A prominent renewable energy developer has voiced strong opposition to a move by certain US solar manufacturers advocating for new tariffs on imported photovoltaic cells from Southeast Asia. Michael Polsky, CEO of Invenergy LLC, criticized the petitions aimed at imposing duties on crystalline silicon cells, asserting that they primarily serve the interests of specific companies rather than fostering domestic manufacturing or advancing clean energy objectives.
In an interview with Bloomberg, Polsky remarked, “Clearly, the point of this petition by these petitioners has nothing to do with US manufacturing. It has to do with protecting their profits and creating conditions where they can sell their solar products at the highest price.”
The petitions, led by companies such as First Solar Inc. and Hanwha Qcells USA Inc., allege unfair subsidies and below-cost pricing of solar equipment from Asian suppliers. They argue that such measures are necessary to support US solar manufacturing and address concerns over supply chain dependencies, particularly in the context of President Joe Biden’s green energy initiatives.
However, Polsky’s remarks underscore a broader contention that the proposed tariffs would disproportionately benefit specific firms while potentially hindering competition and raising costs for other panel makers. Invenergy, which operates as both a renewable power developer and a panel manufacturer, stands to be affected by these tariffs, given its reliance on imported cells for production.
In response to the criticism, Jason Dymbort, executive vice president and general counsel of First Solar, emphasized the petition’s focus on ensuring fair competition and supporting domestic manufacturing. He stated, “This petition is exclusively about enforcing the rule of law, enabling a level playing field for domestic solar manufacturing of all PV technologies so that they can compete on the basis of their own merits.”
Similarly, Marta Stoepker, senior director of corporate communications at Qcells, defended the tariff push as a means to stimulate US production across the solar supply chain. She noted, “If we want the many benefits that come from having a strong domestic solar manufacturing industry, including jobs, energy security and a more stable climate, we need more domestic manufacturers to make investments up and down the solar supply chain.”
The dispute centers on crystalline silicon photovoltaic cells, a crucial component of solar panels, and highlights broader tensions surrounding trade practices and industry competitiveness. While proponents argue for protective measures to bolster domestic manufacturing, critics warn of potential repercussions on costs and market dynamics.
