Author Archives Laura Arnold

Dugger (IN) coal mining town worried about impact of EPA proposed carbon rule; Sierra Club explains benefits of EPA plan

Posted by Laura Arnold  /   July 31, 2014  /   Posted in Uncategorized  /   No Comments

062612 COAL EXCAVATOR

A Bear Run Mine employee uses a large excavator to scoop up coal at the mine near Dugger, Ind., in mid-2012. (Photo courtesy of Peabody Energy)

July 30, 2014

For Indiana coal mining town, EPA climate change plan threatens stability

EPA plan to combat climate change sparks worries about loss of jobs

By Maureen Hayden, CNHI Statehouse Bureau

DUGGER, Ind. – Peggy and Martha Marlow collect artifacts of this small town’s history for a storefront mining museum that Martha helped open more than 30 years ago.

Tin dinner buckets, carbide headlamps and battered hard hats line the museum’s crowded shelves. Stacks of old letters and documents include rosters of living and deceased miners, scrip once used in company stores, yellowed newspaper clippings recounting mine disasters and scores of panoramic photos of union gatherings.

Admission to the museum is free, but for a dollar a visitor gets a copy of the town’s “Centennial Book,” published in 1979. On the cover is a photograph of the old Dugger Mine and its 7,000-ton walking dragline excavator.

The Marlows don’t mind the dust kicked up by heavy coal trucks that rumble past their museum, nor the piercing whistle of a nearby train that clatters through this town of 920 people.

They’re optimistic that the nearby Coal Miner’s Café, closed after being hit by a coal truck last year, soon will re-open, hopefully in time for the 35th annual Dugger Coal Festival this fall. Until it closed, the café was one of only two places to eat in town.

But the Marlows worry for the industry that has sustained Dugger since it was founded as one of Indiana’s first mining towns. They fear a federal plan to combat climate change may kill hundreds of coal-related jobs, and in turn accelerate the flow of people out of town.

“If we lose the coal mines, there’s nothing left,” said Peggy Marlow, who comes from generations of miners. “All we know in Dugger is coal, coal, coal.”

It’s a worry that resonates here in Sullivan County and throughout rural southwestern Indiana. About 2,500 people mine a major coal vein that ribbons beneath the ground of this region, working in two-dozen active surface and underground mines. Miners make an average of $82,000 per year.

And, setting aside climate change, their prospects have looked strong despite the popular narrative of an industry in decline. While a steady procession of mines in Indiana has closed over the last two decades, there’s been new investment. Four years ago, Peabody Energy, the nation’s largest coal producer, opened the Bear Run mine near Dugger. It’s the largest surface mine east of the Mississippi River, employing more than 500 people.

Last year, miners in southwest Indiana extracted 40 million tons of coal, 15 percent more than a decade ago.

Retired miner John Cox, who has two sons-in-law who mine coal, moved back to his hometown of Dugger last year to be closer to his 10 grandchildren. He’s heard the government’s new rules are intended to protect the planet for future generations but he’s skeptical. He echoes the concerns of the United Mine Workers of America, which argues global pollution may get worse if industrial jobs shift to countries without emissions rules.

“This is what will finally kill the coal industry in the U.S.,” said Cox. “I’m telling you, if they shut down these mines around here, it’s going to devastate this little town and all the little towns around here.”

Coal Jobs at Stake

The federal initiative gives Indiana three years to devise plans to cut carbon emissions by 20 percent by 2030. The national goal is higher — 30 percent — but Indiana gets credit for utilities that have started converting coal plants to natural gas and have shut down aging facilities.

Environmentalists say the government’s target is reachable. "And it's a challenge we really have to take on,” said Jodi Perras, head of Indiana Beyond Coal, in a statement issued when the plan was released. She heads a campaign launched by the Sierra Club more than a decade ago to reduce the number of coal-fired power plants in the state.

Supporters of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s plan say Hoosiers already are suffering the effects of climate change tied to greenhouse gases and global warming, including droughts and floods that have cost farmers millions of dollars.

The EPA’s rules, supporters say, will lead to more “green” jobs, such as making energy-efficient insulation or producing wind turbines and solar panels.

