Barcode:3479269-01 A-570-979 SCO - Scope Inquiry - TriexTM PV Cells the record to determine how the crystalline silicon substrate in Triex cells fits into the scope and, in particular, the thin film exclusion. In this case, the ITC's initial investigation provides an illustrative list of substrates that were contemplated in its discussion of thin film products: "glass, stainless steel, {and} plastic." 250 The Petitions also state: "Thin film products do not use crystalline silicon." 251 As such, the mere physical presence of crystalline silicon in the Triex products suggests that, according to the Petitions, cells such as the Triex cells should not be considered thin film products for purposes of the scope of the Orders. Nevertheless, to better understand this product in light of the scope of the Orders, the Department has considered the functional role of the crystalline silicon in Triex cells. We note, in particular, that the crystalline silicon in Triex cells is doped and essential to the generation of electricity. Therefore, in direct contrast to the Petitions' description of thin film cells, the Triex cells use crystalline silicon. Finally, SolarCity insists that the ITC's statements regarding the manufacturing processes of CSPV and thin film products support the claim that Triex cells fit within the thin film exclusion in the plain language of the scope. The Department addressed the relevant ITC reports in the P 1 . . S R 1· 252 d h . d 1 . . h. fi 1 1· 253 re 1mmary cope u mg, an we ave reiterate our ana ys1s mt 1s ma ru mg. Therefore, as explained at Issue 3, no further consideration is necessary. 254 ITC Injury Determination SolarCity and Sunpreme assert that, as SolarWorld's request, the ITC did not consider "hybrid" solar products, such as HIT cells, to be within the scope of its initial investigation. 255 SolarWorld, while denying that it made such a request, fails to point to any evidence that the ITC did, in fact, contemplate hybrid products. 256 As explained above, we find that the evidence on the record is ambiguous as to whether or not the ITC considered "hybrid" photovoltaic cells (e.g., HIT cells) to be within the scope of its investigation and, more specifically, relevant to its injury determination. 257 In particular, the ITC made no explicit statement as to whether or not its investigation covered hybrid cells. The few references to HIT cells and hybrid solar products, primarily discussing the prevalence and competitiveness of the relevant technology, have multiple reasonable interpretations, resulting in uncertainty as to whether or not the ITC record supports SolarCity's and Sunpreme's arguments that the ITC excluded such products from its investigation. Therefore, we find that Triex cells are not dispositively excluded from the scope of the Orders by virtue of possible exclusion from the ITC's investigation. Conclusion We continue to find that an analysis of the Triex cells under 19 CFR 351.225(k)(l), in specific regard to the items discussed above, is not dispositive. In particular, the Department concludes 250 See ITC Preliminary Report at 7. 251 See Petitions at 17-18. 252 See Preliminary Scope Ruling at 10-13. 253 See supra at 10, 11-14. 254 See infra at 40. 255 See SolarCity Comments on Preliminary Scope Ruling at 23-24; see also SolarCity Rebuttal Comments on Preliminary Scope Ruling at 20-21 ; Sunpreme Comments on Preliminary Scope Ruling at 24. 256 See SolarWorld Rebuttal Comments on Preliminary Scope Ruling at 24, 25. 25 7 See supra at 11-12. 34 Filed By: Kaitlin Wojnar, Filed Date: 6/ 17 / 16 3:21 PM, Submission Status: Approved
the record to determine how the crystalline silicon substrate in Triex cells fits into the scope and, in particular, the thin film exclusion. In this case, the ITC's initial investigation provides an illustrative list of substrates that were contemplated in its discussion of thin film products: "glass, stainless steel, {and} plastic."250 The Petitions also state: "Thin film products do not use crystalline silicon." 251 As such, the mere physical presence of crystalline silicon in the Triex products suggests that, according to the Petitions, cells such as the Triex cells should not be considered thin film products for purposes of the scope of the Orders. Nevertheless, to better understand this product in light of the scope of the Orders, the Department has considered the functional role of the crystalline silicon in Triex cells. We note, in particular, that the crystalline silicon in Triex cells is doped and essential to the generation of electricity. Therefore, in direct contrast to the Petitions' description of thin film cells, the Triex cells use crystalline silicon.
Finally, SolarCity insists that the ITC's statements regarding the manufacturing processes of CSPV and thin film products support the claim that Triex cells fit within the thin film exclusion in the plain language of the scope. The Department addressed the relevant ITC reports in the P 1. . S R 1· 252 d h . d 1 . . h. fi 1 1· 253 re 1mmary cope u mg, an we ave reiterate our ana ys1s mt 1s ma ru mg. Therefore, as explained at Issue 3, no further consideration is necessary. 254
ITC Injury Determination
SolarCity and Sunpreme assert that, as SolarWorld's request, the ITC did not consider "hybrid" solar products, such as HIT cells, to be within the scope of its initial investigation. 255
Solar World, while denying that it made such a request, fails to point to any evidence that the ITC did, in fact, contemplate hybrid products. 256 As explained above, we find that the evidence on the record is ambiguous as to whether or not the ITC considered "hybrid" photovoltaic cells (e.g., HIT cells) to be within the scope of its investigation and, more specifically, relevant to its injury determination. 257 In particular, the ITC made no explicit statement as to whether or not its investigation covered hybrid cells. The few references to HIT cells and hybrid solar products, primarily discussing the prevalence and competitiveness of the relevant technology, have multiple reasonable interpretations, resulting in uncertainty as to whether or not the ITC record supports SolarCity's and Sunpreme's arguments that the ITC excluded such products from its investigation. Therefore, we find that Triex cells are not dispositively excluded from the scope of the Orders by virtue of possible exclusion from the ITC's investigation.
