Sign-In  or  Create a Free Account
Sign-in with:
 
World's #1 Renewable Energy Network for News & Information
 
Renewable Energy Solar Energy Wind Energy Geothermal Energy Bioenergy Hydropower
 

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

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

Do you like this news?

 
 
19 Reader Comments
Comment
1 of 19
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.
Comment
2 of 19
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.
Comment
3 of 19
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.
Comment
4 of 19
October 30, 2012
What will be the result of the election and the influence on the development of renewable enrgy?
Comment
5 of 19
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.
Comment
6 of 19
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.
No image available
Comment
7 of 19
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.
Comment
8 of 19
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.
Comment
9 of 19
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
Comment
10 of 19
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.
Comment
11 of 19
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.
Comment
12 of 19
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.
No image available
Comment
13 of 19
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.
Comment
14 of 19
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...
Comment
15 of 19
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.
Comment
16 of 19
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.
Comment
17 of 19
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.
Comment
18 of 19
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.
Comment
19 of 19
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.
Add Your Comment

Registered users, please make sure to Sign-In. We and others want to know your ideas and opinions. If you are not yet Registered -- it's quick and easy. Just click below.
Thanks!

Register Now   Sign-In

Vince Font

View Vince Font's Profile
About: Vince Font is a professional freelance writer specializing in the fields of renewable energy, high tech, travel, and entertainment. Read his blog at www.vincefo... more »

Advertise With Us

Creotecc Solar Mounting Systems Conergy Inc. Alternative Matters SolarEdge Technologies RevoluSun RBI Solar Inc. Apricus, Inc.
World's #1 Renewable Energy Network
PennWell
Renewable Energy World Magazine 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 India Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo Africa
RenewableEnergyWorld.com Solar Power Gen Conference & Expo Hydro Review Magazine Hydro Review World Magazine
HydroVision International HydroVision Brazil HydroVision India HydroVision Russia
Twitter Facebook Linked In RSS Feeds e-Newsletters