Still, coal jobs will take a hit.

Economist Michael Hicks, of the Center for Business and Economic Research at Ball State University, said Indiana has a 300-year supply of coal. But the state must wean itself from its dependence on a fuel that generates 80 percent of its electricity — twice the national average — to meet the EPA’s goal.

Indiana ranks fourth for carbon dioxide emissions and has two of the nation’s top-polluting power plants.

“We will lose lots of coal production, and lots of coal jobs, and that will have a big impact on the Indiana counties that mine coal,” Hicks said.

A decade ago, coal was mined in 19 of Indiana’s 92 counties, all along the state’s western border. It’s now concentrated in 10 mostly rural counties that historically have higher unemployment than the rest of the state. Here, the loss of jobs is a rallying cry for opponents of the EPA’s plan, including Gov. Mike Pence.

Backed by the state’s biggest manufacturers, Pence says tougher standards will chill the state's business climate by killing jobs and raising the price of electricity. During a visit to Bear Run in early July, he told workers he stood with them in what he called the Obama administration’s “war on coal.”

Peabody Energy officials, reportedly counting on a $6 billion revenue stream from Bear Run, were glad to have him. They hope Pence’s warnings resonate beyond Indiana’s coal-producing counties and spur opposition.

p. 4

The final carbon plan won’t go into effect until next year, and federal regulators are still in a public comment period that could alter the rules.

“We’ve got a tough story to tell,” said Keith Haley, who oversees Peabody’s Midwest operations, including Bear Run. “But the reality is that Indiana will be dependent on coal for a very long time.”

Booms and Busts

Dugger’s existence has depended on coal for a long time. The town was named for the Dugger family that sunk the first mine in 1879. Within five years, Dugger was one of largest villages in eastern Sullivan County. The only place for 225 townspeople to shop was the store owned by the mining company, which paid workers in scrip.

By 1920, the area was dotted with mines, and the population peaked at more than 1,600.

There’s been a steady decline since. There’s not much else in the area to attract new residents. Sullivan County is mostly rural. After its two coal mines, the biggest employers are Hoosier Energy’s coal-fired power plant, a state prison, the county hospital and Wal-Mart.

Dugger, surrounded by old stripper pits now converted into lakes teeming with fish, is a 45-minute drive to the nearest interstate and the closest big city, Terre Haute.

Town Council President Larry Bedwell, a third-generation miner, said people understand the fluctuations of the coal industry. “Mining is nothing but booms and busts,” he said.

Bedwell retired in 2000 from Peabody Energy, as coal companies in Indiana were cutting back production and jettisoning union mines. Production in the Illinois Basin, which covers part of Indiana, Illinois and western Kentucky, shrank by more than one-third from 1990 to 2010 amid environmental concerns over the high sulfur content of its coal.

Anti-pollution technology changed that. A resurgence in Indiana coal stems from equipment mandated by an EPA rule in 2005 that required reductions in sulfur dioxide emissions. As some power plants installed sulfur “scrubbers” on their coal-fired boilers, which made the state’s easy-to-mine coal competitive again.

Peabody spent about $400 million to open Bear Run in May 2010, after announcing it had landed long-term contracts with Duke Energy and Hoosier Energy.

But the EPA’s plan to cut carbon emissions presents a new challenge. Dugger residents fear the quickest way for Indiana to meet the deadline is for its power plants to switch over to natural gas, which produces much less carbon pollution.

Dr. Stephen Jay, of Indiana University’s School of Medicine, says the state must consider not just the fortunes of Dugger, but the health of all its citizens. He worries opponents of the EPA plan ignore evidence of coal’s damage. In 2006, he co-authored a study that calculated a $5 billion annual public health cost of burning coal. That included the effects of carbon emissions.

“The train has left the station on climate change. It’s real,” said Jay. “But we still have a lot of non-believers.”

Jay said he also believes the state must invest in communities like Dugger which depend on the coal economy. “We need to be willing to spend the money on efforts that help miners and their communities move toward a more sustainable energy economy,” he said.

In 2004, he notes, the federal government agreed to make annual payments to tobacco farmers when it ended a quota and price support system that had been in existence since the Great Depression. The $10 billion program is funded by fees paid by tobacco companies.

