Tuesday, May 7, 2013
FREE TRADE & WORLD TRADE ONCE AGAIN BITE LOCAL CONTROL
Today's Waterloo Region Record carrys this story "WTO rejects appeal over green energy". According to the World Trade orgaization, Ontario are granting unfair subsidies to local manufacturers. Not only would this be true but that's exactly what the intent of the Ontario legislation was all about.
The Record article focuses on wind and solar projects and the province of Ontario have tried to politically sweeten the energy pot by insisting that renewable energy projects must use local suppliers for their projects. This has helped jobs in Ontario whereas the premiums paid for renewable energy have probably been detrimental to the Ontario economy.
Other renewable enrgy projects would include our local Bio-Energy project here in Elmira. Again in order to receive the lucrative prices for electricity from the province, the promoters have had to follow the rules of the game. Whether or not this most recent ruling and both Canada's and Ontario's response to it will affect our local renewable energy project I do not know. That being said there is a public meeting for Woolwich Bio-En this evening at 7 pm. in the Memorial Centre (Concourse Cafe). It would be a good oportunity to find out.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
That's no change from the ruling in December.
ReplyDeleteI wrote about the WTO ruling on the Stop The Stink blog:
If Canada is to comply with the WTO’s decision then Ontario cannot require local content for green energy projects, eliminating the manufacturing jobs in Ontario for equipment purchased offshore. But if Canada does not comply then other countries may retaliate by imposing sanctions against Canada’s exports. Either way, the cost of building a biogas plant goes up.
While it may not cost more right now to build the plant, future maintenance and the eventual decommissioning will likely have to go to international tender.
--Bob.
o.k. this is interesting. Earl Brubacher of Bio-En feels that this ruling is only for Wind & Solar not bio-energy. That surprised me. Could Earl be mistaken????
ReplyDelete