LMU proposed powerplant and the US EPA proposed carbon rule impact on coal plants

Posted by Laura Arnold  /   August 01, 2014  /   Posted in Uncategorized  /   No Comments

Pharos-Tribune

July 31, 2014

Locals: EPA delay request too late

Lt. governor calls for postponement of EPA coal plant rules

by Mitchell Kirk, Staff reporter
Pharos-Tribune

---- — Logansport officials say while they appreciate a state executive’s request to delay new rules on coal power plants, its timing still requires pursuing a new power plant for the city.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency published last month its Clean Power Plan for reducing carbon dioxide emissions from existing fossil-fueled power plants. It includes goals for meeting reduction targets in 2020 and 2030.

Adhering to these new rules will require coal power plants to add technology to reduce emissions, ultimately resulting in what opponents say will be large spikes in the cost of electricity.

Indiana Lt. Gov. Sue Ellspermann cosponsored a resolution adopted by the National Association of Lieutenant Governors. It calls for a delay in implementing the Clean Power Plan to give coal power plants more time to make the upgrades.

“Governor Pence and I are concerned about the impact on both individual Hoosiers and our state’s overall economy with the projected increases in energy costs driven by the restrictions on coal fired power plants,” Ellspermann said in the press release.

“As a state with massive coal reserves and 80 percent of our electricity produced from coal, we in Indiana see these regulations as a continuation of President Obama’s ‘attack on coal’ that will ultimately cause job losses in the mining industry and in Indiana’s strong manufacturing economic base that is dependent on low-cost and reliable electricity supplies.”

The resolution was also cosponsored by the lieutenant governors of Missouri, West Virginia, Alabama South Dakota and Hawaii.

The Logansport Utility Service Board and Logansport City Council have approved a power purchase agreement with Total Concept Solutions Logansport LLC, started by Total Concept Solutions, SARL, out of France, for a proposed power plant to be developed in the city.

The privately funded project is estimated to cost about $803 million and would set an initial electric rate of 5.3 cents per kilowatt-hour until 2021, when rates would rise in accordance with the Consumer Price Index — All Urban Consumers.

That initial rate is about 2 cents per kilowatt-hour less than what Logansport Municipal Utilities got electricity for the first three months of this year from Duke Energy, which provides about 70 percent of LMU’s electricity.

The plant will start out on natural gas before taking on refuse-derived fuel.

Logansport Mayor Ted Franklin continues to negotiate the terms of a development agreement with Total Concept Solutions, which will determine how big the plant will ultimately be and set milestones for construction.

Local officials were asked if Logansport would benefit should the EPA heed the resolution’s request.

Logansport Municipal Utilities Superintendent Paul Hartman said while he appreciates what the NLGA resolution sets out to do, he feels it’s too late for it to be considered by the EPA.

“The resolution should have stopped the EPA a long time ago,” Hartman said. “The president has declared war on coal and this is the fallout.”

Franklin agreed, adding that the new EPA rules are a big part of the motivation behind the pursuit of the new plant.

“We’ve been out in front of this for years now,” Franklin said. “It’s not going to go away. The only option right now is to find an alternative or purchase electricity from a third party supplier.”

Dugger (IN) coal mining town worried about impact of EPA proposed carbon rule; Sierra Club explains benefits of EPA plan

Posted by Laura Arnold  /   July 31, 2014  /   Posted in Uncategorized  /   No Comments

062612 COAL EXCAVATOR

A Bear Run Mine employee uses a large excavator to scoop up coal at the mine near Dugger, Ind., in mid-2012. (Photo courtesy of Peabody Energy)

July 30, 2014

For Indiana coal mining town, EPA climate change plan threatens stability

EPA plan to combat climate change sparks worries about loss of jobs

By Maureen Hayden, CNHI Statehouse Bureau

DUGGER, Ind. – Peggy and Martha Marlow collect artifacts of this small town’s history for a storefront mining museum that Martha helped open more than 30 years ago.