Can’t Afford to Lose

Dugger’s concerns about its future aren’t just about jobs. Locals fear what could happen to their health care, and the community itself.

Retired miners fear the EPA plan will push the nation’s biggest coal producers, like Peabody Energy, out of the United States. That would drain payments into the United Mine Workers’ health funds, which provide lifelong benefits to more 75,000 retired miners and their families.

p. 6

“We’re worried that will close some of the black lung clinics,” said Cox, the retired miner and former UMW local leader. “We fought for those benefits and we can’t afford to lose them.”

Cox likens the loss of coal mining in Sullivan County to the loss of auto plants in other Indiana communities.

“What are they going to do? Go get a job Wal-Mart? There’s nothing wrong with a Wal-Mart job, but it’s not going to buy you a new car or let you build a nice house,” he said.

The fears of Dugger’s residents are projected onto other changes in town, including what appeared to be the imminent closing of their local schools, as part of a cost-cutting measures by district officials in the northern part of the county. The schools were saved when the Indiana Cyber Charter School, an online organization, agreed to partner with them to keep the schools open.

Bedwell called it a victory for his small town.

“You take a small town, if you lose any part of it, the body starts to die,” he said. “If you lose a school, you lose families who move away to be closer to their new school. If the jobs dry up, you lose people who move away to be closer to their new jobs. We lose either of those things, this town is going to die.”

Related Photos

  • A Bear Run Mine employee uses a large excavator to scoop up coal at the mine near Dugger, Ind., in mid-2012. (Photo courtesy of Peabody Energy)

    062612 COAL EXCAVATOR

  • A history that runs deep: A coal truck drives by a monument dedicated to the 100th anniversary of the town of Dugger in Sullivan County. Like the images on the monument depict, Dugger has a rich history of coal mining. (Photo by Joseph C. Garza, Tribune-Star)

    071814 COAL TRUCK

  • A historical diamond: The Dugger Coal Museum tells the history of coal in the area through photos, artifacts, documents and works of art. A photo of mining union advocate John L. Lewis is prominantly displayed among other photos on the wall. (Photo by Joseph C. Garza/Tribune-Star)

    071814 COAL MUSEUM

  • Joe Smith, retired miner. (Photo by Joseph C. Garza, Tribune-Star)

    071514 COAL SMITH

  • Past pose: Miners pose with donkeys near a coal tipple in this photo on display inside the Dugger Coal Museum. Coal tipples were used to load coal into railroad cars. (Photo courtesy of the Dugger Coal Museum)

    071814 COAL TIPPLE

  • Train cars loaded with coal leave the property of Bear Run Mine in June 2012 near Dugger in Sullivan County. (Photo courtesy of Peabody Energy)

    062512 COAL TRAIN

  • Keeper of coal history: Martha Marlow, one of the founders of the Dugger Coal Museum, shares a laugh with retired miners, Joe Smith and Eldon Seifert, inside the museum in the Sullivan County town. (Photo by Joseph C. Garza, Tribune-Star)

    071514 COAL MARLOW

  • John Cox, retired miner who lives in Dugger. (Photo by Joseph C. Garza, Tribune-Star)

    071514 COAL COX

  • Larry Bedwell, retired miner who lives in Dugger, Ind. (Photo by Joseph C. Garza, Tribune-Star)

    071514 COAL BEDWELL

  • Eldon Seifert, retired miner who lives in Hymera, Ind. (Photo by Joseph C. Garza, Tribune-Star)

    071514 COAL SEIFERT

  • On the job: Miners are shown on a break from digging coal in this photo on display at the Dugger Coal Museum. (Photo courtesy of the Dugger Coal Museum)

    071814 COAL 01PHOTO

  •  

 

 

Indiana Lt. Gov. Sue Ellspermann co-sponsors NLGA resolution asking for delay in EPA Clean Power Plan

Posted by Laura Arnold  /   July 28, 2014  /   Posted in Uncategorized  /   No Comments

Lt. Governor Sue Ellspermann

Ellspermann, other lt govs push back on EPA energy rule

By Allie Nash
TheStatehouseFile.com

INDIANAPOLIS – Lt. Gov. Sue Ellspermann has cosponsored a resolution adopted by the National Association of Lieutenant Governors aimed at protecting Indiana’s ability to use coal as a major source of power.

