More than module assembly: building a resilient solar ecosystem in the US

Markus Beck, who leads the US operations of RCT Solutions, a German-founded engineering and consulting firm that advises on building PV manufacturing lines, and previously served as a programme manager in the US Department of Energy’s Solar Energy Technologies Office, offers a sobering assessment of the current trajectory.

His perspective, informed by decades in the industry and recent government service, reveals an ecosystem struggling with fundamental questions about technology choices, supply chain resilience, workforce readiness and the policy frameworks needed to support truly domestic manufacturing.

The IRA’s unintended consequences

The structure of the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) has profoundly shaped—and in some ways distorted—how the US solar supply chain is developing. Beck notes that the legislation provided the highest incentives for module assembly while offering diminishing support as complexity and capital requirements increased further up the supply chain.

“The Inflation Reduction Act … unfortunately was not structured the way it could have been,” Beck tells PV Tech Premium. The result is a surge in module assembly capacity that has reached approximately 100GW nameplate—far exceeding realistic market demand—while cell manufacturing has lagged significantly behind.

This situation began shifting only after the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA) reduced the runway for advanced manufacturing production credits, and Section 232 tariffs and numerous rounds of anti-dumping and countervailing duties created additional pressure and added sticks to tax credit carrots. This has triggered investment in cell production, and that buildout is now happening, “which is great”, Beck says. But inevitably, the focus is now shifting still further upstream, to ingots and wafers.

Here, the challenges multiply. Beck characterises investment in ingot and wafer production as “certainly complex”, requiring substantially higher capital and technical expertise. While companies like Hanwha and Corning have announced plans, progress remains insufficient. Meanwhile, upstream equipment manufacturing has seen virtually no development: “We have done nothing, literally, on the equipment side. Nothing.”

As a result, the US domestic supply chain is heavily imbalanced, as explored on PV Tech earlier this year through a series of blogs from PV Tech Research.

The equipment sourcing dilemma

One of the most consequential decisions facing US manufacturers involves equipment sourcing—a choice that carries implications extending far beyond initial capital costs to encompass operational efficiency, supply chain security, innovation potential and long-term competitiveness.

Chinese equipment dominates the US market, driven by several factors. Beck acknowledges there exists “a perception that Chinese equipment is the best equipment”, supported by the reality that much of it operates at scale globally. Price competitiveness remains significant factor for Chinese producers, to the extent that “they now are selling equipment under terms which if you and I could buy a car or a house like that, we would be thrilled”. Chinese suppliers also offer turnkey solutions that simplify procurement and reduce risk for manufacturers lacking deep technical expertise.

However, Beck argues this equipment sourcing strategy overlooks critical considerations. While Chinese equipment may offer lower upfront capital costs, he suggests that total operational costs over a facility’s 5–7-year lifespan could favour alternative suppliers when factoring in electricity consumption, water usage, chemical consumption and maintenance requirements. Additionally, concerns around cybersecurity, spare parts availability and the technical workforce needed to maintain equipment should influence sourcing decisions.

European equipment producers or consortia offer alternatives, though they remain relatively unknown in the US market. On the module side, companies like Ecoprogetti and Mondragon provide turnkey solutions. For cell manufacturing, a consortium led by Von Ardenne offers TOPCon and heterojunction (HJT) lines. For ingot and wafer production, Rena, PVA TePla and others have formed partnerships.

Yet these options face significant barriers. Higher capital costs create challenges in a capital-constrained environment where manufacturers must raise funds not only for equipment and facilities but also for operational cash to sustain operations during ramp-up periods.

The equipment sourcing decision becomes even more critical when considering future-proofing and innovation potential. Beck advocates for manufacturers seeking differentiation to build relationships with equipment vendors across individual process steps—screen printing, diffusion and other stages—enabling collaborative innovation rather than accepting turnkey solutions as fixed systems.

He illustrates the risk of inadequate planning with the example of cell-cutting technology. Facilities designed only for full-size cells cannot easily adapt to half-cut, third-cut or quarter-cut cells without edge passivation technology, adequate floor space and properly-sized utilities.

