THE WTO, HARMONIZATION OF INTERNATIONAL STANDARDS, AND ELECTRIC UTILITIES
Naoki Kobayashi
USJP Occasional Paper 08-05
Program on U.S.-Japan Relations Harvard University 61 Kirkland Street
Cambridge, MA 02138-2030
2008
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
After earning his B.S. in Electrical Engineering from Waseda University, Mr. Kobayashi joined the Tokyo Electric Power Company, where he worked as an engineer in the Distribution Network Operations Group. Most recently, he served in the Distribution Engineering Group in the Power Network Division. Mr. Kobayashi has written on topics related to energy and electricity, including an article, “Power Quality in Japanese Distribution Networks” (in Japanese), published by the Electric Technology Research Association. While at Harvard, he compared the strategies of American and Japanese electric power companies for coping with global harmonization of technical standards.
ON THE OCCASIONAL PAPERS OF THE PROGRAM ON U.S.-JAPAN RELATIONS
Established in 1980, the Program on U.S.-Japan Relations of the Weatherhead Center for International Affairs and the Reischauer Institute of Japanese Studies enables outstanding scholars and practitioners to come together for an academic year at Harvard University. During that year, Program Associates take part in a variety of activities and conduct independent research on contemporary U.S.-Japan relations, Japan's relations with the rest of the world, and domestic issues in Japan that bear on its international behavior. The Occasional Paper Series is wide-ranging in scope. It includes papers that are valuable for their contributions to the scholarly literature; it also includes papers that make available in English the policy perspectives of Associates from government, business and banking, the media, and other fields on issues and problems that come within the scope of the Program. Needless to say, all papers represent the views of their authors and not necessarily those of their home organizations, the Program, the Weatherhead Center for International Affairs, the Reischauer Institute, or Harvard University.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Introduction 1 Chapter 1. Power Quality Standards: Current Conditions and Non-Harmonization Issues 5
Chapter 2. Analysis of Three Possible Options
for the Development of Standards 32 Conclusion 52 Figures 54 Bibliography 64
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. The Concept of Disturbance and Affected Voltage Shape
in AC Electric Power Systems 54
Figure 2. The Features, Definitions, Causes, and Consequences of Power Quality Parameters 55
Figure 3. The Structure of WTO Agreements 56 Figure 4. The Structure and Concept
of Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade 57
Figure 5. The Structure of the IEC 58 Figure 6. The Publication Numbers of the IEC Standards Discussed 59
in This Paper Figure 7. The Structure Relationships among International, Regional,
and Domestic Standards Developing Bodies 60
Figure 8. The Relations of Standards among International, Regional, Domestic, and Companies in Europe 61
Figure 9. The Relations of Standards among International, Domestic, and Companies in the United States 62
Figure 10. The Relations of Standards among International, Domestic, and Companies in Japan 63
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
AC Alternating current ANSI American National Standard Institution CEN European Committee for Standardization CENELEC European Committee for Electrochemical Standardization DNO Distribution network operator EMC Electromagnetic compatability ENA Energy Networks Association ETRA Electric Technologies Research Association GATT General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade IEC International Electrotechnical Committee IEEE Institute of Electrical & Electronics Engineers IPR Intellectual property right ISO International Standards Organization ITU International Telecommunication Union JIS Japanese Industrial Standards JISC Japanese Industrial Standards Committee METI Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry PES Power Engineering Society SC Subcommittee TBT Technical barriers to trade SPS Sanitary and phytosanitary TC Technical committee
TR Technical report VCR Videocassette recorder WG Working group WSC World Standards Cooperation WTO World Trade Organization
1
INTRODUCTION
Standardization of technology has various meanings for consumers and producers. From
the consumer’s perspective, it is beneficial to obtain safe, reliable, and less expensive products.
In addition, through the standardization of interfaces among products, interoperability and
interchangeability also improve, leading to increased convenience. Moreover, from the business
perspective, it is beneficial to adopt common standards because this lowers the cost for
production and reduces market uncertainty, though there is a risk of creating winners and losers
among producers as a result of standards wars.
Another important advantage of standardization from the standpoint of global welfare is
related to free trade, that is to say, removing technical barriers to international trade. Such
technical barriers include differences in technical regulations, standards, and their conformity
assessment procedures among countries and should be secured in the international trade scheme
in order to decrease unnecessary economic frictions and inefficiency of production.
In view of this, the Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) under the World
Trade Organization (WTO) Agreement was created as a result of the General Agreement on
Tariffs and Trade (GATT) Uruguay Round negotiations and took effect in 1995. This agreement
requires that, in order not to create unnecessary obstacles to international trade, all WTO member
countries use international standards as a basis for their technical regulations, standards, and
conformity assessment procedures. Given the adoption of this international law, not only
regulators, but also the private sector, are influenced, directly or indirectly, through changes of
their current regulations or standards and have to take account of not only business, but also legal,
aspects in the setting of standards, regardless of whether they are de jure or de facto.
2
For the electric power industry, the importance of international technical standards is also
increasing. The globalization of industrial structure, for example, is facilitating the change of the
industry’s supply chains and creating the demand for more flexible logistics for their
procurement, including imports from the international market. Secondly, standards of electric
appliances, which are traded internationally, are developed taking account of standards in the
electric power supply system.1 Thirdly, presumably in order to facilitate the deregulation of the
electric power market as well as to introduce more renewable energy into the electric power
system, technologies relating to electric power supply have become the target of international
standardization.2 These factors are encouraging the electric power industry to take part in the
work of the International Standards Organization (ISO) and the International Electrotechnical
Committee (IEC).3
Since electric power supply has traditionally been a domestic business, however, most
regulations and standards have been domestically developed with their own history, although
there might have been occasional international information exchange in this connection.
Nowadays, electric power systems are enormous and long-life-cycle facilities, which have been
constructed at considerable expenditure of both time and money and have already matured as a
social infrastructure, especially in the developed countries. They have been constructed under
their own regulations or from the standpoint of improving the quality of facilities suitable for
1IEC, EMC ZONE <http://www.iec.ch/zone/emc/whatis.htm>.
2IEC, TC8 <http://www.iec.ch/cgi-bin/procgi.pl/www/iecwww.p?wwwlang=e&wwwprog= dirdet.p&progdb = db1&css_color=purple&committee=TC&number=8>.
3 The ISO (International Organization for Standardization) is the world’s largest developer and publisher of international standards, while the IEC (International Electrotechnical Committee) is a sister institution, which prepares and publishes international standards for all electrical, electronic, and related technologies. The ISO, IEC, and the International Telecommunication Union (ITU) have formed the World Standards Cooperation (WSC) to act as a strategic focus for collaboration and the promotion of international standardization.
3
each region’s conditions. Thus, the transition to adoption or harmonization of international
standards has some rather problematic, as well as beneficial, aspects in this industry.
On the other hand, it seems that most current international standards regarding electric
power have been developed based on European standards because of their early commitment to
the work of the IEC, backed by strong intentions to remove any technical barriers to trade inside
Europe in order to form an integrated single market. For Japan, though domestic standards have
been harmonized with the those of the IEC to some extent, there are still discrepancies given the
delay or standstill of further harmonization of regulations or standards because this could not be
accomplished without drastic reforms involving considerable time and expense and would also
entail obtaining the cooperation of other interested industries.
Taking these factors into account, the following questions on the further harmonization of
domestic regulations or standards should be considered: to what extent should electric utilities,
whose facilities are historically constructed and operated based on their own regulations or
standards, harmonize with international standards; if non-harmonized technical regulations or
standards remain in their current state, what risks can be expected; and, finally, how should the
second movers of international standardization deal with these situations.
To answer these questions, it is necessary to clarify: 1) the differences among electric
utilities’ circumstances, stances, and efforts as related to the development of standards so far; and
2) legal relations and constraints among the TBT Agreement, international standards, national
regulations or standards, and private companies’ technical requirements.
