Full opinion text
OPINION EATON, Judge: Before the court is the motion for judgment on the agency record of plaintiffs Changzhou Trina Solar Energy Co., Ltd., Trina Solar (U.S.) Inc., Wuxi Suntech Power Co., Ltd., Suntech America, Inc., Sun-tech Arizona, Inc. (“Suntech Arizona”), Yingli Green Energy Holding Company Limited, and Yingli Green Energy Americas, Inc. (collectively, “plaintiffs”) made pursuant to USCIT Rule 56.2. See Mot. for J. on the'Agency R. (ECF Dkt. No. 31). By their motion, plaintiffs contest the final affirmative material injury determination of the United States International Trade Commission (“ITC” or the “Commission”) in the antidumping and countervailing duty investigations concerning crystalline silicon photovoltaic (“CSPV”) cells and modules from China. See Crystalline Silicon Photovoltaic Cells and Modules From China (Final), USITC Pub. 4360, Inv. Nos. 701-TA-481 and 731-TA-1190 (Nov. 2012) (ECF Dkt. No. 20-1) (“Final Determination”); Crystalline Silicon Photovoltaic Cells and Modules From China, 77 Fed.Reg. 72,884 (ITC Dec. 6, 2012). Defendant, the ITC, opposes plaintiffs’ motion and asks that its Final Determination be sustained. See Def. International Trade Commission’s Opp’n to Pis.’ Mot. for J. on the Agency R. 1 (ECF Dkt. No. 35). Defendant-intervenor, Solar-World Americas Inc. (“defendant-interve-nor” or “SolarWorld”), a domestic manufacturer of solar cells and modules, joins in opposition to plaintiffs’ motion. See Def.int. SolarWorld’s Resp. to Pis.’ Rule 56.2 Mot. for J. on the Agency R. and Accompanying Mem. of P. & A. in Supp. 1-3 (ECF Dkt. No. 38). Jurisdiction lies pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1581(c) and 19 U.S.C. § 1516a(a)(2)(B)(i). For the reasons that follow, the ITC’s Final Determination is sustained. BACKGROUND In October 2011, defendant-intervenor SolarWorld filed antidumping and countervailing duty petitions with the United States Department of Commerce (“Commerce” or the “Department”) and the ITC covering imports of CSPV cells and modules from China. Crystalline Silicon Photovoltaic Cells and Modules From China, 76 Fed.Reg. 66,748, 66,748-49 (ITC Oct. 27, 2011) (institution of antidumping and countervailing duty investigations and scheduling of preliminary phase investigations). The period of investigation was January 2009 through June 2012 (“POI”). In October 2012, following its investigations, the Department determined that imports from China were both being subsidized by the Chinese government and sold in the United States at less than fair value. Subsequently, in November 2012, following its own investigations, the ITC issued its Final Determination, whereby it determined that the CSPV industry in the United States was being materially injured by reason of imports of subject merchandise. Final Determination, 77 Fed.Reg. at 72,-884. During the preliminary investigations, the Chinese Chamber of Commerce for Import and Export of Machinery and Electronic Products (the “Chinese Chamber”), an association of Chinese producers and exporters, and related U.S. importers of subject merchandise that opposed the petition, urged the ITC to define the domestic like product more broadly than was ultimately the case in the Final Determination. See Views of the Commission (Preliminary) at 9, CD 136 at Doc. No. 466545 (Dec. 13, 2011), ECF Dkt. No. 67-1 (“Preliminary Determination”). Specifically, the Chinese Chamber argued that the scope should include thin-fílm photovoltaic products (“thin-fílm products”) in the definition of the domestic like product. Preliminary Determination at 9. At the conclusion of its investigations, however, the Commission excluded thin-fílm products from the scope of the domestic like product. Final Determination at 9. In its Final Determination, the ITC also found that plaintiff Suntech Arizona should be excluded from the domestic industry as a related party because its interests rested primarily with importing CSPV products rather than their domestic production. Final Determination at 19, 22. As a result, the Commission defined the domestic industry of subject merchandise to include “all U.S. producers of CSPV cells and modules, except for Suntech [Arizona].” Final Determination at 24. Also, during the course of the investigations, plaintiffs claimed that the ITC should take into account certain unique aspects of the CSPV marketplace before making its injury determination. See, e.g., Post-Hearing Br. of China Chamber of Commerce for Import and Export of Machinery and Electronic Products (Volume I of II) at 4-14, CD 419 at Doc. No. 493162 (Oct. 11, 2012), ECF Dkt. No. 67-3. As shall be seen, the Commission takes the position that it took into account market conditions, as required by law. In the end, in the Final Determination, the Commission issued its affirmative material injury determination, finding that the domestic industry was “ ‘materially injured by reason of unfairly traded imports.” Final Determination at 25. STANDARD OF REVIEW “The court shall hold unlawful any determination, finding, or conclusion found ... to be unsupported by substantial evidence on the record, or otherwise not in accordance with law.” 19 U.S.C. § 1516a(b)(l)(B)(i). DISCUSSION I. Legal FRAmework “Under the unfair trade laws, Commerce determines whether foreign imports into the United States are either being dumped or subsidized (or both). , It is for the ITC to determine whether these dumped or subsidized imports are causing material injury to a domestic industry in the United States.” Navneet Publ’ns (India) Ltd. v. United States, 32 CIT 169, 171, 2008 WL 743836 (2008) (citing 19 U.S.C. §§ 1673(1), (2), 1671(a)(1), (2)). Although Commerce determines the “class or kind of foreign merchandise [that] is being, or is likely to be, sold in the United States at less than its fair value” or has been subsidized, “the ITC is responsible for identifying the corresponding universe of items produced in the United States that are like[,] or in the absence of like, most similar in characteristics and uses with the items in the scope of the investigation.” See 19 U.S.C. § 1673(i); 19 U.S.C. § 1671(a); Int’l Imaging Materials, Inc. v. U.S. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 30 CIT 1181, 1183, 2006 WL 270156 (2006) (alteration in original) (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted) (citing 19 U.S.C. § 1677(10)). Thus, the ITC begins a material injury investigation by “determining] the scope of the ‘domestic industry’ by defining the ‘domestic like product’ under investigation.” Cleo Inc. v. United States, 30 CIT 1380, 1382-83, 2006 WL 2685080 (2006) (citing 19 U.S.C. § 1677(4)(A)), aff'd, 501 F.3d 1291 (Fed.Cir.2007); see also Int’l Imaging, 30 CIT at 1183. Under certain conditions, the Commission’s decision as to the companies that make up the domestic industry is guided by 19 U.S.C. § 1677(4)(B)(i). This subsection provides, in relevant part, “[i]f a producer of a domestic like product and an exporter or importer of the subject merchandise are related parties, or if a producer of the domestic like product is also an importer of the subject merchandise, the producer may, in appropriate circumstances, be excluded from the industry.” 