The leader of the solar industry’s main trade group is ready to play “offense” in 2018, after the renewable power source suffered from real and near setbacks in the early stages of the Trump administration.
Abigail Ross Hopper, the president and CEO of the Solar Energy Industries Association, is aggressive and competitive by nature, taking after the defining traits of her favorite sport, ice hockey.
She is eager to continue solar’s progress, as the sun-powered energy generator is growing faster than any other power source, even as the Trump administration has shown a preference for traditional fossil fuels.
Thanks to the continuing drop in costs, America’s solar industry has gone from barely alive a decade ago to nearly 50 gigawatts of total installed capacity, enough to power nearly 10 million homes, according to the association.
“Personally, we have been on the defense for the past year, and we are done,” Hopper told the Washington Examiner in a recent interview in her Washington office. “We are going on the offense. We are going to be aggressive, we are going to be outspoken, we are going to be clear about what we want. And then, we are going to go get it.”
The setbacks and near-setbacks have been well-told. In January, President Trump imposed a 30 percent tariff on imported solar panels as part of his trade agenda to target cheap products made by China and other Asian countries.
The broader U.S. solar industry, other than panel manufacturers, opposed the tariffs, arguing the penalties could harm the industry’s recent progress by increasing costs and forcing them to raise prices for consumers.
Energy Secretary Rick Perry, meanwhile, tried to prod the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to subsidize struggling coal and nuclear plants, a payout that would have harmed competitors such as natural gas, solar, and wind.
FERC, which is made up of independent regulators, rejected Perry’s petition, but it was another example of the Trump administration’s preference for traditional power sources.
Hopper, a Maryland native, is accustomed to navigating politics, having previously been director of the Interior Department’s Bureau of Ocean Energy Management from 2015 to 2017 in the Obama administration.
Reflecting on solar’s place in the Trump era, Hopper insisted solar can outpace its competitors in the energy markets, regardless of policies imposed outside her control.
“I do think solar will continue to grow and be a larger and larger portion of that portfolio,” Hopper said. “It is inevitable that clean technologies, however one defines them, will make up our energy portfolio in the future, and it’s a question of how quickly we get there. Part of my job is to ensure we get there more quickly.”
Excerpts of her interview follow.
Washington Examiner: What did you learn from SEIA’s experience lobbying the Trump administration to oppose tariffs in the solar trade case?
Hopper: It really was unprecedented the amount of advocacy we engaged in and the coalition we were able to assemble. It reaffirmed my belief in coalition building. Getting together with unconventional allies had incredible power. We were aligned with [American Legislative Exchange Council], Heritage [Foundation], R Street [Institute], people we don’t often find policy agreement with. So, that was impactful. Within the solar industry, there was almost unanimity in opposition to the trade case. It was powerful to have such a unified voice.
Washington Examiner: What does it say about the Trump administration’s energy policy that you had these unusual coalitions come together to oppose the White House on solar tariffs, and also, the proposal to subsidize coal and nuclear plants?
Hopper: It speaks to the depoliticization of energy. Because it is not easily categorized into a red or blue issue. Both of those issues are across the political spectrum, across technologies and don’t fall neatly into preconceived notions or categories. It speaks to our next steps. It’s making sure our message continues to resonate regardless of your political affiliation.
Washington Examiner: Does the tariffs decision tell you that the Trump administration opposes solar as an energy source? How do you combat that perception, if it exists?
Hopper: The trade decision was certainly a bit of a setback. I think the solar story is entirely resonate with what the Trump administration cares about. They care about innovation. They care about investment. They care about technological superiority. They care about energy dominance. Solar delivers all of those things.
The proposal to FERC told us the energy secretary cares about resilience and reliability, and obviously, solar can play a really important role in ensuring resilience and reliability. So, there are lots of opportunity to continue to grow solar under this administration.
One of the best examples or proof of that is the solar jobs census that was recently released that showed a small decline in solar jobs, but in states that voted for Trump, there was job growth. It was in blue states where there was more job decline.
Washington Examiner: You made the jobs argument, though, arguing tariffs would result in net job losses for the solar industry, and the Trump administration went against you. Is that discouraging?
Hopper: Certainly, I would have preferred no tariffs. That wasn’t a realistic expectation. The advocacy of our coalition really mitigated the impact. If you think about what the petitioners were requesting and what the administration imposed, it was much less draconian than it could have been.
It reflects at least a nod to the fact that solar is here. Solar is creating jobs. We were at $23 billion in investment in 2016. It is an economic powerhouse. Republican governors understand and embrace that, and Republican members of Congress understand and embrace that. This administration has lots of opportunity to embrace it as well.