“If you don’t have edge passivation technology in your cell line, you have no space [and] your utilities aren’t sized to handle that … you may have shot yourself in the foot,” Beck warns.

The workforce crisis: an overlooked challenge

Perhaps Beck’s most striking observation concerns workforce development—or rather, the lack of it. Despite widespread acknowledgement that skilled workforce shortages are among the top three challenges facing US solar manufacturers, he reports that RCT Solutions receives very few takers for its workforce training offerings in the US.

“It’s mind-boggling because when I was in the government, I would hear from everyone we talked to, one of the top three problems was always workforce, lack of a skilled workforce,” Beck notes. He created a workforce training program during his government service that attracted numerous applications before the current administration discontinued funding.

This stands in stark contrast to India, where workforce training forms a component of virtually every project RCT undertakes. The consequences of inadequate training manifest in quality issues and suboptimal uptimes in module assembly operations—problems that proper workforce development could address.

RCT Solutions has developed comprehensive training programmes spanning online learning, classroom instruction and hands-on equipment training, with content that can integrate into clients’ learning management systems. Yet US manufacturers have shown limited interest, even as they struggle with operational challenges.

This workforce gap reflects broader structural challenges in US manufacturing. Beck notes that less than 10% of US GDP derives from manufacturing, and cultural resistance to shift work and weekend schedules creates additional hurdles. The US has also failed to maintain its technical knowledge base in solar manufacturing, having lost much of its DNA in advanced manufacturing. Research institutes and universities have been underfunded, equipment vendor capacity has atrophied and the manufacturing workforce has dispersed.

Building a resilient domestic ecosystem

Beck argues for developing a more complete domestic solar ecosystem in the US that extends beyond assembly operations to encompass R&D, equipment manufacturing and the full depth of the supply chain. His vision of supply chain resilience emphasises diversity across multiple dimensions: technology, geography, sourcing and suppliers.

Current US manufacturing lacks this resilience. While manufacturers can source equipment from different Chinese companies, geographic concentration creates vulnerability to disruptions—whether from natural disasters, port closures or geopolitical tensions. “There can be things that happen that make your source inaccessible, and then you have no alternative to fall back on,” Beck explains.

The IRA’s treatment of “substantial transformation” illustrates how current policy fails to incentivise true domestic value addition. Under existing rules, importing aluminium module profiles from Vietnam but then cutting the corners and drilling the holes in the US qualifies the frame as domestic content. Similarly, assembling imported wire, junction boxes and diodes creates a “domestic” junction box despite minimal US value-add beyond labour.

Beck advocates for a more strategic approach to building domestic capability, potentially modelled on Sematech, the semiconductor industry consortium that successfully advanced US competitiveness. He proposed a US$200 million budget for such an initiative during his government service, though Congress did not approve the funding. Such a consortium could enable companies to share R&D costs, develop shared intellectual property under appropriate protections and provide hands-on workforce training.

The challenge of building domestic equipment manufacturing capability illustrates the chicken-and-egg problem facing the ecosystem. Equipment vendors need multiple customers to justify investment in US production, but individual manufacturers cannot single-handedly support such investments. Beck suggests that co-financing arrangements among manufacturers could help overcome this barrier.

He identifies specific opportunities for near-term progress: “Let’s make screens in the US. How complicated can it be? Let’s make crucibles. It’s not that complicated, right? We have the international roadmap for solar; it would be nice to have a roadmap that the US industry could come together around and say, this is the roadmap for how we build out our ecosystem.”

This phased approach to supply chain development could create momentum while managing capital requirements.

Beck also highlights opportunities in areas where the US could “out-compete” through innovation rather than cost reduction. Kerfless wafering technology, for example, could dramatically improve polysilicon yield. Alternatively, kerf recycling—the approach taken by Highland Materials—could recover significant value from Corning and Hanwha operations.

