September 20, 2019

September 20, 2019

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

September 19, 2019

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

September 18, 2019

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

September 17, 2019

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

World Trade Organization Panel Ruling Casts a Shadow on State Preferences in Renewable Energy Laws

panel report issued by the World Trade Organization (WTO) in June 2019 concludes that preferences for in-state manufacturers, a common feature of many state renewable energy statutes, violate the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT). While the ruling does not result in immediate invalidation of those laws, it opens up the possibility of countervailing requirements and may create pressure for the repeal of in-state preference provisions. 

GATT, WTO, and the Architecture of World Trade

Established in the years following World War II, GATT established the legal foundation for the steady reduction in reductions in tariffs and other barriers to trade. Partly as a result of GATT, international trade flourished in the post-war period. The WTO, established in 1993 as part of the Uruguay Round of GATT negotiations, created formalized dispute resolution processes to address disputes between GATT parties, including a Dispute Resolution Body (DRB). Expert panels, like the one that issued the recent report, are used by the DRB to resolve disputes that cannot be resolved by informal consultations between the disputing parties. Unlike a domestic court case, an unfavorable DRB ruling does not result in the invalidation of the challenged law or practice. Instead, it permits the party harmed by the challenged practice to negotiate compensation, generally in the form of countervailing tariffs in the same sector as the challenged trade practice. 

GATT establishes several principles aimed at reducing trade barriers and thereby increasing international commerce. These include Article IV, which requires that imported products must be accorded no less favorable treatment than like domestic products under the laws and regulations of the importing country.

India's Complaint Against State Preferences for In-State Manufacturers

In 2016, India asserted that in-state preferences for programs designed to encourage renewable energy or clean fuels violate GATT, and requested a consultation with the United States. Those consultations failed to resolve the dispute, causing India to submit a complaint to the WTO in 2017. India’s complaint generally asserts that in-state preference provisions in several states violate GATT. For example, the complaint attacks the incentives for use of solar panels and inverters included in Washington’s Community Solar program, which offered incentives for the construction of community-owned solar generation (now exhausted), and substantially increases those incentives if solar panels or inverters manufactured in Washington are used in constructing the community solar system. It levels charges against similar programs in California, Connecticut, Michigan, Delaware, and Minnesota, as well as Montana programs giving preferences or tax incentives for in-state production of methanol and biofuels for use as motor fuels. 

The WTO panel report largely upholds India’s claim. It concludes that these special incentives for in-state renewable energy producers result in Indian producers of the same products receiving less favorable treatment, thereby violating GATT. 

The Outlook for In-State Preferences

While far from fatal to the laws India challenged, the panel ruling, if it stands, may cast a shadow on those laws. The United States still has the option to appeal the panel ruling. But absent a successful appeal, India is likely to seek countervailing duties on U.S. producers seeking access to India’s massive renewable energy market. This, in turn, will create pressure on the involved states to remove the offending provisions from their statues. 

The panel ruling also underscores the vulnerability of such state preferences to challenges under the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution. The Commerce Clause has long been interpreted by the U.S. courts to bar protectionist measures imposed by one state against the products of another state. This principle applies to renewable energy as it does to any other area of interstate commerce. For example, Judge Richard Posner of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit observed that Michigan’s renewable portfolio standard, which barred out-of-state renewables from counting toward compliance, "trips over an insurmountable constitutional objection” because “Michigan cannot, without violating the commerce clause, discriminate against out-of-state renewable energy.” And the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit concluded that a Minnesota statute barring imports of electricity that increased Minnesota’s statewide greenhouse gas emissions violated the Commerce Clause.

While other challenges to state renewable energy laws have not fared so well, the cases taken together suggest that state preferences like those addressed in the WTO panel decision are likewise vulnerable to constitutional challenge in the U.S. courts. How that plays out in practice remains to be seen.

© 2019 Beveridge & Diamond PC

TRENDING LEGAL ANALYSIS


About this Author

Eric Christensen Energy & Natural Resources Attorney
Of Counsel

Eric is a leading energy and natural resources attorney in the Pacific Northwest.

He assists renewable and traditional energy companies, as well as major energy consumers, to navigate the complex legal and regulatory systems governing the nation’s energy industry. With more than 30 years of experience, Eric has successfully represented clients in litigation and regulatory matters, ranging from the U.S. Supreme Court to proceedings before federal and state agencies. Before entering private practice, Eric served as Assistant General Counsel at Snohomish County (WA)...

206.620.3025
Felicia Barnes, Environmental Attorney, Beveridge and Diamond Law Firm, Seattle, Washington
Associate

Felicia maintains a complex litigation and regulatory practice with a particular focus on air issues.

She has advocated for clients on landmark issues in administrative rulemakings and related litigation, particularly in the oil and natural gas sector. Felicia has substantial litigation experience, including appellate litigation and especially before the D.C. Circuit. As part of her regulatory practice, Felicia advises on complex environmental compliance issues, assists with internal investigations and enforcement defense, and evaluates the environmental aspects of complex transactions.

Felicia has represented companies and trade associations across several sectors of the US economy. Her clients have included oil and gas companies, electric utilities, automotive companies, and small family businesses. She has significant experience with Clean Air Act rulemaking and administrative proceedings before the US EPA. She also has substantial D.C. Circuit litigation experience both challenging and defending major Clean Air Act rules that are critical to her clients.

In addition to her work involving the Clean Air Act, she has experience with several major federal environmental statutes, including Clean Water Act, National Environmental Policy Act, Endangered Species Act, Migratory Bird Protection Act and the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act. Felicia has conducted internal investigations and defended administrative, civil, and criminal enforcement actions involving these and other federal environmental statutes. In these matters, Felicia draws from her substantial regulatory and administrative experience.

Prior to joining the firm, Felicia was part of the environmental team at a major international law firm. She also held two clerkships. The first was for the Honorable Joseph R. Goodwin, Chief Judge, in the Southern District of West Virginia, and the second was for the Honorable Mary Beck Briscoe, Chief Judge, in the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals. She is admitted to practice before the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit and the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

206.315.4807
Brook J. Detterman, Beveridge Diamond, Climate Change Lawyer, Liabilities Law
Associate

Brook Detterman's practice focuses on climate change, renewable energy, and environmental litigation.

Brook helps his clients to negotiate, structure, and implement transactions related to climate change and environmental commodities markets.  He regularly counsels clients during transactions under the EU ETS, California’s cap and trade program (AB 32), and other U.S. and international emissions trading programs. Brook also supports clients in the renewable energy industry, providing advice on renewable energy policies, regulations, and...

(781) 416-5745