This paper summarizes the differences among the EU, the United States, and Japan with
regard to the above matters, assesses the risk of non-harmonization, and proposes how second
movers, such as Japan, should cope with this issue. This paper deals with a major component of
4
technical standardization works, the area of power quality.4 The reason for this choice is that a
problem regarding these standards seems a typical example of a standstill, while, on the other
hand, harmonization work has been making progress. Accordingly, it seems worth analyzing the
current situation and possible future options. Moreover, since analysis should be based on the
various factors surrounding the electric power industry, findings in the paper will hopefully have
some implications that can be applied for coping with other non-harmonization problems in this
industry.
In Chapter 1, the author summarizes the non-harmonization issues regarding power
quality problems through exploring current circumstances and factors that should be considered
in the later discussion. This chapter extends to the general features of standards, the legal
framework, and the structural relationship among standards-developing bodies. In Chapter 2, the
author analyzes three possible options in view of the legal aspects, and discusses what option
Japan should take as a second mover in this issue once international standards are set. The final
view is summarized in a conclusion, which includes the following findings:
1) Japanese electric utilities should develop comprehensive power quality standards in
accordance with Japanese Industrial Standards (JIS) as de jure standards, then transform
them into the companies’ requirements;
2) While having non-harmonized standards as de jure standards seems to be possible under
some specific conditions according to a legal analysis of the TBT Agreement, the electric
utilities should seek harmonization to the full extent from the long-term perspective; and
3) The first priority for Japanese utilities would be to seek domestic harmonization of various
kinds of standards and specifications.
4“Power quality” is a term that means the “quality of product ( = electric power)” when electricity is
viewed as a product. Its concept and some definitions will be explained in Chapter 1.
5
CHAPTER 1
POWER QUALITY STANDARDS: THE CURRENT SITUATION
AND NON-HARMONIZATION ISSUES
Overview
An electric utility is a service company that supplies an invisible product, i.e., electric
power, to customers through its electric power network. This invisible product can be viewed as
having a quality, which is defined by several electro-magnetic characteristics of the voltage,
known as electric power quality (hereinafter, power quality). Bad power quality can cause
malfunctions, breakdowns, overheating, or other severe problems for the electric power user’s
equipment, and the related losses can be huge. As an estimate made as long ago as 1991 showed
that “power-related problems cost U.S. companies $26 billion a year in lost time and revenue”
(Business Week, 1991). Thus, this problem is a critical issue not only for electric utilities, but
also for other stakeholders, such as customers, manufacturers, facility makers, etc.
This chapter begins by surveying the concept of power quality, how is has evolved, its
consequences, and how rules have been developed. Then, after referring to other factors, such as
the general features of standards, those of standardization works, the legal framework of the
WTO agreements, and the structural relations among standards-developing bodies, the non-
harmonization issues related to power quality in Japan will be clarified.
The Concept of Power Quality
The alternating current (AC) power system consists of power plants, transmission and
distribution lines including transformers (hereinafter, simply called “networks”), and loads. A
6
schematic is shown in Figure 1. Each generator induces AC voltage with a mostly ideal
sinusoidal wave of constant frequency and magnitude, which is considered to be the best quality
of voltage. This is synchronized throughout the network and supplied to loads. At the same time,
AC current is induced by a generator with the same frequency. It is then transported through the
network and eventually supplied to loads. The combination of voltage and current is called
power.
Now we need to focus on the relation between the voltage and the current. In accordance
with Ohm’s law, the voltage is decreased or increased (V) by the amount of current flow (I)
through the impedance of the line (Z), which is simply shown as an equation, “V=I*Z.” In AC
power systems, the relation is somewhat more complicated, but conceptually the same. If we
assume that all loads are linear, current flows through the network maintaining the almost ideal
sinusoidal shape of AC current, while changing the magnitude of the voltage. These variations
are controlled by the utilities to supply the voltage in a proper range of magnitude.
If various kinds of non-linear loads exist in the network, however, such an ideal shape of
the voltage cannot be maintained because these loads demand non-sinusoidal current. For
example, all types of energy-efficient appliances, which have rectifiers, inverters, or converters
in their circuits, cut off and consume portions of electric power. An induction motor needs a
large amount of electricity at start-up, and this results in a rapid voltage change. Arc furnaces,
welding machines, and compressors use large amounts of electricity intermittently or randomly
in abnormal ways, which causes continuous voltage fluctuations in the network. Distributed
generators, such as photovoltaic or wind power generators, are kinds of non-linear equipment
because their unstable output of power makes the network voltage change or fluctuate according
to the weather conditions. In practice, these non-linear loads and equipment are widely dispersed
7
among households, buildings, or factories, especially in today’s industrialized countries.
Buildup of small disturbances from such appliances or a disturbance from such large equipment
results in deterioration of power quality by distorting, fluctuating, or rapidly changing the
network voltage.
On the contrary, such loads also would be harmed by the deterioration of power quality.
In general, all electric appliances and machines are designed to work properly with a specified
quality of voltage. In addition, the higher the technologies that are adopted in appliances and
machines, the more sensitive they are to disturbance (Bollen, 2000). Since customers are
connected to one another via the network, an electromagnetic disturbance would affect a wide
area of customers at the same time, though it depends on the nature of the equipment, the
character of the disturbance, and the network structure. If power quality problems emerge and it
is necessary to address them, several kinds of equipment for improving power quality are
available, although they are generally quite expensive. In particular, improving worsened power
quality over an entire network does not make sense economically because extremely costly
measures are likely to be necessary to compensate for the huge capacity of the network.
In sum, this is a problem related to the electric products themselves and related to the
emission of disturbance, which should be limited, and immunity against the disturbance, which
should be addressed via the utilities’ network, which is a transmitter of the disturbance. But
physically, it seems to be a problem between the utilities and the customers. Consequently, a
power quality problem is defined as “any power problem manifested in voltage, current, or
frequency deviations that result in failure or misoperation of customer equipment” (Dugan,
2002), causing a significant loss of money, time, and even safety.
8
In addition, power quality is defined as a “set of parameters defining the properties of the
power supply as delivered to the user under normal operating conditions in terms of continuity of
supply and characteristics of voltage.” 5 Figure 2 shows definitions and shapes of typical
examples of power quality, their causes and consequences. It is easier to understand that each
parameter has been defined with deviation of voltage from the ideal.
Alhough the power quality problem has existed for quite some time, it has become a
focus of more interest recently. According to Math Bollen, an expert in this area, the reasons for
this are as follows:
Not only has equipment become more sensitive to voltage disturbances, but companies have
also become more sensitive to loss of production time due to reduced profit margins;
The increased use of converter-driven equipment has led to a large growth of voltage
disturbances;
Triggered by the drive towards privatization and deregulation of the electricity industry,
companies that want to sell their generated power to the market or customers, such as
independent power producers and power producers and suppliers, are new participants in the
market. Therefore, the design, construction, and operation of the networks need to be more
rational, impartial, and transparent than before. Thus, electric utilities and customers have
become more conscious of power quality, which, to some extent, has to be measured,
predicted, guaranteed, improved, etc.; and
The power supply has become too good, and this leads customers to believe that electricity is
something that is always available and always of high quality, or at least something that
always should be. In countries where the electricity supply is severely limited (to two hours
5IEC 61000-4-30, 2003.
9
per day, for example), power quality does not appear to be such a big issue as in countries
with availabilities of well over 99.9 percent.
In addition, the rapid dissemination of distributed generators (photovoltaic, wind, etc.),
could be another main reason.
Due to such factors, there has been a growing necessity for clearer definition,
standardization, and performance criteria and methods of conformity assessments of power
quality. In particular, since the issues relate to the product’s quality and safety, as well as the
concerns of multiple sectors, transparent and rational rules are critically important to ensure the
fairness of bearing the costs among interests and to avoid detrimental situations in the use of
electricity or electric equipment. Consequently, setting rules related to power quality as a
standard is critically important.
