The World's #1 Renewable Energy Network for News & Information
Sign In or Register
Renewable Energy World Logo
Wednesday, May 22, 2013
  • Sections
    • Home
      • News
      • Opinion & Commentary
      • Featured Blogs
      • Research & Reports
      • Video
      • Press Releases
      • All Blogs
      • Events
      • Products
      • Finance
    • Solar
      • News
      • Opinion & Commentary
      • Featured Blogs
      • Research & Reports
      • Video
      • Press Releases
      • All Blogs
      • Events
      • Products
      • Finance
    • Wind
      • News
      • Opinion & Commentary
      • Featured Blogs
      • Research & Reports
      • Video
      • Press Releases
      • All Blogs
      • Events
      • Products
      • Finance
    • Geothermal
      • News
      • Opinion & Commentary
      • Featured Blogs
      • Research & Reports
      • Video
      • Press Releases
      • All Blogs
      • Events
      • Products
      • Finance
    • Bio
      • News
      • Opinion & Commentary
      • Featured Blogs
      • Research & Reports
      • Video
      • Press Releases
      • All Blogs
      • Events
      • Products
      • Finance
    • Hydro
      • News
      • Opinion & Commentary
      • Featured Blogs
      • Research & Reports
      • Video
      • Press Releases
      • All Blogs
      • Events
      • Products
      • Finance
    • Careers
    • Companies
      • Company Directory
      • Press Releases
      • Products
      • Events Calendar
      • White Papers
    • Webcasts
      • Upcoming Webcasts
      • Featured Webcasts
      • Archived Webcasts
      • Events Calendar
    • White Papers
    • Magazines
      • Renewable Energy World
      • Wind Technology
      • Large Scale Solar
      • Hydro Review
      • HRW - Hydro Review Worldwide
      • Renewable Energy World (North America Edition)
      • Photovoltaics World
    • Awards
  • Account
    • Sign In
    • Register
  • Search
Don't Miss The Great Solar Debate: Where Does the Global Solar Industry Stand? Click Here to Register! ×

The WTO vs. Ontario: Addressing the Bigger Picture of Trade and Renewable Energy

Vince Font, Contributing Editor
October 29, 2012  |  19 Comments

In a move that will likely set a worldwide precedent barring governments from imposing local content requirements to their feed-in tariff programs, a forthcoming World Trade Organization report indicates that it will side with the European Union and Japan against the Canadian province of Ontario. Although the official report is not expected to be released until November, a leaked preliminary dispute settlement floated by the International Centre for Trade and Sustainable Development (ICTSD) signals the WTO's acceptance of two separately filed claims of protectionism against Ontario. Both Japan and the EU have claimed Ontario's feed-in tariff (FIT) program discriminates against foreign green energy manufacturers and unduly pressures local companies to purchase hardware from local suppliers.

The Case Against Ontario

In September of 2010, Japan filed an official dispute with the WTO claiming that certain provisions in Ontario’s FIT program directly violate Canada’s obligations under the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) 1994 — in specific, Articles III:4, III:5 and XXIII:1. These articles essentially bar governments from doing what Ontario stands accused of doing: requiring power generating companies that are participating in the FIT program to source a certain percentage of their equipment in Ontario. The local content requirement in Ontario is 25 percent for wind projects and 60 percent for solar. Japan further claimed that Ontario’s actions were out of compliance with Article 2.1 of the TRIMS Agreement and asked the WTO to view Ontario’s FIT program as an illegal subsidy.

Following Japan’s lead and echoing the same concerns, the EU’s official dispute was filed in August of 2011. Eventually, both complaints were merged by the WTO. Recently, it was leaked that the WTO had reached a preliminary decision on the matter — one that the government of Ontario, which defends its actions by saying the requirements were put in place to encourage local clean energy production, will likely appeal.

The Rising Tide of Complications

What appears on the surface to be a cut and dried case of unfair discrimination against foreign manufacturers is actually far from it. The implications of the WTO’s impending official decision, which isn’t likely to stray from the preliminary dispute settlement report, may have consequences that reach far beyond any direct impacts to Ontario’s renewable energy efforts and could result in a glut of litigation against other governments with similar local content requirements written into their FIT schemes. 

