
Billions in U.S. solar projects shelved after Trump panel tariff - rgbrenner
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-trump-effect-solar-insight/billions-in-u-s-solar-projects-shelved-after-trump-panel-tariff-idUSKCN1J30CT
======
epistasis
It's interesting to contrast this with further details released recently from
Xcel Energy's competitive bidding in Colorado, which had some unbelievably low
prices for wind, solar, and solar combined with storage:

[https://pv-magazine-usa.com/2018/06/07/worlds-largest-lithiu...](https://pv-
magazine-usa.com/2018/06/07/worlds-largest-lithium-ion-battery-1-gwh-
solarpower-xcel-energy-colorado-wind-power/)

They're planning a GWh of grid storage attached to 700MW of solar, at a cost
of 3.0-3.2 cents/kWh, which completely beats the cost of coal. And that's
without taking in to account coal's massive costs that it doesn't pay, in
terms of our health (COPD, mercury consumption in fish, etc...).

We have some absolutely awful leadership in this area that is trying to
kneecap the future of our country. Colorado's process makes me hopeful that by
2022, this will mostly be in our past. But losing several years of a
technology shift is nothing good for the US.

~~~
sandworm101
I'm all for solar. I use it myself. But I cannot wrap my head around these
prices. They seem far too low. If this reality or is this companies trying to
win bids, trying to get their feet into doors?

Solar takes space. It takes far more land than coal-fired plants. But land
prices are going up and everyone expects interest rates to go up too. So how
can they afford to acquire and maintain the needed land at these prices?

~~~
mdorazio
Sorry you were downvoted for asking a legitimate question. Other commenters
have spoken to the land piece, but not to the actual solar/storage cost side.
Most of these insanely low bids are produced based on extrapolating the cost
decline of solar and storage to the future point where the plants will
actually come into operation. If they had to buy everything right now, they
might not be able to achieve those costs per kWh, but plants take time to
build, so there is an assumption of further declines in acquisition and
operating costs over the next several years baked in (in this case, the target
date is 2023).

~~~
sandworm101
If these are speculative then I would call them artificially numbers,
artificial because they are based on predicted markets rather than real market
dynamics.

I wonder though if it is safe to predict a continuous drop in panel prices. A
few years ago Germany saw prices rise due to increased demand, demand fuels
ironically by subsidies. And there is a good chance that the US administration
might deliberately cripple the solar market, either by increasing costs or
reducing demand (ie the proposed mandate to buy coal/nuclear energy first).
Give that unpredictability, these low bids are more business strategy than a
reflection of actual costs structures.

~~~
epistasis
These aren't "predicted markets" this is the actual market itself. These are
the real bids and contracts. It doesn't get more real than that.

If you think that these providers are going to default, well, then that's a
bet you can make. But these are the people with skin in the game that are
betting real, actual money and the future of their companies.

------
lewis500
The number of jobs involved in this scam is trivial either way. The point of
solar power manufacturing is not to make up jobs for people to do; it is to
convert our energy to a source that doesn't kill people. If our planet is
really at a slight risk of danger, and if solar panels somewhat ameliorate
that, then it is stupid to prize a few thousand jobs. Last month the economy
created a net 233k jobs---in one month. The economy is $19 trillion and we are
waging a PR war over $1B vs $2.5B.

Federal reserve and fiscal policy are 1e9 times as important to job creation
as this tariff. Would it be bad for the economy if someone invented a machine
to make solar panels cheaply without any labor at all? No. That would be good
because we could have lots of solar panels and save the planet.

Important to remember these tariffs were not conceived of as a job creation
scheme. They were created to produce a windfall for investors who bought the
bonds of bankrupt US solar companies.
[https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-01-23/jpmorgan-...](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-01-23/jpmorgan-
centerbridge-get-distressed-debt-help-from-new-tariffs)

I think that, for the White House, the tariffs have an added benefit of
quashing an industry that more and more competes with coal. For reasons of
graft, an obnoxious "heartland" brand and some weird fetishization, this
administration is deeply obsessed with coal---one of the worst industries in
the country to work for, which kills countless people via pollution.

~~~
blunte
I think lost jobs are used as a big talking point because it resonates with
the average person.

One of the primary arguments given by certain political figures as to why we
need tariffs is that it will protect American jobs. So by showing that it
costs more jobs than it protects, that can help the average person realize
that tariffs do not protect jobs, at least not in all cases.