Tin dinner buckets, carbide headlamps and battered hard hats line the museum’s crowded shelves. Stacks of old letters and documents include rosters of living and deceased miners, scrip once used in company stores, yellowed newspaper clippings recounting mine disasters and scores of panoramic photos of union gatherings.

Admission to the museum is free, but for a dollar a visitor gets a copy of the town’s “Centennial Book,” published in 1979. On the cover is a photograph of the old Dugger Mine and its 7,000-ton walking dragline excavator.

The Marlows don’t mind the dust kicked up by heavy coal trucks that rumble past their museum, nor the piercing whistle of a nearby train that clatters through this town of 920 people.

They’re optimistic that the nearby Coal Miner’s Café, closed after being hit by a coal truck last year, soon will re-open, hopefully in time for the 35th annual Dugger Coal Festival this fall. Until it closed, the café was one of only two places to eat in town.

But the Marlows worry for the industry that has sustained Dugger since it was founded as one of Indiana’s first mining towns. They fear a federal plan to combat climate change may kill hundreds of coal-related jobs, and in turn accelerate the flow of people out of town.

“If we lose the coal mines, there’s nothing left,” said Peggy Marlow, who comes from generations of miners. “All we know in Dugger is coal, coal, coal.”

It’s a worry that resonates here in Sullivan County and throughout rural southwestern Indiana. About 2,500 people mine a major coal vein that ribbons beneath the ground of this region, working in two-dozen active surface and underground mines. Miners make an average of $82,000 per year.

And, setting aside climate change, their prospects have looked strong despite the popular narrative of an industry in decline. While a steady procession of mines in Indiana has closed over the last two decades, there’s been new investment. Four years ago, Peabody Energy, the nation’s largest coal producer, opened the Bear Run mine near Dugger. It’s the largest surface mine east of the Mississippi River, employing more than 500 people.

Last year, miners in southwest Indiana extracted 40 million tons of coal, 15 percent more than a decade ago.

Retired miner John Cox, who has two sons-in-law who mine coal, moved back to his hometown of Dugger last year to be closer to his 10 grandchildren. He’s heard the government’s new rules are intended to protect the planet for future generations but he’s skeptical. He echoes the concerns of the United Mine Workers of America, which argues global pollution may get worse if industrial jobs shift to countries without emissions rules.

“This is what will finally kill the coal industry in the U.S.,” said Cox. “I’m telling you, if they shut down these mines around here, it’s going to devastate this little town and all the little towns around here.”

Coal Jobs at Stake

The federal initiative gives Indiana three years to devise plans to cut carbon emissions by 20 percent by 2030. The national goal is higher — 30 percent — but Indiana gets credit for utilities that have started converting coal plants to natural gas and have shut down aging facilities.

Environmentalists say the government’s target is reachable. "And it's a challenge we really have to take on,” said Jodi Perras, head of Indiana Beyond Coal, in a statement issued when the plan was released. She heads a campaign launched by the Sierra Club more than a decade ago to reduce the number of coal-fired power plants in the state.

Supporters of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s plan say Hoosiers already are suffering the effects of climate change tied to greenhouse gases and global warming, including droughts and floods that have cost farmers millions of dollars.

The EPA’s rules, supporters say, will lead to more “green” jobs, such as making energy-efficient insulation or producing wind turbines and solar panels.

Still, coal jobs will take a hit.

Economist Michael Hicks, of the Center for Business and Economic Research at Ball State University, said Indiana has a 300-year supply of coal. But the state must wean itself from its dependence on a fuel that generates 80 percent of its electricity — twice the national average — to meet the EPA’s goal.

Indiana ranks fourth for carbon dioxide emissions and has two of the nation’s top-polluting power plants.

“We will lose lots of coal production, and lots of coal jobs, and that will have a big impact on the Indiana counties that mine coal,” Hicks said.