Officials from Missouri, West Virginia, Alabama, South Dakota and Hawaii have also sponsored the resolution, which calls for federal officials to let states “determine the appropriate mix of energy sources to meet it electricity needs.”

The letter is a reaction to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency plan that calls for state to reduce carbon emissions from existing power plans by a total of 30 percent from 2005 levels by 2030. Indiana’s share of that reduction is somewhat less.

“Gov. Pence and I are concerned about the impact on both individual Hoosiers and our state’s overall economy with the projected increases in energy costs driven by the restrictions on coal fired power plants,” Ellspermann said in a statement.

Indiana has one of the nation’s least diverse power supplies, with 80 percent of its electricity the product of coal-fired plants.

“We in Indiana see these regulations as a continuation of President Obama’s ‘attack on coal’ that will ultimately cause jobs losses in the mining industry and in Indiana’s strong manufacturing economic base that is dependent on low-cost and reliable electricity supplies,” Ellspermann said.

Indiana is the most carbon intensive state in the Midwest and top five in the U.S., federal officials said.​

The resolution seeks a delay of the implementation of the Clean Power Plan so that states can do additional planning without limiting access to affordable electricity.

Federal officials say the EPA rule could save up to $93 billion in climate and public health benefits by avoiding 6,600 premature deaths, 150,000 asthma attacks in children, and 490,000 missed days of work and school.

A statement from the White House said that 9.1 percent of Indiana’s adult population currently suffers from asthma.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Editor's Note: The Resolution was offered at the recent Annual Conference of the National Lieutenant Governors Association. All Resolutions were submitted on or before Friday, June 27, 2014.

To read the resolution click HERE: A Resolution Concerning U.S. EPA's Proposed Greenhouse Gas Emission Guidelines for Existing Fossil-Fueled Power Plants

Michigan PSC has no authority regarding decoupling for electric utilities; Is utility revenue decoupling good or bad?

Posted by Laura Arnold  /   July 26, 2014  /   Posted in Uncategorized  /   No Comments

Michigan decoupling ends with 2 settlement deals

July 11, 2014

Experts explain why killing decoupling is a mistake

The Michigan PSC approved two settlement deals Tuesday, reconciling Upper Peninsula Power's (UPP) 2013 revenue decoupling mechanism (RDM). These will be the final defrayals to the electric utility serving most of the state's Upper Peninsula under its defunct decoupling mechanism, Judy Palnau, a spokesperson for the Michigan PSC in Lansing, told us this week.

"The Michigan Court of Appeals in April 2012 found that the [PSC] has no authority regarding decoupling for electric utilities," Palnau said.

"In light of the court's decision, the [PSC] has dismissed all pending cases involving electric revenue decoupling. However, because the Upper Peninsula Power case was a settlement, it still involved decoupling through December of last year," (SGT, 2012-Sept-6).

UPP and the PSC staff took part in the settlement cases that were decided as follows:

• Under the terms of the settlement in Case U-17555, Upper Peninsula Power experienced a gross revenue RDM under-recovery of $619,580 in 2013 and a revenue shortfall of $71,247 in connection with the 2010 RDM reconciliation approved in Case U-16568. Effective Jan 1-Dec 31, 2015, the utility is authorized to implement a surcharge. As a result, a residential customer using 500 KWHs/month will see an increase of 56¢ on the monthly bill. UPP and the PSC staff took part in the settlement, the PSC said.

• Under the terms of the settlement in Case No U-17605, a residential customer using 500 KWHs/month will see a 5¢ increase on the monthly bill, for service rendered on and after Aug 1.

While over 20 US states have opted for some form of electric utility decoupling, Michigan may be the only one that since backed out of it. These states gave it a try: Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Oregon, Tennessee, Utah, Virginia, Washington, Wisconsin and Wyoming.