Additionally, when thinking about developing standards in general, various factors, such
as whether they should be de jure or de facto, mandatory regulations or voluntary standards,
developed as national or industry standards, etc. should be taken into consideration Moreover, in
terms of facilitation of the international trade of goods and services, another factor, i.e., that these
rules are obliged to be harmonized internationally, should be considered. This is the focus of the
main argument of this paper.
Before going into a detailed analysis of power quality issues, it is necessary to grasp
current conditions, such as the general features of standards, the legal framework of the WTO
agreements, and the structural relations among standards-developing bodies. The author will
first summarize these factors and then return to the discussion of power quality standards and
problems, including non-harmonization issues.
10
General Features of Standards
There are different types of standards and several ways of classifying them. One
distinction is among quality standards, compatibility standards, variety reduced standards, and
information standards (Grindley, 1995; Blind, 2004). According to standards expert Kunt Blind,
they are categorized in terms of economic effects and whether they have been widely accepted
and used. It is not likely, however, that each standard will fall exactly and exclusively into a
single category. Again, Blind and Peter Grindley, who writes on standards, strategy, and policy,
explained the main two standards among them, quality standards and compatibility standards, as
follows.
Quality standards are those concerned with the quality of the product itself. If consumers
are not fully informed about a product’s quality, they cannot differentiate its quality from that of
other products. In such a case, customers will choose suppliers who are cheaper, rather than
those who supply safe but more expensive products. As a result, a market failure can occur. In
this case, setting quality standards is one of the solutions. If quality standards are set, a market-
driven solution can be expected first of all. That is to say, suppliers can signal the quality of
their goods and services to the customers by guaranteeing a certain level of product quality so
that customers can make their own judgments.
Secondly, government intervention is also possible. If products relate to public health,
safety, weights and measures, the environment, and so on, mandatory technical regulations
would be effective to protect consumers and help the market to function. Such standards make it
easier to evaluate the product at purchase and to reduce transactions and search costs.
Compatibility standards are defined as the interface requirement to allow different core
products to use common complementary goods and services or be connected together in
11
networks. In industries where “network effects” or “network externalities” 6 exist, once a
standard is apparent, the market focuses rapidly on it, sweeping others aside. Accordingly,
producers and customers who have adopted their own standards have to bear the costs of
switching from them to follow the winning standards. For producers, in particular, the later they
make the decision to switch, the greater the costs they would have to bear. Grindley observed,
therefore, that competing technological innovation is one of the strategies that should should be
avoided in such a case. A typical example of this was the contest between VHS and Betamax
videocassette recorders (VCRs). Once a standard of hardware has been chosen by a market, the
software industries have follow this standard, resulting in enhancing the value of the standard of
the hardware. Even though Betamax was considered superior to VHS, this enhancement effect
was so powerful in increasing volumes and bringing down the prices rapidly that VHS could
soon overwhelm the differences and swept the competing standard away (Grindley, 1995).
Given the two kinds of standards, the author believes that power quality standards
literally fall into the quality standard. They seem, however, to have an economic effect that is
similar to compatibility standards to some extent because they have some externalities to other
industries, such as appliance manufactures, customer facility makers, measurement equipment
makers, and customer service suppliers.
Another way of differentiating the characteristics of standards is between de jure and de
facto, which are categorizations based on the process of standards development. The definition
of de jure is a method mediated by official standards bodies and that of de facto is a method by
which the standard is set and maintained by market forces or similar factors (Grindley, 1995). In
6Katz and Shapiro observed several sources of “network externalities” in their paper. “There are many
products for which the utility that a user derives from consumption of the good increases with the number of other agents consuming the good. There are several possible sources of these positive consumption externalities.” (Katz and Shapiro, 1985).
12
other words, standards developed by official committees would be de jure standards, and those
developed by one or a group of companies would fall into de facto standards.
De jure standards have following characteristics7:
They are open public documents;
They are generally created by consensus to secure openness, transparency, impartiality,
effectiveness, relevance, and technical rationality;
Government bodies can set their technical regulations using these standards, insofar as they
are basically harmonized with international standards.
They are subject to WTO/TBT agreements (this will be discussed later); and
They are performance-based where possible (specifying essential characteristics rather than
detailed designs).
While there is basically one standardizing body at the international level, there are several
standardizing bodies at the domestic level; these latter would include central government bodies
and nongovernmental bodies,8 such as academic institutions and official industry consortia.
While standards developed by academic institutions are seen as having more neutral
characteristics, those created by industry consortia are viewed as playing a complementary role
to the official standards. On the other hand, de jure standards are considered to have some
drawbacks, such as reduction of the likelihood of technical innovation, and the comparatively
long time for development.
According to a report by the Japanese Industrial Standard Committee (JISC), de facto
standards have the following characteristics:
7ANSI, IEC, etc.
8JISC, 2001.
13
Some of them are developed to play complementary roles to de jure standards;
Some of the standards’ users are so limited to specific interest groups that it is not necessary
for these standards to be amended to de jure standards; and
Although they might eventually become de jure standards in the future, they are still in
circumstances where consensus for the de jure standards is difficult in a committee because
their owner companies are competing with one another in the market.
The first characteristic can be seen in an industry where technologies are mature and well
systemized. The third can be seen in a case of compatibility standards and in an industry where
the speed of technical innovation is rapid. In particular, the inclusion of intellectual property
rights (IPRs) in de facto standards makes it more difficult to formulate them into de jure
standards. In the economic theory of the standard strategy, the coordination problems are often
explained by game theory, such as the “battle of sexes’ game” or the “rather fight than switch’
game.” In this case, again, Grindley explained that key strategy would be a contradiction of the
traditional approach, namely, sharing proprietary technology, adopting unexciting designs,
supporting complementors, combining negotiations, pressure in the market, and so forth.9
Another feature of standards is that compliance is voluntary, while technical regulations
are mandatory. Standardizing bodies do not have formal means of sanctions against non-
compliance. A question here is whether a standard has validity as a rule that others follow, even
though a leader has elaborated de jure standards after considerable effort. According to Kristina
Hallstrom, an authority on standardization, many individuals and organizations feel that
9Grindley, 1995.
14
standards are rules that are important and that adherence to them is seldom an entirely free
choice in a market in practice.10 The reasons for this are believed to be as follows.
First, as mentioned before, consensus-based standards are characterized by openness,
transparency, impartiality, etc. In this view, globalization expert John Boli observed that it has
been perceived to be rational both for individual interests and for society as a whole to act
according to a standard. In particular, when both parties share this view, individuals can see
themselves as rational, which is considered to be good in Western society. Thus, standards
would be difficult to resist, and the combination of the effects of voluntarism and rationality is
attractive and powerful.11
Second, as described with regard to the economic effect of compatibility standards, once
a market reaches a tipping point, it focuses rapidly on the standards, sweeping others aside. This
strong power of network effects forces others follow the standards.
Third, Hallstrom has observed that, as we can see in case of the ISO 9000 and ISO 14000
series, which are quality management standards and environmental management standards,
respectively, some companies began to believe that compliance with some standards is necessary
to obtain trust, to function more efficiently, and to increase profits. In this particular case, if a
buyer, which has the upper hand, requires that a supplier be ISO 9000 certified, the supplier
needs to comply with the standards, which means that compliance is not, realistically speaking,
voluntary (Hallstrom, 2004).
Based on these factors, it is obvious that power quality standards should not be de facto
standards. Given the characteristics of the quality standards and the de jure standards, they
10Hallstrom, 2004.
11Boli, 1999.
15
should exist as de jure standards at the national level. There might, however, be a discussion as
to whether they should be technical regulations or standards. It is believed, though, that the
answer to that question depends on each nation’s ideas for the market design.
