Only a day before the decision, four governors from leading solar states expressed their opposition to the Section 201 trade case. But will political pressure be enough?
In a letter to the U.S. International Trade Commission, the national solar association argues the two petitioners have no plan to be functional module manufacturers even if they’re provided “global safeguard relief.”
The group that filed the last successful Section 201 trade complaint in 2001 has thrown its support behind the current SolarWorld/Suniva petition pending before the U.S. International Trade Commission (USITC).
The crash in PV module prices and resulting struggles of the U.S. solar cell and module manufacturing industry were displayed as Section 201 petitioners and their supporters made their case before the U.S. International Trade Commission today.
Trade case petitioners Suniva and SolarWorld brought the collapse of their businesses on themselves, the association said. The companies respond with equal fervor, saying SEIA’s claims are wrong on the law and contradicts its earlier statements.
One week before the U.S. International Trade Commission hears testimony on the Section 201 trade case, the petitioners released a study that insists a decision in their favor could create 45,000 U.S. solar manufacturing jobs.
U.S. solar panel manufacturers Suniva and German owned Solar World have their hands out asking for a bailout because they can’t compete in the world market producing solar panels by selling them at the lowest costs. When China’s government began to invest in solar panel manufacturing and solar panel installation, they soon became the world leader […]
An extensive and diverse group of activists have banded together to form the Energy Trade Action Coalition and vow to lobby Congress, President Trump and the U.S. International Trade Commission to derail the petition.
ANALYSIS: Discussions with at least one growing solar developer reveal panel shortages, asterisks and other potential clouds on solar’s horizon because of the Section 201 trade case.
The company says the central assumption of the report – a $1.18 per watt floor price – is wrong and that the headlines resulting from the report could harm its trade case.
The cookie settings on this website are set to "allow cookies" to give you the best browsing experience possible. If you continue to use this website without changing your cookie settings or you click "Accept" below then you are consenting to this.