Higher Tariffs, Higher Stakes: How a New Trade Ruling Could Reshape Solar Costs and Access
A new U.S. trade ruling targets solar imports from Southeast Asia. Here’s what it could mean for costs, access, and the future of clean energy in America.
Solar developers in the U.S. rely heavily on imported panels to bring clean energy projects to life—quickly and at lower cost. In 2022, about 88% of solar panel shipments came from overseas, most produced in Southeast Asia, where lower manufacturing costs have helped keep prices down. That trend has continued in the years since. That dynamic is changing, as a new trade ruling reshapes the rules.
Last week, the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) ruled that solar imports from Cambodia, Malaysia, Thailand, and Vietnam have caused “material injury” to U.S. manufacturers. The decision clears the way for the Commerce Department to impose new anti-dumping and countervailing duties—some of which could reach rates as high as 3,400% for certain exporters. The final tariff orders are expected by June 9, and they’ll come on top of a 10% base tariff already in place.
The ruling has divided the solar industry. U.S. manufacturers, including members of the American Alliance for Solar Manufacturing Trade Committee, view the decision as a necessary correction to an uneven playing field. But others, including the Solar Energy Industries Association, argue it will raise prices, shrink supply, and complicate efforts to scale up clean energy across the country.
Supporters of the tariffs argue that building up domestic manufacturing will lead to more jobs and greater energy independence. But that shift won’t happen overnight.
In the meantime, the added costs could ripple across project budgets, raising questions about whether the long-term economic gains will balance out the short-term slowdown. Wages, regulation, and infrastructure costs in the U.S. are higher than in Southeast Asia, and those realities may shape how quickly—or affordably—domestic production can fill the gap.
For solar developers, that uncertainty lands at a tough time. Inflation, tax credit shifts, and persistent permitting delays are already challenging the economics of clean energy projects. Now, companies could face steeper costs for panels, slower delivery times, and the possibility of retroactive duties on orders already placed.
That could mean real consequences—not just for utilities and developers, but for cities, school districts, and nonprofits who’ve been planning solar installations on tight budgets and long timelines.
If prices rise, some of those projects may stall. And if supply contracts get tangled in new tariff rates, communities may have to wait longer for the energy savings and resilience they were counting on.
The final duties are expected to be announced in June.
Positive Current is powered by FutureForce.
The goal behind these tariffs is resilience—more U.S. factories, more jobs, and more control over our energy future. But resilience, if rushed, can become expensive. Here’s the breakdown:
Pros: What Solar Tariffs Could Do for You
Job Creation: Domestic manufacturing could add tens of thousands of jobs across engineering, construction, and logistics.
Local Investment: New factories bring local tax revenue, housing demand, and small business growth.
Supply Chain Resilience: Less dependency on volatile global markets or politically unstable suppliers.
Innovation Ecosystem: More R&D, next-gen solar tech, and U.S. companies competing globally.
Cons: What Tariffs Could Also Mean
Higher Costs for Projects: Until U.S. production scales fully, panels and components will likely cost more—sometimes much more.
Public Budgets Squeezed: Schools, cities, and community solar programs may not be able to afford the same scale of buildout.
Delayed Climate Goals: Slower project timelines = slower emissions reductions and resilience efforts.
Consumer Pass-Through: Eventually, energy users (you and me) may absorb some of these costs through higher rates or taxes.
The Big Idea: The real test isn’t whether America can build solar at home—it’s whether it can do it fast enough to offset the costs we’ll all feel if the pace slows down.