The Framework of the TBT Agreement
In addition to the general characteristics of standards shown above, there is a legal
aspect of standards and standard-settings. The essence of the framework of the WTO/TBT
agreements and the role of the IEC under the agreements are summarized below.
The WTO is an international organization for liberalizing international trade, operating
with a system of trade rules, providing a place for intergovernmental negotiations, and dealing
with dispute settlements invoking violations of WTO agreements.12 It was established in 1995 as
a successor to GATT, after the eight-year GATT Uruguay Round trade negotiations, with a set of
the WTO agreements, which consists of the “Agreement Establishing the World Trade
Organization” and its annexes. The structure of the WTO agreements is shown in Figure 3.
Member countries of the WTO have to adopt all the agreements shown here under the principle
of “single undertaking.”
GATT and the TBT Agreement are the Agreements under Annex 1A to the Agreement
Establishing the WTO, “Multilateral Agreements on Trade in Goods.” While GATT generally
applies to all trade in goods, the TBT Agreement applies to both voluntary standards and
mandatory technical regulations relating to all products, including industrial and agricultural
12Understanding the WTO, 2007 <http://www.wto.org/English/thewto_e/whatis_e/tif_e/fact1_e.htm>.
16
products.13 In this paper, discussions are generally focused on the TBT Agreement, occasionally
referring to the relevant provisions of GATT.
The basic discipline of the TBT Agreement is to diminish or not to create unnecessary
obstacles to international trade, by obliging members to: 1) use international standards as a basis
for their preparation, adoption, and application of technical regulations, standards, and
procedures for assessment of conformity; 14 2) secure transparency on their development by
providing the necessary or requested information to other members and interested bodies; and 3)
conduct two important disciplines of the WTO agreements, i.e., the Most-Favored-Nation
Treatment, which provides that government import or export regulations should not discriminate
between other countries’ products, and the National Treatment, which prohibits discrimination
between imported and domestic products inside the country.
One of the important points in this agreement is that it directly regulates not only central
government bodies, but also local government and nongovernmental bodies (private
standardizing bodies) almost directly. In general, the WTO agreements are imposed on the
central governments, not local governments or nongovernmental bodies, because they override a
13Marceau and Trachtman, 2002: 864.
14Definitions of technical regulation, standards, and conformity assessment procedures are given in Annex 1 to the TBT Agreement as follows:
(a). Technical regulation: Document which lays down product characteristics or their related processes and production methods, including the applicable administrative provisions, with which compliance is mandatory. It may also include or deal exclusively with terminology, symbols, packaging, marking or labeling requirements as they apply to a product, process or production method.
(b). Standard: Document approved by a recognized body, that provides, for common and repeated use, rules, guidelines or characteristics for products or related processes and production methods, with which compliance is not mandatory. It may also include or deal exclusively with terminology, symbols, packaging, marking or labeling requirements as they apply to a product, process or production method. However, Standards as defined by ISO/IEC Guide 2 may be mandatory or voluntary. For the purpose of this Agreement standards are defined as voluntary and technical regulations as mandatory documents. Standards prepared by the international standardization community are based on consensus. This Agreement covers also documents that are not based on consensus.
(c). Conformity assessment procedures: Any procedure used, directly or indirectly, to determine that relevant requirements in technical regulations or standards are fulfilled.
17
nation’s legal system. Given that a standardizing body may be part of the central government or
nongovernmental depending on the country, however, it was necessary to secure impartiality
among member countries because this agreement has the same economic impact among them.
The agreement deals with both types of bodies in a slightly different way: if it regulates a central
government organization, it provides that “members shall ensure that…”;15 if it regulates local or
nongovernmental groups, it provides that “members shall take such reasonable measures as may
be available to ensure that…”16 Both of them, however, are equally subject to the provisions
regarding dispute settlement, which means a member country might be cited in cases where
another member considers that the member has not achieved satisfactory results, regardless of
whether they have been under the aegis of a central government or a nongovernmental body.17
Figure 4 is the structure of this agreement. Below, some relevant provisions to
discussions, from Article 4 and Annex 3 to this agreement, are shown.
Article 4. Preparation, Adoption and Application of Standards 4.1. Members shall ensure that their central government standardizing bodies accept and comply with the Code of Good Practice for the Preparation, Adoption and Application of Standards in Annex 3 to this Agreement (referred to in this Agreement as the “Code of Good Practice”). They shall take such reasonable measures as may be available to them to ensure that local government and nongovernmental standardizing bodies within their territories, as well as regional standardizing bodies of which they or one or more bodies within their territories are members, accept and comply with this Code of Good Practice. In addition, Members shall not take measures which have the effect of, directly or indirectly, requiring or encouraging such standardizing bodies to act in a manner inconsistent with the Code of Good Practice. The obligations of Members with respect to compliance of standardizing bodies with the provisions of the Code of Good
15E.g., Article 2.1 of the TBT Agreement.
16E.g., Article 3.1 of the TBT Agreement.
17JSA, 1980: 46-49.
18
Practice shall apply irrespective of whether or not a standardizing body has accepted the Code of Good Practice.
Thus, Article 4 calls for the acceptance of and compliance with the Code of Good
Practice. Each member country is responsible for compliance by each and every type of
standardizing body in its own territory. Therefore, local or nongovernmental standardizing
bodies should comply, but are not required to extend official acceptance. Once a standardizing
body accepts the Code of Good Practice, it shall comply with these provisions irrespective of
what body it is.
ANNEX 3 CODE OF GOOD PRACTICE FOR THE PREPARATION, ADOPTION AND APPLICATION OF STANDARDS D. In respect of standards, the standardizing body shall accord treatment to products originating in the territory of any other Member of the WTO no less favourable than that accorded to like products of national origin and to like products originating in any other country. E. The standardizing body shall ensure that standards are not prepared, adopted or applied with a view to, or with the effect of, creating unnecessary obstacles to international trade. F. Where international standards exist or their completion is imminent, the standardizing body shall use them, or the relevant parts of them, as a basis for the standards it develops, except where such international standards or relevant parts would be ineffective or inappropriate, for instance, because of an insufficient level of protection or fundamental climatic or geographical factors or fundamental technological problems. G. …the standardizing body shall, in an appropriate way, play a full part, within the limits of its resources, in the preparation by relevant international standardizing bodies of international standards… While the basis of provisions D and E is nondiscrimination, such as national treatment
and most-favored-nation treatment, that of provisions F and G is the central parts of this code,
19
harmonization of international standards, which provides that standardizing bodies shall use
international standards, or the relevant parts of them, as a basis for their standards development.
Structural Relations Among Standards-developing Bodies and
Their Current Harmonization Status with Regard to Power Quality Standards
In this section, the roles of the IEC and those standardizing bodies dealing with power
quality standards, which are the European Committee for Electrotechnical Standardization
(CENELEC) in the EU, the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) in the United
States, and the JISC in Japan, will be explained.
The IEC
The IEC has been charged with the role of international standards-developing body by
the WTO since GATT unofficially made a list of international standards-developing bodies in
1980.18 Its basic mission is to prepare and publish international standards for all electrical,
electronic, and related technologies in order to serve as a basis for national standardization.19
The organizational structure of the IEC is shown in Figure 5. As for the work of developing
standards, while technical committees (TCs) and subcommittees (SCs) manage the relevant
procedures, working groups (WGs) inside TCs or SCs, such as project teams and maintenance
teams, elaborate the contents of international standards. The great majority of the members
come from industry, while others from commerce, government, test laboratories, research
laboratories, academia, and consumer groups also contribute to the work. At each stage of
18JSA, 1980: 66.
19IEC <http://www.iec.ch/about/mission-e.htm>.
20
development, TCs or SCs receive and approve drafts created by WGs and submit them to the full
member national committees (IEC’s members) for voting with a view to gathering comments
and ultimately gaining approval for international standards. Thus, the IEC aims to secure
transparency, openness, fairness, consensus, and global relevancy in the development of
international standards.