A decade ago, coal was mined in 19 of Indiana’s 92 counties, all along the state’s western border. It’s now concentrated in 10 mostly rural counties that historically have higher unemployment than the rest of the state. Here, the loss of jobs is a rallying cry for opponents of the EPA’s plan, including Gov. Mike Pence.

Backed by the state’s biggest manufacturers, Pence says tougher standards will chill the state's business climate by killing jobs and raising the price of electricity. During a visit to Bear Run in early July, he told workers he stood with them in what he called the Obama administration’s “war on coal.”

Peabody Energy officials, reportedly counting on a $6 billion revenue stream from Bear Run, were glad to have him. They hope Pence’s warnings resonate beyond Indiana’s coal-producing counties and spur opposition.

p. 4

The final carbon plan won’t go into effect until next year, and federal regulators are still in a public comment period that could alter the rules.

“We’ve got a tough story to tell,” said Keith Haley, who oversees Peabody’s Midwest operations, including Bear Run. “But the reality is that Indiana will be dependent on coal for a very long time.”

Booms and Busts

Dugger’s existence has depended on coal for a long time. The town was named for the Dugger family that sunk the first mine in 1879. Within five years, Dugger was one of largest villages in eastern Sullivan County. The only place for 225 townspeople to shop was the store owned by the mining company, which paid workers in scrip.

By 1920, the area was dotted with mines, and the population peaked at more than 1,600.

There’s been a steady decline since. There’s not much else in the area to attract new residents. Sullivan County is mostly rural. After its two coal mines, the biggest employers are Hoosier Energy’s coal-fired power plant, a state prison, the county hospital and Wal-Mart.

Dugger, surrounded by old stripper pits now converted into lakes teeming with fish, is a 45-minute drive to the nearest interstate and the closest big city, Terre Haute.

Town Council President Larry Bedwell, a third-generation miner, said people understand the fluctuations of the coal industry. “Mining is nothing but booms and busts,” he said.

Bedwell retired in 2000 from Peabody Energy, as coal companies in Indiana were cutting back production and jettisoning union mines. Production in the Illinois Basin, which covers part of Indiana, Illinois and western Kentucky, shrank by more than one-third from 1990 to 2010 amid environmental concerns over the high sulfur content of its coal.

Anti-pollution technology changed that. A resurgence in Indiana coal stems from equipment mandated by an EPA rule in 2005 that required reductions in sulfur dioxide emissions. As some power plants installed sulfur “scrubbers” on their coal-fired boilers, which made the state’s easy-to-mine coal competitive again.

Peabody spent about $400 million to open Bear Run in May 2010, after announcing it had landed long-term contracts with Duke Energy and Hoosier Energy.

But the EPA’s plan to cut carbon emissions presents a new challenge. Dugger residents fear the quickest way for Indiana to meet the deadline is for its power plants to switch over to natural gas, which produces much less carbon pollution.

Dr. Stephen Jay, of Indiana University’s School of Medicine, says the state must consider not just the fortunes of Dugger, but the health of all its citizens. He worries opponents of the EPA plan ignore evidence of coal’s damage. In 2006, he co-authored a study that calculated a $5 billion annual public health cost of burning coal. That included the effects of carbon emissions.

“The train has left the station on climate change. It’s real,” said Jay. “But we still have a lot of non-believers.”

Jay said he also believes the state must invest in communities like Dugger which depend on the coal economy. “We need to be willing to spend the money on efforts that help miners and their communities move toward a more sustainable energy economy,” he said.

In 2004, he notes, the federal government agreed to make annual payments to tobacco farmers when it ended a quota and price support system that had been in existence since the Great Depression. The $10 billion program is funded by fees paid by tobacco companies.

Can’t Afford to Lose

Dugger’s concerns about its future aren’t just about jobs. Locals fear what could happen to their health care, and the community itself.

