US Solar Manufacturers Seek New Tariffs on Imports From India, Southeast Asia
A group of American solar panel manufacturers has asked the U.S. Commerce Department to impose tariffs on solar imports from Indonesia, Laos, and India, a month after Washington imposed hefty tariffs on solar products from four Southeast Asian nations.
According to Reuters, the complaint was filed by the American Alliance for Solar Manufacturing Trade Committee, a group representing several major solar equipment producers, including South Korea's Hanwha Qcells USA Inc. and the U.S. firm First Solar Inc.
The complaint requests investigations into 'illegal trade practices by largely Chinese-owned manufacturers operating in Laos and Indonesia, as well as companies headquartered in India,' according to a statement from the Alliance. It accuses companies based in three nations of receiving unfair government subsidies and of selling their products below the cost of production in the United States, which threatens to undercut U.S. producers.
'We have always said, vigorous enforcement of our trade laws is critical to the success of this industry,' Tim Brightbill, the lead attorney for the Alliance, said in the statement.
As PV magazine noted, the new cases 'extend a marathon struggle begun in 2011 that has focused on imports from Chinese companies. As they have relocated factory assets ahead of tariffs resulting from the cases, the domestic industry has refocused on litigation against imports from new country targets.'
In May, the U.S. International Trade Commission (USITC) ruled in the Alliance's favor in two similar complaints regarding solar imports from Cambodia, Malaysia, Thailand, and Vietnam. In its ruling, the Commission determined that the U.S. solar industry had been 'materially injured by reason of imports of crystalline silicon photovoltaic cells, whether or not assembled into modules,' from the four nations.
The Commerce Department subsequently imposed a series of varied tariffs on solar products from the four countries, which reached as high as 3,500 percent in the case of some solar panels and components from Cambodia. The tariffs came into effect on June 16.
However, as with previous rulings, this action merely prompted agile solar manufacturers to relocate their operations to nations not yet subject to U.S. tariffs. Trade data showed a sharp decline in U.S. solar imports from Cambodia, Vietnam, Malaysia, and Thailand after the initiation of the complaint in April 2024. Meanwhile, even before the latest batch of complaints had been concluded, 'the same Chinese-backed companies wasted no time shifting operations to Laos and Indonesia, and companies in India joined in to continue undercutting American producers,' Brightbill said in the statement. 'We have always said vigorous enforcement of our trade laws is critical to the success of this industry.'
The Alliance cited figures showing that solar imports from the three nations combined were $1.6 billion last year, up from just $289 million in 2022.
However, the Alliance's campaign against cheap imports has not been universally supported. Opponents, including the Solar Energy Industries Association, which testified to the USITC against the petitioners in its last case involving imports from Cambodia, Vietnam, Thailand, and Malaysia, said that the May decision was 'concerning for American solar manufacturers' and would harm 'solar module producers that depend on access to imported solar cells.'
This is especially the case given the broader policy orientation of the Trump administration, which, in an executive order signed by President Donald Trump on July 7, announced that it was tightening up on access to federal solar and wind credits.
'For too long, the Federal Government has forced American taxpayers to subsidize expensive and unreliable energy sources like wind and solar,' the order stated. 'Ending the massive cost of taxpayer handouts to unreliable energy sources is vital to energy dominance, national security, economic growth, and the fiscal health of the Nation.'
Today, Politico reported that 'solar and wind energy projects must now get Interior Secretary Doug Burgum's personal sign-off to receive permits across the hundreds of millions of federal acres under his department's control,' citing an internal memo from the Department of the Interior. It said that the memo 'puts wind and solar projects under heightened scrutiny, potentially slowing approvals and construction across vast swaths of some of the most sun- and wind-rich portions of the country.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Nikkei Asia
2 hours ago
- Nikkei Asia
China's Instagram used to steer Taiwan public opinion: Taipei official
Xiaohongshu, known as China's Instagram, has more than 300 million active users and is popular among young people in Taiwan. © Reuters MINA ASHIKAWA TAIPEI -- Chinese social media app Xiaohongshu is a tool used by the Communist Party to steer ideological leanings in Taiwan toward China, a Taiwanese official said, warning that it could affect the thinking of young people on the island. "The Chinese Communist Party believes that if more young people in Taiwan use Xiaohongshu, it will lower the hurdles to controlling Taiwan," said Shen Yu-chung, deputy minister of Taiwan's Mainland Affairs Council, which oversees the island's China policy. Shen spoke to Nikkei and other media.
