From pv magazine Global

The Chinese Module Marker (CMM), the OPIS benchmark assessment for TOPCon modules from China was assessed at $0.100/W, down $0.005/W week-to-week. Mono PERC module prices were assessed at $0.090/W, down $0.005/W from the previous week. The new record lows for both prices according to OPIS data comes as market activity remains subdued on low demand.

Module makers have reduced prices in a bid to secure new orders and maintain cash flow with tradable indications for TOPCon modules heard at $0.10/W Free-on-Board (FOB) China.

Solar modules exported to Europe continue to contend with elevated freight rates on matters in the Red Sea. OPIS heard freight rates of about $0.0164-0.0175/W (about high $6,000s-$7,000/FEU) for shipments from Shanghai to Rotterdam. While this has affected shipments, it presents an opportunity for module sellers to reduce their inventories in Europe.

A market observer said that prices during Intersolar did not move and remained around $0.10/W FOB China (+/-0.3cts) and that despite the high installations season just starting, the installation demand for Europe this year did not seem very strong, at least in the utility-scale space.

Latin America continues to look weak with the price competition in this market described as “intense” by a module seller. Prices in the Brazilian market are generally lower than in other markets as buyers are price-sensitive. TOPCon prices to Brazil had fallen to the range of $0.08-0.09/W FOB China with prices at the low end offered by Tier2-3 module sellers, the module seller added.

A buyer noted that current U.S. Delivered Duty Paid (DDP) TOPCon prices have risen to the low-to-mid $0.30/W range. This pricing includes the 201 bifacial tariffs but excludes the new antidumping/countervailing duties. With the exemption set to lapse mid-week, another market source told OPIS that “any new deals would be subject to the 14.25% Section 201 tariffs and will likely push pricing into the mid $0.30s/W in 2024”.

Domestic Chinese demand remained weak amid mounting inventory pressure. Further price cuts in the coming weeks were expected as module sellers clear inventories to generate cash flow. The majority of market participants OPIS surveyed expected TOPCon prices to drop below CNY0.8/W or $0.099/W on a FOB China equivalent, which is the current cost of production for integrated producers.

The operating rates of integrated module sellers remained between 60-80%, according to the Silicon Industry of China Nonferrous Metals Industry Association. Estimates of June module production capacity stood at 50 GW, down from 52 GW previously expected and down 5 GW from May, the association said.

China exported 83.3 GW of modules in the period January-April marking a year-on-year increase of 20%, according to latest data from China’s Ministry of Industry and Information Technology. The total value of the module shipments for the period January-April reached $12.7 billion.

Looking ahead in the FOB China market, broader bearish conditions prevent any upticks in module prices in the short term although continued production cuts into July could give some respite to supply pressures.

OPIS, a Dow Jones company, provides energy prices, news, data, and analysis on gasoline, diesel, jet fuel, LPG/NGL, coal, metals, and chemicals, as well as renewable fuels and environmental commodities. It acquired pricing data assets from Singapore Solar Exchange in 2022 and now publishes the OPIS APAC Solar Weekly Report.

People on the move: 3E, Pure Power Engineering, Crux, CMBlu, and more Job moves in solar, storage, cleantech, utilities and energy transition finance.

New York invests $5 million in agrivoltaics The Empire State seeks “active farming,” such as cattle grazing, cannabis, corn, foraging, or specialty crops, on solar power sites. Offers up to $750,000 per site for demonstration projects that share data publicly.

Texas gas station to save on costs with solar installation A Shell gas station is expected to save over $150,000 from a solar array installed on the roof of its pumping station.

Assessing solar asset operational risks A report from kWh Analytics shares new data on mitigating solar asset operational losses.

Solar module prices increase for first time in years, Anza reports Using its own database of price quotes, the Anza Q2 Pricing Insights Report highlights the first price increase in years as a result of AD/CVD petition and the reinstatement of bifacial import duties.

Anza, a solar and energy storage supply chain platform, Q2 Pricing Insights Report aggregates data from 95% of the U.S. solar module supply year to date to provide pricing changes that result from market forces and regulatory changes. With the Q2 report on the U.S. solar module market shows the first price increase in years. Anza attributes this to the latest AD/CVD petition and reinstatement of bifacial import duties.

“After years of record low pricing, we’re seeing the market start to rebound as domestic manufacturers have less pricing pressure from foreign producers that are subject to tariffs,” said Mike Hall, CEO of Anza. “We’re expecting to see this upward price trend continue from here, making it critical for new projects to consider current pricing and potential tariff impacts when sourcing materials.”

Anza’s Q2 report looks at module pricing trends from March to May 2024 and finds that while there was a downward pricing trend in March and April, prices bounced up in May.