~~~
test6554
One day jobs will be a dirty word. If something creates jobs, then we don't
want it. Something that creates work out of nowhere is a bit like nagging.
Nobody wants that!

~~~
TaylorAlexander
Here here! Let’s make it happen.

[http://tlalexander.com/machine/](http://tlalexander.com/machine/)

------
jeremyt
There are two ways to look at this story.

You can take it at face value and you can wring your hands over what this
story apparently is trying to convey.

Or you can understand the way companies and politics and the media manipulates
perception to get outcomes they want.

On the second point, let's read between the lines.

So 2.5 billion is "canceled or frozen". Okay, what percentage is canceled and
what percentage is frozen? How many of these projects were actually going to
happen anyway?

I have been a part of numerous attempts to manipulate public opinion by
claiming that projects were canceled that never were going to happen anyway or
making a big show of "freezing" things, when everybody knows the project is
going to go through eventually.

In many cases "freezing" is indistinguishable from "we can't do anything right
now and we are just waiting to get everything rolling".

I mean, I used to be involved with a company that made up a whole PR campaign
about switching to another company for a key contract just as a negotiating
tactic, when internally we knew that we weren't going anywhere. This campaign
came complete with actual (truthy) quotes from real engineers at the company
saying we were considering switching vendors. Of course it wasn't a lie,
because we did have a five minute conversation internally about how we were
thinking about switching companies, but the intention was never serious.

I am aware of a venture just several weeks ago that fed the media completely
manufactured narratives, and these narratives were dutifully swallowed
uncritically and subsequently disseminated as fact. In this case, the company
needed justification for doing something, so it called up a "friend" and had
the friend issue a press release that a certain thing was getting "canceled".
We all know internally that it's bullshit and eventually this thing will
happen.

So maybe everything here is really true, and may be $2.5 billion of contracts
aren't going to happen. Or maybe this is the solar industry playing politics
and attempting to create a narrative and pressure the administration to lift
the tariffs.

So, I would ask people to re-examine their confirmation bias and/or stop being
so credulous.

~~~
maym86
Please offer some facts or evidence to clarify it then? All you are offering
is an opinion.

~~~
zzzzzzzza
An opinion is "a view or judgement about something not necessarily based on
facts or knowledge". What he offered is mostly not an opinion in that it's
mostly him relating his personal experiences on this topic; which probably, if
we are to give him the benefit the doubt, are factual events that actually
happened.

~~~
root_axis
I disagree. To me, it appears as mostly opinion with personal anecdotes
presented as evidence.

The opinion esentially boils down to "Don't trust this story or the media in
general, only credulous individuals would believe what this story is saying,
if you read between the lines you will come to the same conclusion that I did,
after all, my personal experiences back up my opinion that this story is
bullshit"

~~~
TexasEcon23
You are creating a ridiculous straw man. He didn't claim the media is a bunch
of liars. The media can't dig into the details and verify every detail of
every press release. If a company claims contracts are frozen or canceled
there is no way for the media to check whether the projects would happen at
all.

The "personal anecdotes" are a series of observations about contracts that are
publicly reported combined with an understanding of how companies are
incentivized to report contracts. If you don't believe him or find him very
credible you don't need to take his word for it, he's just some random guy on
the internet whose credibility can't be independently established.

On the other hand, you can undercut his argument by providing evidence that
companies always report contracts in an evenhanded way. Of course, they don't
thats just PR 101.

~~~
root_axis
> _You are creating a ridiculous straw man... The media can 't dig into the
> details and verify every detail of every press release. If a company claims
> contracts are frozen or canceled there is no way for the media to check
> whether the projects would happen at all._

Where is the strawman? What you've stated here is literally my argument, that
is, it's not the media's fault that billion dollar titans of industry lie to
the media for profit, especially because the media lacks the necessary access
to verify the claims, so all they can do is report the claim as stated (which
is what they did)... or are you suggesting they just never report on industry
claims?

> _He didn 't claim the media is a bunch of liars._

He actually did make that claim farther down this thread, however, I never
accused him of suggesting that, all I said was that he is suggesting we "don't
trust this story or the media in general". I don't see how you can read
anything else other than that out of my comment, so I would appreciate it if
you would point out the part of my comment claiming he said that the media is
bunch of liars.

