Dive Brief:
- Cypress Creek, one of the largest solar developers in the country, has canceled 1.5 GW of planned capacity as a result of the Trump administration's decision to impose 30% tariffs on imported crystalline silicon photovoltaic modules and cells.
- The U.S. Energy Information Administration estimates the tariffs will increase the cost of installing residential and non-residential systems this year by 4% and 6%, respectively. But the agency expects longer-term cost impacts to be moderate.
- A group of Republican Senators has petitioned the president for an exemption from the tariffs for larger 72-cell, 1,500-volt panels used in utility-scale developments. That exemption for larger panels would likely drive up costs for residential customers, Bloomberg reports.
Dive Insight:
It's been about four months since President Trump placed tariffs on imported solar panels, and the effects are beginning to show. Bloomberg reported Cypress Creek would cancel $1.5 billion in development, and Greentech Media later confirmed that would be about 1.5 GW in projects.
"The tariff forced us to re-evaluate some of our projects," a Cypress Creek spokesman told GTM.
The tariff is expected to be in effect for four years, declining 5% annually until it expires. EIA estimates the 30% increase in module costs "raises total installed costs by about 10%, as modules represent about one-third of total system costs for utility-scale systems."
However, the EIA estimates the tariffs will have less of an impact on solar-powered generation than changes in the investment tax credit.
"Although the impact of the approved tariff on solar cells and modules is expected to affect utility-scale solar PV more than end-use solar PV, the effect of the increase in final system cost is expected to moderate by 2025," the agency said in a May 14 report, noting that "module costs account for a smaller percentage of total costs for end-use solar PV systems."
Last year, two U.S.-based solar manufacturers, Suniva and SolarWorld, petitioned for import relief using a rare Section 201 global safeguard measure. Both companies eventually filed for bankruptcy protection, blaming low-price imports, mostly from Chinese companies based in other countries.