“They don’t call them trade wars for nothing,” says Clint Wilder, senior editor with Clean Edge, Inc. and co-author of Clean Tech Nation: How the US Can Lead in the New Global Economy. “It’s a real dilemma. It’s very discouraging to see these kind of trade wars breaking out over renewable energy. The industries of clean tech are becoming the critical industries for global economic competitiveness in the 21st century. The downside is, when industries achieve that status you’re going to get these disputes.”

Pointing to a recent dispute between the U.S. and China over the dumping of solar exports that resulted in the U.S. Commerce Department levying stiff tariffs against Chinese imports, Wilder says, “We’ve certainly seen it before, with the U.S. taking action against China. But what’s interesting to me is that the Ontario market is hardly the only one — and far from the largest one — to have domestic content rules.”

Similar local content rules are in place in many countries, including Brazil’s wind and solar industries and in India, where crystalline photovoltaic projects are required to use products manufactured in-country. In Saudi Arabia, the recently announced K.A.CARE program, which plans to add 55,000 megawatts of renewable energy capacity over the course of the next 20 years, plans to opt in favor of awarding “extra bid points” for developers who utilize local content — however once the second round of procurements are launched, the plan is to make the use of local content mandatory.

“The more these local content requirements are embedded into these procurement programs for renewable energy – the more mandatory or the more eliminatory these requirements become – the more likely it is that such requirements are going to be subject to enhanced scrutiny," says Marc Norman, lawyer for Chadbourne & Parke LLP and director of the Emirates Solar Industry Association (ESIA). "You need to look at the procurement regime of a given WTO member state and assess whether the policy is merely incentivizing as to the use of local content, as Saudi Arabia plans in its first procurement rounds, or effectively disbarring bidders that fail to meet its local content requirements. There’s a distinction to be drawn.”

Meanwhile in various geographical pockets across the globe, WTO member states are watching the unfolding situation closely and prepping their arguments. Norman believes it will likely evolve into a delicate international issue, and that the stakes are high.

“In the eye of the Ontario saga, the Indonesian government, for instance, has already publically announced that it would vigorously defend its regulations requiring oil and gas companies to use locally made products and services," says Norman. "Various interest and pressure groups have also started rustling their feathers.”

The Impacts to Worldwide Renewable Energy Efforts

In the Ontario case, what lies at the heart of this complex matter has nothing to do with the viability of renewable energy or the concept of FIT programs, and everything to do with the local content requirements written into those FIT programs — and whether or not governments are imposing the equivalent of “no play” rules for energy creators who don’t exclusively use local content. 

“I think it’s important to note that this is not a ruling against developing renewable energy,” Wilder says. “No one is saying that feed in tariffs are bad, or that that trying to boost the production of renewable energy is a bad thing. This has to do with one particular aspect of the policy in Ontario.” 

Norman agrees: “This isn’t limited to renewable energy. This isn’t limited by any means to feed-in tariffs. Local content is nothing particularly exotic; we see it quite often."

Lessons Learned: What Governments Can Do

John Smirnow, VP of Trade and Competitiveness with the Solar Energy Industries Association (SEIA), says the WTO’s preliminary findings set “an important precedent” and suggests they’ll serve as “signpost for other countries to look for alternatives to local content requirements.” Smirnow adds, “There are a lot of things that governments can do to help their industries grow, such as tax incentives. But what they shouldn’t be doing is relying on local content restrictions that are pretty clear violations of WTO agreements.”

Smirnow also indicates that the long process of filing such complaints through the WTO – which he says make take as many as three years before seeing actual resolution – could result in governments taking proactive instead of reactive measures when it comes to issues of renewable energy and trade.

“I think there’s an opportunity here for governments to get together and develop a list of best practices,” Smirnow says. “We can’t just leave it to litigation alone. I think there’s a real need here, and an opportunity for governments to get together.” 