Power Quality Standards in the IEC
In the IEC, SC77A under TC77 has the role of developing power quality standards20 (the
publication numbers are the IEC 61000 series). This series is positioned as basic standards in the
IEC. It specifies general conditions or rules that are necessary to secure a sound electromagnetic
environment in electric and electronic systems, achieving electromagnetic compatibility. As the
terms imply, they “serve as building blocks” for relative product standards.21 In other words,
committees related to product standards must refer to basic standards insofar as possible.
The approaches to power quality problems by the SC77A are as follows: electronic and
electrical systems or components need the ability to work correctly when they are close together;
the electromagnetic disturbance, which is called the “emission,” from each piece of equipment
must be limited; and each must have an adequate level of “immunity” to the “disturbances in its
environment.”22 Each level of the environment, the emission, and the immunity as well as
testing methods to assess whether or not products conform to such levels should be standardized
20The IEC has historically dealt with power quality problems as EMC (electromagnetic compatibility),
which has broader frequencies than from low to high, such as microwave ranges, and calls these standards EMC standards. The author consistently uses the term power quality instead of EMC, however, because the two concepts are considered to be same in the electric power system.
21IEC, “Basic EMC Publication,” <http://www.iec.ch/zone/emc/baspubs.htm>.
22IEC, “What EMC Is,” <http://www.iec.ch/zone/emc/whatis.htm>.
21
as clear rules. Thus, the structure of the IEC 61000 series is systematized reflecting each subject.
Here are summaries of each part in the series.
Part 1: General
In addition to definitions and terminology about power quality, this describes
fundamental disciplines and concepts of defining the environment level in electrical systems,
limits of emission, immunity of equipment, and so forth.
Part 2: Environment
This describes the environment level, which covers planning and compatibility levels.
The planning levels are target levels that should be achieved when designing electric power
systems. The compatibility levels are set higher than the planning levels and are considered to
be the practical levels existing in the electric power systems. These are the basis for allocating
the emission and immunity limits for each type of equipment.
Part 3: Limits
Emission limits for harmonics and flicker are defined. There are two types of objects on
which limits are imposed. One is on equipment used at low voltages (less than or equal to
1kV), and the other is on the totality of equipment installed in a customer facility in the middle
(more than 1kV and less than 35kV) or higher voltages. As a note, the immunity limit has not
been set so far, though testing and classification methods are available in Part 4.
Part 4: Testing and measurement techniques
This includes techniques of measuring power quality parameters, which specify and
classify measuring tools, and testing techniques in order to assess conformity on emission limits
or immunity levels.
22
In addition, Figure 6 shows a list of the IEC standards that will be discussed later in this
paper. Some basic publications are normative “international standards,” while others are non-
normative “technical reports.”
Standards-developing Bodies in the European Union
First, the structural relation between the IEC and regional or national standardizing
bodies is shown in Figure 7. Given the TBT Agreement, each standardizing body basically seeks
harmonization with the IEC standards along with consensus-based standards development,
though their approaches to developing standards are slightly different.
In the EU, CENELEC, as a nongovernmental regional standardizing body, has accepted
the Code of Good Practice, while an individual standardizing body at each Europen country has
also been accepted as a nongovernmental body.23 The mission of CENELEC is to prepare
voluntary electrotechnical standards that help develop a single European market/European
economic area for electrical and electronic goods and services, removing barriers to trade, and to
shape a strong internal European market by creating new markets and cutting compliance costs.
CENELEC has strongly promoted and achieved its mission24 not only internally, but also
externally, by strongly committing to the IEC. First, their basic stance is to implement the IEC
standards in Europe “as far as possible unchanged.”25 This is further promoted by the Dresden
Agreement, which was finalized and took effect in 1996, in order to cooperate on standards
development within IEC. This agreement secures “conversion of European standards and drafts
23WTO Committee on Technical Barriers to Trade, G/TBT/CS/2/Rev.1217, February 2006.
24<http://www.cenelec.org/Cenelec/About+CENELEC/default.htm>.
25CENELEC, 2006.
23
into international standards,” “parallel voting on draft international standards,” “common
planning of new work,” etc. Moreover, the European Commission adopted a “new approach to
technical harmonization and standards” in 1985, and since then, some of the EN standards,
which are called “harmonized standards” relating to the protection of safety, health, environment,
etc., have been adopted as mandatory “directives” by the EC, in order to “ensure the free
movement of goods, without lowering existing and justified levels of protection in the member
countries.”26 Furthermore, it is mandatory for member countries to adopt EN standards without
any modifications due to European Committee for Standardization (CEN)/CENELEC internal
regulations. Consequently, they have established a strong presence in the international
standardizing scene.
Power Quality Standards in the EU
Figure 8 shows how the IEC power quality standards (shown in Figure 6) are adopted to
regional/national standards-developing bodies and to electric utilities (equivalent to distribution
network operators [DNOs]). Here, French and British examples are shown as representative of
30 CENELEC member countries.
CENELEC has adopted most international standards with full harmonization except for
IEC/TR61000-3-6 and IEC/TR61000-3-7, which are, respectively, emission limits for corporate
customers of harmonic current and voltage fluctuations, although they have been subsequently
adopted by both French and British national bodies. Another difference is that CENELEC has its
own standards regarding the electromagnetic environment of the network, EN50160, whose
purpose is to commit customers to maintaining a certain level of power quality in their networks.
26European Commission, Council Resolution 1985 (85/C 136/01).
24
The criteria come from IEC61000-2-2 or 2-12. At the national level, the UTE in France and the
BSI in the United Kingdom have introduced these standards without modifications. Remarkably,
in the EU market, four standards, which are emission limits for appliances of harmonic current
and voltage fluctuations, are mandatory by the 89/336/EEC (currently updated to 2004/108/EC),
the so-called “EMC directives” based on a new approach.27 Other standards are used by electric
utilities, while users are free to adopt standards for measuring instruments. In the United
Kingdom, the Energy Networks Association (ENA)28 has relevant standards, using BSI standards.
The ENA’s standards are also referred to in the mandatory rules, which are called “DCode”
(Distribution Code). This details the technical parameters and considerations relating to
connection to, and use of, their electrical network.29 Electric utilities operate the standards
through this framework.
Standards-developing Bodies in the United States
In the United States, the American National Standard Institution (ANSI), which has the
central role in standards development and manages all standardizing bodies in the country, has
accepted the Code of Good Practice as a nongovernmental body. 30 ANSI assigns the practical
work of development of electrotechnical standards to the IEEE Standards Association. The
IEEE is among the leading academic authorities in the world on various subjects in the electrical
27EC web site <http://eur-
lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:C:2007:225:0001:0019:EN:PDF>.
28The ENA is the trade association for U.K. energy transmission and distribution license holders and operators, acting in the interests of its members in the energy “wires and pipes” sectors. <http://2008.energynetworks.org/>.
29Dcode web site <http://www.dcode.org.uk/>.
30WTO Committee.
25
and electronics fields through its international membership, and it has produced useful,
internationally accepted standards. The IEEE was not recognized as an international
standardizing body under the TBT Agreement because its membership was not made up of
countries, but of individual professionals (O’Neill, 1995). As a result, the IEEE had a concern
about the emergence of non-harmonization problems at the promulgation of the TBT Agreement.
According to international program engineer Anne O’Neill, however, “the IEEE PES [Power
Engineering Society] does not have to rewrite all its standards to look exactly like IEC work,”
while “the work towards harmonization itself must begin” for the following reasons.
The major impact of the TBT Agreement refers mainly to regulations, that is, mandatory, not
voluntary standards of the IEEE; and
Some substantial provisions in the Code of Good Practice regarding deviations, such as L, G,
H, N, etc. can be viewed as allowing the IEEE still to have the right to maintain its standards.
