Looking at the United States' "death" of China's PV

In recent years, while China's photovoltaic industry has grown rapidly, it has also encountered more and more trade frictions in the international market. In particular, trade frictions between the EU and the United States have the greatest impact. Different from the final compromise between China and Europe on the PV trade, the dispute between China and the United States on photovoltaic trade has not only failed to see the hope of settlement, but has also intensified. The reason for this is that China's photovoltaic industry has encountered a "dead end" in the US market.

As we all know, on October 10, 2012, the US Department of Commerce made anti-dumping and anti-subsidy final awards on imported PV products, levying 14.78% to 15.97% of countervailing duties and 18.32% to 249.96% of anti-dumping duties, respectively. This move has had a huge impact on China's photovoltaic industry. As a result, some companies have closed their doors, and more companies are struggling to survive. With the support of the state, some time ago, China's photovoltaic industry also actively initiated self-help through the development of distributed generation, opening up new markets, mergers and acquisitions, and accelerating the implementation of the “go global” strategy. At present, the effect of self-rescue is not bad. Some companies still live in a moist environment. Even at the World Cup finals in Brazil in 2014, they all saw huge advertisements for the “China Yingli” brand of solar power products.

A ruling issued by the World Trade Organization earlier pointed out that the US’s anti-subsidy measures against Chinese solar panels in 2012 violated the WTO Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures, and the United States has improperly collected solar panels from China. The tariffs, but the United States does not seem to face the WTO, in the photovoltaic trade disputes not only with China "dead", but also with the WTO "dead." On the one hand, from the perspective of countervailing, the US Department of Commerce announced on June 3, 2014, a preliminary ruling on anti-subsidy investigation of China's crystalline silicon photovoltaic products, and determined that China’s solar products exported to the United States will receive unfair government subsidies and will be immediately imposed. 18.56% to 35.21% of countervailing duties. On the other hand, from an anti-dumping perspective, on July 25, 2014, the U.S. Department of Commerce issued a statement stating that dumping behavior of crystalline silicon photovoltaic products exported from the Chinese mainland to the United States is tentatively determined, with a dumping margin of 26.33% to 165.04%. At this point, the United States launched a second round of "double reactions" against China's photovoltaics.

Undoubtedly, China's photovoltaic industry will indeed bring certain employment opportunities to the United States, especially in the fields of installation, sales, and after-sales service. At the same time, China’s photovoltaics will also be given to the United States. Consumers have saved a lot of money. The United States' "deadly" approach to China's photovoltaics in a "dual way" does give them some blood. Under this circumstance, why is the U.S. still unobtrusive about photovoltaics in China? The fundamental starting point is to completely eliminate China's photovoltaic industry, at least to expel Chinese PV from the US market. It should be noted that while launching the second round of "double counters" against China's PV, the United States also determined that the dumping margin of PV from China's Taiwan is between 27.59% and 44.18%. It is worth noting that at present nearly 65% ​​of the export volume of China's mainland China's photovoltaic silicon wafer exports, the US's "double reaction" to China's Taiwan PV is actually trying to suppress the "bypass" exports of China's photovoltaic industry. . It is not difficult to see that whether it is anti-dumping or countervailing, whether it is direct imports or “bypass” imports, these two “double reactions” are just means by which the United States continues to peg on China’s photovoltaics. Obeying the purpose, this purpose is to make the American photovoltaic industry beat its Chinese counterparts.

Colleagues can be either family members or partners. In the disputes between China and the United States on photovoltaic trade, it seems that the United States has not yet grasped this measure. According to the idea of ​​fighting against the game, the United States can say that it is not hesitate to “kill one enemy with one thousand” at the expense of “self-inflicted loss” in the case of photovoltaics. In this regard, the United States may have taken advantage of this, but The result is "double loss." This kind of "cheap" is only a matter of which party loses more and loses less. However, according to the cooperation game theory, if the United States is willing to communicate more with China in photovoltaic trade, and seek a solution that is acceptable to both parties, the result is likely to be a "win-win." In fact, according to the idea of ​​a cooperative game, China and the European Union resolved the disputes in the photovoltaic trade with Chinese companies in the way of double price and quantity commitments last year. It is understood that some Chinese companies have expressed their desire to reach a similar price commitment with the United States, but they have not received positive responses from each other. It seems that the United States is "dead".

Perhaps the U.S. also believes that the practice of “killing the enemy for one thousand self-inflicted losses” is a large account, but this is only a unilateral calculation of “big account” from expected earnings, and from another point of view, “a single rib The Americans do not seem to have seen the "cost" of paying extra for this. For example, according to a statement issued by the American Solar Energy Alliance, rising prices of solar products caused by this ruling will hinder the development of clean energy in the United States. For another example, as a member of the World Trade Organization, although China will not resort to trade retaliation if it does not move, if the United States overdoes China's PV, it is likely to undermine the atmosphere of economic and trade cooperation between China and the United States. It is conceivable that if there is no atmosphere of mutual communication to solve the problem, then everything will only work in public affairs. Recall that shortly after the United States launched a tire rigor against China in the previous years, the Chinese authorities started anti-dumping measures against broiler chicken products imported from the United States and some auto products on September 13, 2009 in accordance with China's anti-dumping and anti-subsidy regulations. Anti-subsidy filing procedure. What is official business? This is called official business.

In short, in the PV trade disputes, the United States has the freedom to "dead," and is willing to win the bloodshed. If China's photovoltaic industry is affected by this, it will not be afraid of "death". It is only hoped that in the best possible circumstances, we will be able to work for a good life.