19 U.S.C. § 1677(4)(B)(i); see also Allied Mineral Prods., Inc. v. United States, 28 CIT 1861, 1863, 2004 WL 2580776 (2004). Following the Commission’s determination as to what constitutes the domestic like product and its determination as to which companies qualify as members of the domestic industry, “it must next examine the volume of imports, their effect on prices for the domestic like product, and their impact on domestic producers of the domestic like product.” Int’l Imaging, 30 CIT at 1183 (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted) (citing 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(B)(i)(D-(IH)). As part of its analysis, “[t]he Commission may also consider ‘such other economic factors as are relevant in the determination.’ ” JMC Steel Grp. v. United States, 38 CIT-,-, 24 F.Supp.3d 1290, 1298 (2014) (quoting Hynix Semiconductor, Inc. v. United States, 30 CIT 1208, 1210, 431 F.Supp.2d 1302, 1306 (2006)); see also 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(B)(ii). Upon completion of this analysis, should the ITC make a final affirmative material injury determination, and Commerce make an affirmative determination with respect to countervailing duties or dumping, an order will result. II. The Commission’s Domestic Like PRODUCT Analysis Is Supported by Substantial Evidence As part of its investigations, the Commission sought to define the domestic like product in order to determine whether a domestic industry was materially injured as a result of subject imports. Here, the Commission’s domestic like product analysis balanced the six factors typically used to determine whether a specific product should be included within the scope of the Commission’s investigation. Upon completing this analysis, the Commission determined that thin-film products fell outside the scope of the domestic like product. Final Determination at 16. “The ‘like product’ determination is a factual issue that the Commission resolves by weighing six factors relating to the products in question.” Cleo Inc. v. United States, 501 F.3d 1291, 1295 (Fed.Cir.2007). Therefore, in order to establish the facts, the Commission relied, in part, on information obtained from a survey it conducted of domestic producers, importers, and purchasers of CSPV products regarding perceived similarities between the products based on each of the six factors. Plaintiffs argue that the Commission’s Final Determination, which excluded thin-film products from the scope of the domestic like product, was not supported by substantial evidence because thin-film products are sufficiently similar to the subject merchandise to be included within the scope for purposes of 19 U.S.C. § 1677(10). Mem. of P. & A. in Supp. of Mot. for J. on the Agency R. 7 (ECF Dkt. No. 31) (“Pls.’ Br.”). Plaintiffs claim that “the Commission erroneously focused on small technical distinctions that obscured the fundamental similarities between the two solar technologies.” Pis.’ Br. 7. Specifically, they point to evidence that indicates that CSPV and thin-film modules are made of glass, can be used in solar shingles, and compete with each other. See Pls.’ Br. 38-39. They also note, in support of their argument, that twelve of nineteen United States producers and thirty-four of forty-nine importers polled by the ITC reported that the two products share the same channels of distribution. Pis.’ Br. 39. Therefore, for plaintiffs, the ITC’s analysis makes clear that it found similarities in each of the six factors that it is directed to use in making its “like product” determination, except for “manufacturing facilities.” Pis.’ Br. 7. As such, plaintiffs reason that, despite the Commission’s finding that the products differed in several respects, the similarities between them rendered it impossible to find any clear dividing line between the two. Pis.’ Br. 7. The court finds plaintiffs’ arguments unconvincing and thus holds that the ITC’s determination to exclude thin-film products from the scope of the domestic like product is supported by substantial evidence. In doing so, the court has reviewed the methodology employed by the ITC and the record evidence it considered. As noted, the ITC normally resolves its “like product” determination “by weighing six factors relating to the products in question: (1) physical characteristics and uses; (2) common manufacturing facilities and production employees; (3) interchangeability; (4) customer perceptions; (5) channels of distribution; and, where appropriate, (6) price.” Cleo, 501 F.3d at 1295 (citations omitted). No single factor is dispositive and the Commission is permitted to consider other relevant factors. Cleo, 30 CIT at 1384 & n. 5 (citing S. Rep. No. 96-249, at 90-91 (1979), reprinted in 1979 U.S.C.C.A.N. at 476-77). “When weighing those factors, the Commission disregards minor differences [between the products] and focuses on whether there are any clear dividing lines between the products being examined.” Cleo, 501 F.3d at 1295 (citing Nippon Steel Corp. v. United States, 19 CIT 450, 455, 1995 WL 170410 (1995)). A. Physical Characteristics, Uses, and Interchangeability As an initial matter, the court notes that the “physical characteristics and uses” and “interchangeability” factors are particularly relevant to the ITC’s domestic like product determination, where, as here, these products’ primary use is to create electricity. The respective capacities of CSPV cells and modules and thin-film products to produce electricity are naturally significant for determining whether the products are sufficiently similar to one another for thin-film products to be included within the scope of the investigations. In its Final Determination, the Commission found a variety of important differences between the two products’ physical characteristics, uses, and interchangeability, such as differences in physical length, thickness, and rigidity of CSPV and thin-film products. See Final Determination at 9-11,14-15. While plaintiffs maintain that the differences are insignificant, these variations create substantially different capabilities of CSPV and thin-film products. Indeed, eleven of nineteen U.S. producers of CSPV and/or thin-film products and twenty-seven of forty-nine importers that responded to the ITC’s questionnaires stated that the two products were not interchangeable. Final Determination at 14. For example, the ITC found that thin-film products possess different balance of system requirements, lower conversion efficiency, and lower wattage output than CSPV products and thus that more thin-film modules than CSPV modules are needed in order to produce the same amount of electricity. See Final Determination at 10,14. The Commission also found “significant differences in physical characteristics and capabilities between CSPV and thin-film products ... related to differences in their underlying raw materials and production processes.” Final Determination at 9. It observed that on-grid CSPV modules typically “consist of a 34- to 62-pound framed glass laminate that measures 62 to 78 inches long, 32 to 39 inches wide, and 1.2 to 2 inches thick and that is comprised of 60 to 72 cells,” and “[o]ff-grid CSPV modules are often smaller.” Final Determination at 9-10. On the other hand, the ITC found that “[t]hin-film modules consist of a glass or flexible substrate such as stainless steel or plastic with a surface layer of amorphous silicon (‘a-Si’), cadmium telluride (‘CdTe’), and/or copper indium (gallium) (dfiselenide (‘CIGS’) ...” and are generally smaller in dimension, thinner, and tend to weigh less. Final Determination at 10. Thus, it concluded that “the variety of substrates used to make thin-film modules provides more flexibility and a broader range of possible sizes, including some that are considerably longer than on-grid CSPV modules.” Final