Ontario Feed in Tariff - Not a prohibited subsidy but violative of GATT provisions?

Breaking news of an interim WTO panel ruling on the Ontario Feed in Tariff case is coming in. The Globe and Mail reported it here. The EU and Japan had challenged the FiT program for renewable energy of Ontario which mandated use of locally manufactured Ontario products on the grounds that it violated the "local content" rules of the ASCM, TRIMS and GATT. I had earlier blogged about it here, here and here.

The WTO website has no official confirmation of the interim decision (the website is normally uptodate on decisions and happenings in the WTO). ICTSD has a detailed note on the interim decision:

"According to a confidential interim WTO dispute settlement report, a three-member panel has sided with the EU and Japan in their challenge of renewable energy support provided by the Canadian province of Ontario, sources told BioRes this week. The two countries had argued that the feed-in-tariff (FIT) system - put in place in 2009 - violates WTO rules because it requires participating electricity generators to source up to 60 percent of their equipment in Ontario. 

According to a confidential interim WTO dispute settlement report, a three-member panel has sided with the EU and Japan in their challenge of renewable energy support provided by the Canadian province of Ontario, sources told BioRes this week. The two countries had argued that the feed-in-tariff (FIT) system - put in place in 2009 - violates WTO rules because it requires participating electricity generators to source up to 60 percent of their equipment in Ontario .However, based on what is currently known about the confidential document, assertions by Brussels and Tokyo that the programme also amounted to illegal subsidies - dependent on use of locally produced equipment - have been rejected. At the time BioRes went to press, the ruling was not available."

If I understand this right, the panel has decided that the local content requirements are violative of WTO obligations of non-discrimination under GATT and TRIMS. However, they do not constitute a "prohibited subsidy" under Article 3 (1) (b) of the ASCM. Does this imply that an FiT as implemented in Ontario is not a subsidy as defined by the ASCM and hence does not amount to a "prohibited" subsidy? Or does it not have the characteristics of a prohibited subsidy as defined under Article 3 of the ASCM? The other major implication of this distinction of not amounting to a prohibited subsidy is the applicability of the general exception of Article XX of GATT. If it was declared a prohibited subsidy it would have been more difficult for Canada to justify its measure under Article XX of the GATT. This distinction has a major implication for renewable energy programs, especially FiTs, worldwide.

WIll eagerly await the November panel ruling.