Conclusion
We continue to find that an analysis of the Triex cells under 19 CFR 351.225(k)(l), in specific regard to the items discussed above, is not dispositive. In particular, the Department concludes
250 See ITC Preliminary Report at 7. 251 See Petitions at 1 7-18. 252 See Preliminary Scope Ruling at 10-13. 253 See supra at 10, 11-14. 254 See infra at 40. 255 See SolarCity Comments on Preliminary Scope Ruling at 23-24; see also SolarCity Rebuttal Comments on Preliminary Scope Ruling at 20-21 ; Sunpreme Comments on Preliminary Scope Ruling at 24. 256 See SolarWorld Rebuttal Comments on Preliminary Scope Ruling at 24, 25. 257 See supra at 11-12.
that the evidence is ambiguous regarding the classification of "hybrid" photovoltaic cells, which contain functional crystalline silicon and thin film components, as CSPV cells and whether or not such products were contemplated in the ITC's injury determination. Therefore, we have determined that further analysis under 19 CFR 351.225(k)(2) is appropriate in this case.
Issue 2: Analysis under 19 CFR 351.225(k)(2)
SolarCity's Comments
•
•
•
•
The Department improperly referenced excluded merchandise (i.e., thin film products) in its application of the Diversified Products criteria to the Triex cells. 258
The formation of a p/njunction in subject merchandise, as ogrosed to a p/i/n or p/i/o/n junction in the Triex cells, is a decisive physical difference. 5 The only physical similarity between a Triex cell and the subject merchandise is that "both begin with a crystalline silicon wafer," although the wafers are physically and functionally different. 260 The physical differences of the Triex cell's quantum tunneling features, as described in the patent, are also apparent. 261 The Triex cells' thickness is not enough to overcome the other physical differences. 262
The differences in product efficiency are greater than characterized in the Preliminary Scope Ruling, and Triex users expect a greater efficiency from Triex products. 263
Triex cells have not been available for domestic sale in over a year and, furthermore, are imported for exclusive use and installation by SolarCity, rather than for sale to and use by third parties. Therefore, the Triex product is distinct from commercially-available CSPV cells. 264
SolarWorld's Comments
• There is no basis for SolarCity's assertion that the Department cannot reference thin film cells in its 19 CFR 351.225(k)(2) analysis. 265 Nevertheless, ''the Department did, in fact, analyze each of the Diversified Products factors ... with reference to CSPV products."266
• The scope does not require all subject merchandise to be physically identical. 267 Subject merchandise needs to meet the thickness criteria and contain a p/n junction formed by any means. 268 SolarCity has referred to the Tri ex cells as CSPV cells, and substantial evidence on the record indicates that the Triex cells are, indeed, physically similar to subject CSPV cells. 269 Specifically, both products contain doped crystalline silicon
258 See SolarCity Comments on Preliminary Scope Ruling at 38. 259 Id at 39. 260 Id 261 Id at 40. 262 Id 263 Id at41-42. 264 Id at 42. 265 See SolarW orld Rebuttal Comments on Preliminary Scope Ruling at 41. 266 Id 267 Id at 43. 268 See SolarWorld Rebuttal Comments on Preliminary Scope Ruling at 43. 269 Id at 43-44.
wafers that form part of a p/n junction, and, when visually inspected, they are virtually indistinguishable. 270
• The efficiency levels of Tri ex cells are similar to the efficiency levels of subject CSPV products and "considerably different from { efficiency levels} of thin film products. " 271
Consumers purchasing Triex products "expect and believe" that they are purchasing CSPV products. 272
• SolarCity's claims that it has not sold Triex cells in the United States for over a year are contradictory and unsubstantiated. 273
Department's Position
As discussed above, the Department finds Tri ex cells to be within the scope of the Orders under 19 CFR 351.225(k)(2). 274 While maintaining that this scope ruling can be made based solely on the plain language of the scope, rather than application of the Diversified Products criteria, SolarCity disputes the Department's conclusions regarding the physical characteristics, user expectations, and channels of distribution of the Triex product. 275 For the reasons discussed below, the Department continues to find that, based on a 19 CFR 35 l .225(k)(2) analysis, Triex cells are subject merchandise.
As a general matter, the Department disagrees with SolarCity's argument that it is improper to reference thin film products in our application of the Diversified Products criteria. 276 Our 19 CFR 3 51. 225(k)(2) analysis of Tri ex cells is conducted with discrete reference to CSPV products. 277 As thin film products are expressly excluded from the scope of the Orders and, moreover, SolarCity and Sunpreme argue that Triex cells are, in fact, thin film products, 278 it would be illogical not to consider thin film products in this scope ruling, as a means of furthering our understanding of the product at issue and clarifying the reasoning behind the Department's conclusions.