> _The "personal anecdotes" are a series of observations about contracts that
> are publicly reported combined with an understanding of how companies are
> incentivized to report contracts. _

His comments are literally unverifiable personal stories from his own
experiences, there is no way around it. He could have at least said "companies
have been known to do x" and then shown evidence of x (though his own argument
precludes his ability to use any media sources as evidence of x), then we
could examine the particular case he presented and determine if the facts of
that case align with the opinion he is presenting. As as of now we're just
taking his word for it.

> _If you don 't believe him or find him very credible you don't need to take
> his word for it, he's just some random guy on the internet whose credibility
> can't be independently established._

... OK? Once again, you're just repeating my own reasoning back to me, he's a
random person on the internet spitting out anecdotes to bolster his opinion,
not someone presenting evidence that can be independently examined without
trusting his stories.

> _On the other hand, you can undercut his argument by providing evidence that
> companies always report contracts in an evenhanded way_

First of all, it is impossible to demonstrate proof that "companies always x"
and it is disingenuous to ask for such evidence because we don't rely on
"always"-level confidence for proof of anything. Further, I am not trying to
"undercut his argument" at all, I am critiquing the flawed reasoning that his
personal anecdotes are a legitimate reason to disregard this particular story
and the media in general.

~~~
TexasEcon23
>> it's not the media's fault that billion dollar titans of industry lie to
the media for profit, especially because the media lacks the necessary access
to verify the claims, so all they can do is report the claim as stated (which
is what they did)

I fail to see the relevance of assigning blame here. If you grant what he
suggests then you can apportion blame in a variety of plausible ways.

>>... or are you suggesting they just never report on industry claims?

I'm not sure there is any reasonable solution here. Industry claims,
especially projections, can be quite dubious at times. It's difficult to
explain why when you are trying to appeal to a wide audience, however. The
media just isn't in a good position to verify or discredit claims like that.

>> Where is the strawman? What you've stated here is literally my argument,
that is, it's not the media's fault that billion dollar titans of industry lie
to the media for profit, especially because the media lacks the necessary
access to verify the claims, so all they can do is report the claim as stated
(which is what they did)... or are you suggesting they just never report on
industry claims?

You just said his argument was "don't trust this story or the media in
general." His claim was that in certain circumstances the surface implication
of the media's reporting of PR numbers is very misleading. That's it. It's
quite a simple statement that in no way implies what you have repeatedly
suggested he claims.

>> He actually did make that claim farther down this thread, however, I never
accused him of suggesting that, all I said was that he is suggesting we "don't
trust this story or the media in general".

I'll take your word for it; he must have deleted it or it is hidden although I
can't find it on the thread. I would be surprised if he did that because it is
quite a ridiculous statement that would expose him to ridicule and is
logically unnecessary for his argument.

------
metalliqaz
Just a day after this article:

[https://arstechnica.com/science/2018/06/researchers-
predict-...](https://arstechnica.com/science/2018/06/researchers-predict-
economic-downturn-if-fossil-fuel-investment-goes-unchecked/)

It's almost as if they want an economic catastrophe, as long as it happens
when the other guys are in office.

~~~
djabatt
There seems to be no real sound logic to the current admin's economic
decisions. I am not considering short term political moves as logical or
helpful

~~~
creaghpatr
Then put your money where your mouth is and short the market, because your
opinion about the direction of the economy is not supported by either facts or
public opinion. Perfect opportunity for you to get rich.

~~~
metalliqaz
I am not shorting the market, that doesn't make sense for my situation, but I
am betting against it. Rather than buy shares of stock-based funds, which I
consider to be overvalued, I stopped adding cash to my IRA and started sending
the money to the mortgage company instead. That way I get a guaranteed 3.75%
return.

3.75% may be small compared to the long-term returns of the market, but it's
awfully attractive compared to a net negative return on securities that lose
value over the next few years.

~~~
vinhboy
Me too... I sold all my stocks. In the process of deciding what to do with my
money to safeguard it against a Trump recession.

It hurts to watch the market continue to climb, but I am confident Trump's
short-sighted actions will cause pain.

Putting my money where my mouth is, as they say.

------
Zenst
Somewhat curious as the media was not as dramatic when the EU did solarimport
tariffs: [http://europa.eu/rapid/press-
release_IP-13-501_en.htm](http://europa.eu/rapid/press-
release_IP-13-501_en.htm)

But then, the EU also imposed import tariffs on steel.

The USA has solar panel production companies, so would be interesting why they
are not being utilised more, as that is what import tariffs are for - to
protect local industry from cheap imports.