Smirnow envisions the possible drafting of a document along the lines of 10 Things You Can Do to Support Your Green Industry That Are WTO Consistent. “It would be proactive,” Smirnow says, “and positive.”

Lead image: Gavel via Shutterstock 

19 Comments

Register To Comment
Richard Carlson
Richard Carlson
November 5, 2012
This will harm the FiT in Ontario regardless of the decision as people are no longer making investments. However, I would think it would be obvious that the domestic content rules would go against WTO rules (and we don't complain when people against Chinese wind content rules). There are many ways to get around the WTO -- Italy and Turkey can still promote local content with their FiT programmes.
Gerry Wootton
Gerry Wootton
November 1, 2012
Let's keep in mind, this is about FiTs. The US wants jurisdictions with FiTs to abide by certain rules because FiTs work and they don't have any. It's a simple contest - on the one hand, governments pay local producers for their product but only when it is productive, giving them an advantage in the local market; on the other hand, governments give local producers cash and tax benefits giving them an advantage in everyone's market place. In a sound bite, the latter can be made to sound fairer. The truth is that the FiT approach creates a general incentive to the industry but doesn't remove the incentive for players to maximize productivity as this creates higher profits. The latter approach flattens this incentive, sustains the least productive players and ultimately results in the government 'picking winners and losers'.
The 'justification' behind most WTO actions is that someone is selling goods 'too cheaply' - in other words, the market should never favor consumers over the least competitive producers - essentially a mechanism for introducing inefficiency into the global economy. In some ways it's a mafioso scheme where the outfit with the most enforcers always wins.
Gerry Wootton
Gerry Wootton
November 1, 2012
@maury - FiTs are working in Ontario in the sense that a lot of renewable projects are going forward in Ontario to the extent that Ontario is now only second to California in solar. Don't conflate issues: the effectiveness of FiTs and the deviousness and/or incompetence of bureaucracy are two different issues. Regardless of the incentive scheme proposed, the uncivil service will find ways to gum up the gears. FiTs drive the industry by paying for finished product, i.e. electricity, rather than putting cash in the hands of would be players. Better, this is government money spent on the back end rather than on the front end - anyone who has done IRR analysis knows that future spending has a lower NPV than previous spending. Ontario somehow has at least avoided laying out huge wads of cash and getting nothing for it (unless you consider certain nuke and gas projects). Now I know that it would be nicer for players to receive nice big cash gifts up front before delivering the goods rather than having to work hard for a reward, from their perspective - so sad. BTW, I do know how tough it is to hack it in Ontario; however, it's got to be way better than in the US where policy is all over the map, changes with the wind and runs on 11th hour decisions and where the guys with the best PR get government assistance.
Uncle Sam has taken the pay up front approach. Like a rich uncle with underemployed children with fancy cars, he is jealous of the modest success of his middle class nephews and doesn't see why his kids shouldn't have their jobs instead. This is the modern job creation program in a nutshell: why create new jobs when you can just take someone else's.
Maury Markowitz
Maury Markowitz
November 1, 2012
"Say whatever you like but it appears to be working"

As someone that works in the PV field in Ontario, let me assure you that is not the case.

Last October the OPA started the process of resetting the tariff prices. This was expected. However, they then took a year to come up with those prices. A YEAR. During this period, zero new development took place, and the entire industrial base was servicing existing pre-October contracts. As those dried up around June, desperation set in.

The application process re-opened only recently. However, the entire pipe is not available, only the microFIT section, in spite of repeated promises otherwise. To add to the confusion, the definition of what falls under the microFIT program has changed several times, and now the largest section - small systems on farms - is extremely difficult to successfully navigate. This may return it to the roots of the original concept - small residential systems - but another change demands a piece of paper from the land office which is difficult to find and costs money. I understand why they did this, to produce a paywall, but the implementation leaves much to be desired.

So now we have an industrial base with nothing to do. Manufacturers are closing up shop all over, and large companies are avoiding Ontario like the plague.

Working? No, definitely not that.