Physical Characteristics
As explained above, the Department has determined that one possible interpretation of the "p/n junction" language in the scope of the Orders is that the p/i/njunction in a Triex cell is a form of p/njunction. 279 We have considered SolarCity's arguments regarding the physical differences among the various forms of p/n junctions, such as p/i/n junctions and p/ i/o/n junctions, as well as
270 Id at 44. 271 Id at 46. 272 Id at 47. 273 Id at 48, 49. 274 See supra at 25. 275 See SolarCity Comments on Preliminary Scope Ruling at 38-42. 276 Id at 38. 277 See supra at 16 ( comparing the thickness of Tri ex cells to the thickness of subject CSPV cells), 17-18 ( comparing junction formation and crystalline silicon in Triex cells to junction formation and crystalline silicon in subject CSPV cells), 21-22 ( comparing the conversion efficiency of Tri ex cells to the conversion efficiency of CSPV cells), 22-23 ( comparing the costs of Tri ex cells to the costs of CSPV cells), 24 ( comparing trade of Triex cells to trade of CSPV cells), 24-25 (comparing advertisements for Triex cells to advertisements for CSPV cells). 278 See Scope Ruling Request at 7; see also Sunpreme Comments on Preliminary Scope Ruling at 18-19. 279 See supra at 18, 31-33.
the fact that all such combinations form an electrical field regardless of whether or not the positive and negative regions are adjacent. The scope of the Orders does not mandate that all subject CSPV cells, and the p/n junctions formed therein, be physically identical or that the positive and negative regions must be adjacent. On the contrary, as discussed above, the scope language, itself, "says that a p/n junction may be 'formed by any means. '" 28° Furthermore, as explained above, the Petitions suggest that a p/n junction can be formed by means of a "heterogeneous, homogenous or patterned p/n junction, heterojunction, metal-insulator semiconductor junction or charge-induced junction. "281
Furthermore, SolarCity's assertion that the "only possible physical similarity between a Triex product and a CSPV cell is they both begin with a crystalline silicon wafer" is misleading and overly simplistic. 282 As noted in response to Issue 1, the crystalline silicon wafers in both Triex products and other CSPV products are physically modified (i.e., doped) to create a charge that, in tum, forms part of the electrical-field-generating junction. 283
Finally, when visually inspected, Triex cells are virtually indistinguishable from subject CSPV cells. Specifically, the products are comparable in thickness, 284 and, similar to traditional CSPV cells, Triex cells are "strung together and framed to form modules. " 285 Thin film products, in contrast, are generally comprised of "an unbroken layer of photovoltaic material applied to a substrate. " 286
The physical similarities between Triex cells and CSPV cells, as described above, are significant. Therefore, we continue to find the Triex cells to be physically similar to CSPV cells and, as such, different from excluded conventional thin film products.
User Expectations
The Department finds that the differences in Triex cell and CSPV cell efficiency levels are minimal, especially in comparison to the average efficiency level of amorphous silicon thin film products. SolarCity claims that Triex cells are "up to 20 percent more efficient than CSPV cells," which constitutes a significant difference between the products. 287 The record evidence, however, indicates that, on average, Triex cells perform at a slightly lower level of efficiency than subject CSPV cells. 288 Based on these statistics, we find that users of the Tri ex "hybrid" technology likely expect greater efficiency than standard amorphous silicon thin film products. On the other hand, users of Triex cells seem to expect similar, if not marginally lesser, efficiency than CSPV cells, in general.
280 See supra at 18. 281 See Petitions at 1 7-18. 282 See SolarCity Comments on Preliminary Scope Ruling at 39. 283 See supra at 30. 284 See supra at 16. 285 See SolarWorld Rebuttal Comments on Preliminary Scope Ruling at 23. 286 Id at 24. 287 See SolarCity Comments on Preliminary Scope Ruling at 42. 288 See supra at 22 (indicating that Triex cells are 18.4 percent to 22.1 percent efficient, CSPV cells are 21.2 percent to 27.6 percent efficient, and amorphous silicon thin film products are 13.6 percent efficient).
SolarCity's statements regarding distribution, as summarized above, 289 directly contradict information provided in the Scope Ruling Request. 290 In its initial filing, SolarCity identified distributors, residential installers, commercial installers, and utility developers as its four primary channels of trade. 291 SolarCity's claims regarding domestic sales and exclusive use/installation are entirely new and unsupported. As such, the Department finds that, based on the evidence on the record of this proceeding, the channels of trade and distribution of Tri ex cells are identical to the channels of trade and distribution for subject CSPV cells. 292
Conclusion
The Department finds that Tri ex cells are within the scope of the Orders based on an analysis of the Diversified Products criteria, as codified at 19 CFR 35 l.225(k)(2).
Issue 3: Consideration of All Information on the Record
SolarCity's Comments
• •
• •
• • • • •
The Department did not consider several important facts on the record. 293
U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) "recognized" Triex cells as "thin film" products. 294
T . d d d . 1· 295 nex pro ucts are patente an operate usmg quantum tunne mg . The Department's and the ITC's investigations did not discuss p/i/njunctions, and neither agency previously indicated that p/n and p/i/n junctions are equivalent. 296
The ITC made separate characterizations of CSPV cells and thin film cells. 297
The ITC discussed thin film production techniques. 298
The CSPV industry, including Solar World, was aware of HIT technology in 2011. 299
CSPV products and thin film products are separate like products. 300
The Preliminary Scope Ruling did not reconcile expert opinions that the electric filed in CSPV cells is formed specifically by diffusion and that a p/n junction is a "commonly understood term of art."301
289 See supra at 35. 290 See Scope Ruling Request at 14. 291 Id 292 See supra at 24. 293 See SolarCity Comments on Preliminary Scope Ruling at 7. 294 Id 295 Id 296 Id at 7-8. 297 Id at 8. 298 Id 299 Id 300 See SolarCity Comments on Preliminary Scope Ruling at 8. 301 Id at 7.