Retired miners fear the EPA plan will push the nation’s biggest coal producers, like Peabody Energy, out of the United States. That would drain payments into the United Mine Workers’ health funds, which provide lifelong benefits to more 75,000 retired miners and their families.

p. 6

“We’re worried that will close some of the black lung clinics,” said Cox, the retired miner and former UMW local leader. “We fought for those benefits and we can’t afford to lose them.”

Cox likens the loss of coal mining in Sullivan County to the loss of auto plants in other Indiana communities.

“What are they going to do? Go get a job Wal-Mart? There’s nothing wrong with a Wal-Mart job, but it’s not going to buy you a new car or let you build a nice house,” he said.

The fears of Dugger’s residents are projected onto other changes in town, including what appeared to be the imminent closing of their local schools, as part of a cost-cutting measures by district officials in the northern part of the county. The schools were saved when the Indiana Cyber Charter School, an online organization, agreed to partner with them to keep the schools open.

Bedwell called it a victory for his small town.

“You take a small town, if you lose any part of it, the body starts to die,” he said. “If you lose a school, you lose families who move away to be closer to their new school. If the jobs dry up, you lose people who move away to be closer to their new jobs. We lose either of those things, this town is going to die.”

Related Photos

  • A Bear Run Mine employee uses a large excavator to scoop up coal at the mine near Dugger, Ind., in mid-2012. (Photo courtesy of Peabody Energy)

    062612 COAL EXCAVATOR

  • A history that runs deep: A coal truck drives by a monument dedicated to the 100th anniversary of the town of Dugger in Sullivan County. Like the images on the monument depict, Dugger has a rich history of coal mining. (Photo by Joseph C. Garza, Tribune-Star)

    071814 COAL TRUCK

  • A historical diamond: The Dugger Coal Museum tells the history of coal in the area through photos, artifacts, documents and works of art. A photo of mining union advocate John L. Lewis is prominantly displayed among other photos on the wall. (Photo by Joseph C. Garza/Tribune-Star)

    071814 COAL MUSEUM

  • Joe Smith, retired miner. (Photo by Joseph C. Garza, Tribune-Star)

    071514 COAL SMITH

  • Past pose: Miners pose with donkeys near a coal tipple in this photo on display inside the Dugger Coal Museum. Coal tipples were used to load coal into railroad cars. (Photo courtesy of the Dugger Coal Museum)

    071814 COAL TIPPLE

  • Train cars loaded with coal leave the property of Bear Run Mine in June 2012 near Dugger in Sullivan County. (Photo courtesy of Peabody Energy)

    062512 COAL TRAIN

  • Keeper of coal history: Martha Marlow, one of the founders of the Dugger Coal Museum, shares a laugh with retired miners, Joe Smith and Eldon Seifert, inside the museum in the Sullivan County town. (Photo by Joseph C. Garza, Tribune-Star)

    071514 COAL MARLOW

  • John Cox, retired miner who lives in Dugger. (Photo by Joseph C. Garza, Tribune-Star)

    071514 COAL COX

  • Larry Bedwell, retired miner who lives in Dugger, Ind. (Photo by Joseph C. Garza, Tribune-Star)

    071514 COAL BEDWELL

  • Eldon Seifert, retired miner who lives in Hymera, Ind. (Photo by Joseph C. Garza, Tribune-Star)

    071514 COAL SEIFERT

  • On the job: Miners are shown on a break from digging coal in this photo on display at the Dugger Coal Museum. (Photo courtesy of the Dugger Coal Museum)

    071814 COAL 01PHOTO

  •  

 

 

Indiana Lt. Gov. Sue Ellspermann co-sponsors NLGA resolution asking for delay in EPA Clean Power Plan

Posted by Laura Arnold  /   July 28, 2014  /   Posted in Uncategorized  /   No Comments

Lt. Governor Sue Ellspermann

Ellspermann, other lt govs push back on EPA energy rule

By Allie Nash
TheStatehouseFile.com

INDIANAPOLIS – Lt. Gov. Sue Ellspermann has cosponsored a resolution adopted by the National Association of Lieutenant Governors aimed at protecting Indiana’s ability to use coal as a major source of power.