~~~
topspin
The US imposed tariffs on Chinese and Taiwanese solar panels as well in 2014.

[https://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/17/business/energy-
environme...](https://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/17/business/energy-
environment/-us-imposes-steep-tariffs-on-chinese-solar-panels.html)

Prior to 1914 and for most of the history of the US the bulk of Federal
government revenue was tariffs.

------
thinkcontext
I'm surprised they didn't mention China's recent announcement to slash its
subsidies for deploying solar at home.

"Bloomberg New Energy Finance expects expects module prices to drop 34 percent
this year and a further 10 percent to 15 percent in 2019 after China cut
financial support to developers and halted approval for new projects in June."

The estimate of 34% would make up for the tariff.

[https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-06-07/china-
s-n...](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-06-07/china-s-new-solar-
policy-may-delay-india-s-plan-to-make-panels)

------
willvarfar
Its interesting that the USA is strategically trying to go back to being the
manufacturing country and China is strategically trying to become the
innovation country. Its like China and the USA want to swap places.

~~~
frockington
China is probably realizing that their free cut of others IP is about to run
out. If they cant steal out IP, and we can't exploit their labor, both
countries will have to get better. I'm thinking this will boost both countries
at the same time by growing the respective lagging economy (innovation or
manufacturing)

------
drak0n1c
>House Democratic Whip Steny Hoyer (Md.) said finalizing the tariffs was
another example of Obama's resolve.

>"Today's decision by the President to impose tough tariffs on Chinese solar
imports is just the latest step by the Obama Administration to get tough on
foreign companies who don't play by the rules," Hoyer said in a statement. "I
applaud his move, which will help American manufacturers compete here at home
and overseas."

2012: [http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/261363-us-
hits-...](http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/261363-us-hits-china-
with-solar-tariffs)

2014: [https://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/17/business/energy-
environme...](https://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/17/business/energy-
environment/-us-imposes-steep-tariffs-on-chinese-solar-panels.html)

There's a pattern here of pervasive industry lobbying going back to Solyndra,
for anyone claiming this is unusual.

------
howard941
Before Trump's tariffs were even a twinkle in his advisors' eyes we (where
"we" == some of we domestic OEMs developing new solar power products) were
facing a more difficult market due to federal tax credit phase outs. Would
have been OK but for the damned tariffs and erratic leadership scared the hell
out of the money people who decided the company was better off shelving its
solar interactive inverter product line - and we were in the sub 10 cent/kw
pricing - in favor of using corporate $$$$ for financial engineering
(acquisitions) and distributions to owners.

IMO the root cause of lots of these failures is the absence of consistent,
thoughtful policies, and leaders.

------
crb002
According to FRED there seems to be a glut of coal plants
[https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/CAPUTLG2211S](https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/CAPUTLG2211S)
.

------
wafflesraccoon
Side point, I was under the impression that Chrome was going to stop videos
from auto playing but videos on Reuters still play by default. Any ideas why?
Thanks.

~~~
csmattryder
Muted autoplay is always allowed. Working around these changes for one of our
products right now.

[https://developers.google.com/web/updates/2017/09/autoplay-p...](https://developers.google.com/web/updates/2017/09/autoplay-
policy-changes)

------
creaghpatr
>Those investments were driven by U.S. tax incentives and the falling costs of
imported panels, mostly from China, which together made solar power
competitive with natural gas and coal.

Why not manufacture the panels in the US? It would create jobs and save the
environmental impact of shipping billions of dollars of panels across the
pacific- freight ships are brutal when it comes to emissions.

~~~
rtkwe
Because those costs are externalities that aren't properly factored into the
cost of panels anywhere. The same is true for pretty much any product with an
environmental impact in either it's creation or transport to market. The few
places it does get factored in and regulated are places like fishing where the
entire industry nearly crashed because of overfishing. Hopefully the same
doesn't have to be true before other environmental externalities like shipping
pollution get regulated properly.

------
arbuge
You get what you vote for... or at least what your Constitution interprets the
vote as being for.

------
Pywarrior
This is excellent, we need innovation in the US solar panel supply chain.
Energy independence is tantamount with security.