According to the NARUC, "decoupling" or "revenue decoupling" refers to a rate adjustment mechanism that separates an electric or gas utility's fixed cost recovery from the amount of power or gas it sells. Under decoupling, utilities collect revenues based on the determined revenue requirement, most often on a per-customer basis. Periodically, revenues are "trued-up" to the predetermined revenue requirement using an automatic rate change.

This type of rate mechanism encourages utilities to take part in energy efficiency programs and other initiatives that cut power bills, but would represent gains for the environment.

Indeed, the commissioners said in a 2007 study, "Since utilities will be protected, if their sales were to decline because of efficiency, proponents of decoupling contend that they are more likely to invest in this resource, or may be less likely to resist deployment of otherwise economically beneficial efficiency initiatives."

A step backwards

In light of the perceived and proven benefits, Michigan's move to deter decoupling was definitely counterproductive, American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy (ACEEE) Senior Fellow Martin Kushler told us. He has been with ACEEE since 1998 and right before that was supervisor of evaluation at the Michigan PSC for nearly 10 years, he added.

Not only does decoupling "offer protection to utilities from the under-collection of fixed costs," but it "has great advantages for consumers because it's symmetrical," Kushler said. "So, if either the ratepayer or the utility is over-collecting or under-collecting, the amount will be reconciled and everyone will be made whole."

Kushler characterized the court's decision on the measure, "Enrolled Senate Bill No. 213," as "problematic. The 2008 finding was a real judiciary over-reach. The court looked at the plain language of a statute relating to decoupling that said the [PSC] 'shall authorize' natural gas providers to grant decoupling and from that, determined one, that there was no mention of electricity providers and two, that there was no mandate that the [PSC] 'must' provide decoupling."

NRDC surprised by it

Rebecca Stanfield, deputy director for policy, Midwest program, Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), agreed with Kushler. "That decision came after two years of talks with the [PSC], during which the [state] legislature thought decoupling was a good idea.

"It was a surprising verdict – made for a really unusual legal reason, based on the imprecise wording of a statute. This was unheard of prior to the court's finding. It is certainly well within the authority of a typical public service commission to regulate programs such as decoupling," she added.

Looking at the other side of the meter, "The finding absolutely is not in the interest of ratepayers," Stanfield said. "Decoupling enables the utility to provide the best, most reliable service to its customers, as opposed to increasing revenues by escalating sales every year. Decoupling enables utilities to boost energy efficiency without risking their own financial health," she added.

Legislature is next hope

As of now, Michigan's advocates of decoupling may be down, but they are not out. "I think that the folks at the commission feel that it would not be productive to lodge a legal appeal," said Kushler. "However, the legislature still may step in. It would be fairly simple to add a few words to that paragraph of the statute.

"This is just an unnecessary obstacle that has to be rectified."

Stanfield would like to see the ruling reversed. "I honestly don't know what will happen," she said, "but I am hoping that, after the election, we will see some forward movement."

 

 

What Impact will WTO Ruling have on Solar PV Panel Pricing?

Posted by Laura Arnold  /   July 26, 2014  /   Posted in solar  /   No Comments

What Happens to Solar Panel Pricing after the WTO Ruling?

Thomas Larson, Sol Systems July 25, 2014

The World Trade Organization (WTO) Dispute Settlement Body (DSB) issued a panel report to its members on a dispute between China and the United States involving solar panels and sixteen other products. Recent reports delcared the U.S. countervailing duties “illegal” as a result of the ruling, which may be a misleading summary of what actually occurred. Deeper analysis shows that this case only addresses a small piece of the U.S.’s procedures behind calculating the duties, not the duties themselves, and does not demand immediate response from the U.S.

Although the case may have broader implications for U.S. trade policy as it seeks to fight anti-competitive behavior from China’s state-owned enterprises, it is unlikely to change much in the U.S. module market. Here are three important clarifications on the panel report for solar industry folks who want to know how it will affect panel pricing in the next twelve months.

1. What exactly is the WTO and how serious are its rulings?

The WTO is the largest international forum for negotiating multilateral trade agreements and settling disputes over trade-related issues. If one country feels it is harmed by another country’s failure to comply with its obligations under various trade agreements, the parties may enter the iterative dispute settlement process through the DSB. Depending on the issue, disputes can be settled quickly through consultations, or take years to reach a ruling (through what is called a panel), address appeals, and drive the adoption of a compliance measure.