The governments handling of this program has been schizo. I once read that you should never ascribe to collusion what can be ascribed to idiocy. Many others in the industry are not so sure.
Russell Lowes
Russell Lowes
October 31, 2012
The WTO is a series of agreements designed to favor the large corporations who make up the tribunals that rule on disagreements/suits. We did well without it and can do well again without it.
Geoff Thomas
Geoff Thomas
October 31, 2012
Particularly WillWillikin, the WTO was created by America, it has good and bad aspects, but we now live in a World economy, if the economy shrinks to National economies, a huge amount of money/capital/resources etc. will just be gone.
Possibly so will America, so you made your bed guys...
ANONYMOUS
October 31, 2012
@WillWilkin "WTO lawyer committees should not be able to overrule the laws and policies of sovereign nations that have every legitimate interest in protecting domestic industries, ie, the interests of their own people and country."

The problem is what "legitimate interests" are? Is e.g. protecting high standards of living legitimate? Yes, free trade and global competition sometimes hurt the richer nations, but they also serve like communicating pipes, helping equalize the unjust distribution of wealth in the world. When working hard, Filipinos, Thai, Chinese and Indians have the same right to a decent life as everybody else in the world. If poorer nations use their competitive edge of lower labor costs when producing high quality products, be it. Renewable energy can only become a major player, when costs are becoming competitive. $16 per gallon of jet fuel? Gimme a break! That HAS to change. Everything else are glass bead games.

What should be avoided it disruptive trade practices. I think that China is a prime example in this respect. They disregard IP and copy without hesitation and Shanzhai (Shan Zhai)has become a culture in its own. The control of currency exchange to gain an unfair advantage is another example. Free floating, the market would adjust the real value by itself and also soften the results of disruptive practices. Here is, where the WTO should become tougher.

In the end, with rising standards of living, the problem will adjust itself. Remember in the 1970s and 80s, when Japan was criticized for its huge trade deficit? Who is talking about that today - and the accused became now in case of Ontario the accusers.
Gerry Wootton
Gerry Wootton
October 30, 2012
Say whatever you like but it appears to be working. Perhaps the complainants are green with envy over Samsung's sweetheart deal that aims to create 'the largest cluster of wind and solar power anywhere on the planet'. After being pounded by Government Motors exporting of jobs, the London area can use the jobs.
Gerry Wootton
Gerry Wootton
October 30, 2012
The WTO is essentially a mechanism for the US and, to a lesser extent, the EU to beat up on other countries. The US is by far the leader in complaints, the majority of which fall into either their right to sell substandard product into a market or a market's right to erect tarrif barriers against highly subsidized product. On the other side of the coin, the US is the most frequent respondent largely due to protectionism for agricultural products and raw materials.
The WTO is essentially a gaggle of lawyers dancing on the head of a pin. They only accept communication in English, French and Spanish which gives off something of the smell of white bread.
There are of course quite a few ongoing disputes related to local content rules, this being just one. It remains to be seen whether this particular case will be a precedent or just a tag-along. Note that the USA's various buy America programs have more or less avoided the big hook.
The most common local content policy by far is the one where financial incentives are offered to locate a business at a particular address. Consider the angelic SolarWorld who were granted over $100m in state and local tax incentives to locate in Hillsboro. That was followed by $42M in energy tax credits with $54M more pending and $15M+ in property tax abatements. The practice of incentivising local business is common as mud - they say charity begins at home. The Ontario method was to pay in excess for home grown production capacity (as opposed to a myriad of tax deals, preferred loans and grants directed to specific recipients), so regardless of what anyone says, this is about FiTs. FiTs only kick in when the job gets done. FiTs let market forces have a chance as opposed to the pork barrel.
Russell Lowes
Russell Lowes
October 30, 2012
Many believed the World Trade Organization was supposed to level the playing field. It of course was not about free trade, but pre-arranged trade. Fairness was far from its mission. Profits for multinational companies were the real mission of the WTO, it seems to me.
There were no significant considerations toward leveling the wage disparities, nor environmental regulation or human health disparities.
When the world goes into the next downturn, it will be a bigger one than the downturn that surfaced in 2007. I project the next one to be in about 2017. In 1999, I had projected the last one to be in 2005, off by 2 years.
When this happens, the WTO's interference with local economies and their right to help themselves will hopefully diminish, as countries break from GATT and WTO.
Will Wilkin
Will Wilkin
October 30, 2012
These "free trade" agreements are dissolving national sovereignty and giving corporations the "right" to sue countries for the cost of complying with regulations or evading them altogether, especially in Obama's latest secret negotiations on the Trans-Pacific Partnership:

http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2012/07/02/trans-pacific-partnership-corporate-escape-from-accountability/

EXCERPT:

The real result is global privilege of the corporate class as a class immune to government regulation.

