United States of America: Demand that wind generators not be purchased from China
Description
Senator Charles Schumer (Democrat-New York) is demanding that the Obama administration not use funds from the “stimulus package” enacted in early 2009 (i.e., the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, Public Law No.111-5) to provide funding for the purchase of wind generators produced in China. In a letter that he wrote to Secretary of Energy Steven Chu on November 5, 2009, Senator Schumer argues that a priority in that law “is investment in the domestic renewable energy industry, not investment in foreign manufacturers.”
At issue is a project that was publicized by a report from the Investigative Reporting Workshop highlighting what Senator Schumer calls “the shocking fact that 84 percent of the $1.05 billion in clean-energy grants distributed by the U.S. government since September 1st have gone to foreign wind companies.” According to his letter, 695 of the 982 wind turbines installed at the 11 wind farm projects that have received stimulus package money to date were built by foreign manufacturers.
Senator Schumer is specifically seeking a decision to block the use of stimulus funds for the purchase of Chinese generators to be used in a Texas wind farm. Close to half a billion dollars worth of generators is at stake in this $1.5 billion project.
Arguing that U.S. wind industry, including companies located in his home state, “is fully capable of providing these and other high-value components,” Senator Schumer stated that “China has been shielding and subsidizing its clean energy sector for years. Trade barriers keep out U.S. investments and products and government subsidies give Chinese manufacturers an unfair advantage in the global marketplace. Why then would the U.S. government ever agree to use stimulus funds to bolster China’s renewable energy sector?” He concluded the letter by respectfully urg[ing] [Secretary Chu] to deny Recovery Act funding to this project unless the majority of components are manufactured in the United States.”
Any Evidence-Based Deliberation:
| Question | Result |
|---|---|
| Is there anything in the public record to suggest that evidence of the effectiveness of the proposed measure was considered during official deliberations? | No |
| Is there any evidence that alternatives to the proposed measure were considered? | No |
| Is there anything in the public record that suggests that empirical evidence informed the comparison across the alternatives available to government? | No |
| Was such evidence identified? | No |
| Is such evidence publicly available? | |
| Did the official decision-maker in question provide an explanation as to why a chosen measure was favoured over alternatives? | No |
| Is there any evidence to suggest that potentially affected trading partners were consulted before the measures were taken? | No |
| Is there any evidence that safeguards have been put in place to ensure that implementation of the initiative is transparent and non-discriminatory? | No |
| Did the government state its intention to review the measure within one year of implementation? | No |
Date Discovered:
Implemented: No
Date of inception:
GTA Evaluation: Amber
Source:
See texts highlighted in the description of this matter.
Government Response:
- 512 reads
