Thank you!

This looks like “another” round in the appeals court. As the technology stirs the industry, there are “other” considerations than bifacial and “maybe” up to 20% more daily harvest of solar PV on any given day. For instance First Solar has been in business since 1999, it has successfully brought a thin film CdTe solar PV panel to market, but has efficiency that is 18% and CdTe has better light harvesting capabilities in hazy or cloudy environments. These panels take less energy to produce and have had a recycle program for old panels since 2003. How many “other” solar PV panel manufacturers have something like this? Especially in the utility scale solar PV farm, one can install large foot print, 27 square feet per 450 watt panel, and still come out ahead. These series 6 panels are also designed for utility scale at a nominal 221 or so VDC output. Makes strings easier to duplicate throughout the solar PV farm.

” He also officially determined that the bifacial exemption was undermining the objectives of the original safeguard messages (which was to prop up U.S. solar manufacturing), so bifacial modules are back to being taxed. Within 15 days of the proclamation, bifacial imports will be taxed the full tariff amount.”

I believe the amount of time living with the tariffs have proven statistically even (IF) a U.S. manufacturer falters and goes out of business, in the solar PV arena, you may lose 1,000 employees. When tariffs stifle solar PV installation throughout the industry one might see the effect of the loss of 10,000 or more solar PV installation jobs, 10 to 1 says get rid of the tariffs. From MY understanding, when one decreases taxes, then it drives commerce and make up for the loss of tax dollars with manufacturing output. So, far, it has been the experience there are 10,000 to 100,000 solar PV construction jobs idle with no tax base available at this time. When you shoot your own ideology in the foot with tariffs, there’s something missing in ‘some ones’ calculations.