One of the provisions allows corporations to avoid the courts and laws of countries by creating a private tribunal that corporations can use to sue governments for the costs of complying with regulation. Essentially, the laws of countries that apply to corporations are supplanted by decisions of a private tribunal of corporate lawyers.

END EXCERPT
PATTERSON ALAN
PATTERSON ALAN
October 30, 2012
So as a result of the right of governments to stimulate business in their own jurisdiction we are now subject to bounders who don't like the terms suing to bully their way? A few years ago if you didn't like the terms of business you simply went where the terms were favorable. I think it's time we ensured that feature, or get out of the WTO and other trade associations (such as NAFTA) which impose unacceptable requirements. We aren't a third world nation, and leaving ourselves vulnerable to being sued because some corporation doesn't like our terms (when the world is so much bigger) is asking for trouble. It's not as if the terms Ontario created weren't published for all interested parties to see.
ANONYMOUS
October 30, 2012
The WTO needs to enforce their own policies long before they attack countries over domestic policy. The global economy that everyone thinks is so good, well for making trainloads of money anyway, has put people out of jobs, pirated patented technologies, abused the countries labor force that has no human social justice all in the name of flat out greed. Once a level playing field on a global scale is reached, as to human justice, labor rates, and standard of living of participating WTO members is reached, then the WTO has something to say about fairness.
Hakki Surel
Hakki Surel
October 30, 2012
Please do not look at the matter from US interests perspective. Nations energy invoices (money paid to import energy or raw material to produce energy to foreign countries) are so huge now that many countries have great difficulties to pay them. Those are the prime source of foreign exchange deficit.

Why do countries promote renewable energy? Do you think just to stop climate change or just to have perfectly clean energy. The ANSWER none of them; but to find the way to have cheap energy, without the obligation to pay such high invoices to foreigners. They want to use their free natural resources such as wind and solar. But to do this they need to import the wind towers and the solar panels. As those equipment are expensive (in a typical solar power plant or wind plant the return on the investment is about 5-6 years at least)It is like you have all natural resources to produce energy but you need to pay for your equipment the first 6 years without any money for yourself. That means you work for the foreigner. To change this equation you need to manufacture all those equipment in your country and you need to promote the local production of these equipment. How to promote your local production ? by playing with FIT tariffs (if there is a fitt in a country that means there are subsidies) (WTO doesn't say anything to subsidies ! Hey our fellows JAPs, what is this promotion on solar power $0.51 for 1 kWh of solar electricity! is in't it discrimination?).
To manufacture locally is not a easy task, if you do not have the technology you need to pay for this too, you need to buy the machinery and the equipment, you pay again but this time not like 6 years return. Finally WHAT I AM SAYING,