Determination at 10. Overall, the ITC found that “thin-film products tend to have a considerably lower conversion rate, despite the fact that thin-film products are able to generate power in low-light conditions.” Final Determination at 10. Indeed these findings were consistent with the questionnaire responses received from U.S. producers and importers, which “pointed to thin-film products’ thinness and lighter weight, the fact that CSPV modules are silicon-based whereas thin-film products are chemical-based, ... differences between the two products in terms of sizes, proportion, voltage, conversion efficiency, and quality,” and that “CSPV modules tend to be framed whereas thin-film modules tend to be frameless,” as important differences. Final Determination at 11. As a result of these physical differences and varying capabilities, thin-film products require a greater surface area of exposure to generate the same amount of electricity as CSPV modules. Final Determination at 14 (“Moreover, due to their lower conversion efficiencies and lower wattage output, thin-film products need more surface area to generate the same energy as CSPV modules, making thin-film products somewhat more attractive for projects in environments with high temperatures and significant amounts of sunlight.”). Hence, the ITC found that physical characteristics and capabilities make thin-film products naturally more attractive for projects where there are fewer space constraints, higher temperatures, and significant amounts of sunlight, whereas CSPV products are better-suited for larger, standalone projects. See Final Determination at 11,14. Thus, the Commission found that CSPV modules are more attractive for “projects in the eastern United States, where land is more expensive and less available.” Final Determination at 14-15. In addition, through the questionnaires, it was reported that CSPV products are more commonly used in residential and non-residential rooftops than thin-film products, and that thin-film products produce insufficient power for use in residential applications. See Final Determination at 14 n. 82. Thus, it is hard to argue with the Commission’s conclusion that thin-film products “may be more suitable for utility as opposed to residential and smaller nonresidential applications, except for those projects needing a lighter product for mounting on a lower-strength roof or a more flexible product.” Final Determination at 14. Therefore, although both products are used to make electricity, the ITC supported with substantial evidence its conclusions that, while there is some overlap, each is particularly suited for different applications. Accordingly, the ITC reasonably determined, based on record evidence, that the two products do not share similar physical characteristics and end uses. Indeed, the Commission found that the products’ respective capacities to produce electricity were not comparable, and thus that both products were not consistently interchangeable for one another, thereby favoring exclusion of thin-film products from the scope of the domestic like product. B. Common Manufacturing Facilities, Production Processes, and Production Employees The ITC also found that there was little or no overlap in the manufacturing facilities, production processes, or employees used to manufacture thin-fílm and CSPV products. Final Determination at 11. Out of nineteen domestic “producers of CSPV and/or thin film products, eighteen reported that the production process of thin film solar products differed from that of CSPV cells and modules.” Crystalline Silicon Photovoltaic Cells and Modules from China, Staff Report to the Commission on Inv. Nos. 701-TA-481 and 731-TA-1190 (Final) (Oct. 25, 2012) at 1-36 (ECF Dkt. No. 20-2) (“Final Staff Report”). Additionally, “[o]f the forty-nine responding U.S. importers, thirty-seven reported that the production processes between the two product types' differed substantially.” Final Staff Report at 1-36. The Commission further observed that CSPV products are made from refined polysilicon that is formed into ingots, sliced into wafers, converted into cells, and then assembled into modules. The cells in CSPV modules use either mono- or multi-crystalline silicon; when sunlight hits the modules, it knocks loose electrons that flow into the cells’ thin metal “fingers” and conduct electricity to the busbars. The CSPV cells are soldered together in strings and arranged in a rectangular matrix, sealed with an EVA sheet, joined to a back sheet, laminated, framed, and then mounted to a junction box. In contrast, manufacturers generally make thin-film products by applying a layer of photosensitive material such as a-Si, CdTe, and/or CIGS to glass or to a flexible substrate such as stainless steel or plastic. Final Determination at 12. Based on the questionnaire responses and the clear differences in how they are manufactured, it is evident that the ITC reasonably reached the conclusion that thin-film and CSPV products do not overlap in manufacturing facilities, production processes, or employees. It is worth noting that plaintiffs do not dispute this finding, which tends to support the conclusion that CSPV cells and modules and thin-film products are not like products. C. Customer Perceptions Consistent with its findings related to physical characteristics, uses, and interchangeability, the Commission also found that consumers and producers perceive CSPV and thin-film modules as different products. Eleven of nineteen U.S. producers of CSPV and/or thin-film products and twenty-three of forty-nine importers that responded to the Commission’s questionnaires, “reported that their customers perceive the products to have different physical characteristics, flexibility, efficiency, power outage, space requirements, banka-bility, environmental concerns, climate suitability, performance characteristics, reliability, durability, and established nature.” Final Determination at 15. In addition, it was reported to the ITC that, although thin-film is less expensive per watt than CSPV modules, it does not produce enough power for residential applications, whereas CSPV modules are commonly used for residential purposes. See Final Staff Report at 11-23. Also, although a number of purchasers reported that they considered both CSPV and thin-film products for the same project, “many reported that they considered either CSPV or thin-film products but not both.” See Final Determination at 15. For example, twenty-three of fifty-two responding purchasers reported evaluating only one of the two products for the same end use or project. See Final Staff Report at 11-23. Thus, the ITC found that customers and producers perceive important and significant differences between CSPV and thin-film products, thereby supporting the Commission’s exclusion of thin-film products from the scope of the domestic like product. Plaintiffs maintain that the. questionnaire responses indicate “that almost half of U.S. producers and a majority of importers did not agree that there were differences between the two technologies in these areas,” and thus that this factor favored the inclusion of thin-film products as part of the scope of the domestic like product. See Pis.’ Br. 39 n. 10. At best, however, the questionnaire responses show that there is no clear consensus among consumers as to these products’ interchangeability, and thus this evidence does not aid plaintiffs’ case. Indeed, this disagreement among consumers and purchasers as to the substitutability of thin-film and CSPV products actually lends support to the ITC’s determination that the products are not sufficiently similar to one another to be consistently directly competitive, thereby favoring exclusion of thin-film products from the scope of the domestic like product. D. Channels of Distribution Next, while hardly conclusive, the Commission found that CSPV products and thin-film products did not share the same channels of distribution during the POI because they were not sold into precisely the same markets. Specifically, “CSPV shipments to the residential segment in 2011 totaled 715 [megawatts] compared to 1,346 [megawatts] for non-residential shipments and 631 [megawatts] for utility shipments.” Final Determination at 14 n. 76. On the other hand, it found that shipments of thin-film products in 2011 to all three segments totaled 35 megawatts to the residential sector, 50 megawatts to the nonresidential sector, and 86 megawatts to the utility sector. See Final Determination 14. Thus, the Commission observed that CSPV products were shipped primarily to the non-residential segment toward the end of the POI (i.e., in 2011), whereas thin-film products were primarily sold to the utility segment during the same time period. Further, questionnaire responses also indicated “that ‘CSPV modules are used more commonly in the space- and weight-constrained commercial and residential market segments than thin-film modules (thus requiring different distribution channels), while thin-film modules are used more commonly in the utility-scale market (and are thus dependent on the distribution channels serving that market).’ ” See Final Determination at 14 (quoting Final Staff Report at App. E). Based on these findings, the Commission determined that there was evidence demonstrating that, at least toward the end of the POI, both products were primarily used in different market segments and by different segments of consumers, and thus concluded that this would require the use of different channels of distribution for thin-film modules and CSPV modules. This finding is consistent with the ITC’s physical characteristics and interchangeability findings and its findings related to customer perceptions. Taking all of the foregoing evidence into account, the ITC was not unreasonable in finding that, because there was evidence tending to demonstrate that both products were sold by different actors into different market segments, the channels of distribution factor, too, modestly supported a finding that thin-film products be excluded from the domestic like product’s scope. E. Price Last, the ITC found that prices charged for CSPV and thin-film products also demonstrated important differences between the two products. A majority of domestic producers and importers of CSPV and/or thin-film products (twelve of nineteen U.S. producers and thirty-five of forty-nine importers) reported that CSPV products are generally priced higher on a per-watt basis than thin-film products. See Final Determination at 15. Further, the Commission noted that, although the price of CSPV products declined during the POI due to a decrease in raw material costs (i.e., for polysilicon), the price differential per watt between CSPV and thin-film products narrowed, but was not eliminated entirely. Final Determination at 15. Thus, the ITC reasonably concluded that the price differential, particularly the price per watt, between CSPV and thin-film products, supported the conclusion that the products did not directly compete with one another. That is, because thin-film products tended to be less expensive per watt, some other factor such as incomplete interchangeability accounted for purchasers choosing to buy CSPV products at all. Thus, this factor favors the exclusion of thin-film products from the scope of the domestic like product. F. Conclusion When the six factors are considered as a whole, the differences between CSPV and thin-film products are evident, outweighing any broad similarities that the products might otherwise share. As the ITC observed, [t]he record demonstrates a number of differences between CSPV and thin-film products. Specifically, the two products are manufactured using different raw materials, manufacturing facilities, manufacturing processes, and production employees. Differences between the two products in terms of chemical composition, weight, size, conversion efficiency, output, inherent properties, and other factors limit their interchangeability after the design phase and in specific projects, and they also limit overlap in distribution channels, particularly for non-utility sales. A number of market participants reported viewing CSPV and thin-film products as sometimes competitive, but generally different products; they reported CSPV products to be generally higher-priced than thin-film products. On balance, we find that the differences between CSPV and thin-film products are more significant than their similarities in today’s evolving marketplace and weigh in favor of a finding of a single domestic like product consisting of the CSPV products within the scope of the investigations. Final Determination at 16. Thus, it is clear that the differences in physical characteristics and uses, interchangeability, manufacturing facilities, production processes, production employees, consumer and producer perceptions, channels of distribution, and price all supply the substantial evidence needed to support the ITC’s determination to exclude thin-film products from the scope of the investigations. Accordingly, the ITC reasonably determined, based on record evidence, that the two products do not share similar physical characteristics and end uses. Importantly, the Commission found that the products’ respective capacities to produce electricity were not comparable, and thus that both products were not consistently interchangeable for one another, thereby favoring exclusion of thin-film products from the scope of the domestic like product. Accordingly, the Commission’s determination of the scope of the domestic like product, including its decision to exclude thin-film products from the scope of the domestic like product, is supported by substantial evidence and is sustained. III. The Commission’s Domestic IndustRY Analysis Is Supported By Substantial Evidence Where appropriate, in the course of its investigation, the ITC must determine whether to exclude certain companies from the domestic industry because they are related to an exporter or importer of subject merchandise, or because their interests he primarily in importing merchandise rather than domestic merchandise production. This provision was enacted “so that domestic producers whose interests in the imports were strong enough to cause them to act against the domestic industry would be excluded from the ITC’s consideration and investigation into material injury or threat thereof.” USEC, Inc. v. United States, 25 CIT 49, 61, 132 F.Supp.2d 1, 12 (2001) (citing Empire Plow Co. Inc. v. United States, 11 CIT 847, 852, 675 F.Supp. 1348, 1353 (1987)). Following the ITC’s preliminary investigations, the Commission preliminarily determined that it would not be appropriate to exclude Sun-tech Arizona or Motech Americas LLC (“Motech”) from the domestic industry. See Preliminary Determination at 24; 19 U.S.C. § 1677(4)(B). In the final investigations, however, So-larWorld urged the Commission to exclude Suntech Arizona and Motech from the domestic industry because their interests did not lie primarily in domestic