years.
Electrek’s Take
It increasingly looks like Tesla won’t be able to distance itself from Musk and separate its fate from his.
Musk has masterfully convinced Tesla shareholders that the destruction of its core business, selling electric vehicles, doesn’t matter because the company is on the verge of solving self-driving – something he has claimed every year for the last 6 years and has been wrong every time.
Now that they don’t care about EVs, there’s no point in blaming Musk for killing demand and delivering a single new vehicle in 5 years, the Cybertruck, a commercial flop.
Therefore, the only thing that will make Tesla shareholders stop wanting Musk as CEO is if they stop believing his self-driving and humanoid robot claims.
FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.
-
Sports3 years ago‘Storybook stuff’: Inside the night Bryce Harper sent the Phillies to the World Series
-
Sports1 year agoStory injured on diving stop, exits Red Sox game
-
Sports2 years agoGame 1 of WS least-watched in recorded history
-
Sports2 years agoMLB Rank 2023: Ranking baseball’s top 100 players
-
Sports4 years ago
Team Europe easily wins 4th straight Laver Cup
-
Environment2 years agoJapan and South Korea have a lot at stake in a free and open South China Sea
-
Environment2 years agoGame-changing Lectric XPedition launched as affordable electric cargo bike
-
Business3 years agoBank of England’s extraordinary response to government policy is almost unthinkable | Ed Conway