Countries are obliged to promote their local manufacture (by way of creating discriminations on their FIT, Taxes, Duties etc.)Otherwise they won't be able to use their natural resources, Chineese, Germans, and the Japs are on the gate to use your resources.Ontario does right.
Anatoly Arov
Anatoly Arov
October 30, 2012
Any Country or Region when purchasing any goods have the right to make decision based on its requirements and seller, if wants to sell product, can follow their requirements or not participate in bidding process. If offered product is the best on the market, it is obligation of buyer to push for better sale conditions,and part of condition can legitimately be make product in buyer jurisdiction.
If seller is not satisfied with requirements and their product has competition it will consider buyer requirements and sell.
Buyer - seller relationship has nothing to do with WTO and has everything to do with business to buy best product with benefit to both sides. WTO however should enforce patent rules and as condition - you can not be member if you do not respect all WTO members patents or even better - introduce UN patents instead of burocratic PCT and make Countries patent offices part of UN patent legislation. So article is about nothing, and all claims are unrealistic.
omnik solar
omnik solar
October 30, 2012
What will be the result of the election and the influence on the development of renewable enrgy?
Will Wilkin
Will Wilkin
October 30, 2012
WTO lawyer committees should not be able to overrule the laws and policies of sovereign nations that have every legitimate interest in protecting domestic industries, ie, the interests of their own people and country. That is why the USA should withdraw from the WTO, discard the ruinous 'free trade' policies exporting our industrial ecosystem, and launch an effective industrial policy to achieve full employment and balanced trade and renewed prosperity for our people.
brian wark
brian wark
October 29, 2012
You are correct Maury. It will be the nail in the coffin. How much will the Japanese and Europeans sell if the program is ended? A little short sighted I believe.
Maury Markowitz
Maury Markowitz
October 29, 2012
This is great for the politicians.

The Tories, who have already stated they'll cancel the entire program outright, can now say with a straight face that the program *has* to be canceled because it's illegal.

The Grits, who started the program under a minister that is no longer in provincial (or any, it seems) politics, have a perfect excuse to kill it in order to help balance the 14 billion deficit.

The good news part of the story is that the installers should be able to, in theory at least, buy offshore product, dropping the prices from perhaps 1.05 a watt down into the 80 cent area. This is very competitive with grid power for cottages and similar applications, although that is a relatively small market compared to microFIT.

Fun times for Ontario installers, indeed.

Add Your Comments

To add your comments you must sign-in or create a free account.

  • Create a Free Account!
  • Sign-In
Vince Font

Vince Font

Vince Font is a professional freelance writer specializing in the fields of renewable energy, high tech, travel, and entertainment. Read his blog at www.vincefont.com or follow him on Twitter @vincefont.
  • About
  • Articles
  • Contact
  • FOLLOW
  • CONTACT
Stay Connected
         
To register for our free e-Newsletters, create your free account here:

Editors' Picks

  • America's Real Problem with Solar Energy
  • EU Debate Over Climate Change Policy Could Dampen Renewable Energy Growth
  • Massachusetts Resets Its Solar Energy Bar, Four Years Early

Most Commented

  • 12
    Breakdown: Penetration of Renewable Energy in Selected Markets
  • 12
    Fracking and Solar: Friends, Foes or the Bridge to Clean Energy Adoption?
  • 7
    San Antonio Solar Fans Delay Introduction of SunCredit Program
  • 5
    Renewable Energy Research Initiative Launched in UK

Total Access Partners

Growing Your Business? Learn More about Total Access
  • Ambient Technologies, Inc.
  • KACO new energy, Inc.
  • AllEarth Renewables
  • American Council On Renewable Energy (ACORE)
  • Renewable Energy World Magazine
  • Motech Industries, Inc.
  • SolarReviews
  • Martifer Solar USA, Inc.
News
  • Renewable Energy
  • Solar Energy
  • Wind Energy
  • Bioenergy
  • Geothermal Energy
  • Hyrdo Power
  • Blogs
  • Video
  • Finance
Resources
  • Companies
  • Products
  • Careers
  • Events
  • Webcasts
  • White Papers
  • Magazines
  • Press Releases
  • e-Newsletters
Company
  • About Us
  • Our Team
  • Contact Us
  • Advertising & Services
  • Privacy Policy
  • Terms & Conditions
  • Site Map
Network Partners - Magazines
  • Hydro Review Magazine
  • Hydro Review Worldwide Magazine
  • Renewable Energy World Magazine
Network Partners - Events
  • Power-Gen International
  • Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo North America
  • Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo Europe
  • Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo Asia
  • Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo Africa
  • Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo India
  • HydroVision International
  • HydroVision Brazil
  • HydroVision India
  • HydroVision Russia
© Copyright 1999-2013 RenewableEnergyWorld.com - All rights reserved.
RenewableEnergyWorld.com - World's #1 Renewable Energy Network for news & Information