production. Final Determination at 19 (“In these final investigations, Petitioner argues that two U.S. producers, Suntech and Motech, import subject merchandise from their affiliates in China and asks the Commission to exclude both from the domestic industry as related parties based on the claim that these firms’ interests do not principally lie in domestic production.”). In its Final Determination, although the ITC found that both companies were related to Chinese producers and/or exporters of subject merchandise, the Commission found that appropriate circumstances existed to exclude Suntech Arizona from the domestic industry but not Motech. See Final Determination at 22, 23, 24. Although the Commission found that Motech, a domestic assembler of CSPV modules, was a related party “because it [was] wholly owned by the same firm that wholly own[ed] a subject producer/exporter in China,” it nonetheless concluded that Mo-tech’s primary interest was in domestic production, observing, for instance, that, in January 2010, Motech acquired a Delaware CSPV module manufacturing facility, in which it made significant investments in the same year. Final Determination at 22, 23. The ITC further found that Mo-tech should be included in the domestic industry based on the company’s ratio of imports to domestic production, because it had invested in research and development in its U.S. facility, and based on its performance relative to the industry average during the POI. See Final Determination at 23. The ITC thus determined that, based on Motech’s financial performance during the POI (i.e., whether the company benefitted from its importing activities), its capital expenditures, and research and development expenses, that it was not “appropriate to exclude Motech from the domestic industry as a related party.” See Final Determination at 24. As to Suntech Arizona, also a U.S. assembler of CSPV modules, however, the ITC reached a different conclusion and determined to exclude the company from the domestic industry. In doing so, the ITC found that the company was “a related party both by virtue of its imports of subject merchandise and because its corporate grandparent also wholly own[ed] four subsidiaries in China that produce[d]/export[ed] subject merchandise to the United States.” Final Determination at 22. In addition to its close relationship with Chinese companies involved in the production and exportation of subject merchandise, the Commission excluded Sun-tech Arizona from the domestic industry because of the company’s U.S. investment history and its financial performance. See Final Determination at 22. To support these findings, the Commission pointed to several different factors, including Suntech Arizona’s reported level of financial investment in research and development at its U.S. facility, its importing activities related to subject merchandise, and its overall financial performance during the POI in relation to the domestic industry. See Final Determination at 21-22. Plaintiffs argue that the Commission erred in its exclusion of Suntech Arizona from the domestic industry and that this error rendered the ITC’s Final Determination unsupported by substantial evidence. Plaintiffs contend that, except for one minor difference, Suntech Arizona’s activities were akin to those of other domestic producers, which the Commission did not exclude. See Pis.’ Br. 44. Plaintiffs further maintain that the Commission applied the factors of its analysis inconsistently between Suntech Arizona and Motech, resulting in Motech’s inclusion in, and Sun-tech Arizona’s exclusion from, the domestic industry. See Pis.’ Br. 44^15. The court holds that the ITC’s determination as to the composition of the domestic industry, including its decision to exclude Suntech Arizona from the domestic industry, is supported by substantial evidence. “[Ajlthough little legislative history behind the related parties provision exists, the provision’s purpose is to exclude from the industry headcount domestic producers substantially benefitting from their relationships with foreign exporters.” USEC, 25 CIT at 61, 132 F.Supp.2d at 12. The statute defines “[t]he term ‘industry’ [to] mean[] the producers as a whole of a domestic like product, or those producers whose collective output of a domestic like product constitutes a major proportion'of the total domestic production of the product.” 19 U.S.C. § 1677(4)(A). According to the statute, “[i]f a producer of a domestic like product and an exporter or importer of the subject merchandise are related parties, or if a producer of the domestic like product is also an importer of the subject merchandise, the producer may, in appropriate circumstances, be excluded from the industry.” Id. § 1677(4)(B)(i). The Commission will find that a producer and an exporter or importer are related parties if (I) the producer directly or indirectly controls the exporter or importer, (II) the exporter or importer directly or indirectly controls the producer, • (III) a third party directly or indirectly controls the producer and the exporter or importer, or (IV) the producer and the exporter or importer directly or indirectly control a third party and there is reason to believe that the relationship causes the producer to act differently than a nonre-lated producer. Id. § 1677(4)(B)(ii). Further, the Commission will find that a party “directly or indirectly controls] another party if the party is legally or operationally in a position to exercise restraint or direction over the other party.” Id. § 1677(4)(B). In addition, “19 U.S.C. § 1677(4)(B) permits the Commission to exclude domestic producers who import subject merchandise from the definition of domestic industry, if it determines that appropriate circumstances exist for exclusion.” Allied Mineral, 28 CIT at 1864. This Court has found that “[t]he most significant factor ... in making the ‘appropriate circumstances’ determination is whether the domestic producer accrued a substantial benefit from its importation of the subject merchandise.” Id. (citing Empire Plow, 11 CIT at 853, 675 F.Supp. at 1353). This Court has also repeatedly upheld the Commission’s use of the particular factors as part of its determination as to whether to exclude producers who have accrued a substantial interest in the subject merchandise: (1) the percentage of domestic production attributable to the importing producer; (2) the reason the U.S. producer has decided to import the product subject to investigation (whether to benefit from unfair trade practice or to enable them to continue production and compete in the domestic market); (3) whether inclusion or exclusion of the importing producer will skew the data for the rest of the industry; (4) the ratio of import shipments to U.S. production for the importing producer; and (5) whether the primary interest of the importing producer lies in domestic production or importation. The Commission is not required to make findings as to each specific factor. Id. at 1865 (citation omitted) (citing Sandvik AB v. United States, 13 CIT 738, 748, 721 F.Supp. 1322, 1332 (1989), aff'd, 904 F.2d 46 (Fed.Cir.1990); Torrington Co. v. United States, 16 CIT 220, 224, 790 F.Supp. 1161, 1168 (1992)). Here, the Commission considered the benefit the company received as a result of its relationship with exporters from China and reasonably determined that Suntech Arizona was enjoying substantial benefits from its importation of solar cells from China. See Final Determination at 22. To support