Looking at the period from February to May 2024, the median module price dropped from 27.9 cents per watt to 25 cents per watt, marking an 11% decrease. The most substantial change occurred between February and March 2024, when prices fell by 2.5 cents or 8.6%.

The report noted that while TOPCon prices remained steady from January to February, they dropped right alongside PERC through April. Anza attributes advancements in TOPCon manufacturing and increased competition from foreign suppliers as driving these price declines.

Then in May, following the AD/CVD petition, prices began to rise again at about 2%. Anza report authors acknowledge that while this is only a small increase, it is significant because it is the first time since late 2022 that prices have increased.

The report drills trend data down to a weekly basis, which that the median price dropped to 24 cents per watt the week of April 22, hitting what Anza suggests is the pricing floor. Since that time prices have climbed back and held at 25 cents per watt through the end of May; an increase of 4%. Anza anticipates that this upward trend due to the looming AD/CVD petition.

The report contends that “new solar module tariffs and regulatory changes have materially affected pricing, though we are only starting to see early signs of those impacts”.

The tariffs referred to include the new bifacial tariff as well as the looming fallout from an AD/CVD petition officially filed on April 24, 2024, against Cambodia, Malaysia, Thailand, and Vietnam. The report notes that while preliminary antidumping determinations for this case are not expected until Q4 of this year, additional duties could be applied retroactively as early as May or June 2024.

AD/CVD laws assess tariffs on goods that are found to be dodging import duties by dumping products in other countries before shipping them to the U.S. In the previous AD/CVD proceeding, four Southeastern Asian countries, Vietnam, Cambodia, Thailand and Malaysia, which were responsible for roughly 80% of the U.S. supply of solar components, were alleged as potentially harboring dumped products from China.

The recent AD/CVD petition filed by the American Alliance for Solar Manufacturing Trade Committee, which includes First Solar, Qcells, Meyer Burger, REC Silicon, and others, claims that the U.S. “manufacturing renaissance” is threatened by heavily subsidized Chinese cells and modules.

Anza’s quarterly Pricing Insights Report looks at the impact of both government incentive programs, such as the IRA, and AD/CVD tariffs—in addition to the recently reinstated tariffs on bifacial solar modules, which generate electricity on both sides of the panel. Bifacial solar modules were previously exempt from tariffs, and the removal of the exemption reinstates a 15% tariff.

The report also compares Tier 1 module pricing to that of Non-Tier 1, and finds that the gap between the two has closed in the near term. The report finds that Tier 1 module prices dropped from 29 cents per watt to 25 cents per watt, marking a 14.8% decrease. Meanwhile, Non-Tier 1 module prices fell from 25 cents to 24 cents per watt, a 4.1% reduction.

In 2023 Anza was spun out of Borrego Solar after Borrego developed the solar and battery storage online marketplace and optimization solution. The proprietary software that drives the digital marketplace identifies the most optimized solar module and storage components based on customer-provided project details.

Lazard released its annual report analyzing levelized cost of electricity (LCOE), a critical measure of cost-efficiency of generation sources across technology types. The report found that onshore wind and utility-scale solar have the lowest LCOE by a large margin.

LCOE measures lifetime costs divided by energy production and calculates the present value of the total cost of building and operating a power plant over an assumed lifetime.

“Despite high end LCOE declines for selected renewable energy technologies, the low ends of our LCOE have increased for the first time ever, driven by the persistence of certain cost pressures (e.g., high interest rates, etc.),” said Lazard. “These two phenomena result in tighter LCOE ranges (offsetting the significant range expansion observed last year) and relatively stable LCOE averages year-over-year.”

Onshore wind ranked as the lowest source of new-build electricity generation, ranging from $27 to $73 per MWh. Utility-scale solar was a close second, ranging $29 to $92 per MWh.

Utility-scale solar has had the most aggressive cost reduction curve of all technologies, falling about 83% since 2009, when new build solar generation had an LCOE of over $350 per MWh.

Solar at the utility-scale is far lower in cost than the LCOE of coal, the least-expensive source of fossil fuel generation. Coal LCOE ranges $69 to $169 per MWh, making it nearly double the average LCOE of utility-scale solar assets.

Meanwhile, natural gas peaker plants are highly inefficient in LCOE, ranging from $110 to $228 per MWh. Nuclear energy had the highest utility-scale LCOE with an average of $182 per MWh.

LCOE is a powerful measure to compare technology cost efficacy, but it does not tell the whole story. For instance, research from the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory found that wind and solar generation provided $249 billion dollars of climate and air quality health benefits from 2019 through 2022, or over $62 billion annually.

While utility-scale solar had the lowest LCOE, costs for smaller-scale distributed solar projects have fallen as well. Community, commercial, and industrial scale projects ranged $54 to $191 per MWh. Residential solar ranged $122 to $284 per MWh, making it a more expensive source of generation.