The vertical integration imperative

Beck advocates for vertical integration, arguing it offers the best path forward for US manufacturers despite inherent challenges. Vertical integration addresses the financing difficulties that plague piecemeal development: cell factories need bankable offtake agreements from module manufacturers while also requiring secure wafer supply. These interdependencies create barriers when approached one segment at a time.

Vertical integration also enables more flexible business models where profitability concentrates at the end product rather than requiring every segment to generate margins independently—a structure that may prove more viable given market conditions. The trend is already visible: Hanwha Q Cells operates vertically integrated operations, SEG Solar is expanding from modules into cells, and others like Inox (formerly Boviet) are pursuing similar strategies.

However, vertical integration requires substantial capital and the ability to convince financial markets of long-term viability—resources not available to all manufacturers. This reality suggests the market will likely support some merchant cell and wafer providers alongside vertically integrated players.

Technology choices and innovation imperatives

The rush toward HJT technology among US manufacturers concerns Beck, who suggests these decisions may be driven more by perceived intellectual property issues around TOPCon than by comprehensive analysis of all relevant factors. He advocates for technology diversity, arguing that different cell architectures serve different applications and market segments.

More fundamentally, Beck questions whether US manufacturers are thinking strategically about innovation and differentiation. Most module manufacturers in the US lack R&D and engineering capabilities, simply assembling bills of materials provided by others. “That’s, in my mind, not sustainable, given that you have this massive overcapacity,” Beck argues.

He envisions application-specific innovation as a potential differentiation strategy: modules optimised for specific environments, designed for particular lifetime requirements, or engineered for unique mechanical or electrical demands. A rooftop system, for example, does not benefit from bifaciality but could leverage the highest efficiency back-contact cells with conductive backsheets instead of traditional stringing.

Such differentiation requires engineering capability and willingness to invest in R&D—resources that current business models struggle to support. The challenge extends to partnerships with research institutions. While companies like Talon PV are partnering with Germany’s Fraunhofer ISE, and Suniva is working with ISC Konstanz, such collaborations remain relatively rare in the US.

Policy and market outlook

Looking ahead three years, Beck anticipates the US will have 30-40GW of crystalline silicon cell capacity by nameplate, with production matching market demand. He expects 10-15GW of ingot and wafer capacity, with existing operations achieving sustainability and new facilities completing their ramps. Polysilicon may see modest capacity additions, potentially from kerf recycling operations.

However, Beck emphasises the need for an honest assessment of structural challenges. The US has lost much of its solar manufacturing expertise, underfunded research and education, lacks equipment vendor infrastructure and maintains a manufacturing sector that represents less than 10% of GDP.

Policy stability would help, though Beck acknowledges the political reality of ten-year limits on tax incentives. He suggests that annual reviews of incentive levels—similar to the adjustable minimum import price mechanism—could provide more responsive policy while maintaining some predictability.

On the demand side, Beck questions whether utility-scale ground-mount deployment can continue indefinitely given land constraints and grid infrastructure limitations. He advocates for greater emphasis on distributed generation—rooftop systems, agrivoltaics, floating solar, infrastructure integration and vertical installations—that could reduce dependence on federal tax credits while easing grid constraints.

“If we can question the status quo and the market, yes, it would be great if we could deploy 100GW or utility-scale per year, absolutely. But, you know, maybe if we shift a little bit and we do a little bit more of PV everywhere, there are still applications that are just different that we could do that may not have to depend so much on federal tax credits and are more driven by the fact that an individual, a family, or a corporation can then self-consume the electricity.”

The path forward requires honest assessment of current limitations, strategic investment in ecosystem development, and recognition that building a resilient domestic supply chain demands more than assembling imported components on US soil. As Beck’s analysis makes clear, the decisions manufacturers make today about technology, equipment, workforce and partnerships will determine whether the current manufacturing buildout creates lasting competitive advantage or simply replicates vulnerabilities in a different geographic location.

Markus Beck spoke on a panel discussion on building the next generation of PV factories at our annual PV CellTech USA conference in California on 13-14 October. Read our coverage of the event here.