Intertek CEA: US Solar Module Imports
New US tariffs on solar modules make imports uneconomical, says Intertek CEA. The policy will let US makers dominate by 2027 but raise supply chain prices.
Importing solar modules to the United States will no longer make any economic sense under new Section 232 tariffs. This analysis comes from Christian Roselund, research manager for policy at quality assurance firm Intertek CEA, who spoke on a webinar.
Roselund expects US module manufacturers to dominate the market in 2027 due to the price increases for imported solar PV modules. The tariff introduces minimum import prices (MIP) for polysilicon, silicon ingots, wafers, solar cells, and modules, plus a 15% tariff rate on top. The MIP for modules is US$0.38 per watt, and for cells it is US$0.22 per watt.
Supply Chain Impacts and Price Pressures
Despite the expected dominance of US module producers from 2027, Roselund said their profit margins will take a hit. This is due to the increased cost of importing cells. The US has a roughly 50GW gap between its solar cell and module production capacities. There is around 11GW of cell capacity to match over 60GW of PV module capacity. Most module-only manufacturers will continue to rely on imports, hitting their margins and increasing module prices.
A similar issue will affect cell-only producers like ES Foundry or Suniva. They will have to pay for imported silicon wafers at the MIP of US$100 per kilogram. Cell producers will raise their prices to sell to module factories, passing costs down the supply chain.
Roselund says the big exception is vertically integrated companies. They stand to benefit most from the Section 232 levies. These are few in the current US solar landscape. Hanwha Qcells produces solar PV cells and modules, as do T1 Energy, Toyo Solar and a selection of others. The figures show that cell, and especially wafer, production lag significantly behind module assembly.
Those companies, either with US cell or captive cell overseas, benefit from lower MIPs further up the supply chain. There are more benefits to importing wafers at roughly US$0.12 per watt, or cells at US$0.22 per watt, and manufacturing the rest in the US.
Current Pricing and Future Uncertainty
Intertek CEA says imported modules in the US are selling around US$0.46 per watt. US modules with foreign cells sell between US$0.38 and US$0.44 per watt. Modules with US cells are US$0.45 to US$0.50 per watt, due to US cell scarcity. Fully domestic supply chains, limited to production from Corning and Hemlock, are around US$0.50 per watt due to insulation from future tariffs.
Joseph C. Johnson, associate director for market intelligence at Intertek CEA, said those prices are a slight market overreaction to the shock of new costs. They might change and lower over time. The trend is clear. US module prices are going up, to the benefit of a small number of established companies.
The webinar discussed the possibility of more competitive practices between manufacturers as the industry adapts. This is especially true out into the 2030s. CEA expects US module manufacturing capacity to massively exceed annual demand. Solar installations are expected to remain relatively flat through 2030. Module capacity could reach over 115GW. Cell capacity could exceed deployments based on already existing credible expansion plans.
Ultimately, Roselund said there is too much uncertainty around the Section 232 policy to encourage investment in new upstream manufacturing. First, this policy is not static. The Secretary of Commerce can adjust the MIPs over time depending on market conditions. They could fluctuate up or down on an unpredictable schedule.
Moreover, the US faces new bans on power equipment like inverters and transformers. Various other tariffs stack on top of Section 232. Tax credits to incentivise solar deployments are expiring.
New cell or wafer facilities can require investments of up to US$165 million per GW and years of construction. Roselund points out that by the time new facilities came online, the 45X Advanced Manufacturing tax credit would be about to expire. This removes a major incentive for domestic content and cell production.
There are also technology concerns. Litigation is ongoing over TOPCon technology. There is a lack of proven market appetite for HJT cells. The obsolescence of PERC technology is looming.