its determination, the Commission relied on record evidence that indicated that Suntech Arizona’s interests rested primarily with the importation of CSPV products rather than with domestic production of the domestic like product. For example, it evaluated Suntech Arizona’s ratio of total subject imports from China to its domestic production (based on kilowatts) throughout the POI. See Final Determination at 21. Although plaintiffs argue that the decrease in Suntech Arizona’s ratio of subject imports to domestic production demonstrates that the company had developed a more substantial commitment to domestic production, even if true, this trend does not undermine the ITC’s conclusion that, during the POI, based on the entire record before it, Suntech Arizona’s interests did not lie primarily with the domestic industry. While the ratio of subject imports to domestic production decreased during the latter part of the POI, the Commission found that Suntech Arizona’s importing activity remained substantial relative to its domestic production. Final Determination at 22. In addition to its high ratio of imports to domestic production, the ITC also looked to Suntech Arizona’s robust operating performance when compared to the industry average during the POI, particularly in the latter part of the POI. See Final Determination at 21, 22. Also, the Commission examined the company’s level of investment in research and development in its U.S. facilities during the POI and reasonably concluded that these findings also supported its conclusion that Suntech Arizona’s interests were primarily in importing rather than domestic production. Final Determination at 21-22. Having reviewed these findings, the court finds that the ITC reasonably determined, based on substantial record evidence, that Suntech Arizona, although a “domestic producer!,] accrued a substantial benefit from its importation of the subject merchandise.” See Allied Mineral, 28 CIT at 1864 (citing Empire Plow, 11 CIT at 853, 675 F.Supp. at 1353). Next, the court finds plaintiffs’ argument that the factors were not applied in a consistent manner to both Suntech Arizona and Motech unconvincing. This is because the facts that the Commission found were dramatically different for Suntech Arizona and Motech. For instance, the ITC observed differences between the two companies during the POI, including (1) Mo-tech’s ratio of subject imports to domestic production, (2) Motech’s financial performance relative to the industry average, and (3) Motech’s levels of investment in research and development in its domestic facilities. Each of these factors distinguished Motech from Suntech Arizona, supporting the ITC’s finding that these two companies’ experiences during the POI were not comparable to one another and thus that Motech and Suntech Arizona did not require similar treatment. Based on the foregoing, the Commission was reasonable in its decision to include Motech in the domestic industry and to exclude Sun-tech Arizona. Accordingly, the Commission’s domestic industry analysis is sustained. IY. The Commission’s Affirmative Material Injury Determination Is Supported by Substantial Evidence and IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW At the conclusion of its investigations, the ITC sought to ascertain whether the domestic industry, which manufactured the domestic like product of the subject merchandise, was materially injured or threatened with material injury by reason of the subject imports. See 19 U.S.C. §§ 1673, 1671(a). The Commission considered the volume, price effects, impact of subject imports, and other external market factors, and determined that the domestic industry was being materially injured by reason of the entry of subject imports into the United States. See Final Determination at 3. A. “By Reason of’ and “But for” Causation Standard Plaintiffs challenge the ITC’s material injury determination, claiming that it failed to consider the special circumstances of the solar panel industry and marketplace as part of its determination. See Pis.’ Br. 12. Specifically, plaintiffs insist that the Commission should have undertaken a “but for” causation inquiry and that the failure to do so rendered its determination contrary to law. See Pis.’ Br. 12 (“Plaintiffs submit that the Commission’s determination that the U.S. CSPV industry ‘is materially injured by reason of subject imports’ was unsupported by substantial evidence, and therefore not in accordance with law.... That is, the Commission failed to undertake any analysis to consider whether, given these conditions of competition, subject imports could truly be the ‘but for’ cause of the injury suffered by the domestic industry.” (citation omitted) (quoting Final Determination at 58)). In making their argument, plaintiffs assert that three considerations demonstrate that the conditions of the domestic industry would have been the same irrespective of whether their products were available in the U.S. market because (1) the price and demand for CSPV products are tied to the need to achieve grid parity, (2) the government incentives that stimulated demand for CSPV products in the United States were being phased out during the POI, and (3) the fastest growth in demand during the POI was in the utility sector where grid parity and government incentives had the greatest effect. See Pis.’ Br. 4-5. Thus, for plaintiffs, had the ITC undertaken a proper “but for” causation analysis, it would have determined that the domestic industry had suffered injury, not as a result of the sale of subject imports at low dumped prices (i.e., “but for” the imports of subject merchandise), but rather, as a result of other factors extant in the marketplace. Therefore, for plaintiffs, the ITC’s chosen methodology was unreasonable and its conclusions unsupported by substantial evidence. After considering plaintiffs’ arguments, the court finds that it cannot agree with parts of plaintiffs’ characterization of the ITC’s legal obligation when making its material injury determination. For an antidumping duty order to issue, in addition to Commerce’s finding of sales at less than fair value, the Commission must make an affirmative injury determination, which “requires both (1) present material injury and (2) a finding that the material injury is ‘by reason of the subject imports.” Gerald Metals, Inc. v. United States, 132 F.3d 716, 719 (Fed.Cir.1997) (citations omitted). “Material injury is defined as ‘harm which is not incon sequential, immaterial, or unimportant.’ ” Nucor Corp. v. United States, 414 F.3d 1331, 1335 (Fed.Cir.2005) (quoting 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(A)). The ITC, when making a materiality determination, is directed by 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(B)(i) to weigh factors identified by the statute, including “the volume of imports, the price effects of those imports, and the impact of those imports on the affected domestic industry.” Caribbean Ispat Ltd. v. United States, 450 F.3d 1336, 1337 (Fed.Cir.2006) (citing 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(B)(i)). When making its “by reason of’ determination, the ITC is also directed to “evaluate all relevant economic factors ... within the context of the business cycle and conditions of competition that are distinctive to the affected industry.” 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(C)(iii). “In addition to those factors, the Commission may consider ‘such other economic factors as are relevant to the determination.’ ” Caribbean Ispat, 450 F.3d at 1337-38 (quoting 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(B)(ii)). The Federal Circuit has explained that, at least in cases involving commodity products, i.e., merchandise that is “interchangeable regardless of its source,” “in which non-[less-than-fair-value] imported goods are present in the market, the Commission must give consideration to the issue of ‘but for’ causation by considering whether the domestic industry would have been better off if the dumped goods had been absent from the market.” Bratsk Aluminium, Smelter v. United States, 444 F.3d 1369, 1371 (Fed.Cir.2006); Mittal Steel Point Lisas Ltd. v. United States, 542 F.3d 867, 876 (Fed.Cir.2008). Thus, in such instances, “where commodity products are at issue and fairly traded, price competitive, non-subject imports are in the market,” “inquiry into ‘but for’ causation [is] a proper part of the Commission’s responsibility to determine whether the injury to the domestic industry is ‘by reason of the subject imports.” Mittal Steel, 542 F.3d at 877, 878 (quoting Bratsk, 444 F.3d at 1373) (internal quotation marks omitted). In establishing this rule, the Federal Circuit was concerned that, when reviewing the conditions of a domestic industry for a commodity product, an overwhelming presence of price competitive and interchangeable non-subject imports in the market during the period of investigation might escape the ITC’s proper consideration. That is, in such cases, the ITC might incorrectly attribute the domestic industry’s injury to the subject imports when the industry’s damaged condition was actually “by reason of’ substantially similar non-subject imports. Hence, when presented with price competitive and highly substitutable non-subject imports of a commodity product, in order to satisfy its statutory duty, Mittal Steel requires the ITC “to consider the ‘but for’ causation analysis ... to determine whether the subject imports were a substantial factor in the injury to the domestic industry, as opposed to a merely ‘incidental, tangential, or trivial’ factor.” Id. at 879 (quoting Nippon Steel Corp. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 345 F.3d 1379, 1381 (Fed.Cir.2003)). Here, plaintiffs urge the court to extend the application of the “but for” causation analysis to the facts of this case. Plaintiffs attempt to liken their case to that of Mittal Steel and its predecessors, arguing that, although their subject merchandise is not a commodity product, the marketplace in which it was sold presents analogous “unique circumstances” as those found by the Federal Circuit to be present in each of those cases. See Pis.’ Br. 22 (“[T]he present case involves subject imports of technology used'to produce a commodity product — i.e., electricity — which the Commission recognized competes with non-subject technologies used to produce the same commodity product in the U.S. market.” (emphasis added)). Although the Federal Circuit has limited the use of the “but for” test to injury determinations involving (1) commodity products and (2) where there were non-subject, price competitive imports in the domestic market during the period of investigation, this Court has found that, where, as here, the case does not involve a commodity product, the Commission, nevertheless, is not relieved of its responsibility to “consider potential alternate causes of harm in its ... analysis.” See LG Electronics, Inc. v. U.S. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 38 CIT-,-, 26 F.Supp.3d 1338, 1351 (2014) (citing Mittal Steel, 542 F.3d at 878). Moreover, although the Federal Circuit has used the phrase “but for” in several cases, it is apparent that the statutory “by reason of’ standard, which applies to every injury determination, has not been materially altered. See NSK Corp. v. United States, 33 CIT 1185, 1189, 637 F.Supp.2d 1311, 1317 (2009) (“[T]he Federal Circuit’s opinion in Mittal did not constitute an intervening change in the controlling law.” (citing NSK Corp. v. United States, 32 CIT 1497, 1508-16, 593 F.Supp.2d 1355, 1367-72 (2008))); see also Mittal Steel, 542 F.3d at 879 n. 2 (“Commissioners Pearson and Okun have noted that interpreting Bratsk in that manner, i.e., as !a reminder that the Commission, before it makes an affirmative determination, must satisfy itself that it has not attributed material injury to factors other than subject imports,’ is consistent with the Commission’s obligation to ‘analyze the effects of the unfairly traded imports and other relevant factors in a way that enables the Commission to conclude that it has not attributed the effects of other factors to the subject imports.’” (citation omitted)). • Thus, the words “but for” merely point out that, when making a material injury determination, the Commission must take into account all record evidence that has a bearing on the factors considered in reaching its determination. Therefore, if there is non-subject merchandise present in the market that competes with subject imports, or record evidence that might supply some other reason for the cause of injury to the domestic industry, the ITC must take it into account. See Mittal Steel, 542 F.3d at 878; Nucor Corp. v. United States, 32 CIT 1380, 1449, 594 F.Supp.2d 1320, 1382, 1383 (2008) (“Nevertheless, this holding should not be read to provide the Commission license to unilaterally disregard data related to non-subject imports during a sunset review, if it finds that such imports are a ‘relevant economic factor[ ]’ to its determination.... To be sure, it would be an abuse of discretion for the ITC to ignore such important factors if they were relevant.” (alteration in original) (footnote omitted) (citations omitted) (quoting 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(2), (4) (2000))), aff'd, 601 F.3d 1291 (Fed.Cir.2010); NSK Corp. v. United States, 32 CIT 966, 973, 577 F.Supp.2d 1322, 1332-33 (2008) (“Moreover, application of Bratsk to sunset review causation analysis would compel the ITC to address significant increases in market share by non-subject imports and thereby examine the effectiveness of the underlying antidumping order in relation to fundamental changes in the marketplace that might be more likely to cause injury to the domestic industry than unrestrained subject imports. The court views this analysis as a necessary step in establishing causation under [19 U.S.C.] § 1675a(a)(l). To hold otherwise would permit the ITC to ignore a significant factor affecting the domestic industry when conducting a sunset review.” (citation omitted)). In this case, although it has chosen not to use the specific words “but for” in its Final Determination, the ITC has properly framed the legal basis upon which to determine whether the material injury sustained by the domestic industry is “by reason of’ subject imports. See Final Determination at 58 (“Based on the foregoing trends, we find that there is a causal nexus between subject imports and the poor condition of the domestic industry and that the domestic industry is materially injured by reason of subject imports.”). Before the court, in addition to properly framing the legal basis of its determination, the ITC must support with substantial evidence any findings it makes about the conditions in the marketplace. The court, in turn, must determine whether the Commission properly considered the impact of those factors present in the marketplace (i.e., grid parity, incentive programs, and utility sales) claimed by plaintiffs to have caused the injury to the domestic industry when reaching its determination that the material injury sustained by the domestic CSPV industry was “by reason of’ subject imports. Here, it is apparent that the Commission properly took into account evidence demonstrating that the injury sustained by the domestic industry was “by reason of’ subject imports and not caused by other claimed marketplace factors present in the United States during the POI. B. The Commission Properly Considered the Claimed Conditions of Competition “When evaluating challenges to the ITC’s choice of methodology, the court will affirm the chosen methodology as long as it is reasonable.” JMC Steel, 38 CIT at -, 24 F.Supp.3d at 1300 (citations omitted). That is, “[w]hen presented with a challenge to the Commission’s methodology, the court examines ‘not what methodology [plaintiffs] would prefer, but ... whether the methodology actually used by the Commission was reasonable.’ ” Id. (alteration in original) (citing Shandong TTCA Biochemistry Co. v. United States, 35 CIT -, -, 774 F.Supp.2d 1317, 1329 (2011)). “While the Commission may not enter an affirmative determination unless it finds that a domestic industry is materially injured ‘by reason of subject imports, the Commission is not required to follow a single methodology for making that determination.” Mittal Steel, 542 F.3d at 873. Thus, “[i]f the methodology is valid, then the question simply resolves to whether analysis of the substantiality of the evidence of record supports the conclusion drawn.” Swiff-Train Co. v. United States, 38 CIT-,-, 999 F.Supp.2d 1334, 1345 (2014). As noted, plaintiffs insist that, had the Commission properly considered the roles of grid parity, declining incentive programs, and increased growth in demand in the utilities sector during the POI, it would have found that the condition of the domestic industry would have been the same even if subject imports were not present in the U.S. market. See Pis.’ Br. 26 (“Taken together, this means that even if subject imports had not been present in the U.S. market, the picture of the domestic industry would have been the same as the one observed by the Commission in its Views— i.e., domestic producers would have: (1) equally been unable to sell their products; (2) equally faced pressure to lower prices; (3) equally lost money throughout the POI; (4) equally experienced declines in many of its performance indicators; and (5) equally recognized asset write-offs and/or increased costs.”). Plaintiffs contend that the ITC did not evaluate material injury “within the context of the business cycle and conditions of competition that are distinctive to the affected industry” as required by 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(C)(iii), and thus that “the Commission’s evaluation of volume, price effects, impact, and causation, within the context of the relevant conditions of competition, is unsupported by substantial evidence.” See Pls.’ Br. 14-15; 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(C)(iii). The court is unpersuaded by this argument and finds that the Commission adequately addressed the claimed conditions of competition that were present in the U.S. market in accordance with its obligations under the statute, and reasonably determined, based on substantial record evidence, that the material injury sustained by the domestic industry during the POI was “by reason of’ subject imports. See Mittal Steel, 542 F.3d at 879. AlS shall be seen, the Commission informed its analysis by evaluating a number of conditions of competition present in the U.S. CSPV market and the role that each played during the POI with respect to the injury sustained by the domestic CSPV industry: (1) the emergence of alternative energy technologies, such as the increased supply, and declining price, of natural gas; (2) the declining cost of polysilicon, a primary input used in the manufacture of CSPV products; (3) the availability of federal, state, and local government incentives to the CSPV domestic industry; (4) the supply and demand conditions for CSPV products in the United States, which were characterized by high demand and subject imports obtaining domestic market share at the expense of the domestic industry; (5)the growing demand for CSPV products in the utility sector; (6) the decline in market share of non-subject imports (i.e., imports of CSPV products from countries other than China); and (7) the impetus toward grid parity (i.e., CSPV products’ ability to generate electricity at a price matching the cost of power from the electric grid and thus compete for electricity sales with other energy sources). Having reviewed its analysis, the court finds that the ITC reasonably reached its conclusion with respect to injury and adequately took into account the “novel conditions of competition” with which plaintiffs claim it failed to “come to grips.” See Pis.’ Br. 12. Accordingly, its determination is sustained. 2. Alternative Energy Technologies and Polysilicon Prices The first two conditions analyzed by the ITC were the impact of alternative energy technologies and the declining cost of polysilicon on the domestic CSPV industry. Although, importantly, plaintiffs do not challenge these aspects of the Final Determination, the ITC relied, in part, on its findings regarding the impact of alternative energy technologies and the decline in cost of polysilicon during the POI to reach its determination that the domestic industry was materially injured “by reason of’ subject imports. Consequently, although the ITC’s findings relating to these conditions of competition are not at issue in this case, they are nonetheless worthy of some examination in order to demonstrate that the ITC properly took into account record evidence bearing on the conditions in the marketplace during the POL With respect to energy technologies other than solar, the Commission observed that, “[djuring the POI, increases in the use of ‘fracking’ technologies and shale drilling expanded the supply of natural gas in the United States.” Final Determination at 82. It found that this increase in supply “caused natural gas prices to decline and stimulated demand for natural gas-fueled electricity for peak periods at the expense of other electricity sources such as CSPV products.” Final Determination at 32. In addition, the Commission found that “[c]ompetition with renewable-energy electricity-generators such as thin-film solar systems ... affect[ed] demand for CSPV solar systems and their components.” Final Determination at 32. In other words, as to this latter consideration, the ITC found that electricity provided by CSPV products competed for sales in the United States with electricity generated from natural gas and renewable energy sources. Therefore, the ITC found that price competition between energy-producing technologies was present in the marketplace. As to polysilicon, it is a key raw material input used in the manufacture of CSPV products,, accounting for nearly one quarter of the production cost to manufacture a finished CSPV module, and thus, high prices for polysilicon can have adverse effects on the profit margins of manufacturers. See Final Determination at 42 n. 247. Lower prices for polysilicon, on the other hand, would have a positive’ effect on the bottom line. The ITC found that “[djeclining polysi-licon prices eroded the advantage thin-film products may have had over CSPV products in terms of price, but thin-film producers ... continued to improve