SolarWorld and its US allies see a significant expansion of what they call illegal support for PV exporters in China’s latest five-year plan.

But Chinese insiders say the plan should be seen as little more than a positive signal from Beijing, and accuse the Coalition for American Solar Manufacturing (CASM) of attacking China to cover its members’ own failures.

The rhetoric on both sides is heating up ahead of next week’s expected decision by the US Department of Commerce (DOC) on anti-dumping tariffs. In March, the department announced preliminary countervailing duties of 2.9-4.73% on Chinese crystalline-silicon PV cell and module imports, to counteract ten government subsidies.

“Our coalition of US producers contested the illegal Chinese governmental interference in the US market and sought enforcement of US and international trade law,” says SolarWorld Industries America president Gordon Brinser. “In response, China has rolled out a host of initiatives to further manipulate pricing, snuff out competition and solidify its domination — all on foreign soil.”

The CASM refers to analysis by its law firm, Wiley Rein, of the 12th five-year plan for the PV industry issued by the Chinese Ministry of Industry and Information Technology (MIIT) in February. It finds that the plan calls for significantly increased government control of the industry and an emphasis on international growth through measures such as improved export risk insurance and encouragement of overseas investment.

“Substantial government assistance is also mandated to carry out the goals identified in these plans,” according to the analysis.

But the plan’s influence is much less significant than the CASM analysis suggests, according to insiders in China. Despite its ambitious targets, it offers no details on policy implementation to support the sector, and specific funding levels have yet to be set.

“For the solar industry to develop, it requires lots of factors far beyond an announcement from the government without any concrete details,” says Arthur Chen, legal counsel at Yingli, one of China’s top solar companies.

“The aim of this plan is to boost confidence and somehow show they are doing the right job. But even if the ministry is determined to achieve those targets, they lack the resources and relevant policies to do so.”

Wang Sicheng, senior researcher at China’s Energy Research Institute, a body under the powerful National Development and Reform Commission, adds: “It does not have a big influence. If there’s no money issued alongside, it will just be paper on the table.”

The MIIT needs to get funding from the Ministry of Finance if it wants to give financial support for the industry. It tends to get much smaller allocations of funds than more powerful ministries such as the Ministry of Science and Technology, Wang claims.

The plan is, however, in line with Beijing’s overall direction for the solar industry. The government is keen to promote a handful of “national champions” at the expense of smaller firms, to encourage consolidation of a sector facing huge overcapacity.

To SolarWorld and the CASM, that looks like a play to strengthen China’s largest solar companies so that they can consolidate their hold on global markets, while foreign competitors are kept out of China.

The five-year plan would have leading polysilicon manufac­turers reach 50,000 tonnes of production capacity by 2015, while top panel makers would have capacities of 5GW.

China’s top polysilicon maker, GCL-Poly, already had 46,000 tonnes of capacity last year, while the largest module maker, Suntech, has 2.4GW of capacity.

“They want to pick winners,” says Adam Dunnett, deputy managing director at international consultancy Apco. But he notes: “The losers are not just foreigners. They will also find ways to push other Chinese firms out of the market.”

Chen says the relatively low countervailing tariff rates — imports from his company face a 3.61% duty — indicate that the solar industry “receives a minimum amount of support from the Chinese government”.

He continues: “CASM lacks credibility. They intentionally manipulate any information to attribute their own operational failure to Chinese companies.”