Officials from Missouri, West Virginia, Alabama, South Dakota and Hawaii have also sponsored the resolution, which calls for federal officials to let states “determine the appropriate mix of energy sources to meet it electricity needs.”

The letter is a reaction to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency plan that calls for state to reduce carbon emissions from existing power plans by a total of 30 percent from 2005 levels by 2030. Indiana’s share of that reduction is somewhat less.

“Gov. Pence and I are concerned about the impact on both individual Hoosiers and our state’s overall economy with the projected increases in energy costs driven by the restrictions on coal fired power plants,” Ellspermann said in a statement.

Indiana has one of the nation’s least diverse power supplies, with 80 percent of its electricity the product of coal-fired plants.

“We in Indiana see these regulations as a continuation of President Obama’s ‘attack on coal’ that will ultimately cause jobs losses in the mining industry and in Indiana’s strong manufacturing economic base that is dependent on low-cost and reliable electricity supplies,” Ellspermann said.

Indiana is the most carbon intensive state in the Midwest and top five in the U.S., federal officials said.​

The resolution seeks a delay of the implementation of the Clean Power Plan so that states can do additional planning without limiting access to affordable electricity.

Federal officials say the EPA rule could save up to $93 billion in climate and public health benefits by avoiding 6,600 premature deaths, 150,000 asthma attacks in children, and 490,000 missed days of work and school.

A statement from the White House said that 9.1 percent of Indiana’s adult population currently suffers from asthma.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Editor's Note: The Resolution was offered at the recent Annual Conference of the National Lieutenant Governors Association. All Resolutions were submitted on or before Friday, June 27, 2014.

To read the resolution click HERE: A Resolution Concerning U.S. EPA's Proposed Greenhouse Gas Emission Guidelines for Existing Fossil-Fueled Power Plants

Michigan PSC has no authority regarding decoupling for electric utilities; Is utility revenue decoupling good or bad?

Posted by Laura Arnold  /   July 26, 2014  /   Posted in Uncategorized  /   No Comments

Michigan decoupling ends with 2 settlement deals

July 11, 2014

Experts explain why killing decoupling is a mistake

The Michigan PSC approved two settlement deals Tuesday, reconciling Upper Peninsula Power's (UPP) 2013 revenue decoupling mechanism (RDM). These will be the final defrayals to the electric utility serving most of the state's Upper Peninsula under its defunct decoupling mechanism, Judy Palnau, a spokesperson for the Michigan PSC in Lansing, told us this week.

"The Michigan Court of Appeals in April 2012 found that the [PSC] has no authority regarding decoupling for electric utilities," Palnau said.

"In light of the court's decision, the [PSC] has dismissed all pending cases involving electric revenue decoupling. However, because the Upper Peninsula Power case was a settlement, it still involved decoupling through December of last year," (SGT, 2012-Sept-6).

UPP and the PSC staff took part in the settlement cases that were decided as follows:

• Under the terms of the settlement in Case U-17555, Upper Peninsula Power experienced a gross revenue RDM under-recovery of $619,580 in 2013 and a revenue shortfall of $71,247 in connection with the 2010 RDM reconciliation approved in Case U-16568. Effective Jan 1-Dec 31, 2015, the utility is authorized to implement a surcharge. As a result, a residential customer using 500 KWHs/month will see an increase of 56¢ on the monthly bill. UPP and the PSC staff took part in the settlement, the PSC said.

• Under the terms of the settlement in Case No U-17605, a residential customer using 500 KWHs/month will see a 5¢ increase on the monthly bill, for service rendered on and after Aug 1.

While over 20 US states have opted for some form of electric utility decoupling, Michigan may be the only one that since backed out of it. These states gave it a try: Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Oregon, Tennessee, Utah, Virginia, Washington, Wisconsin and Wyoming.