However, LCOE does not consider cost benefits like the lessened need for long-distance transmission buildout that occurs from distributed rooftop solar buildout. Environment America released a report assessing the co-benefits of rooftop solar, which can be found here.

Lazard also analyzed the cost impacts of the Inflation Reduction Act, which includes both generation-based Production Tax Credits, and project-based Investment Tax credits for renewable energy assets. The chart below models the cost impact on these technologies, as seen below.

Energy storage saw cost improvements from the IRA as well. Levelized cost of storage (LCOS) for a utility-scale, 100 MW, 4-hour storage system ranged $170 to $296 per MWh pre-IRA. Post-IRA, the low-end of the LCOS range landed at $124 per MWh. 

Find the full ninth annual report from Lazard here.

In its preliminary findings, the U.S. International Trade Commission (USITC) found reasonable indications that the domestic solar module manufacturing industry is being materially harmed by imported solar cells from Cambodia, Malaysia, Thailand, and Vietnam. These countries have been identified as providing governmental incentives for setting up manufacturing facilities, sparking this investigation.

The complaint was initially brought forward by the American Alliance for Solar Manufacturing Trade Committee, which includes prominent members such as First Solar, Hanwha Qcells USA, and Mission Solar Energy, according to the USITC. The group’s press release also named Convalt Energy, REC Silicon and Swift Solar.

Industry insiders told pv magazine USA that this outcome was expected from this group. 

A detailed report titled “Crystalline Silicon Photovoltaic Cells, Whether or Not Assembled Into Modules from Cambodia, Malaysia, Thailand, and Vietnam; Inv. Nos. 701-TA-722-725 and 731-TA-1690-1693” is scheduled for release on July 5, 2024, on the USITC website.

The specific outcome from this meeting is that the U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) will continue its most recent ongoing investigation on the topic. Commerce will release its preliminary determination results on Countervailing Duties on July 18, with Anti-Dumping results due on October 1. These will be followed by final rulings from Commerce and the USITC’s final rulings on the subject.

In its initial filing, the USITC reported that over the past three years, the four countries have exported 71 GW of solar modules to the U.S., valued at $21 billion. During the same period, the U.S. installed a total of 83.8 GW of solar capacity. Suggested by USITC data, there’s an estimated 50 GW of solar modules currently stored in warehouses across the country. The U.S. Energy Information Administration projects that more than 50 GW of new solar capacity will be installed in the U.S. in 2024.

A significant portion of these imported solar modules is used in utility-scale solar projects.

The merchandise under investigation includes crystalline silicon photovoltaic (CSPV) cells and modules, as well as laminates and panels containing these cells. Excluded from this investigation are thin-film photovoltaic products made from materials such as amorphous silicon, cadmium telluride, or copper indium gallium selenide, typical of products manufactured by First Solar. Off-grid CSPV panels are also excluded from this investigation.

Currently, the cost of importing solar panels into the U.S. could increase dramatically, according to Clean Energy Associates, if the panels originate from China. The collective effect of multiple tariffs – including Section 201, 301, Anti-Dumping, and Countervailing Duties, could raise the price of imported panels by 15% with no Chinese connections, and up to 286% for Vietnamese modules, should the proposed rates be approved.

New frontiers: All-terrain trackers are changing the rules of solar site selection As solar projects are built increasingly in populated areas, community pushback has become a major risk to solar growth and achievement of climate targets. Yet by allowing solar installations to fit the land in its natural form, we can remove one of the most significant sources of pushback. We shouldn’t have to protect nature from solar development.

Walking the hazardous line of qualifying for the brownfield energy tax credit The brownfield credit is significant and, therefore, it behooves a project developer to understand the definitions and rules in order to avoid any potential liability while also qualifying for the credit.

Solar cell prices hold steady in quiet market In a new weekly update for pv magazine, OPIS, a Dow Jones company, provides a quick look at the main price trends in the global PV industry.

Zinc-ion batteries: A less volatile alternative? At a time of growing demand for battery energy storage, pv magazine spoke with Eloisa de Castro, CEO of Enerpoly, a Swedish company preparing to launch the world’s first zinc-ion battery megafactory on its home turf. Having solved rechargeability issues, the company expects its safe and sustainable zinc-ion batteries, which rely solely on a European supply chain, to increase their market share in the years to come.

In case you missed it: Five big solar stories in the news this week  pv magazine USA spotlights news of the past week including market trends, project updates, policy changes and more.

From pv magazine Global

Market activity quieted down in the Chinese cell market as most market participants stood on the sidelines unsure if prices had bottomed out. Demand remained tepid as most market participants were not in an urgency to replenish cargoes.

The majority of cell manufacturers are facing cash flow problems and although wafer prices have reached an all-time low, these cash-strapped cell manufacturers were unable to take advantage of the lower wafer prices to build up their wafer inventories, a market veteran said.