~~~
throwaway2016a
> we need innovation in the US solar panel supply chain.

Completely agree but reducing competition could backfire and create less
innovation (due to less incentive to compete / innovate) than more.

> Energy independence is tantamount with security.

This only helps if you are talking non-renewable energy. A country can stop
their oil shipments, they have leverage there. They can't typically take away
solar panels.

Now one could say that they can take away the supply of new panels and slow US
adoption of renewables. But isn't that exactly what the President is doing
here? It's like saying I might be shot at some point so I might as well shoot
myself in the foot now.

------
pmiller2
Meanwhile, California is requiring solar panels on all new housing starting in
2020. These two things are going to make housing even more expensive. I guess
Trump doesn’t mind screwing California a little bit more.

~~~
epistasis
No, solar on single family homes makes them _less_ expensive. It's a cash flow
positive move, and if it wasn't, the body that enacted that would not have
been allowed to enact the regulation.

~~~
TexasEcon23
>> No, solar on single family homes makes them less expensive.

Then why in the world would they have to regulate it?

>> the body that enacted that would not have been allowed to enact the
regulation

That 100% wrong legally. No one ever has been able to avoid regulation by
claiming that the regulation imposes a net cost. That's the entire point of a
regulation, to shift behavior in the absence of direct economic incentives.

In reality, this regulation is a tradeoff between higher net costs for new
home builders and the need to reduce carbon emissions.

~~~
epistasis
You don't understand, the body that enacts these regulations enacts them on
the basis of cost savings. It's the California Electricity Commission:

[http://www.energy.ca.gov/efficiency/savings.html](http://www.energy.ca.gov/efficiency/savings.html)

There is no net new cost, overall, this is all win, and if it were not, the
standards would not be allowed to be set. In particular, on average, the CEC
found $80 of savings on $40 of finance cost:

[http://www.energy.ca.gov/releases/2018_releases/2018-05-09_b...](http://www.energy.ca.gov/releases/2018_releases/2018-05-09_building_standards_adopted_nr.html?platform=hootsuite)

Now, you seem to be implicitly assuming that if this cost savings were true,
it would already be done by builders and consumers. However, human behavior is
sticky. Even though this is a good idea now, it takes people a long time to
realize that.

Witness all the people in this thread that seem to doubt it's not a cost
saving measure. Even taking a small peak at the cost of solar should reveal
how much of a cost saving measure solar is in California. Even residential,
which has high labor costs, and where 30% of the cost of an install goes to
customer acquisition costs. For new large builds, that customer acquisition
cost goes away, so it becomes an even better deal. And you've already got
people on roofs, building them, so it becomes yet an even better idea.

------
wpdev_63
Wouldn't correcting the large trade deficit between China and the US result in
a net job increase in the long run?

It would take several years but we can build factories in rural parts of the
US(you know, where people voted for Trump) or even in Mexico.

~~~
blunte
It will never happen. There will always be some lower labor cost region where
manufacturing jobs can be sent, and there will always be some loophole which
corporations can use to get around restrictions.

~~~
kinsomo
> It will never happen. There will always be some lower labor cost region
> where manufacturing jobs can be sent, and there will always be some loophole
> which corporations can use to get around restrictions.

It will _have_ to happen. IIRC, the US has trade deficits with pretty much
every country it trades with. At some point, those places are going to get
tired of trading real goods for IOUs and IP, especially once there are
competing providers of IOUs and IP.

~~~
blunte
Those other countries have developing economies and populations. It won't be
long before the other large countries stop seeing the US as significant --
they'll be trading with each other where appropriate.

Isolationist policies result in the obvious: isolation.

~~~
kinsomo
> Those other countries have developing economies and populations. It won't be
> long before the other large countries stop seeing the US as significant --
> they'll be trading with each other where appropriate.

Which is why the US needs to redevelop its economy to be able to produce more
things that those countries might actually want to buy besides agricultural
products. The IOU-based trade-deficit policy isn't going to cut it long term.

------
jorblumesea
There's no fighting the future, regardless of whether this administration
likes to bury its head in the sand.