According to the NARUC, "decoupling" or "revenue decoupling" refers to a rate adjustment mechanism that separates an electric or gas utility's fixed cost recovery from the amount of power or gas it sells. Under decoupling, utilities collect revenues based on the determined revenue requirement, most often on a per-customer basis. Periodically, revenues are "trued-up" to the predetermined revenue requirement using an automatic rate change.

This type of rate mechanism encourages utilities to take part in energy efficiency programs and other initiatives that cut power bills, but would represent gains for the environment.

Indeed, the commissioners said in a 2007 study, "Since utilities will be protected, if their sales were to decline because of efficiency, proponents of decoupling contend that they are more likely to invest in this resource, or may be less likely to resist deployment of otherwise economically beneficial efficiency initiatives."

A step backwards

In light of the perceived and proven benefits, Michigan's move to deter decoupling was definitely counterproductive, American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy (ACEEE) Senior Fellow Martin Kushler told us. He has been with ACEEE since 1998 and right before that was supervisor of evaluation at the Michigan PSC for nearly 10 years, he added.

Not only does decoupling "offer protection to utilities from the under-collection of fixed costs," but it "has great advantages for consumers because it's symmetrical," Kushler said. "So, if either the ratepayer or the utility is over-collecting or under-collecting, the amount will be reconciled and everyone will be made whole."

Kushler characterized the court's decision on the measure, "Enrolled Senate Bill No. 213," as "problematic. The 2008 finding was a real judiciary over-reach. The court looked at the plain language of a statute relating to decoupling that said the [PSC] 'shall authorize' natural gas providers to grant decoupling and from that, determined one, that there was no mention of electricity providers and two, that there was no mandate that the [PSC] 'must' provide decoupling."

NRDC surprised by it

Rebecca Stanfield, deputy director for policy, Midwest program, Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), agreed with Kushler. "That decision came after two years of talks with the [PSC], during which the [state] legislature thought decoupling was a good idea.

"It was a surprising verdict – made for a really unusual legal reason, based on the imprecise wording of a statute. This was unheard of prior to the court's finding. It is certainly well within the authority of a typical public service commission to regulate programs such as decoupling," she added.

Looking at the other side of the meter, "The finding absolutely is not in the interest of ratepayers," Stanfield said. "Decoupling enables the utility to provide the best, most reliable service to its customers, as opposed to increasing revenues by escalating sales every year. Decoupling enables utilities to boost energy efficiency without risking their own financial health," she added.

Legislature is next hope

As of now, Michigan's advocates of decoupling may be down, but they are not out. "I think that the folks at the commission feel that it would not be productive to lodge a legal appeal," said Kushler. "However, the legislature still may step in. It would be fairly simple to add a few words to that paragraph of the statute.

"This is just an unnecessary obstacle that has to be rectified."

Stanfield would like to see the ruling reversed. "I honestly don't know what will happen," she said, "but I am hoping that, after the election, we will see some forward movement."

 

 

What Impact will WTO Ruling have on Solar PV Panel Pricing?

Posted by Laura Arnold  /   July 26, 2014  /   Posted in solar  /   No Comments

What Happens to Solar Panel Pricing after the WTO Ruling?

Thomas Larson, Sol Systems July 25, 2014

The World Trade Organization (WTO) Dispute Settlement Body (DSB) issued a panel report to its members on a dispute between China and the United States involving solar panels and sixteen other products. Recent reports delcared the U.S. countervailing duties “illegal” as a result of the ruling, which may be a misleading summary of what actually occurred. Deeper analysis shows that this case only addresses a small piece of the U.S.’s procedures behind calculating the duties, not the duties themselves, and does not demand immediate response from the U.S.

Although the case may have broader implications for U.S. trade policy as it seeks to fight anti-competitive behavior from China’s state-owned enterprises, it is unlikely to change much in the U.S. module market. Here are three important clarifications on the panel report for solar industry folks who want to know how it will affect panel pricing in the next twelve months.