Integrated manufacturers who had previously produced their own solar cells were more inclined to acquire cells from the market now as buying cells was cheaper compared to in-house production, the source added.

Some cell manufacturers have turned to OEM manufacturing to maintain operating rates despite production losses. The fee of M10 TOPCon cells OEM cell manufacturing had fallen to CNY1.4 ($0.19)/pc which is below the production costs of CNY1.6/pc, a market veteran said.

OPIS assessed the FOB China Mono PERC M10 prices stable at $0.0390/W,  FOB China Mono PERC G12 prices are unchanged at $0.0414/W while FOB China TOPCon M10 prices were assessed lower by 1.73% at $0.0398/W, week-to-week.

High inventories are expected to exert further downward pressure on cell prices in the coming weeks even if cell manufacturers reduce operating rates in a bid to restore supply and demand balance. Moreover, module manufacturers are expected to reduce their operating rates further in June and this would result in less demand for cells.

China cell production in May stood at 62 GW, according to the Silicon Industry of China Nonferrous Metals Industry Association.

In the Chinese domestic market, Mono PERC M10 cells were priced at about CNY 0.313/W while TOPCon M10 cells stood at about CNY0.320/W, according to OPIS market survey.

OPIS, a Dow Jones company, provides energy prices, news, data, and analysis on gasoline, diesel, jet fuel, LPG/NGL, coal, metals, and chemicals, as well as renewable fuels and environmental commodities. It acquired pricing data assets from Singapore Solar Exchange in 2022 and now publishes the OPIS APAC Solar Weekly Report.

As the United States reassesses its shrinking manufacturing base relative to China’s expanding influence and considers the global geopolitical landscape, solar panel import tariffs continue to play a pivotal role in shaping the industry. Solar modules are now the world’s leading source of new energy, and international relations often hinge on energy politics. This is exemplified by the current war in Europe, which was precipitated by Russia using its gas resources to slow the continent’s response to its invasion of Ukraine, leading to a massive increase in the adoption of photovoltaics across the continent.

Since October 10, 2012, the Commerce Department, then under President Barack Obama, has subjected all solar modules containing key components from China to an import tariff. Now, in 2024, as the solar industry strives to fully scale and establish itself, the U.S. has imposed five import tariffs, one geographical import ban, and has also recently initiated an additional tariff case now under investigation.

Christian Roseland, an analyst at Clean Energy Associates, released a document titled “US Trade Policies That Affect Solar PV.” This document lists seven policies:

2012

Starting from the oldest, the original Antidumping and Countervailing Duties (AD/CVD) case of 2012 was applied to all solar cells originating in China. According to a fact sheet from the U.S. International Trade Administration, the Commerce Department found that “Chinese producers/exporters have sold solar cells in the United States at dumping margins ranging from 18.32 to 249.96 percent. Commerce also determined that Chinese producers/exporters have received countervailable subsidies of 14.78 to 15.97 percent.”

Although Suntech and Trina were most publicly associated with these solar panel import tariffs, the ruling covered all solar cells from China, including 59 additional companies explicitly named in the document.

2014

While it didn’t technically affect solar cell prices, in 2014, the Obama administration charged “Five Chinese Military Hackers for Cyber Espionage Against U.S. Corporations and a Labor Organization for Commercial Advantage.” These charges stemmed from the theft of “thousands of files including information about SolarWorld’s cash flow, manufacturing metrics, production line information, costs, and privileged attorney-client communications relating to ongoing trade litigation, among other things.”

2015

In February 2015, a second pair of duties targeted solar modules assembled in China and solar cells from Taiwan. The solar module duty focused on Trina and was extended to include Jinko Solar. It applied to all companies assembling solar modules in China using solar cells from any manufacturing hub. It was determined that China had started to manufacture cells outside its borders, only to import them later for module assembly. The second ruling aimed to curtail Chinese companies that were specifically investing in the production of solar cells in Taiwan for subsequent reimportation into China.

The tariff rates were 26% for Trina, 78% for Jinko, with a standard 52% for a large number of companies. Companies not on the original list faced a nationwide tariff of 165%.

2018

Following lawsuits by Suniva, the Trump administration implemented two additional tariffs: Section 201 & Section 301, applying to solar modules and hundreds of other items, respectively. The Section 201 tariff imposed a 30% import tariff on all solar modules from all countries, decreasing 5% annually until its scheduled end. The Biden administration later extended this tariff.

Initially, the Section 201 tariff excluded bifacial solar modules, as no significant U.S. production existed. However, as the U.S. module manufacturing base began to scale, the Biden administration recently reinstated a 15% tariff on bifacial modules.

