By: David Iaconangelo | 11/17/2021 07:09 AM EST

Double-sided solar panels. Prism Solar

The Federal Trade Court supported the largest trade group in the solar energy industry and cancelled the import tariffs on special double-sided panels supported by the Trump and Biden administrations.

As we all know, "double-sided" panels account for only a small part of the overall market, but they are quickly becoming the favorite of solar developers because they can generate electricity from the dark side of the panel at a small cost premium.

In 2018, considering their marginal role, former President Trump decided to exclude them from import tariffs on solar panels. Then, two years later, he changed his direction and implemented a crackdown on double-sided imports with the same tariff treatment as other foreign-made panels (Energywire, October 13, 2020).

This triggered lawsuits by three solar developers and the Solar Energy Industry Association (SEIA) who believed that Trump violated trade laws in the 2020 announcement.

Yesterday, the U.S. International Trade Court agreed with the solar group's view, writing that Trump "exceeded the president's authorization" when he used the cost to crack down on double-sided solar panels.

The court found that Trump's move was based on an "obvious misunderstanding" of federal trade regulations, which would allow the former president to remove tariffs, but would not enact new restrictions.

SEIA called it "a victory for the solar industry" in a statement. The ruling also marks the organization's second consecutive victory this month in a trade policy case that may have a significant impact on the solar industry.

Last week, when the Ministry of Commerce rejected a petition to impose new tariffs on solar panels and batteries in three Southeast Asian countries, SEIA also cheered, saying that the petitioner-an anonymous group of solar manufacturers-did not provide sufficient reason to maintain anonymous.

If these tariffs are granted, they may apply to approximately 60% of the panel supply in the US solar industry.

In contrast, the quarterly market report released by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory this month did not include data on double-sided technologies because they are new. However, the past NREL report pointed out that international estimates predict that the global market share of double-sided panels may be as high as 35% by 2027.

The Biden administration has linked its goal of a carbon-free grid to the massive growth of solar energy. A recent roadmap of the Department of Energy, called the "Solar Future Research", envisages a 100% clean energy scenario, with solar energy accounting for 44% of the electricity mix.

However, the court's ruling yesterday was a setback for lawyers in the Biden administration. The legal adviser of the Customs and Border Protection Agency advocated support for Trump's actions, which marked a rare consensus between the two presidents on energy issues.

CBP lawyers stated in court documents filed in March that Trump “acted legally and fully within his authority” (Energywire, March 2). CBP attorneys also cited the U.S. International Trade Commission’s review of the effectiveness of solar tariffs last year, which concluded that the exclusion of double-sided solar panels has put "enormous price pressure" on US solar panel manufacturers. As of press time, a CBP spokesperson has not yet responded to inquiries from E&E News.

The ruling has also been criticized by domestic solar manufacturers, several of which have adopted Trump's double-sided tariffs as a necessary protection for US production.

One of the manufacturers, Auxin Solar, said yesterday that Trump’s tariffs were “correct”.

"We hope that the government can appeal this wrong decision," said Mamun Rashid, CEO of Aoxin. In addition to rejecting double-sided tariffs, the court also rejected the second part of Trump's announcement, which raised the overall tariff rate on solar imports from 15% to 18%.

A spokesperson for Hanwha Q Cells, a South Korean company that produces modules in a plant in Georgia, also condemned the ruling, calling it "a regrettable ruling that puts domestic solar manufacturers at risk of direct and substantial damage." .

Abigail Ross Hopper, president and chief executive officer of SEIA, stated that the ruling was “obviously the right decision”.

She added: “These two actions are illegal attempts to increase Article 201 tariffs.”