While the WTO has a fairly rigid body of law, it relies on its members to police one another. WTO rulings are binding, but not exactly compulsory—the WTO cannot force the U.S. to change a discriminatory trade policy. However, the WTO can inflict pain by allowing complainants to raise tariffs on what are usually politically sensitive exports (think of products grown in Florida to draw a response from the U.S.) if a respondent refuses to comply with a ruling.

2. Which U.S. Solar Tariffs are at stake?

Of the four recent actions taken by the U.S. against China on solar products, the WTO only ruled on one—the 2012 countervailing measures against solar cells from China. A countervailing duty is an additional tariff set by an importing country to reduce the effects of a foreign government’s subsidy that harms the importer’s domestic producers.

In October 2012, the DOC announced final rulings on countervailing and anti-dumping measures against Chinese solar cells. After Chinese manufacturers began exploiting a loophole by using solar cells from elsewhere (Taiwan), the DOC initiated two more investigations in 2014, which have resulted in a preliminary countervailing tariff against all Chinese modules at much more painful rates than the 2012 ruling, as well as anti-dump measures (to be announced shortly). China brought this case to the DSB in May 2012—the panel only reviewed the U.S.’s justifications for enacting the 2012 countervailing duties on solar cells; anti-dump measures and the 2014 tariffs were not addressed.

Of the seven issues China raised with U.S. countervailing measures on solar cells, the panel determined that China met its burden of proof on only two, both of which centered around a U.S. practice of presuming that government-owned companies are considered “public bodies” capable of providing a subsidy. The U.S.’s control-based standard for deeming those companies to be “public bodies” was rejected by the panel, which followed a previous decision by the Appellate Body on the issue. However, the panel did not rule that the provision of inputs by state-owned enterprises for downstream products for less than adequate remuneration could not amount to “countervailable” subsidies. In other words, the U.S. could potentially employ a different, acceptable test in order to classify state-owned enterprises as public bodies to maintain WTO-consistent countervailing duties.

3. What does this mean for solar module prices in the U.S. in the short-medium term?

This ruling is unlikely to have any major impacts on the fundamentals of the U.S. module market in the coming months. The case will affect U.S. solar tariffs in one of two ways—the U.S. could 1) use the negative parts of the ruling to back away from the harmful tariffs while saving face or 2) continue to disputing the details in order to maintain the tariffs. The U.S. is far more likely to take the second option based on historical trade practices (see cases on U.S.-zeroing) and its commitment to limiting the competitiveness of Chinese solar modules. Since there are no retroactive damages at the WTO, the U.S. can use delay tactics while keeping the countervailing duties in place without paying damages in the meantime.

The changes we’ve seen in module prices recently have been reactions to the 2014 countervailing duty announced by the DOC. The market should settle as Chinese manufacturers opt for the lower 2012 rates by classifying nearly complete solar modules as solar cells and finishing the panels behind U.S. borders. Even though the WTO case does address issues with the 2012 countervails, the U.S. appears to have minimal motivation to lower them quickly in response.

It will be interesting to see whether the DOC’s final report on the 2014 countervailing duties reflects the WTO panel ruling, since the WTO ruling was released to the U.S. prior to the DOC’s completion of their second investigation on Chinese solar module subsidies. A slight adjustment to the ownership-based test for identifying public bodies or an entirely new method of tracing subsidies should provide some insight into the Administration’s attachment to the solar tariffs.

WSJ: Tariffs Boost Solar-Panel Makers in U.S.; What will be the long-term impact on installed solar PV prices?

Posted by Laura Arnold  /   July 26, 2014  /   Posted in Uncategorized  /   No Comments

Tariffs Boost Solar-Panel Makers in U.S.

Duties on Chinese Products Amid Subsidy Accusations Prompt Expansion

By  CASSANDRA SWEET  CONNECT
July 25, 2014 7:02 p.m. ET

Employees working on a solar-panel production line at Shenzhou New Energy Co. in Lianyungang, China. The U.S. has accused Chinese manufacturers of selling at unfairly low prices. Getty Images

New tariffs on Chinese solar panels, including widely anticipated duties imposed by Washington on Friday, are spurring companies to manufacture more solar-power equipment in the U.S.