2022a

The Uighur Protection Act aimed to ban all materials coming from the Xinjang region of China, identified as originating from forced labor. This region is noted for its solar polysilicon production, facilitated by inexpensive coal-powered electricity. As a result, significant volumes of solar modules were blocked from entering the U.S. by Customs.

In response, many solar manufacturers began to shift their sourcing of solar polysilicon away from this region, including all products coming into the United States. To prove the origin of the product, the industry has started to develop supply chain verification techniques, and some Chinese solar manufacturers have initiated agreements with international polysilicon groups.

2022b (2012 – Part 2)

After a lawsuit was dismissed in 2021 due to anonymity concerns, Auxin Solar filed an AD/CVD lawsuit targeting Chinese manufacturers who had relocated solar cell and module production to Southeast Asia, claiming these actions violated the 2012 circumvention ruling. In winter 2022, the ruling confirmed circumvention by four companies, while another four major companies were found compliant.

The ruling specified that Chinese-origin solar cells would not be tariffed if at least three of six key subcomponents, including silver paste, aluminum frames, glass, backsheets, ethylene vinyl acetate sheets, and junction boxes, also originated outside of China.

President Biden paused the resultant tariffs for two years to foster the expansion of the U.S. solar industry, aligning with the goals of the inflation Reduction Act. The suspension was strategically planned to bolster the manufacturing and installation sectors of the solar industry during a critical growth period before any reductions in imports were enacted. Recently, Auxin challenged this decision by filing a lawsuit against the pause. This tariff suspension is scheduled to conclude on June 6, 2024.

2024a (2018 Part 2)

The current administration has extended and increased tariffs under the Section 301 ruling established in 2018, now covering solar cells, as well as batteries for cars and grid storage. The tariff on solar cells has risen from 25% to 50%, and battery cells have seen increases up to 25%. Today, importing solar cells from China, which cost between a few cents to a nickel per watt, would see a tariff increase from $0.0125/Wdc to $0.025/Wdc with this hike.

2024b – Pending Investigation

A petition filed by the American Alliance for Solar Manufacturing Trade Committee, which includes First Solar, Qcells, Meyer Burger, REC Silicon, and others, claims that the U.S. “manufacturing renaissance” is threatened by heavily subsidized Chinese cells and modules. These are alleged to be in violation of antidumping and countervailing duty (AD/CVD) laws.

The petition advocates applying the logic of the 2012 and 2015 AD/CVD rulings, which contend that certain countries hosting solar cell and module assembly factories – Cambodia, Malaysia, Thailand, and Vietnam – are unfairly subsidizing those factories, affecting all crystalline solar cell and panel manufacturers in those countries.

In their filing, the group says, “Although the Petitioner does not identify specific subsidy rates from the Subject Countries, the Petition alleges that solar cells and modules are imported and dumped in the U.S. market at the (above) margins.” The rates alleged are 70.35% for Thailand, 81.24% for Malaysia, 127.06% for Cambodia, and 271.45% for Vietnam.

How to apply solar panel import tariffs

Solar tariffs are collected by customs agents. While the buyer ultimately pays for the tariffs in the long run, the immediate financial responsibility depends on the import technique – EXW, FCA, DDP, etc. This determines who writes the check at the moment of import approval and who might be responsible if the amounts are incorrect or if evolving laws change the tariff amounts.

When calculating the AD/CVD and Section 201/301 tariffs, each tariff percentage is applied to the purchase price of the product. Among the four AD/CVD tariffs, a single charge is applied, but this only pertains to modules from specific regions. Conversely, both the Section 201 and 301 tariffs are imposed on all solar modules globally.

For example, if a solar module costs $0.10 per watt, then the Section 201 tariff at 15% would add $0.015 per watt, and the Section 301 tariff at 50% would add $0.05 per watt.

For a 2015 AD/CVD non-compliant solar module, the tariffs would vary significantly by manufacturer and country. For instance, when importing from China, tariffs are 26% for Trina products, 78% for Jinko, with a standard rate of 52% applying to a large number of companies. Non-listed companies would face a 165% tariff, leading to additional costs ranging from $0.026 to $0.165 per watt due to tariffs.

Should the 2024b tariff be applied as proposed, tariffs would increase costs significantly, adding $0.07035 per watt for modules assembled in Thailand up to $0.27145 per watt for those from Vietnam. However, none of these countries would have the Section 301 tariff applied, as that tariff only applies to products manufactured in China.

In total, a solar module initially costing a dime per watt could eventually cost between $0.191 and $0.38 per watt – an increase of 91% to 286%.

In comparison to the Inflation Reduction Act

Solar panel import tariffs are primarily intended to support the development of a new U.S.-based solar module manufacturing supply chain, which is financially backed by the Inflation Reduction Act. This act introduces a series of tax credits designed to bolster domestic manufacturers.