Nikkei Asia
2 hours ago
- Nikkei Asia
India's Tata Motors to buy core truck business of Italy's Iveco
MILAN/ROME (Reuters) -- India's Tata Motors will buy Iveco in a deal valued at 3.8 billion euros ($4.36 billion), the companies said on Wednesday, after the Italian truckmaker separately agreed to sell its defense business to Leonardo. Tata will launch an all-cash tender offer on Iveco's shares, subject to the defense business sale, at 14.1 euros per share. Exor, the investment company of Italy's Agnelli family, has agreed to hand its 27% controlling stake in Iveco to Tata. "The offer would bring together two businesses with highly complementary product portfolios and capabilities and with substantially no overlap in their industrial and geographic footprints," Tata and Iveco said. The combined group would have a significant global presence, with sales of over 540,000 units per year and revenues of around 22 billion euros. The Indian manufacturer controls Jaguar Land Rover in the passenger car sector, but has virtually no presence, nor manufacturing footprint, in the European commercial vehicle industry. Separately Italian state-backed group Leonardo has agreed to buy Iveco's IDV defense unit, giving the business an enterprise value of 1.7 billion euros, the two companies said on Wednesday. The sale of the defense business cleared the way for Tata's takeover bid for the rest of Iveco. The defense transaction is expected to be completed in the first quarter of 2026, subject to regulatory approvals, Iveco and Leonardo said in separate statements. The transaction will be financed through available cash resources, Leonardo said. It told analysts that Germany's Rheinmetall would acquire the defense trucks part of the Iveco operation in the coming months. The deal is in line with Leonardo's broader strategy of consolidation in the defense sector and will allow the defense group to address the increasing demand in Europe for land vehicles. Iveco said that, once the IDV deal is completed, it planned to distribute its net proceeds to shareholders via an extraordinary dividend.
The Diplomat
6 hours ago
- The Diplomat
Mahathir Mohamad, the Father of Modern Malaysia, at 100
Mahathir reshaped Malaysia's politics and modernized its economy. He is also the source of many of the contradictions that continue to define the country today. Dr. Mahathir Mohamad, who turned 100 on July 10, stands as a political titan who casts a long shadow over Malaysia's modern history. A physician from a modest background, he joined politics in the 1960s, and thereby embarked on an extraordinary trajectory. Mahathir was the founding father of modern Malaysia, its most enduring political figure, and, arguably, the architect of many of the contradictions that continue to define – and divide – the country. From his first stint as prime minister from 1981 until 2003, and again in a stunning political comeback from 2018 to 2020, Mahathir reshaped Malaysia's economy, identity, and politics. His legacy is both vertiginous and deeply contested. Central to Mahathir's worldview is the 'Malay Dilemma,' an idea that he articulated in his 1970 book of the same name. Drawing from colonial narratives – notably those later critiqued by sociologist Syed Hussein Alatas in his study 'The Myth of The Lazy Native' – Mahathir internalized and reinterpreted British stereotypes of the 'lazy' or 'nonchalant' Malay. Rather than rejecting these views outright, he reframed them as an urgent national problem: the Malays, the 'sons of the soil,' were being left behind by the economically dominant Chinese minority, highlighting that the traditions of 'forced marriage of the unfit' and 'inbreeding' which, according to Mahathir, had produced 'a much greater percentage of human failures among the Malay as compared with other races.' This book aimed to explain the ethnic tensions between Malays and Chinese during the politically orchestrated ethnic riots of May 1969. In a preface to a new edition of 'The Malay Dilemma' published in 2008, Mahathir revised his view over the extent to which hereditary factors had contributed to the socio-economic status of the Malay, but the idea continues to haunt the Malaysian national psyche to the present. Mahathir's diagnosis of Malay social pathologies laid the groundwork for Malaysia's affirmative action policies, most notably the New Economic Policy (NEP), which privileged Malays in areas ranging from education to business and the civil service. Under Mahathir, these policies were not only expanded but entrenched in the country's corporate, social, and political cultures. During this time, Mahathir's management of the economy was widely praised. He prioritized fiscal discipline, maintained a relatively open market, focused on infrastructure development, and actively encouraged foreign direct investment. These efforts contributed