• The Preliminary Scope Ruling did not cite to all affidavits and published articles available on the record. 302
• The Department should explain why it preferred the opinion of some experts over other experts in the same field. 303
SolarWorld's Comments
• SolarCity's list of facts that the Department "allegedly failed to consider" is "incorrect and misleading. " 304
• Each point raised by SolarCity was adequately addressed in the Preliminary Scope Ruling and/or requires no additional analysis by the Department. 305
Department's Position
The Department finds that all relevant information on the record of this proceeding has been adequately considered and that none of the points raised by interested parties require additional analysis. The "facts" that the Department allegedly failed to consider in the Preliminary Scope Ruling, as well as our responses to SolarCity's and Sunpreme's related concerns, are listed below.
• SolarCity argues that the Department did not address CBP's recognition of Triex cells as thin film froducts. 306 CBP, however, made no formal classification of SolarCity's Triex product. 3 7 Furthermore, as acknowledged by Solar World, only the Defcartment has the authority to clarify the scope of the Orders and make an official ruling. 08 Therefore, any findings made by CBP in regard to whether or not Triex cells are thin film products are not dis positive or authoritative in the context of this proceeding.
• SolarCity argues that the Department did not address the fact that Triex products are patented and operate using quantum tunneling. 309 SolarCity further claims that we did not address the fact that the Department and the ITC did not discuss p/i/n junctions in their initial investigations, nor did we previously indicate that p/i/n junctions and p/n junctions are equivalent. 310 We find that both of these items were generally undisputed in the Preliminary Scope Ruling. 311 Nevertheless, the relevance ofp/i/njunctions, including suchjunctions made by tunneling, is discussed above, in the Department 's
302 See Sunpreme Comments on Preliminary Scope Ruling at 22. 303 Id 304 See SolarW orld Rebuttal Comments on Preliminary Scope Ruling at 7. 305 Id at4-12. 306 See SolarCity Comments on Preliminary Scope Ruling at 7. 307 See Scope Ruling Request at Exhibit I ( containing a business proprietary exchange between SolarCity and CBP). 308 See SolarW orld Rebuttal Comments on Preliminary Scope Ruling at 7 ( citing Diversified Products Corp., 572 F. Supp. at 887). 309 See SolarCity Comments on Preliminary Scope Ruling at 7. 310 Id 311 See Preliminary Scope Ruling at 9, 17, 19.
(k)(l) analysis and, again, at Issue 1. 312 The Department notes that the absence of an earlier comparative analysis of p/n and p/i/n junctions was explicitly acknowledged in the Preliminary Scope Ruling and continues to support our conclusion that an evaluation of Triex cells under 19 CFR 351.225(k)(l) is not dispositive. 313
• SolarCity argues that the Department did not address the ITC's separate characterizations of CSPV cells and thin film cells or the IT C's discussion of thin film production techniques. 314 The Department acknowledges that the Preliminary Scope Ruling did not cite specifically to the paragraphs from the ITC hearing that are highlighted by SolarCity. Therefore, we have addressed these issues in our analysis under 19 CFR 351.225(k)(l), above. 315 After addressing the ITC's references to thin film cells and thin film production techniques, we find that the Department's ultimate conclusion that Triex cells are not a thin film product is consistent with that information. 316
• SolarCity argues that the Department did not address the fact that the CSPV industry was aware of HIT cell technology in 2011. 317 In fact, the Preliminary Scope Ruling and this final ruling expressly recognize the relevant HIT technology and the ITC's consideration of it in 2011. 318 The existence and significance of hybrid CSPV and thin film products is discussed in the Department's analysis of whether or not Triex cells are excluded under the plain language of the scope of the Orders and, additionally, how the differing levels of conversion efficiency among various photovoltaic products (i.e., CSPV products, hybrid products, thin film products, and Triex products) impact the expectations of the ultimate purchaser. 319
• SolarCity argues that the Department did not address evidence that CSPV products and thin film products are separate like products. 320 A significant portion of this final scope ruling, however, is focused on the issue of whether Tri ex cells are subject CSPV products or, alternatively, can be excluded as thin film products. 321 Therefore, it is an undisputed fact that there are physical similarities and differences between CSPV products and thin film products.
• SolarCity and Sunpreme contend that the Department did not cite to all available affidavits and published articles. In response to these arguments, we reiterate that we have reviewed and evaluated each of the seventeen affidavits on the record, 322 some of which reach conflicting conclusions, despite being based on the same factual scenario.
312 See supra at 8-10, 18, 31-33. 313 See Preliminary Scope Ruling at 9 (stating, "No distinction was made between p/n and p/i/njunctions in the initial investigation or in prior determinations of the Department or the ITC-indicating that the scope of the Orders did not differentiate between the two junction types.); see also supra at 9-10. 314 See SolarCity Comments on Preliminary Scope Ruling at 8. 315 See supra at 12-13. 316 See ITC Preliminary Report at 7. 317 See SolarCity Comments on Preliminary Scope Ruling at 8. 318 See Preliminary Scope Ruling at 10-11, 21; see also supra at 11-12, 22. 319 See supra at 11-12, 22. 320 See SolarCity Comments on Preliminary Scope Ruling at 8. 321 See supra at 10-14. 322 See Scope Ruling Request at Exhibit J; see also Second Supplement to Scope Ruling Request at Exhibit 1; SolarCity Scope Comments at Exhibits A and B; SolarWorld Rebuttal Comments at Exhibits land 2; SolarCity Post-Preliminary New Factual Information at Exhibits 1-6; Sunpreme Post-Preliminary New Factual Information at Exhibit 1; SolarCity Additional Factual Information at Attachment; SolarWorld Additional Factual Information at Exhibits 1-3.