On the other hand, ANSI has strongly pushed for U.S. members’ involvement in IEC
work (ANSI, 2000, 2005). The IEEE recently concluded the Co-operation and License
Agreement with the IEC. Under the agreement, where relevant IEEE electronic, power
generation, telecommunication, and other standards already exist, these can be proposed to the
IEC for publication as IEC/IEEE Dual Logo International Standards.31
Power Quality Standards in the United States
Figure 9 shows how the IEC power quality standards (shown in Figure 6) are adopted to
IEEE electric utilities. The IEEE does not have standards that impose emission limits for
appliances, but require limits for all customers except for residential based on the IEEE 519 or
31IEC Administrative Circular 138/AC: Co-operation and License Agreement Between IEC and IEEE.
26
IEEE1453. The United States has historically developed and used its own standards, but the
contents include more technical details than the IEC/TR61000-3-6. The structure is inherently
different from the IEC, but they share some common parts given that the objectives are the same.
This standard has been gradually revised while coordinating with the contents of the IEC. In the
case of IEEE1453, the IEEE almost fully adopted the IEC 61000-4-15, which means they
changed to follow the IEC assessment methods. They have not adopted standards regarding
emission limits for appliances, however. This reason for this is presumed to be that, because of
their lack of consensus to create standards for appliances, or because of the fact that power
quality problems have occurred not widely but locally, they have chosen not to impose proactive
standards on disturbance sources, but to deal with problems reactively after they occur.
Standards-developing Bodies in Japan
In Japan, the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry (METI) and the JISC have
accepted the Code of Good Practice as central government bodies. 32 Under METI, JIS
incorporates the power quality standards adapted from the IEC standards. The JISC has
committed in its strategies to promote further preparation, adoption, and application of power
quality standards developed by the IEC (JISC, 2001, 2004, 2005, 2007).
Given that there are international standards that do not take account of the Asian-Pacific
region’s conditions, while they have facilitated harmonization of standards based on the TBT
Agreement, they are also strongly seeking to secure more global relevance for the IEC standards.
JISC’s strategy specifies that, if an international standard seems problematic by reflecting
technologies not of the Asian-Pacific region but of another specific region or it simply seems to
32WTO Committee.
27
be technically obsolete, it encourages revising them. Moreover, if the proposal is not accepted, it
encourages seeking other alternatives, such as proposing to add descriptions about other
technologies to the same standard, to integrate between them and simplify to common parts of
technologies on the basis of making performance-based standards, to include a specific clause
about a technical difference if it meets an exceptional condition, or to adhere to the JIS standard
while seeking revision of the international standard (JISC, 2001).
Power Quality Standards in Japan
Figure 10 shows how the IEC power quality standards (shown in Figure 6) are adopted to
the JIS or electric utilities. While two standards regarding harmonics for appliances are accepted,
generally the power quality standards are not comprehensively systemized in Japan as de jure
standards. It is believed that the reason for this is that Japanese electric utilities did not have the
concept of approaching power quality problems with standardization until the emergence of the
TBT. Instead, they dealt with such problems on a case-by-case basis, establishing research
committees, publishing research papers to notify interest groups, and transforming them into
more regulatory rules, or into de facto rules if they could not do otherwise.33 An additional
problematic fact is that the terms and conditions or company standards of Japanese electric
utilities seem to be less transparent than those in the EU and the United States because they only
speculate on principles for the occurrence of power quality problems, while those in the United
States and the EU clearly refer to official standards.
33 For example, rules about voltage flicker were discussed in the Electric Technologies Research
Association (ETRA) Report, Vol. 20, No. 8 (1964), and the Technical Report of the Institute of Electrical Engineering of Japan, Vol. 72 (1978), among others. The conclusions have been developed into de facto standards. On the other hand, research about harmonics, which was also undertaken by the ETRA, became the basis of a publishing guideline by the central government (ETRA Report, Vol. 46, No. 2, 1994).
28
In sum, Japanese electric utilities currently do not have de jure quality standards although
they should. But, to develop de jure standards, they have to use not conventional de facto rules,
but different international standards based on the TBT Agreement. Accordingly, they have to
overcome some obstacles related to switching. Current discussion points about power quality,
especially about non-harmonization issues, are as follows.
With regard to supply voltage, since differences of voltage are acknowledged as rational
exceptions in the TBT Agreement, this topic is out of the scope of this paper.
In general, because the magnitude of the supplied voltages is the most fundamental
interface between electric power systems and electric products along with the grounding system,
it is easy to imagine that such a difference has created significant dead weight losses in terms of
international trade of goods. Although harmonization would create considerable advantages
from several standpoints over a very long-term perspective, national consensus is necessary if
huge losses of money and time are to be sustained over the short term.
As to harmonics, Japan has adopted different compatibility levels from the international
standard. It has also established a different rule, which is called the Guideline for Customers
Connected to Middle or High Voltage Networks, for providing emission limits for corporate
customers and their conformity assessment methods. The discussion point is whether or not
Japan should introduce both new compatibility levels and new calculation methods, and, if not,
whether there would be non-harmonization problems. As a note, while the compatibility levels
are defined in international standards, the calculation methods are defined in the technical report
in the IEC. A technical report (TR) is a kind of document that has been recognized, but has not
yet become a standard. It is possible, however, for it to be upgraded to an international standard
in the future if it approved in the committee.
29
There is a concern that new assessment methods allocate different emission limits for the
customers, who were once certified by the Japanese methods. Consequently, customers might be
required to improve facilities to satisfy a newly allocated emission limit, and this could result in
unreasonable switching costs. In addition, international rules specify calculation methods using
data that Japanese electric utilities usually do not possess.
As concerns voltage fluctuations, Japan has adopted a different indicator (measure) from
that of the IEC for the assessment of voltage fluctuations. Currently, their outputs from
measuring instruments are incompatible, while it is believed that the IEC indicator assesses
voltage fluctuations more severely but accurately. Some utilities have also introduced their own
criteria as de facto standards to supplement the inferiority of the Japanese indicator. The
discussion point is whether or not Japan should introduce the standard of the IEC indicator, its
compatibility level, emission limits for appliances, emission limits for corporate customers and
their conformity assessment methods, and the specification of the IEC flicker meter as a
measuring instrument. Regardless of whether they belong to the electric utilities or the
customers, facilities have been designed, built, and operated based on the conventional criteria in
Japan. So far, this fundamental difference has been so significant that most sectors do not seem
to gain benefits by changing to a new setup, incurring switching costs in the process.
Consequently, then, there is not likely to be a groundswell for the adoption of the IEC standard
There is another problem, however. While new types of flicker sources such as wind
power generators are becoming more common, and Japanese conventional indicators do not
correctly assess their output levels when compared with the IEC flicker (Yukihira, 2000, 2001),
flicker problems might prevail in many areas in the future along with the increase of such
fluctuation sources.
30
With regard to voltage unbalance, there is no speculated compatibility level in de jure
standards or in the technical regulations. It is said that the utilities set criteria referring to a
similar provision for connections by railway load stipulated in a technical regulation. Although
the electric utilities’ target level has been open to the public through certain publications,
customers may not feel that the utilities have a sufficient basis or rationality to supply such
electricity if a problem due to a voltage unbalance, such as a shortened lifetime of equipment, its
derating, and/or trip of its protection relay emerges, even if its level is under the target level in
the network..
It can be argued that such a rule should be introduced to the de jure standard. Since
compatibility levels for all power quality parameters are described in one document in the IEC
standard (see Figure 10), however, any problem related to voltage flicker, which is described
above, needs to be solved first for introducing the compatibility level of voltage unbalance.