to a consistent annual growth rate of around 6-7 percent during most of his tenure. His rule also cultivated a new confident Malay urban elite, who benefited greatly from his state-sponsored contracts and quotas. But in doing so, he also locked the Malay community into a framework of entitlement and dependency. What began as protectionism morphed into institutionalized favoritism, with political patronage and crony capitalism feeding a system that ultimately undermined the very self-reliance Mahathir hoped to instill. While intended to uplift the Malay majority, these policies deepened Malaysia's racial fractures. By encoding ethnic identity into economic opportunity, Mahathir's policies helped formalize a structural racial divide that persists today. Each election cycle has seen politicians – especially those from the dominant Malay parties – doubling down on the rhetoric of racial entitlement and fear. Instead of fostering national cohesion, the policies seeded mistrust and resentment between communities. Ironically, in his later years, Mahathir seemed to recognize the limitations and unintended consequences of this strategy. In his last term, he tried to reform the system, acknowledging that the quota-based policies no longer gave Malays a real advantage. But rather than blaming the outdated structures he helped build, Mahathir often turned his criticism inward, accusing the Malay community of complacency and failure to seize the opportunities offered to them. Paradoxically, the father of Malay empowerment chastised his own people for not thriving within the very system he contributed to designing. During his brief second term as prime minister, Mahathir took bold steps to tackle corruption, a move many saw as a long-overdue attempt to redeem his legacy. He appointed Latheefa Koya, a respected human rights lawyer and fierce critic of institutional corruption, to head Malaysia's anti-graft agency. Yet, skeptics questioned the sincerity of these reforms. The infamous 1MDB scandal, which exploded under Prime Minister Najib Razak's 2009-2018 tenure, is a symptom of the system that was created during Mahathir's earlier tenure: the building of the new United Malays National Organization (UMNO) and a Malay elite. His critics accused him of using anti-corruption efforts selectively, targeting rivals rather than genuinely dismantling the structures that enabled graft. In 2018, Mahathir's return to power against all odds was historical. At 93, he led the opposition coalition to an unexpected victory, toppling UMNO, the party he once led, for the first time since the country's independence. It was a masterclass in political reinvention: from autocratic strongman to democratic savior. Mahathir managed the impossible feat of rewriting his legacy in real time. But his second act ended in chaos. Misreading the fragile alliances that brought him back to power, Mahathir resigned in 2020, believing, as he often had before, that the nation would call him back to stabilize the government. Instead, his former deputy, Muhyiddin Yassin, seized the moment and formed a new coalition without him. This miscalculation echoed an earlier one. In the late 1990s, Mahathir dismissed Anwar Ibrahim, then his heir apparent, triggering a political crisis that would shape Malaysia for two decades. Mahathir underestimated his allies both times and paid the price. In his last attempt to run for an election, Mahathir's newly formed party, the Parti Pejuang Tanah Air (Homeland Fighter's Party) or Pejuang, had disastrous results; all candidates, including Mahathir, performed so poorly that they lost their election deposits. Mahathir now refers to himself, often sarcastically, as a 'dictator' who resigned twice. His long career has made him both a living relic and a reference point for a generation of strongmen. His friendships with controversial figures like Fidel Castro and Robert Mugabe, and admiration for figures such as Nelson Mandela, whose first political campaign he quietly funded, paint a portrait of a leader who was adept at operating on both the world stage and in the maze of domestic politics. Today, as global politics witnesses a resurgence of autocrats claiming democratic legitimacy, Mahathir offers a cautionary tale. His criticisms of leaders like Donald Trump are laced with irony, given his own long flirtation with authoritarianism. And yet, unlike many of his peers, Mahathir walked away, not once, but twice, from power. Whether that was courage, hubris, or simply miscalculation is a question my academic colleagues will debate. But there's no denying his impact. Mahathir built Malaysia's modern foundation, and created its political fault lines. Understanding his career is not just about understanding one man's journey, but the story of an entire nation navigating the promises and perils of leadership, identity, and ambition.
