The US Commerce Department’s preliminary countervailing duties of about 125.87% on certain solar cells and modules from India turn what looked like a clean export runway into a compliance and strategy problem. The immediate effect is arithmetic: a duty at that scale can wipe out the cost advantage that made Indian shipments competitive in the US market.
But the larger consequence is structural. India’s module manufacturing base has expanded faster than domestic absorption. Even if some exporters had already begun reducing exposure after the US investigation began in August 2025, a sharp tariff shock accelerates the reckoning over capacity, pricing power, and which firms can fund the next technology cycle.
READ | Solar-powered buildings: The next big shift in climate resilience
India’s solar module manufacturing capacity
India now has module capacity well above current annual installations, with more capacity in the pipeline. That gap matters because the domestic market is not a single clearing price. Utility tenders, state-level payment risks, transmission availability, and PPA signing delays can all slow offtake even when targets remain ambitious.
If export volumes are forced back into India, the sector risks a familiar pattern: discounting to keep lines running, weaker balance sheets, and delayed capex for upstream integration and technology upgrades. This is the point at which “capacity” stops being a national achievement and becomes a firm-level solvency test.
Some companies argue the headline duty will not be uniformly fatal because the investigation is focused on solar cells, and business models vary on whether modules are assembled using imported cells. Others have already pivoted away from the US, anticipating tightening trade policy. That heterogeneity will shape winners and losers more than the headline number.
Export concentration risk after the US countervailing duty
The sector’s export story was unusually concentrated. India’s solar module exports surged in the last few years, with the US absorbing the dominant share. That concentration made sense while the US sought non-China supply and Indian producers had room to scale. It becomes a liability once US domestic manufacturers and trade counsel can credibly argue subsidy-linked price distortion.
The petition dynamics matter as much as the current duty. The case was pushed by the Alliance for American Solar Manufacturing and Trade, whose members reportedly include large US solar manufacturing interests and allied firms. The political economy is straightforward: industrial policy at home, trade remedies at the border, and a narrowing set of “acceptable” import sources.
READ | India’s energy strategy: Why solar thermal deserves a second look
The timeline also matters. Final decisions are expected around mid-2026, which prolongs uncertainty even for shipments that might eventually clear at lower final rates or under exclusions. In trade, uncertainty is itself a tax: it raises financing costs, complicates contracting, and pushes buyers to diversify away.
ALMM and the coming shift from assembly to integration
India’s domestic policy is simultaneously tightening local-content expectations. The ALMM framework already shapes eligibility for government-backed procurement, and the cell-side mandate is scheduled to become binding from June 1, 2026 (with operational details linked to list publication).
MNRE has also signalled a push further upstream, including proposals to extend the approved-list logic to wafers from June 1, 2028, as part of backward integration.
This matters for exports because the US action is aimed at subsidised “cells”—and the Indian policy direction is to make “Indian” modules increasingly cell-origin dependent. A firm that currently mitigates US exposure by assembling in India with imported cells may find that option constrained in the domestic market over time. India is, in effect, trading short-term flexibility for long-term supply-chain sovereignty. That is a rational choice. It is not a free one.
Technology risk and the “big boys’ club” outcome
The next phase of competition will be driven by technology transitions and bankability standards, not just nameplate capacity. Older configurations risk rapid obsolescence as the market moves to higher-efficiency products. Technology upgrades demand sustained capex and disciplined execution. The firms that can do this at scale—while funding working capital through a period of weak utilisation—will consolidate market share.
That consolidation will not necessarily align with today’s market visibility. A company with strong domestic order flow but weak technology roadmap can lose relevance quickly. Conversely, a firm with near-term export pain but credible integration plans (cells, wafers, glass, frames, and quality systems) can emerge stronger once the sector clears.
Alternative markets are necessary, but not sufficient
Diversify exports is correct advice that can still be inadequate. Europe, the Middle East, and Africa offer opportunity, but they are not a plug-and-play substitute for the US.
Three constraints are predictable:
Bankability and certification expectations can be stricter and more enforcement-heavy than many Indian suppliers are used to.
Financing structures often determine supplier choice as much as module price.
China’s global presence in project development and vendor financing remains the benchmark India is up against.
The more credible export pivot is not only selling modules abroad, but selling a package: EPC capability, performance guarantees, and financing support.
Exporting capital, not modules
A more durable response is the one several industry voices have begun to articulate: shift from exporting products to exporting capital by building manufacturing in the US or other protected markets, while keeping Indian plants focused on domestic demand and diversified geographies.
This strategy is not just a tariff workaround. It aligns with the direction of US industrial policy, which is moving toward localisation and traceability. It also reduces the volatility premium that US buyers now apply to India-origin supply.
The drawback is obvious. US manufacturing is higher-cost, permitting and labour dynamics are more complex, and the return profile depends on stable policy support. But for large Indian manufacturers with access to capital, the choice may be between imperfect localisation and being structurally locked out of the world’s most lucrative market.
READ | Net zero: Solar surge and tariff reforms hold key
What India should do next
The policy objective should be to prevent a capacity glut from turning into a lost decade of weak profitability and stalled innovation. Priorities are clear.
First, protect domestic demand momentum by reducing execution frictions: transmission connectivity, predictable tender pipelines, and faster PPA signing. A manufacturing build-out without smooth project implementation creates the worst of both worlds: surplus hardware and delayed decarbonisation.
Second, make ALMM a quality-and-traceability instrument, not merely a gatekeeping list. The export future will be shaped by supply-chain transparency, forced-labour compliance regimes, and documentation discipline. Firms need systems, not only factories.
Third, use concessional finance strategically. If India wants presence in Africa and other emerging markets, it must compete where procurement is often finance-led. The Export-Import Bank of India and other channels can support project financing tied to Indian equipment, echoing what Chinese policy banks did for two decades—without repeating the opacity that made those models politically contentious.
Fourth, avoid indiscriminate credit growth into late-cycle capacity additions. When utilisation is already under pressure, the marginal plant is more likely to weaken the sector than to strengthen it.
Future of India’s solar modules industry
The US punitive tariff does not end India’s solar manufacturing story. It changes its terms.
The sector’s future will be determined less by how many gigawatts India can announce, and more by whether Indian firms can (a) sustain domestic deployment at scale, (b) climb the integration ladder without creating the next glut upstream, and (c) meet the compliance and technology bar of global buyers.
In the near term, pricing pressure and consolidation look more likely than a smooth glide path. In the medium term, the winners will be those who treat the US decision as a signal: global solar trade is being reorganised around industrial policy, and India must compete not only on cost, but on credibility.