Two U.S. companies— SolarCity Corp. SCTY +0.57% and Suniva Inc.—have recently announced plans to build solar-panel factories in America, and at least one Chinese manufacturer says it is considering joining them.

Panels from China have been far cheaper than those produced in other countries, driving down overall prices in the U.S. by about two-thirds since 2010. Chinese panels are now going for about 68 to 73 cents a watt, compared with an average of 83 cents for panels made in Europe, Japan and the U.S., according to a study by GTM Research in Boston (the average household solar-power system is about 5,000 watts).

Chinese companies supplied about a third of the panels installed in the U.S. in 2013, GTM says. U.S. developers installed about 4,800 megawatts of solar panels in 2013 and are expected to install about 6,600 megawatts this year, according to GTM.

The Commerce Department on Friday slapped provisional duties of between 26% and 42% on equipment made by several Chinese solar-panel makers, over accusations that the companies dumped their products into the U.S. at unfairly low prices. The department assigned tariffs of 165% to Chinese firms that it said didn't respond to its inquiries.

Last month, the Commerce Department levied temporary tariffs ranging from 19% to 35% on the same group of Chinese solar-panel companies, which it accused of receiving unfair government subsidies. Both sets of tariffs won't become permanent until they receive final approval from the Commerce Department, which is expected to rule by December, and then the U.S. International Trade Commission, which is expected to rule on the tariffs by January.

The duties are part of a two-year battle sparked by complaints from the U.S. division of SolarWorld AG SWVK.XE -7.84% , a German panel maker with a factory in Oregon.

"We want a level playing field," said Mukesh Dulani, president of SolarWorld's U.S. subsidiary.

The duties would affect most Chinese solar-panel makers. China-based Trina Solar Ltd.TSL +0.71% and Yingli Green Energy Holding Co. YGE +0.57% Ltd. deny their operations are heavily underwritten by the Chinese government and say they haven't dumped products in the U.S.

"It's unfair," said Zhiguo Zhu, senior vice president of Trina. "The government didn't give us huge subsidies."

The company has been considering opening a factory outside China, possibly in the U.S., Mr. Zhu said, adding that the duties "speed up our plans to manufacture outside China."

Suniva Inc., which is based in Norcross, Ga., employs about 250 people at its panel factory there and also outsources some manufacturing to China. The tariffs have helped make its American products more price-competitive, said Matt Card, vice president of global sales. The company started construction this week on a new factory in Saginaw Township, Mich., which will employ about 350 people.

SolarCity, of San Mateo, Calif., plans to build a factory in New York State within the next two years to build panels developed by Silevo Inc., which SolarCity bought in June for $200 million in stock, debt and cash.

"The tariffs were not a major factor in our decision, but they do make domestic manufacturing even more attractive," SolarCity spokesman Jonathan Bass said.

Even if the Chinese companies pass on the added costs of the tariffs, the duties aren't likely to dent demand from homeowners, analysts said. Companies that install residential systems compete with each other to offer the lowest-priced electricity, not the lowest-priced panels.

"I don't really see a huge impact on customers in the residential sector," said Shyam Meta, an analyst at GTM. "It's more in the utility-scale sector where the economics become more challenging."

Some companies that install commercial systems, often called solar farms, have relied on cheap Chinese panels.

Strata Solar, a small solar-farm developer in Chapel Hill, N.C., used to buy low-price Chinese panels, but those prices have increased by 15% to 20% because of the new duties, said John Morrison, a senior vice president at the company.

"This is the wrong way to go," he said. The company has switched to buying thin-film panels made by Arizona-based First Solar Inc. FSLR +1.18% and by Chinese manufacturers. Chinese thin-film panels aren't subject to the tariffs, as they use a different technology than the more mainstream silicon panels that are at the center of the trade case.

Write to Cassandra Sweet at cassandra.sweet@wsj.com

Copyright 2013 IndianaDG