In the first dispute on renewable energy to come to World Trade Organization (WTO) dispute settlement, the domestic content requirement of Ontario’s feed-in tariff was challenged as a discriminatory investment-related measure and as a prohibited import substitution subsidy. The panel and Appellate Body agreed that Canada was violating the GATT and the TRIMS Agreement. But the SCM Article 3 claim by Japan and the European Union remains unadjudicated, because neither tribunal made a finding that the price guaranteed for electricity from renewable sources constitutes a ‘benefit’ pursuant to the SCM Agreement. Although the Appellate Body provides useful guidance to future panels on how the existence of a benefit could be calculated, the most noteworthy aspect of the new jurisprudence is the Appellate Body’s reasoning that delineating the proper market for ‘benefit’ analysis entails respect for the policy choices made by a government. Thus, in this dispute, the proper market is electricity produced only from wind and solar energy.
Canada–Renewable Energy: Implications for WTO Law on Green and Not-So-Green Subsidies
In the Canada–Renewable Energy/Feed-In Tariff case of 2013, the European Union (EU) and Japan brought a case to the World Trade Organization (WTO) ...
Buyer-Side Mitigation in the NYISO: Another MOPR?
FERC’s recent orders affecting buyer-side mitigation rules in New York State likely won’t be immediately detrimental to clean energy, but they could be problematic if they set a precedent for mitigating these resources in other regions of New York.
Explainer — Mar 3, 2020
US Electricity Markets 101
An overview of the different types of US electricity markets, how they are regulated, and implications for the future given ongoing changes in the electricity sector