The Department is not disputing the veracity of any individual expert declaration. Rather, as noted in our analysis of Issue 1, we reiterate that this ruling is a textual interpretation of the scope of the Orders and relevant (k)(l) evidence, as opposed to an analysis of the views of individuals who were not involved in drafting the language of the scope. 323 Furth~nnore, ?s noted above, thell~I.icrecord of this proceeding contains 2,896 pages of mformat10n and arguments. - I herefore, the Department cannot describe, in detail, every piece of evidence on the scope inquiry record, nor are we legally obligated to do so. The substantiaJ evidence on the administrative record supports our analysis and our determinations, and SolarCity sand Sunpreme's arguments that the Department must provide an exhaustive analysis of every individual affidavit and published article placed on the record is simply untenable and unnecessary.
For the reasons described above, we find that the Department has addressed the "unconsidered facts listed by SolarCity and Sunpreme in this final ruling.
VUL RECOMMENDATION
We recommend determining that Triex photovoltaic cells produced by SolarCity are covered by tbe scope of the Orders. If you accept this recommendation, we will issue this final scope ruling.
/ Agree Disagree
Christian Ma; Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations
Date
323 See supra at 30-31. 32. 124 See supra at 29, n. 217.
Operating under granted authority of the United States Foreign-Trade Zones Board
to the South Jersey Port Corporation
Prepared: April 1996 Revised: April 2001 Revised: September 2014
FOREIGN-TRADE ZONE NO. 142 SOUTH JERSEY PORT CORPORATION TARIFF NO. 1
B. QUOTA MERCHANDISE ADMITTED TO THE ZONE
1. Merchandise covered by a quota (except tariff rate quotas) may be admitted to the zone in excess of the quota amount unless it is excluded by an order of the Foreign-Trade Zones Board. The general rule is that merchandise in a Foreign-Trade zone is considered for quota purposes, only in the condition it is in at the time of removal from the zone into Customs territory. Therefore, quota considerations normally come into play only at the time merchandise is removed from the foreign-trade zone into Customs territory for consumption.
2. Merchandise subject to a tariff rate quota for which privileged foreign status has been granted must be liquidated only at the higher or non-quota rate.
3. Any questions regarding special quota-like restrictions should be directed to Customs prior to requesting admittance to the zone.
SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS
C. U.S.D.A. RELEASE OF CARGO TO ENTER THE ZONE
Each CF 214 application for the admission of merchandise to the zone will be checked by Customs against the U.S.D.A. detention list prior to approval. If the merchandise is is included on the list, they will send two photocopies of the CF 214 to the U.S.
Department of Agriculture. When the U.S.D.A. releases the merchandise, the two CF 214 copies will be stamped as released and distributed to the zone operator and the importing carrier. Importing carriers will hold the delivery of merchandise on the U.S.D.A. detention list until they receive the CF 214 with the U.S.D.A. release stamp. Customs may order the redelivery of any merchandise erroneously delivered to the zone without U.S.D.A. release. Recurring incidents of misdelivered cargo may result in penalties.
D. PENALTIES FOR NONCOMPLIANCE WITH CUSTOMS REGULATIONS
1. Customs requires strict adherence to its published regulations and procedures. Noncompliance will result in the levying of liquidated damages and/or suspension or activation. Liquidated Damages may be levied not only for loss and mishandling of merchandise, but also for improper recording in the inventory control system, improper documentation and untimely submission of documentation to Customs.
2. Custom Directive 3210-12 dated June 24, 1986, Subject: “Liquidated Damages for
32
EXHIBIT 33
Sunmodule^ SWA 325 XL MONO
iiiiill SolarWorld
REAL VALUE
SolarWorld Assu rancs?^ WARRANTY PROTECTION PROGRAM
POWERING AMERICA FOR MORE THAN 40 YEARS For over four decades SolarWorld Americas has been creating the highest quality solar cells and panels. Driven by uncompromising standards of quality and reliability, every solar panel we produce demonstrates our commitment to American innovation, manufacturing and sustainability.
a Our Watts+ guarantees our panels will produce at least the minimum advertised nameplate power
□ PowAR-TECH™ Glass features the industry’s best anti-reflective coating, capturing more light and increasing your panels’ power
□ Our patented INFINITEE™Corners and Frame Technology are press-fit for superior strength and aesthetics and enhanced drainage
□ By capturing more light, OPTIGRID™ Cell Layout increases lifetime performance while also greatly increasing durability
□ Perma-Sil™ J-Box sealing encloses critical electrical connections, protecting them against moisture intrusion
□ With CoAST Salt Resistance, installations on islands or near coastal areas are certified against salt corrosion
MADE IN USA OF US & IMPORTED PARTS
www.solarworld-usa.com
Sunmodule^ SWA 325 XL MONO PERFORMANCE UNDER STANDARD TEST CONDITIONS (STC)*
Minor reduction in efficiency under partial load conditions at 25 °C: at 200 W/m^, 97% {+/-3%) of the STC efficiency {1000 W/m^) is achieved.
