

Solar 'poster boy' startup may be forced out of business - kjhughes
http://www.cnn.com/2012/08/22/politics/obama-solar-poster-boy/

======
jordanb
I found the claim that he is being fined for buying chinese solar panels...
dubious. So I figured there must be more to the story.

Apparently the "tough import policy" is a limitation to the 30% tax credit
people can get for installing solar panels. The rules of the credit were
changed in May to make it only apply to american-made panels:
[http://www.sustainablebusiness.com/index.cfm/go/news.display...](http://www.sustainablebusiness.com/index.cfm/go/news.display/id/23707)

His company, Sunrise Solar, encourages customers to take the tax credit for
his products: <http://www.sunrisesolar.net/>

This appears to be where the potential fines are coming from.

~~~
kjhughes
Well, that would be a bit of a misrepresentation on roofer Bill Keith's part
if true. Are you sure?

In May, there was an actual 31% tariff placed by the US Commerce Department on
Chinese solar panels:

[http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/18/business/energy-
environmen...](http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/18/business/energy-
environment/us-slaps-tariffs-on-chinese-solar-panels.html)

~~~
jordanb
I'm not sure. But I was confused about how an "import policy" could result in
him being "fined as much as 250 percent on his solar panels." That didn't seem
like the result of any sort of tariff I've ever seen.

So I went to his website, saw the tax credit advertisement, figured that might
have something to do with it and googled it.

And while your linked 31% tariff may be the "tough import policy" referenced
in the article, I'm still having trouble understanding how that turns into a
250% fine.

~~~
kjhughes
Something does seem off there, but maybe it's sloppy reporting. The article
states:

    
    
      Unless he can show specific manufacturing documentation
      by August 29, Keith said he could be fined as much as
      250 percent on his solar panels -- an effective rate of
      $270,000.
    

Besides the 250% "fine", the dangling $270,000 reference (and calling it a
'rate') is confusing.

------
dj2stein9

      The policy is intended to thwart China from undercutting 
      prices and flooding the U.S. market with cheaper solar panels.
    

I find this rather disturbing. If solar energy is ever going to replace fossil
fuels the price of panels will have to fall quite a lot. Is the Obama
administration now actively preventing solar energy from becoming cheaper?

~~~
powertower
Cheaper at what cost?

China is subsidizing their solar manufacturing industry...

They spend $100 to manufacture a panel, only to sell it at $50. The government
then gives that manufacturer $60 to keep them operating.

Their game is to keep doing this until the rest of the world can no longer
afford to make domestic solar manufacturing viable.

This practice kills the US industry, and doesn't exactly lead to cheaper
anything at the end... It just removes competition and establishes a monopoly
that then gets to decide the price all by itself.

~~~
dj2stein9
The US government should also be subsidizing solar energy. If it's not cost
competitive against oil, they should subsidize it until it is. The estimates
are that by 2020 solar will reach fossil fuel cost parity. So you're only
talking 8-ish years to subsidize the solar industry. But instead the
incompetent government lets US solar companies go out of business all the
while continuing to subsidize oil companies that import from the Middle East.
It all just wreaks of hypocrisy and corruption.

------
draggnar
I feel bad that there is a large and unanticipated tariff that is affecting
him, but he basically built his business on the promise that he was an
American made company, and it turns out they do a critical part of the work in
Hong Kong.

~~~
dasil003
If there's no suitable American manufacturer then is it better for him to
maintain his naive integrity and shutter the company, or to compromise on one
part of the assembly?

And in any case, it's irrelevant to the tariff discussion.

------
mochimama
Rather than second guessing this Mr. Keith's situation, why don't you ask Bill
Keith himself to explain and produce the "documentation". He does claim to
have a letter from some government agency demanding he pay this 250% tariff. I
think pieces of all of your comments are true, but it also seems that the big
picture is that these regulatory moves always seem to favor the BIG boys, and
purposely target the small business to prevent them from competing in a true
free market. Solar really doesn't cost anywhere near the actual sum of parts
and labor. Can you say "Solyndra"???

------
stephengillie
Why do these fans need such a specialized solar panel? Can't something be
redesigned to take a more standard panel? Wouldn't a more standard panel be
cheaper to source, and have more suppliers?

~~~
brk
Based only on my assumptions, but dealing with solar panels fairly regularly
for solar-powered security cams, it's probably a size/efficiency thing.

Spinning a motor takes a fair amount of power, and they probably want the
entire unit to be as small as possible. So I'm guessing he is starting with
higher-efficiency panels (more power output per given area), and then possibly
modifying them to run on different voltages for the motors.

------
mbubb
One small example but dreadful to see this. Idly thought "too bad he didn't
use kickstarter rather than USgovt..."

~~~
archangel_one
The problem isn't how he raised money in the first place, it's about ongoing
costs, taxes and tariffs. Kickstarter won't help with that.