As to other discussions points, because of the effect of liberalization and the recent
increase of interconnected renewable energy, power quality is expected to be measured,
predicted, and guaranteed. Public demands for renewable energy and its interconnection with
the local distribution network, in particular, have been so huge that some measures will likely be
necessary to increase the capacity of the network or to operate it more efficiently utilizing online
data of output from such energy sources.34 It is thought that these factors will lead to further
investment in the network, such as restructuring of the network and installation of power quality
34Such R&D projects are explained in reports, journals, etc., e.g. CIGRE Technical Brocure 311,2007;
EPRI Journal, Fall 2005, <http://mydocs.epri.com/docs/CorporateDocuments/EPRI_Journal/2005-Fall/1012885_IntelliGrid.pdf>.
31
monitoring equipment.35 In this case, the stance regarding power quality standards directly
relates to the specification of monitoring equipment.
Summary
In this chapter, the author has clarified the meaning of standards, the legal implications of
the TBT Agreement, and the differences in current conditions among the EU, the United States,
and Japan from the standpoint of power quality problems. Taking account of the surrounding
circumstances that have been clarified so far, it is clear that Japanese electric utilities should
develop comprehensive power quality standards in the JIS, as de jure standards, and their
requirements regarding power quality to secure transparency, accountability, and technical and
economical rationality. But conventional Japanese de facto rules, with which the electric utilities
and their customers have complied, cannot be simply applied to the JIS because the JISC needs
to comply with the TBT Agreement.
In the next chapter, the author will discuss: 1) to what extent electric utilities should
harmonize with international standards, and 2) how the second movers of international
standardization should deal with the current situation. As for the first discussion, two possible
options for standardization are assessed from the legal standpoint. Based on this result and some
economic theories of standards from Chapter 1, a third option is proposed as an answer to the
second discussion.
35Denki Hyoron [Electricity Review], “Haiden Gijutsu no Saishin Doko [Recent Trends in R&D on the
Distribution Automation System].” Vol. 502, Oct. 2006.
32
CHAPTER 2
ANALYSIS OF THREE POSSIBLE OPTIONS
FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF STANDARDS
Overview
In this chapter, the author will discuss how Japanese electric utilities should act after the
legal assessment of the TBT Agreement and its implications for standards development in Japan.
The legal assessment should be particularly focused on the following points: whether there is a
legal risk for Japan and the Japanese electric utilities if they remain in their current situation and
to what extent the electric utilities should seek harmonization with international standards of
power quality.
The Legal Risk Assessment of the Current Situation
As explained in Chapter 1, in the current situation, Japanese electric utilities require their
corporate customers to comply with their companies’ requirements on the connection to the
network; these requirements are not internationally harmonized, but domestically developed
rules36 formulated by taking Japan’s own conditions into consideration. In addition, METI, an
organ of the central government, indirectly relates to the operations of these rules by officially
permitting their requirements. The first question is whether there is a legal risk for Japan or
Japanese electric utilities in being in the current situation. The answer is no, for the following
reasons:
36While there are relevant international standards for some non-harmonized rules, there are also relevant
TR’s for other non-harmonized rules concerning power quality in Japan. Since there is always a possibility that the TR’s will be upgraded to standards, and since the objective of this chapter is to analyze the non-harmonization risk, in this paper, the author assumes that these documents are standards for the purpose of discussing non-harmonization issues.
33
First, the scope of the WTO agreements does not cover private companies, but
government bodies. Therefore, the actions of private companies should have nothing to do with
these agreements, but with national laws. Moreover, the central government body is a different
juridical person from private companies, so that it would not need to bear the responsibility for
the operations of the requirements even though it permits them.
Second, as far as the JISC has not applied, adopted, or prepared to adopt relevant national
standards, it does not bear the responsibility for the use of international standards by any entity in
Japan. On the contrary, if JISC had developed non-harmonized standards that caused any
impairment or nullification of other countries’ benefits, there is the possibility that the JISC
would be cited based on the TBT Agreement.
As a result, though this situation is unfavorable for the utilities in terms of securing
transparency and accountability to other interests, operation of non-harmonized rules involves no
risk. Therefore, the first option, i.e., remaining with the current situation, would be one of the
possible alternatives for the electric utilities. It seems to be preferable, however, for them to
systemize rules with regard to power quality among all electric utilities, disclose their detailed
assessment procedures and their rationality, and then clearly refer to them in their requirements
for securing transparency and accountability.
It seems, though, that there are still problems. One a lack of rationality of using de facto
standards in compulsory rules. Using consensus-based standards in the JISC is generally a better
choice.
34
The Legal Risk Assessment of Including Non-harmonized Parts in the JIS
The second option is to develop the JIS by incorporating conventional Japanese rules.
The point is whether and to what extent non-harmonized Japanese parts can be included in the
JIS. As for the Japanese power quality rules, the contents are different from the international
standards, but their objectives are basically the same. The author analyzes the compliance risk of
this matter in terms of: 1) nondiscrimination; 2) the necessity of developing different standards;
and 3) the meaning of “harmonization,” by viewing the interpretations of relevant provisions
clarified by reports of the Appellate Body of the WTO in past dispute settlements as well as
some study results in this area.37 As a note, there have been six disputes where the Appellate
Body and/or panel reports have been adopted since the conclusion of the TBT Agreement in
1995,38 and the Appellate Body report about the EC-Sardines case clarified the meanings of
some provisions regarding technical regulations in Article 2. Although provisions of Article 4
and the Code of Good Practice have not been definitively clarified, this EC-Sardines case was
submitted to the interpretations of these provisions.
Assessment in Terms of Nondiscrimination
First, the author assesses the violation risks of abusing provision D, which applies to
national and most-favored-nation treatment.
National treatment and most-favored-nation treatment are originally from GATT Articles
III and I, respectively. As for GATT, the Appellate Body declared that the broad purpose of
37The author referred to some studies in this area, especially as to the relation between GATT, the TBT
Agreement, and the SPS Agreement (Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures), conducted, e.g., by Marceau and Trachtman, McDonald (2005), etc. Also, the official interpretations of the legal text are on the WTO web site <http://www.wto.org/english/res_e/booksp_e/analytic_index_e/analytic_index_e.htm>.
38Until 2002, there were no disputes about the Standard Codes, the predecessor of the TBT Agreement, after its promulgation in 1979.
35
Article III is “to avoid protectionism” in the application of regulatory measures,39 and that of
Article I is “to prohibit discrimination among like products originating in or destined for
different countries.” 40 Thus, this provision is believed to enjoin member countries and
standards-developing bodies from using standards as a measure to discriminate between
domestic and imported products in terms of protecting the domestic market.
In the case of power quality standards, the objectives of their settings in Japan are the
same as those of the international standards, though the means of achieving them are a bit
different, i.e., the objective of imposing emission limits or setting compatibility level is purely to
seek a sustainable electromagnetic environment in the electric and electronic systems without
any power quality problems. Its measure as well as its consequence is to set the emission limits
of relevant electric products and to assess their conformity, all of which are fairly treated under
the standards. Though there might be a case in which certain imported equipment is required
either not to incorporate or additionally to install some equipment to reduce its emissions, this
would arise case-by-case as a result of fair assessment based on procedures outlined in the
standards. At the very least, rules about the choice of objects for assessment or their
categorizations might need to harmonize with relevant international standards. But, insofar as the
rules are consistent, there would not be any discrimination due to a product’s national origin or
characteristics among like products.
Therefore, the development of such standards would not result in a violation of provision
D. Besides, for the same reason, it seems this fair attitude would not be in opposition to GATT
1994.
39Appellate Body Report, Japan. Alcoholic Beverages II, p.16, WT/DS8/AB/R.
40Appellate Body Report, Canada – Autos, para. 84, WT/DS139/AB/R, WT/DS142/AB/R.
36
Assessment in Terms of the Meaning of Harmonization
Second, the meaning of harmonization will be considered. The basic question is to what
extent the domestic standards should harmonize with international standards.