PARAMETERS FOR OPTIMAL SYSTEM INTEGRATION
Power sorting
Maximum system voltage SC II/NEC
Maximum reverse current
Number of bypass diodes
Operating temperature
Maximum design loads (Two rail system)*
-0Wp/+5Wp
1000/1500V
25A
3
-40 to+85 °C
113 psf downward, 64 psf upward
‘Please refer totheSunmodule installation instructions for the details associated with these load cases.
COMPONENT MATERIALS
Cells per module
Cell type
Cell dimensions
Front
Back
Frame
J-Box
Connector
Module fire performance
72
Monocrystalline PERC
6 in X 6 in (156 mm X156 mm)
Tempered safety glass with ARC (EN 12150)
Multi-layer polymer backsheet, white
Black anodized aluminum
IP65
PV wire {UL4703) with Amphenol UTX connectors
(UL1703) Type 1
DIMENSIONS/WEIGHT THERMAL CHARACTERISTICS
Length 78.46 in (1993 mm)
Width 39.40 in (1001 mm)
Height 1.30 in (33 mm)
Weight 47.6 lb (21.6 kg)
NOCT
TC!^
46 °C
0.03 % /C
-0.29 % /C
-0.42 % /C
ORDERING INFORMATION
Order number Description
82000754 Sun module SWA 325 XL mono (black frame)
IJLJ Home Innovaiion
ISO 9001 ISO 14001 Certified
4.20 (106.65)
11.53 (292.85)
15.63 (397)
15.75 (400)
15.63 (397)
15.73 (399.50)
78.46 (1993)
1.30 (33)
All units provided are imperial. 51 units provided in parentheses.
CERTIFICATES AND WARRANTIES
Certificates
Warranties*
lEC 61730 lEC 61215
lEC 62716 lEC 60068-2-68
Product Warranty
Linear Performance Guarantee
UL1703
lEC 61701
20years
25years
*Supplemental warranty coverage available through SolarWorld Assurance^'^ Warranty Protection Program - www.solarworld.com/assurance
SolarWorld Americas Inc. reserves the right to make specification changes without notice. This data sheet complies with the requirements of EN 50380. 5W72
21U
5 20
1801
29
EXHIBIT 34
Sunmodule^Plus SWA 290 - 300 MONO
iiiiill SolarWorld
REAL VALUE
SolarWorld Assu rancs?^ WARRANTY PROTECTION PROGRAM
POWERING AMERICAN HOMES FOR MORE THAN 40 YEARS For over four decades SolarWorld Americas has been creating the highest quality solar cells and panels. Driven by uncompromising standards of quality and reliability, every solar panel we produce demonstrates our commitment to American innovation, manufacturing and sustainability.
a Our Watts+ guarantees our panels will produce at least the minimum advertised nameplate power
□ PowAR-TECH™ Glass features the industry’s best anti-reflective coating, capturing more light and increasing your panels’ power
□ Our patented INFINITEE™Corners and Frame Technology are press-fit for superior strength and aesthetics and enhanced drainage
^ 2017 -P
□ By capturing more light, OPTIGRID™ Cell Layout increases lifetime performance while also greatly increasing durability
□ Perma-Sil™ J-Box sealing encloses critical electrical connections, protecting them against moisture intrusion
□ With CoAST Salt Resistance, installations on islands or near coastal areas are certified against salt corrosion
*Please refer totheSunmodule installation instructions for the details associated with these load cases.
COMPONENT MATERIALS
Cells per module
Cell type
60
Monocrystalline PERC
Cell dimensions 6 in X 6 in (156 mm X156 mm)
Front Tempered safety glass with ARC (EN 12150)
Back Multi-layer polymer backsheet, white
Frame Black anodized aluminum
J-Box IP65
Connector PV wire {UL4703) with Amphenol UTX connectors
Module fire performance (UL1703) Type 1
DIMENSIONS/WEIGHT THERMAL CHARACTERISTICS
Length 65.95 in {1675 mm) NOCT 46 °C
Width 39.40 in {1001 mm) TCL 0.07 % /C
Height 1.30 in {33 mm) TC W. -0.29 % /C
Weight 39.7 lb {18.0 kg) TCP^. -0.39 % /C
ORDERING INFORMATION
1.30 (33)
All units provided are imperial. 51 units provided in parentheses.
CERTIFICATES AND WARRANTIES
Order number Description
82000482 Sunmodule Plus SWA 290 mono (blackframe)
82000430 Sunmodule Plus SWA 295 mono (blackframe)
82000432 Sunmodule Plus SWA 300 mono (blackframe)
Certificates
Warranties*
lEC 61730 lEC 61215 UL1703
lEC 62716 lEC 60068-2-68
Product Warranty
lEC 61701
20years
Linear Performance Guarantee 25years
*Supplemental warranty coverage available through SoiarWorid Assurance^" Warranty Protection Program - www.solarworld-usa.com/assurance
SolarWorld Americas Inc. reserves the right to make specification changes without notice. This data sheet complies with the requirements of EN 50380. 5W
-01
-75
06
U5
2018
0126
EXHIBIT 35
~\ \11'-: : MEYER BURGER ' 11 \\'
Heterojunction cell technology of Meyer Burger: Production processes and measuring methods Matthias Seidel, Roth & Rau AG, Hohenstein-Ernstthal, Germany, & Rajesh Ambigapathy, Pasan SA, Neuchatel, Switzerland
ABSTRACT The price of crystalline silicon feedstock has fallen significantly, which means thin-film PV must struggle even harder to increase its market share. Since all the other costs of a PV installation, such as the material for module production and system mounting and the installation expense, are constant or rising, energy harvest per area must be increased through the introduction of affordable, high-efficiency solar cell technology. Conventional PV solar cells using p-type multicrystalline or monocrystalline silicon wafers have already reached efficiency limits which cannot be exceeded by cheap improvements in production: a technology shift is therefore necessary. In view of the high-efficiency PV solar cells that have already been commercialized, the most promising technology for mass production with a minimum number of process steps is the p-type a Si:H/n-type c-Si heterojunction cell pioneered by Sanyds heterojunction with intrinsic thin layer (HIT) technology. Testing of these cells requires longer pulse durations combined with uniformity and pulse stability. As throughput rates on cell lines continue to grow, a demand for measurement methods to support the higher speeds is created.
