The first story of a two-part interview.

Since being elected chairman of the board of directors for the Solar Energy Industries Association two months ago, Arno Harris has sought to be a voice for policies that move the entire industry toward its goal of becoming part of the mainstream U.S. energy economy.

The tricky part is when his industry is split on how to achieve that goal.

Such was the case this week when Harris discussed the high-profile trade dispute between a few U.S. manufacturers of crystalline silicon solar cells and the Chinese government. That battle has split the U.S. solar industry over the past 10 months.

Last fall, SolarWorld Industries America, the largest U.S. solar manufacturer, and a half-dozen smaller manufacturers filed a complaint with U.S. trade officials alleging that China has illegally subsidized its manufacturers, which in turn dump their products on the U.S. market at prices well below their value. China's goal, SolarWorld argues, is the destruction of the U.S. solar manufacturing sector.

Arno Harris, CEO of Recurrent Energy, was elected chairman of the board of directors for the Solar Energy Industries Association in June. Photo courtesy of Arno Harris.

The case, which has quickly become the largest trade action ever in the renewable energy industry, is opposed by other U.S. and Chinese solar manufacturers and many installers, which worry that it could lead to a renewable energy trade war that would increase the cost of solar modules and harm job growth in the U.S. solar sector.

When the case was first announced last October, Harris, the CEO of Recurrent Energy -- a leading developer of solar projects for utilities and large energy customers -- was a vocal foe.

"I think it's important to state really plainly what's really going on here," Harris said on the day the case was announced. "One manufacturer who can't compete with today's solar panel prices is basically looking to put in place trade barriers to make the U.S. a safe market for their own more expensive solar panels."

That kind of blunt assessment was the kind of talk industry insiders had come to expect from Harris, an entrepreneur and private pilot who has developed a reputation as a frequent commentator in the press and staunch defender of renewable energy.

In a biography posted on his personal blog, "Clean Energy Future," Harris describes himself as someone who is "passionate about startups and passionate about clean technology, but I have zero patience for dreamy ideas or unfocused execution."

But yesterday, Harris sought a more diplomatic tone when asked about the SolarWorld case.

"In this position, I don't think it's appropriate for me to make statements about individual companies that are that strong," he said of his comments last fall.

Still, that doesn't mean Harris doesn't have an opinion.

"I think if somebody can point to me who is benefiting from this [trade] action, I'd love to see it," he said.

'Missing the big picture'

The tension between SEIA and SolarWorld has been mounting since the case was filed last fall.

When SEIA declared last year that it would remain neutral on the case, SolarWorld quit its position on the board in protest.

In May, after the Commerce Department ruled in favor of SolarWorld and its allies and issued stiff anti-dumping tariffs of about 30 to 250 percent on Chinese solar panels, SEIA released a statement calling for the United States and China to avoid further escalating the case by resolving the dispute through negotiations.

That statement wasn't well received by SolarWorld, which accused SEIA of abandoning its own position of neutrality (E&ENews PM, May 24).

In its release, SolarWorld also noted that SEIA's then-board chairman, Roger Efird -- whom Harris replaced as president -- was managing director of Suntech America, the American subsidiary of a Chinese company named in the trade complaint.

But while he certainly understands the need for diplomacy on the issue, Harris isn't afraid to offer his assessment of SolarWorld's case 10 months in.

"The intended effect of the approach ... was to basically impose a protectionist measure and protect this market for manufacturers of higher-cost equipment," Harris said. "I think the reality is that what we've seen is in the implementation, even with the tariffs, is that module prices have not risen substantially. And that's because manufacturers have figured out how to move their cell production to Taiwan or to other places that are not subject to the tariff."

SolarWorld has decried that exact situation, calling on trade officials and Congress last month to implement measures to "stop ongoing efforts by unscrupulous foreign manufacturers to undermine the effectiveness" of the anti-dumping and countervailing duty tariffs (Greenwire, July 19).

But even if trade officials find a way to accomplish that, Harris said, "I still struggle to understand how putting a floor under the cost of solar equipment helps the industry or helps our country. ... At the end of the day, what we need as an industry is, we need to see solar become ever more cost-competitive, and we need to really welcome any opportunity to reduce the cost of equipment and get solar down to the point where it's a competitive offering to conventional fuels."

Anything that gets in the way of that effort, he said, "strikes me as myopic and missing the big picture."

And the big picture involves a lot more than the ongoing trade case. In fact, Harris said the SolarWorld action has not occupied much of his time since taking over SEIA's board.

"Our focus is on defining for our industry what are the key policies that are going to help complete the transition to grid parity that the industry is on course for," he said.

"And this industry has gone through just a tremendous amount of really successful accomplishments over the past five years with cost reductions, with putting gigawatts to work in this country. The focus is really on maintaining that momentum."

SolarWorld's 'dramatic flourish'

But at least part of the reason Harris has been able to avoid getting caught up in the back and forth of the SolarWorld dispute is largely that SolarWorld has not been a member of the industry group's board since December.

In his resignation letter, SolarWorld President Kevin Kilkelly said the board no longer served the interest of the company or the effort to grow the U.S. solar manufacturing sector.

"Many SEIA member companies have worked long and hard to ensure that the U.S. solar energy industry is based on the principles of robust and fair competition, strong U.S. domestic manufacturing, and sustainable production according to high environmental standards," Kilkelly wrote.

"Given serious questions that have arisen in recent months about SEIA's ongoing commitment to these ends, however, we strongly suggest that SEIA leadership either reaffirm to its membership that it is actively pursuing these goals, or formally articulate a vision for a new set of goals."

Harris said this week that while he was on the board at the time, he never read the letter.

When Kilkelley's reasons for leaving the board were read to him, Harris was not impressed.

"It sounds like it may have been a dramatic flourish on the part of the folks at SolarWorld that went fairly unnoticed," he said.

That said, Harris said there would be nothing to keep SolarWorld from rejoining the board if it chooses to do so now or sometime after its case is finalized by U.S. trade officials later this fall.

"At SEIA, we represent all technologies and all markets and all viewpoints and all voices within the solar industry," Harris said. "So I'm sure we'd welcome their input into the dialogue."