For solar modules, the credits are as follows:

• Solar cells: 4 cents per direct current watt of capacity
• Solar wafers: $12 per square meter
• Solar grade polysilicon: $3 per kilogram
• Polymeric backsheet: 40 cents per square meter
• Solar modules: 7 cents per direct current watt of capacity

For inverters, the credit varies depending on the type and is applied per watt of alternating current:

• Central inverter: 0.25 cents
• Utility inverter: 1.5 cents
• Commercial inverters: 2 cents
• Residential inverters: 6.5 cents
• Microinverters: 11 cents

Additionally, torque tubes for racking will receive a credit of $0.87 per kilogram, and structural fasteners will receive $2.28 per kilogram. Detailed information on these production credits is available starting on page 414 of the Inflation Reduction Act.

From pv magazine Global

Freight container shipping spot rates have increased to their highest level since 2022, according to data from Xeneta, a Norwegian ocean and freight rate benchmarking platform.

At the end of May, Xeneta said market average spot rates from the Far East to the US West Coast would reach $5,170 per forty-foot equivalent unit (FEU) on June 1. The figure is 57% higher than in May and the highest that spot rates have been for 640 days, surpassing the peak seen during the Red Sea crisis earlier this year. Spot rates are expected to peak at $6,250/FEU on the Far East to US West Coast line in June, just shy of the Red Sea crisis peak ($6,260).

On the Far East to North Europe trade line, spot rates are set to exceed the Red Sea crisis peak, reaching $5,280/FEU, compared to $4,839/FEU on Jan. 16. This will be the highest rate on this line for 596 days and an increase of 63% since 29 April.

Xeneta noted a similar story on the Far East to Mediterranean trade line, where spot rates are expected to edge past the Red Sea crisis peak of $5,985/FEU to reach $6,175/FEU. This would be an increase of 46% on May and the highest rates on the trade for 610 days.

With freight costs representing around 4% of a solar panel’s total costs, the spot rate increase is likely to have a knock-on effect on PV module prices.

Xeneta said the market has been hit by the ongoing conflict in the Red Sea, port congestion, and shippers deciding to frontload imports ahead of the third quarter, which is the traditional peak season. Despite the latest spot rate increases, Xeneta’s chief analyst, Peter Sand, said the growth is not as rapid as during May, “which may hint toward a slight easing in the situation.”

“This cannot come soon enough for shippers who are already having their cargo rolled, even for containers being moved on long term contracts signed only a matter of weeks ago,” Sand said. “Carriers will prioritize shippers paying the highest rates. That means cargo belonging to shippers paying lower rates on long term contracts is at risk of being left at the port. It happened during the Covid-19 pandemic and it is happening again now.”

“In such cases they have no other option than to pass these costs on directly to their shipper customers,” he said. “Carriers will continue to push for higher and higher freight rates so the situation may get worse for shippers before it gets better.”

German engineering association VDMA has published the annual ITRPV report, now in its 15th edition. The report reveals that module shipments hit a record high of 502 GW in 2023, with cumulative installed PV capacity rising to around 1,610 GW throughout the world.

FOB China prices for M10 wafers continued their downward trend this week. Prices for Mono PERC M10 and n-type M10 wafers declined by 5.37% and 7.95% week-to-week, reaching $0.141 per piece (pc) and $0.139/pc, respectively.

FOB China prices for G12 wafers stayed relatively steady this week, with both Mono PERC G12 and N-type G12 wafer prices remaining flat at $0.236/pc and $0.238/pc, respectively.

According to OPIS’ market survey, the average transaction prices of Mono PERC M10 and N-type M10 wafers in the Chinese domestic market have descended to around CNY1.13 ($0.16)/pc and CNY1.12/pc, respectively. Even at this price point, the volume of transactions remains minimal, according to an upstream source. Another industry insider even cited an offer of CNY1.05/pc for n-type M10 wafers, suggesting the potential direction of n-type wafer prices in the immediate future.

The current wafer selling price has notably diverged from production cost considerations, with the main emphasis being on securing sales, according to a market participant.

The wafer inventory remains high at more than 5 billion pieces, equivalent to about 40 GW and twenty days’ production, according to multiple market sources. Against the backdrop of high wafer inventories, reports emerged this week of certain manufacturers reducing their operating rates. Consequently, the overall operating rates of wafer producers have decreased to between 50% and 60%, with a monthly output expected to range between 55 GW and 62 GW.

Recent discussions have emerged about cell manufacturers stockpiling wafers, suggesting that a bottom price for wafers may have been reached. However, a source from the cell market suspects this could be a deliberate attempt by wafer manufacturers to spread misinformation. The source considers this move “unnecessary”, noting that “even if they do hit rock bottom, there’s no basis for a price rebound.”