Introduction
In the first part of this paper, the production processes of a heterojunction cell using equipment from Roth & Rau [1] are covered in detail. In the second part, the cell measuring methodology conceived by Pasan SA [2] for high-capacitive cells (e.g. heterojunction technology - HJT) is presented.
The heterojunction cell: A breakthrough in performance and cost of ownership (COO)
Heterojunction solar cells can be fabricated using the same tools and processes, and at the same cost, using either p-type or n-type silicon wafers. Because of the electrical properties of heterojunction cells, n-type wafers with a p-type amorphous emitter are more suitable and deliver higher efficiencies. From the material point of view, n-type silicon crystals grown with the usual processes in the PY industry (solar-grade multi and Cz mono) are of much higher quality than p-type crystals, exhibiting a minority carrier lifetime of up to ten times longer. For this reason, n-type silicon has become established as the material of choice for high-efficiency cells. However, despite demonstrating good industrial feasibility and achieving high efficiencies, solar cells made with thermal diffusion of boron on n-type wafers involve much more complicated and expensive thermal processes than a simple phosphor diffusion, which reduces the advantage of the high efficiency.
A standard heterojunction solar cell is created using a few simple process steps. The initia I process steps are saw damage removal and surface texturing followed by surface cleaning and an HF dip (Fig. 1). Saw damage removal and texturing
make use of standard technology, while chemical cleaning must be optimized for HJT. This cleaning, however, is neither complicated nor expensive; it is integrated with the HF dip in the initial wet chemical bank at the front end of the line, replacing the conventional cleaning prior to emitter diffusion in the production of standard solar cells. Wet chemistry will no longer be used in the middle part of the line, as is the case for standard technology after the thermal diffusion, because of advantages related to production complexity and costs.
Following wet chemical preconditioning, the wafer is processed in a plasma-enhanced chemical vapour deposition (PECVD) tool for coating with ultrathin a-Si layers. Two intrinsic a-Si layers directly cover the front and rear sides of the wafer, providing excellent surface passivation; two doped a-Si layers are deposited on the intrinsic ones in order to create an emitter on the front side of the cell and a backsurface field (BSF) on the rear side. These process steps are performed in a single PECVD tool with four chambers. As the a-Si layers are very thin, the deposition process is very fast and the gas consumption very limited. The PECVD tool is capable of an industrial throughput of 2400 wafers per hour with moderate costs.
Fig. 2 shows a schematic of one of the chambers of the industrial PECVD tool, comprising a parallel-plate PECVD reactor with local plasma at RF frequency. This reactor supports the same plasma process that has been used for many decades for producing heterojunction solar cells with laboratory tools and has proved to be the process that delivers the highest quality of solar cell. These chambers are included in the HELiAPEcvo tool from Roth & Rau. Highly advanced engineering has made it possible to achieve large-
www.meyerburger.com 2
JTO
a-SLH (tt)
JTO
wafer
HJT e1Jl
PECVD 1
PECVD2
PVO
PVD
Scl'ltn Print
Figure 1. Schematic of the HH cell and the process steps required to produce it [1 ] .
scale extension of a process that until now was only possible in small laboratory reactors, while achieving comparable layer quality in terms of the uniformity and electrical properties for all wafers processed on one carrier.
After PECVD deposition using a single tool, only the deposition of the electrical contacts to extract the current
remains to be performed. The contacts are deposited using a physical vapour deposition (PVD) method, and a sputtering
Vacuum chamber Process chamber S-Cube™
Figure 2. Schematic of a PECVD chamber of the HEUAPIDV tool, illustrating the patented box-in-the-box concept [1]. An external chamber is pumped to a vacuum while the process takes place in the internal chamber, thus preventing contaminants from entering the process chamber from outside if leakage were to occur.
tool is particularly well suited to this operation. A single multichamber sputtering tool sputters a very thin transparent conducting oxide (TCO) on both the front and rear sides of the cell at the same time; indium tin oxide (ITO) layers are very advantageous in this application, because of the good transparency and conductivity, accompanied simultaneously by good contact formation with the doped a-Si layers on the front and rear sides of the cell. A metal layer is sputtered on top of the TCO as the rear-side metallization in a subsequent chamber of the same PVD tool. Different metals are possible for this layer: silver directly on TCO together with nickel on top of silver as the rear-side metallization is the favoured combination, not only from the electrical point of view, but also in view of the solderability of the cell to ribbons for subsequent module encapsulation.
