The move reflects mounting concern in Europe and America about subsidised Chinese firms flooding the market with solar PV panels at artificially low cost.
Solarworld AG argues that China’s $30 billion of subsidies to its solar power companies violates global trade rules and constitute an unfair form of retailing below cost price or "dumping."
“We have dumping files in the European Photovoltaics market as well as in the US market and this is a case, of course, for the European Union,” Milan Nitzschke, a Solarworld AG spokesman told EurActiv by telephone from Bonn.
“Our Chinese competitors are going to Greece and telling people: ‘You can buy our products and solar modules and we are here with the Chinese bank of construction and they will give you the money for that,’” Nitzschke explained.
“This is unfair competition. It is state money or loans borrowed for projects in Europe with the condition that the customers have to buy Chinese products.”
The firm is still investigating several remedial courses of action in Europe to counter a perceived long-term strategy of forcing competitors out of business, and then fixing retail prices for Chinese firms from a monopoly position.
This situation was “not very different” from the one in the American solar market, Nietzschke said.
In the US, Solarworld AG and six other solar companies recently formed a "Coalition for American Solar Manufacturing" to demand that President Barack Obama slap $1 billion of duties on Chinese silicon cell and panel makers.
Gordon Brinser, president of Solarworld Industries America argued, that “artificially low-priced solar products from China are crippling the domestic industry.”
The company has been badly hit by a recession in the solar market, and recently laid off 66 workers at a Californian plant.
China denounces protectionist measures
But China maintains that what it calls protectionist measures would hurt the global economy, the planet’s environment and amount to a lose-lose situation for everyone.
“The US has no reason to criticise other countries' efforts to improve the world's environment, and should instead strengthen cooperation with other countries in the solar energy sphere to jointly respond to climate and environmental challenges,” an official said on the Chinese Commerce Ministry’s website.
The current trade spat has been given added bite by China’s great success in the world’s clean-energy race. It is now the biggest investor in alternative energy and clean technology.
Beijing is also the world’s largest wind energy provider, and manufactures 54% of the world’s solar panels.
Christopher Burghardt, vice president of First Solar, a leading US solar energy company which is not a party to the Solarworld AG suit, insisted that his firm's solar panels were cheaper on cost terms alone.
“The question is whether the Chinese government will continue to pump gazillions into the industry over the long-term,” he told EurActiv.
The investment “certainly came at extremely preferential rates and in extreme quantities, so typically we would call that a huge competitive advantage,” he said.
In the developing world, the success of the Chinese solar industry could also be seen as a model to emulate. But solar industry representatives in the West disagree.
“Europe should be very vigilant and make sure that China is compliant with the WTO and other international rules about subsidisation,” Burghardt said.
Nitzschke agreed. “European governments and the European Commission need to wake up,” he said.
“The US is already awake and aware and that’s one reason why we started the trade case in the US. We are investigating every option here. We have to act similarly in the European Union.”
COMMENTS
“Milan Nitzschke, Solarworld “Our Chinese competitors are going to Greece and telling people: ‘You can buy our products and solar modules and we are here with the Chinese bank of construction and they will give you the money for that, this is unfair competition. It is state money or loans borrowed for projects in Europe with the condition that the customers have to buy Chinese products.”
Good god!! the man is right it is shocking!! – almost as shocking as a German delegation going to Athens profiled just the other day in this esteemed organ – extract now follows:
“The German economy minister Philipp Rösler subsequently visited Athens with 60 business leaders on an mission to explore investment opportunities. “In the spirit of solidarity, it is the task of all Europeans to help Greece get back on its feet economically, and we want to take German firms to Greece,”.
Readers are invited to spot the difference – silly me, of course one group are Euros and the other “the Chinese”. PWR supports a strong Euro PV industry. Dumping duties could be one way forward, doubtless the Chinese will employ the usual bunch of hopeless legal half wits, lose the case (partly due to lack of market economy status, partly due to the Euro legal end being incompetent) and get stuffed on dumping duties. Incidentally, the whining about Chinese PV companies getting low cost loans is rubbish – PWR has evidence suggesting most of the loans are at market rates – still why let facts get in the way.
One intellectually honest way of addressing the issue would be border carbon taxes (cue DG Trade officials foaming at the mouth) – China has a large polysilicon industry and much of the energy it uses comes from coal plants. About 50% of the energy needed for a PV panel is accounted for by polysilicon production. As any fule know – the WTO Oked BCTs back in 2009 – raising the interesting question – what is the EU waiting for? But of course, if one is ideologically attached to “free trade” (whatever that means) BCTs tend to be an anathema. So, anti-dumping tally ho
Some good points as usual Mike. One difference between the two cases might be that the German mission, if (big IF) integrated into a sane 'solar energy for debt' package could combine environmental necessity with social justice, whereas selling solar panels just combines it with profit. I would have liked to get the Chinese perspective on comparing subsidies/loans etc but sadly, their mission an also their embassy here were unable to comment.
@ Mike Parr
the difference in the two scenarios appears to be the finance. In one, a state bank visits with the vendors and the vendors saying "You can get finance with our State owned bank to buy our products".
With the other, you ahve reported, it is the Government visitingh with the vendors saying "Please, buy our manufacturers' products".
The sound like two different scenarios to me.
Thanks Mr Anonymous – why so shy sweetie?
Just refresh my mind on the gate keepers with respect to Greek debt? Who will call the shots, who loaned money? Who wants it back? Who could lose by a default? Who has an export orientated policy that has cause many of the problems in other EU MS?
I like and respect the Germans and the German government – some of the fault lies with other EU MS for not playing hardball wrt to employment/deficits/build a factory here/balanced EU development not just focused on one EU MS etc etc. But there has also been some magical thinking in Berlin – that this could keep going on. Hence my comments. In the case of the visit this was everything about keeping going the Germany industrial RES policy and very little to do with helping the Greeks out of the mess that they are in.
In the case of the Chinese it is state-owned banks financing production facilities – not
production - please re-read what you wrote
And to finish, I am sick and tired of the finger pointing at the Greeks. We would do well as EUROPEANS to remember that 2500 year ago the GREEKS lit a flame called democracy that never died despite the opposition of theocracies, kingdoms and dictatorships. The flame of democracy may have wavered but never died. I think the Greeks deserve some more understanding and help instead of a bunch of bloody parasites turning up on their doorstep and offering to selling them a bit more kit.
EurActiv reserves its right to remove comments regarded as offensive, racist, or homophobic as well as hate-speech in general. Spamming or posts with an obvious commercial character will be removed as well. Thank you for your understanding.