As a result of shifts in international trade policies, there’s an expectation that orders for cells and modules exported from Southeast Asia to the U.S. will face obstacles in the near future. This development has prompted discussions within the industry regarding the digestion of Southeast Asian wafers and the potential source of wafers for the U.S.’ future cell production.

“It is anticipated that until local cell production capacity is established in the U.S., policies will not completely block the import of Southeast Asian cells. Consequently, the impact on Southeast Asian wafers is not expected to be too significant in the near future,” a source from the global polysilicon market disclosed to OPIS during the China Polysilicon Development Forum (CPDF) held in Leshan, Sichuan, China on May 23 and 24.

In the global market, market insiders have disclosed that a vertically integrated manufacturer’s initial phase 3.3 GW wafer project in the U.S. is slated for completion this year. The factory has already secured the necessary amount of polysilicon for its annual production capacity. Additionally, other wafer manufacturers are exploring the viability of establishing factories outside Southeast Asia, such as in the United Arab Emirates, to navigate the complexities of the international trade environment, sources disclosed to OPIS during the CPDF.

OPIS, a Dow Jones company, provides energy prices, news, data, and analysis on gasoline, diesel, jet fuel, LPG/NGL, coal, metals, and chemicals, as well as renewable fuels and environmental commodities. It acquired pricing data assets from Singapore Solar Exchange in 2022 and now publishes the OPIS APAC Solar Weekly Report.

From pv magazine Global

There has been little movement in the price of solar modules in the low-performance class this month. However, there was a significant price adjustment for modules with efficiency levels of more than 22%.

The prices of these modules, which are now mainly equipped with n-type/TOPCon cells and double-glass, are increasingly aligning with those of mainstream modules. There are only upward outliers for some types with interdigitated back-contact (IBC) or heterojunction (HJT) technology, which are not considered separately in this analysis.

Production volumes in China for n-type cells and modules appear to have increased, but the new customs situation in the United States might already be having an impact. The question is, what will this do to the European market? Increasingly lower prices would mean that demand would continue to rise if it weren’t for several disruptive factors.

There are still larger stocks of modules produced in 2023 or earlier at distributors, but also among installers themselves. However, if these measure 2 sqm in size, they are selling poorly due to their low performance. Building owners usually want to see high performance and the latest technology installed in new systems, which makes it much more difficult for existing goods to sell.

Despite the expected reduction in module production and import volumes, more Asian modules are still reaching the European market than are currently in demand. This is causing inventories to grow, even for high-performance models, putting additional pressure on module prices.

Inventories of old modules, which were produced and purchased at significantly higher prices in the past, must therefore be continually devalued. However, this is not possible for all players, which means that there are very different prices for modules with PERC technology in the market. Overall, the price difference between these categories is increasingly shrinking.

Africa and Southeast Asia will probably also become oversaturated with modules and Chinese products cannot be sold to the U.S. market. One strategy that is becoming popular is to accommodate the soft factors of the commercial business – that is, payment and delivery conditions. Instead of offering modules at lower prices, credit lines are granted – often without requiring collateral – and free delivery is promised. However, it is doubtful that this tactic will work over the long term. Many smaller companies, in particular, are on the brink and imminent payment defaults cannot be ruled out.

Some suppliers also take refuge in online marketplaces, where they try to quickly sell their stock goods to international customers without incurring sales and marketing costs. But the competitive pressure there is also great and such goods can often only be sold at dumping prices. The other issue is that there is hardly any way to get to know the potential business partner in advance –you have to take what you get.

Misunderstandings can arise in business transactions, especially across national borders, and online platform operators are not always available to provide support and advice. The efforts involved in running an online business quickly become greater than purchasing or selling within an established business relationship.

My preference for using surplus older modules is clear: installing them in larger open-space or rooftop systems. The often smaller formats are not a bad choice, especially in areas with higher wind or snow loads. The material and assembly costs increase slightly in favor of better statics, but the easier handling makes up for the disadvantage.

And there is another undeniable advantage: the modules are already in stock and are therefore guaranteed to be available, meaning there can be no delivery problems and thus delays in the construction process. You may also find a few unsold inverters and cable reels, and then the components for your PV system are almost complete.

Once a system has been built and connected to a network, nobody is interested in whether the modules are of the very latest generation or not. In any case, the resulting assets can be sold.

Martin Schachinger studied electrical engineering and has been active in the field of photovoltaics and renewable energy for almost 30 years. In 2004, he set up a business, founding the pvXchange.com online trading platform. The company stocks standard components for new installations and solar modules and inverters that are no longer being produced.

Power purchase agreement (PPA) marketplace provider LevelTen Energy released a pricing report for Q1, 2024, noting increased price stability following years of energy market volatility.

LevelTen reports its data based on P25 pricing, or the 25th percentile of all PPA prices. P25 prices for solar declined by 1.5% over the quarter, while P25 wind prices increased 2.4%.