Washington Examiner: For people confused about the split within the solar industry on the tariffs case, why did you oppose a policy that is intended to bring solar manufacturing jobs to the U.S.?
Hopper: The root of our opposition was twofold. One, we don’t think it will achieve the intended outcome. We don’t think the tariffs will create solar manufacturing jobs in the United States. You will harm an industry for no purpose.
Secondly, we really don’t believe that one job should be valued over another. We think every job is important. Even if [imposing tariffs] is successful in bringing a few manufacturing jobs, losing tens and thousands of development jobs and installation jobs and construction jobs simply isn’t worth it. And so, looking at the entire solar industry as opposed to one really discrete piece of it is why we opposed the tariffs.
Washington Examiner: Is it a problem that we aren’t manufacturing solar panels in the U.S.?
Hopper: The United States does two things really well. It applies to solar panels, and it also applies to other goods. We are really good at [research and development], and our government has invested heavily in R&D for solar panels and cells, and that technology is being used by several companies in the U.S.
And two, we figured out where we add value. So, you’re right. Historically, we have not added value to that degree in the manufacturing of cells and modules. But we have in other aspects of the solar plant. The cells and modules aren’t going to do anything if it doesn’t have the wires attached to it, and it’s not mounted on something.
So, if you think of those three pieces of the supply chain, we are really good at the electric equipment, we are really good at the inverters, and we’re really good at the tracking and mounting systems, and we do manufacture those here. So, we have done a good job of figuring out where we bring value and where we can add to the supply chain, and we have tens of thousands of jobs in those sectors.
Washington Examiner: What impact are we seeing already, if any, from the tariffs decision?
Hopper: We definitely saw an impact before the decision, with the level of uncertainty about what the decision would be, which obviously has an impact on investment decisions. There are numerous stories of projects being put on hold. We will see that in the 2017 numbers, sort of a chilling effect. Some of our companies are already reporting they aren’t able to do some projects, that the pricing doesn’t make sense anymore given the increase in the cost of panels.
In the coming months, you will see some further impact there. One of the things that will happen that is hard to see is that jobs won’t be created. There would have been more growth than there will be now. So, if we talk about job loss, there is sort of a category, a group of those jobs that won’t be created, not necessarily that people are going to be laid off.
Washington Examiner: Why is solar 1 percent of the grid mix, and what are some of the barriers you face to make it a bigger slice of our energy generation?
Hopper: To put it in perspective, solar has grown exponentially over the last six years. So, yes, it’s only 1 percent of the energy generation now, but it’s a lot more than it was.
What are some of the barriers? The barriers historically have been cost. One of things that has changed dramatically is the cost of installing solar. So many of those pieces we talked about, the entire solar plant. Those costs are coming down because of technology advances, because of financing costs coming down. So, we can compete with other sources of energy incredibly competitively. So, that’s changing. But cost has been a challenge.
Washington Examiner:What are some misconceptions about solar?
Hopper: There is a misperception that renewables get more favorable treatment than other forms of energy. That is simply false. All the facts tell us more traditional forms of energy receive much more favorable tax treatment than renewables.
Another myth about solar is it’s too expensive, and people only buy it either because they want to be environmentally friendly or because their utility is forced to do it. The facts are that most homeowners buy solar to save money, and most utilities buy solar because it’s the cheapest option.
So, that’s a really important myth to debunk.
Some of the other myths is that because the sun doesn’t shine 24 hours a day, it’s unreliable. I would argue the sun is incredibly reliable; you just have to balance the grid in a way that maximizes its value, which is how the grid is going and how grid operators are capable of operating our grid.
Washington Examiner: How important is battery storage to solar?
Hopper: It’s a game changer, without a doubt. Because it helps solve that intermittency issue, and provides a steady stream of energy all hours of the day. So, as we think about the future, I am not talking about 20 to 30 years, I am talking about the next couple of years, that will change the paradigm.
Being able to pair solar and storage so that homeowners, businesses, and utilities have the ability to control how the energy is being generated and used. It will force change on all of us.
Washington Examiner:What are your goals for the solar industry?
Hopper:The medium-term goal for solar is to, by 2022, be 5 percent of America’s energy mix and continue to grow from there. My job at SEIA is to make sure we create the right policy groundwork and create the right market signals, so solar can grow at that level.
Personally, we have been on the defense for the past year, and we are done.
We are going on the offense. We are going to be aggressive, we are going to be outspoken, we are going to be clear about what we want. And then, we are going to go get it.
