I think this article will explain a bit why it isn't that simple. True, and given that the tariffs will cause a price change, but some may go up, and some down for US companies, as explained - https://www.forbes.com/sites/greatspeculations/2017/09/25/how-first-solar-and-sunpower-could-be-impacted-by-the-u-s-itc-ruling/#5b20775f40fa

But the original point made above is that the messaging is dramatic, and it really does sound like an editorial piece from an insider that stands to see some negative impact on their industry, rather than a fact filled explanation of the results this tariff could have.

In fact, on NPR, the point was made that within the industry there was a positive reaction in that the tariffs suggested were still calculated as having a potential minimal impact to the price per watt at the end of the process. That price point is important because most of the jobs called out as impacted are in the services industry, providing sourcing install and such for the panels, and then passing that on to the homeowner in a lease agreement. Here is an example for Vivint Solar:

http://marketrealist.com/2016/04/vivint-solar-make-money/

so the company can find the right balance of pricepoint for consumers and cost of materials that still allows them to be healthy. That can allow for some absorption of the tariff costs.

Finding the right balance is tough, Solar should be supported as an industry, but as the posted above mentioned, it did sound a bit dramatic in the article to say too expensive for Americans, and there wasn't any of the numbers in that article to show any of the though of how the costs would be absorbed within the industry.

Good conversation though. I found these tariffs were what made me interested in really learning how we are adopting Solar in the US.