Lower natural gas prices from a mild winter and abundant supply of solar modules, combined with market hopes for lower interest rates, have allowed developers to offer lower prices in the quarter, said the report. However, LevelTen does not expect this window of opportunity to last indefinitely, as demand from economy-wide electrification and datacenter demand continues to ramp up.

“More corporations are entering the PPA buyer pool as 2030 sustainability deadlines approach,” said Sam Mumford, energy modeling analyst, LevelTen Energy. “Trade restrictions could impact pricing soon as President Biden’s two-year tariff moratorium on PV components shipped from certain Southeast Asian countries ends in June. Heightened government scrutiny on the solar supply chain could increase costs for developers — with the potential for PPA pricing impacts.”

LevelTen noted P25 solar prices in Texas, the largest market for utility-scale solar, declined in the quarter by 1.6%. The company said it continues to see positive pricing trends for the market, with consistent levels of high-value offers paired with favorable future capture prices. 

California P25 prices declined considerably in Q1 2024, dropping 12.7%. LevelTen said the price drop was driven by a high volume of competitively priced projects under 50 MW that entered the LevelTen marketplace in Q1.

In 2023 LevelTen facilitated 42 power purchase agreements, contracting over 98 million MWh of clean electricity from solar and wind. The company expects that figure to grow in 2024.

The company sees current prices as a window of opportunity for buyers as Scope 2 emissions deadlines and competition for PPAs increases, potentially pushing prices higher in the near-term. LevelTen developed an accelerated negotiation process for its customers, bringing the typical 12-month or longer PPA negotiation down to about 100 days. The accelerated process, called LEAP, has led to 1.5 GW of renewables procurement in a partnership with Google.

“While prices are relatively stable this quarter, they remain high, and companies need options. Bundling PPAs and clean energy tax credits together is an emerging alternative for buyers that can make their procurements more financially sustainable,” said Mumford.

EnergySage maintains a leading marketplace for residential solar and energy storage, providing personalized quotes and connecting prospective customers with local installers. The company released its 18th annual Solar & Storage Marketplace Report, noting declining costs for both solar and energy storage.

For the first time since 2021, quoted solar prices decreased on the marketplace, falling 3.5% to $2.80 per watt for quotes in the second half of 2023. The median system size over that period was 11.3 kW, leading to an average quoted system price of $31,640 (before any associated tax credits or incentives). These prices are the lowest since mid-2020.

Energy storage meanwhile decreased for the first time since EnergySage started reporting storage data in 2020. During the second half of 2023 energy storage prices declined about 6% to a median $1,265 per watt.

EnergySage said the drop in prices was driven in part by a 19% decrease in quoted storage prices in California, where energy storage attachment rates for solar projects reached 45% in the second half of 2023.

For energy storage providers, Enphase represented nearly half of the energy storage quotes provided, while Tesla was the second most-quoted, and FranklinWH reached third, continuing its climb in market share.

For inverters, microinverter provider Enphase Energy gained market share, reaching nearly 70% of quoted systems of EnergySage marketplace. It was followed by SolarEdge, Hoymiles, and Tesla.

The top quote solar panel brands were a more diverse mix led by REC Group, Qcells, Silfab Solar, Panasonic, and others. During 2023, 90% of quotes on EnergySage had solar panels with power ratings of 400 W or greater, up from only 2% of quotes in 2020.

Among the largest residential solar markets, many saw declines in per watt quoted prices. California median prices dropped sharply by 20% from the first half to the second half of 2023, reaching $2.70 per watt. This drop was driven by installers trying to improve the economics of residential solar for customers under the new Net Metering 3.0 rate structure. Meanwhile, Florida and Texas median prices were $2.35 per watt, while Colorado median prices were $3.10 per watt and Nevada $2.55 per watt.

The lowest quoted median per watt price was in Arizona, with $2.30 per watt, while Tennessee median prices were the highest at $3.65 per watt. California had the smallest median system size at 8.07 kW, while Kentucky had the largest with 14.50 kW for the median in the second half of 2023.

Nationwide, median loan rates for residential solar projects rose from 4.99% in the first half of 2023 to 5.5% in 2023. High interest rates have posed a challenge for residential solar installers, who were accustomed to a median loan rate of 2.99% in the second half of 2022.

Median estimated payback period, or the time it takes to achieve breakeven on investment, remained relatively flat throughout 2023. It improved from about 8.3 years in the first half of 2023 to about 8.1 years in the second half.

EnergySage also noted that solar is reaching a broader set of markets. Residential solar historically thrived in markets with high average electricity rates, but this year only three of the top 10 states for solar installations had electricity rates higher than the national average. The company said this marks a good sign for the solar industry in general, suggesting solar is evolving from early adopter markets to the mainstream.