1. What exactly is the WTO and how serious are its rulings?

The WTO is the largest international forum for negotiating multilateral trade agreements and settling disputes over trade-related issues. If one country feels it is harmed by another country’s failure to comply with its obligations under various trade agreements, the parties may enter the iterative dispute settlement process through the DSB. Depending on the issue, disputes can be settled quickly through consultations, or take years to reach a ruling (through what is called a panel), address appeals, and drive the adoption of a compliance measure.

While the WTO has a fairly rigid body of law, it relies on its members to police one another. WTO rulings are binding, but not exactly compulsory—the WTO cannot force the U.S. to change a discriminatory trade policy. However, the WTO can inflict pain by allowing complainants to raise tariffs on what are usually politically sensitive exports (think of products grown in Florida to draw a response from the U.S.) if a respondent refuses to comply with a ruling.

2. Which U.S. Solar Tariffs are at stake?

Of the four recent actions taken by the U.S. against China on solar products, the WTO only ruled on one—the 2012 countervailing measures against solar cells from China. A countervailing duty is an additional tariff set by an importing country to reduce the effects of a foreign government’s subsidy that harms the importer’s domestic producers.

In October 2012, the DOC announced final rulings on countervailing and anti-dumping measures against Chinese solar cells. After Chinese manufacturers began exploiting a loophole by using solar cells from elsewhere (Taiwan), the DOC initiated two more investigations in 2014, which have resulted in a preliminary countervailing tariff against all Chinese modules at much more painful rates than the 2012 ruling, as well as anti-dump measures (to be announced shortly). China brought this case to the DSB in May 2012—the panel only reviewed the U.S.’s justifications for enacting the 2012 countervailing duties on solar cells; anti-dump measures and the 2014 tariffs were not addressed.

Of the seven issues China raised with U.S. countervailing measures on solar cells, the panel determined that China met its burden of proof on only two, both of which centered around a U.S. practice of presuming that government-owned companies are considered “public bodies” capable of providing a subsidy. The U.S.’s control-based standard for deeming those companies to be “public bodies” was rejected by the panel, which followed a previous decision by the Appellate Body on the issue. However, the panel did not rule that the provision of inputs by state-owned enterprises for downstream products for less than adequate remuneration could not amount to “countervailable” subsidies. In other words, the U.S. could potentially employ a different, acceptable test in order to classify state-owned enterprises as public bodies to maintain WTO-consistent countervailing duties.

3. What does this mean for solar module prices in the U.S. in the short-medium term?

This ruling is unlikely to have any major impacts on the fundamentals of the U.S. module market in the coming months. The case will affect U.S. solar tariffs in one of two ways—the U.S. could 1) use the negative parts of the ruling to back away from the harmful tariffs while saving face or 2) continue to disputing the details in order to maintain the tariffs. The U.S. is far more likely to take the second option based on historical trade practices (see cases on U.S.-zeroing) and its commitment to limiting the competitiveness of Chinese solar modules. Since there are no retroactive damages at the WTO, the U.S. can use delay tactics while keeping the countervailing duties in place without paying damages in the meantime.

The changes we’ve seen in module prices recently have been reactions to the 2014 countervailing duty announced by the DOC. The market should settle as Chinese manufacturers opt for the lower 2012 rates by classifying nearly complete solar modules as solar cells and finishing the panels behind U.S. borders. Even though the WTO case does address issues with the 2012 countervails, the U.S. appears to have minimal motivation to lower them quickly in response.

It will be interesting to see whether the DOC’s final report on the 2014 countervailing duties reflects the WTO panel ruling, since the WTO ruling was released to the U.S. prior to the DOC’s completion of their second investigation on Chinese solar module subsidies. A slight adjustment to the ownership-based test for identifying public bodies or an entirely new method of tracing subsidies should provide some insight into the Administration’s attachment to the solar tariffs.

Copyright 2013 IndianaDG