Fig. 3 shows the HELiApvo tool. The two sputter chambers allow, using a single tool, the sputtering of two TCO layers at once in one chamber (on the front and back sides of the cell, with TCO targets from above and below the carrier with wafers) and two metal layers in the second chamber (on the back side of the cell, with two targets from the same side of the carrier). The process involves reactive sputtering in the case of the ITO layer. ITO and metallic targets are mounted on a rotating magnetron in the implementation of this sputtering process; it is very fast and robust and allows a very high usage of the targets. The quality of the deposited layers is excellent, with very high uniformity over the whole deposited surface in terms of not only the thickness but also the optical and electrical parameters of the layers.
www.meyerburger.com 3
Rotary magnetrons
TCO front/back side
metal backside
Figure 3. The Roth & Rau HELiApvv tool is made up of two sputtering chambers - one for the TCO, with targets on the front and back sides, and the other for the metal, with targets only on the back side. The targets are mounted on rotating magnetrons [1 ].
At this stage only a single screen-printing and curing stage is required to complete the cell, which involves screen printing a conventional front-side metallization made up of fingers and busbars. An industrial screen printer is used to print an epoxy-based silver paste specifically for heterojunction cells, which is then cured using a simple thermal process at temperatures as low as the typical PECVD deposition temperature. After this has been done, the cell is ready for stringing and module encapsulation.
A production line for HJT is even less complex than that for standard technology. At the front end of the line there is a wet chemical process that is roughly similar to the one used in standard technology. After that, one PECVD tool, one PVD tool and a single screen-printing unit with a curing oven are needed for production of the whole solar cell.
The HJT process takes place at a low temperature, which prevents diffusion of contamination inside the silicon wafer; such contamination would otherwise be possible at every stage in production if high-temperature thermal processes were involved. Furthermore, the cells are mechanically very stable and not affected by bow, which means that very thin wafers can be processed without mecha n ica I issues.
Because of the excellent surface passivation provided by the a-Si layers, very thin solar cells are particularly well suited to this technology: open-circuit voltages (Voe) as high as 748mV have been published for heterojunction cells with a thickness of 1 OOµm. Only negligible efficiency losses occur with th is technology when the wafer thickness is dramatically reduced because the improvement in V oc as a result of the reduced wafer thickness and excellent surface passivation almost completely compensates for the optical losses due to the thin wafer. By using appropriate light-trapping engineering, it may even be possible to reduce the optical losses and obtain a net increase in efficiency with thin wafers.
Given that the roadmap for cost reduction in crystalline silicon PV forecasts, with a very high probability, a drastic reduction in wafer thickness, a solar cell concept that facilitates high
efficiency and excellent mechanical stability even with ultrathin wafers is of fundamental importance. From this point of view, the heterojunction cell is at the forefront of all technologies.
Heterojunction solar cells on 6" pseudo-square wafers have so far yielded an efficiency of 21.3% at the Roth & Rau research facility in Neuchatel, Switzerland, and 21.0o/o at the Roth & Rau pilot line in Hohenstein-Ernstthal, Germany.
A unique method for testing high capacitance crystalline silicon solar cells
Today's measuring methods for c-Si cell testing The majority of cells used today are those with medium capacitances, e.g. thin films, cells based on n-type wafers and the like. For such cells, a measuring pulse length of 20 to SOms is required. A xenon lamp which provides an AM 15 spectrum and irradiances between 500 and 1000W/m2 is normally used. The pulse length attained is enough to test cells with low and medium capacitances.
Advantages
• Mature, proven measuring method
• Pulse length is adequate for testing cells with low to medium capacitances
Disadvantages
Measurement of cells with high capacitances is not possible, since the pulse length is too short
Too slow for new-generation cell lines requiring a measuring speed of up to 3600 cells/hour
For solar cells with higher electrical capacitances, three measurement methods are currently used: steady-state,
www.meyerburger.com 4
(a) (b)
Figure 4. (a) Pasan SpotLJGHr cell tester; (b) xenon lamp source in the new SpotLJGHr series {2].
multi-flash and forward-reverse characteristic test. However,
all of these methodologies exhibit high test costs and
low levels of dependability and accuracy, as well as long
measurement durations.
Unique measuring method from Pasan SA Higher ca pacita nee cells require a measurement time of 400
to 600ms. Moreover, newer generations of cell-printing lines
have been developed, and the throughput will ultimately
evolve from today's 1200 cells/hour to 2400 cells/hour, and
then to 3600 cells/hour. Accordingly, there appear to be two
major challenges for new cell-testing equipment: longer pulse lengths and higher throughputs.
Pasan SA [2], a member of the Meyer Burger Group, in
cooperation with the Institute of Micro Technology (IMT) at the University of Neuchatel in Switzerland [3], has developed
a new 1-V curve cell tester series known as Spotl'GHT, which is available in two variants: SpotLIGHT 1 sec and SpotuGHr HighCap,
both rated 'A+' for spectral match to the AM 15 spectrum,
'A·' for uniformity and 'A+' for pulse stability: A rating of A+
for spectral match is currently awaiting external approval.
SpoftGHT 1 sec is dedicated to high-speed measurements that
are required for in-line applications, such as end-of-Ii ne qua I ity
control in solar cell production lines or beginning-of-line quality control in module production lines. SpotLIGHT HighCap
is dedicated to testing solar cells with high capacitances such
as heterojunction (HJT) and all back-contact cells.
SpotLIGHT 1 sec
The SpotLIGHT 1 sec design is based on xenon lamps (Fig. 4).
As the name suggests, the cycle time is 1 second for low- to medium-capacitance cells. In order to achieve the A+ rating
Figure 5. New unibody design for cell contacting in the Pasan Spor~n series [2].
