Bill Overview
Title: Preventing Investment in the Chinese Solar Economy Act
Description: This bill prohibits the use of authorities under the Defense Production Act of 1950 with respect to solar photovoltaic modules and module components, including ingots, wafers, solar glass, and cells. Additionally, the bill nullifies the Memorandum on Presidential Determination Pursuant to Section 303 of the Defense Production Act of 1950, as amended, on Solar Photovoltaic Modules and Module Components (June 6, 2022).
Sponsors: Rep. Gibbs, Bob [R-OH-7]
Target Audience
Population: Individuals involved in the global solar manufacturing and supply chain
Estimated Size: 250000
- The global solar economy involves manufacturing and supply chains spread across multiple countries, including China, the United States, and other countries in Europe and Asia.
- China is a major player in the global solar photovoltaic market, responsible for a large share of global manufacturing output in solar modules and components.
- Any policy restricting investment or production involving the Chinese solar sector can impact global supply chains, potentially affecting prices, availability, and technological advancement in solar technology worldwide.
- Other countries involved in the solar supply chain, especially those reliant on Chinese imports, will be indirectly affected.
- The global transition to renewable energy sources may experience adjustments.
- US companies and workers in the solar manufacturing sector, especially those involved in importing from or investing in Chinese solar components, will be directly impacted.
- The US government aims to boost domestic production of solar components; however, this could initially lead to supply disruptions or price increases for solar panels, affecting American consumers and industries relying on solar technology.
- US policies that impact relations with significant trading partners like China will have broader economic implications, potentially affecting all Americans through changes in trade dynamics.
Reasoning
- The policy affects a very specific part of the population involved in solar photovoltaic manufacturing and supply chains, particularly those related to Chinese imports.
- The US is a significant importer of solar components from China, thus any restriction may disrupt the current supply and result in short-term price hikes or supply shortages.
- There is potential for long-term benefits if domestic manufacturing can ramp up successfully, but initial disruptions might affect consumers and businesses relying on solar energy.
- Job impacts are significant for those directly in the solar manufacturing industry, though retraining and shifting to domestic supply chains might mitigate long-term unemployment issues.
- General US population may experience indirect impacts via energy costs and broader economic effects of trade policy changes with China.
Simulated Interviews
Solar panel installation technician (California)
Age: 45 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy might make it harder for us to get affordable panels, which could slow down installations.
- I'm worried about my job security if prices go up and the demand decreases.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 8 |
Owner of a renewable energy startup (Texas)
Age: 38 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This could be a game-changer for us, increasing costs and creating logistical challenges.
- I support domestic production, but the transition period is a concern for my business.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 9 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 9 |
Financial analyst in renewable energy sector (New York)
Age: 28 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy might shift investment strategies towards US manufacturing over time, which could create volatility short-term.
- Long-term impact might be neutral to positive as the market adjusts.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 8 |
Environmental policy advocate (Oregon)
Age: 55 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- While I support the goal of boosting US production, the environmental benefit of a quick transition needs to be considered.
- We can't afford to slow down on climate goals due to economic policies.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 9 |
Factory worker in solar panel manufacturing (Ohio)
Age: 50 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 8.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This could mean more jobs here, but I worry about the time it might take for these benefits to materialize.
- There's uncertainty about how fast we can ramp up production.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 6 |
Solar energy consumer (Florida)
Age: 60 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I appreciate trying to boost local production, but I worry about rising costs.
- Solar energy has saved me a lot on electricity; I can't afford too many price hikes.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 8 |
Research scientist in renewable energy (Colorado)
Age: 34 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 4.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy could stall advancements in solar tech due to supply chain issues.
- I hope this encourages domestic innovation, but there's a risk of setbacks.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 9 |
Solar rental company owner (Illinois)
Age: 30 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- We are concerned about our lease prices increasing due to higher component costs.
- Any supply chains interruptions are a big risk for us since we operate on tight margins.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 4 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 9 |
Electric utility executive (Nevada)
Age: 47 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 9
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The main concern is securing stable cost and supply for future expansion projects.
- There's a huge demand for clean energy, and we can't afford delays in new capacity coming online.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 9 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 9 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 9 |
Retired engineer (Georgia)
Age: 65 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I’m concerned about the volatility this policy might introduce into solar stocks.
- Diversification is key, but this policy could have significant financial repercussions.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 8 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $4500000000 (Low: $4000000000, High: $5000000000)
Year 2: $4200000000 (Low: $3700000000, High: $4700000000)
Year 3: $3800000000 (Low: $3300000000, High: $4300000000)
Year 5: $3500000000 (Low: $3000000000, High: $4000000000)
Year 10: $2000000000 (Low: $1500000000, High: $2500000000)
Year 100: $1000000000 (Low: $500000000, High: $1500000000)
Key Considerations
- The policy may have unintended consequences on international trade relations, especially with China, potentially affecting other economic sectors beyond solar energy.
- Reports suggest China's significant share in global solar manufacturing means the US will need robust plans to prevent supply shortages.
- Diversification strategies in solar component sourcing will be crucial to ensure stable supply chains.
- Public perception of solar energy costs could impact growth in adoption rates among businesses and consumers.