Provision F provides that, “where international standards exist or their completion is
imminent, the standardizing body shall use them, or the relevant parts of them, as a basis for the
standards it develops ... “ and provision G calls for “harmonizing standards on as wide a basis as
possible...” The points that should be clarified are: 1) the meaning of “as a basis for,” and 2)
interpretations of the meaning of “harmonization,” that is to say, that domestic standards can be
higher or lower barriers when compared to the relevant international standards. The first of these
has been dealt with in a past dispute, and the second is discussed by Marceau and Trachtman in
addition to the interpretation by the Appellate Body through past dispute settlement.
The meanings of “as a basis for” and “relevant” were interpreted by the Appellate Body
in the EC-Sardines case, although it dealt with Article 2.4.41 First, the Appellate Body cited
some definitions of “basis,” such as “‘principal constituent,’ ‘fundamental principle,’ ‘main
constituent,’ and ‘determining principle,’” and concluded that all of these definitions “lend
credence to the conclusion that there must be a very strong and very close relationship between
two things in order to be able to say that one is ‘the basis for’ the other.” Second, the Appellate
Body concluded that “the regulating Member is not permitted to select only some of the ‘relevant
parts’ of an international standard. If a part is relevant, then it must be one of the elements which
is a basis for the technical regulation.” As far as viewing these reports, “as a basis for” means
41Article 2.4 provides that “where technical regulations are required and relevant international standards
exist or their completion is imminent, Members shall use them, or the relevant parts of them, as a basis for their technical regulations except when such international standards or relevant parts would be an ineffective or inappropriate means for the fulfilment of the legitimate objectives pursued, for instance because of fundamental climatic or geographical factors or fundamental technological problems.”
37
that it does not require all the words to be same, but the fundamental contents must not be
different. Thus, it can be regarded that, basically “deviations from international standards are
discouraged” in Article 2.4 (Marceau and Trachtman, 2002).
The interpretations of similar provisions in the Sanitary and Phytosanitary (SPS)
Agreement, which is a sister to the TBT Agreement, would be helpful to some extent though the
Appellate Body was not so bold as to refer a possible relation between them. The SPS
Agreement has provisions about the “harmonization” of Article 3, where the terms “based on”
and “conform to” relative to the term “as a basis for” exist. They were interpreted by the
Appellate Body in the EC-Hormones case. In its report, the Appellate Body distinguished each
meaning as follows: “A thing is commonly said to be ‘based on’ another thing when the former
‘stands’ or is ‘founded’ or ‘built’ upon or ‘is supported by’ the latter. In contrast, much more is
required before one thing may be regarded as ‘conform[ing] to’ another: the former must
‘comply with,’ ‘yield or show compliance’ with the latter.”
In other words, there might be a case in which a measure “based on the same standard
might not conform to that standard, as where only some, not all, of the elements of the standard
are incorporated into the measure.”42 The Appellate Body also noted that “under Article 3.143 of
the SPS Agreement, a Member may choose to establish an SPS measure that is based on the
existing relevant international standard, guideline or recommendation. Such a measure may
adopt some, not necessarily all, of the elements of the international standard.”44 In other cases,
panels also stated that “for a sanitary measure to be based on an international standard ... that
42Appellate Body Report on EC-Hormones, para. 163.
43Article 3.1 provides that “to harmonize sanitary and phytosanitary measures on as wide a basis as possible, Members …”
44Appellate Body Report on EC-Hormones, para. 171.
38
measure needs to reflect the same level of sanitary protection as the standard.”45 Thus, “based
on” seems to be interpreted less stringently than “as a basis for” of the TBT Agreement. From
these conclusions, Marceau and Trachtman observed “‘based on’ means simply derived from,
and provides greater flexibility to members.”46 The harmonization level required in the SPS
Agreement is expected to be applicable to that in the TBT Agreement although the Appellate
Body did not clarify the relationship between the two terms. From these interpretations, the
author presumes that, while the meaning of the term “harmonization” does not have flexibility in
theory, something can be considered as harmonized in practice if almost the same result can be
obtained under the same objectives and the same principles. Otherwise, if the contents of a
measure are similar to the international standards, it is believed that one way to avoid non-
harmonization problems is to speculate less but common parts of international standards as
provisions.
As for the second question of this chapter, which is whether domestic standards can be
higher or lower barriers when compared with the relevant international standards, the SPS
Agreement can also be considered extensible to some extent. Again, Marceau and Trachtman
observed that Article 3.3 of the SPS Agreement permits members to introduce measures that
“result in a higher level of sanitary or phytosanitary protection than would be achieved by
measures based on the relevant international standards, guidelines or recommendations, if (a)
there is a scientific justification, or (b) as a consequence of the level of sanitary or phytosanitary
protection a Member determines [the measures] to be appropriate” in accordance with the
45Panel Report on EC-Hormones (Canada), para. 8.76, Panel Report on EC-Hormones (U.S.), para. 8.73.
46As a note, by clarifying the meanings, Article 3.2 became too severe; this indicated that “measures that did not conform to international standards were inconsistent with the SPS Agreement.” (Appellate Body Report on EC-Hormones, para. 164) But the Appellate Body rejected the view that such different usage of terms was “merely inadvertent,” and stated that the purpose of Article 3 was to harmonize SPS measures in the future. Appellate Body Report on EC-Hormones, para. 165.
39
relevant provisions. But, since this kind of provision does not appear in the TBT Agreement,
there is also some doubt as to its applicability. As for a case in which barriers become lower,
while there are no provisions about this in either agreement, the possibility would be dependent
on the interpretation of Article 2.547 or provision E of the TBT Agreement, especially the terms
“unnecessary obstacles to international trade.” This will be discussed in the next sub-section.
On the other hand, it is necessary to make sure that ideally the discipline of
harmonization is still considered as full conformity to the international standards. For example,
in the EC-Hormones case, the Appellate Body seems to persistently seek such an ideal, by noting
that “it is clear to us that harmonization of SPS measures of Members on the basis of
international standards is projected in the Agreement, as a goal, yet to be realized in the future,”
or “the Panel’s interpretation of Article 3.148 would, in other words, transform those standards,
guidelines and recommendations into binding norms,”49 based on the disciplines provided in the
relevant preamble and provisions. Accordingly, it is rational to understand that such flexibility is
given only if a country’s conditions meet exceptional provisions, which will be considered in the
next sub-section.
Incidentally, in the case of the standard’s preparation, adoption, or application, though its
disciplines are applied in the same manner as those of technical regulations, there is another way
to secure harmonization even if some contents are not harmonized. Generally speaking, a
47Article 2.5 provides “… Whenever a technical regulation is prepared, adopted or applied for one of the
legitimate objectives explicitly mentioned in paragraph 2, and is in accordance with relevant international standards, it shall be rebuttably presumed not to create an unnecessary obstacle to international trade.”
48Article 3.1 provides “To harmonize sanitary and phytosanitary measures on as wide a basis as possible, Members …”
49Appellate Body Report on EC-Hormones, para. 165.
40
standard consists of “normative elements” and “informative elements.” 50 Unlike technical
regulations, transforming non-harmonizing parts into informative elements seems effective. As
to the development of JIS, the action of transforming common contents between international
standards and domestic standards into normative parts and different parts between them into
informative parts would not be against the principle of harmonization in the TBT Agreement.
This also makes sense in seeking to develop performance-based standards. Thus, developing
standards seems to have more flexibility than developing technical regulations.
Assessment in Terms of the Necessity of Different Contents
The final assessment is conducted in terms of the “necessity” of developing one’s own
standards such as including different contents from international ones. In the WTO, “legitimate
government policies may justify measures contrary to basic GATT market access rules,” if they
are necessary to achieve their objectives stipulated in the exceptional provisions (Marceau and
Trachtman, 2002). The points that should be clarified are: 1) whether differences between
international standards and one’s own standards result in “creating unnecessary obstacles of
international trade,” which is provided in provision E of the Code of Good Practice; 2) whether
these exceptional provisions, especially provision F, can be applied in the case of power quality;
and 3) whether such differences are necessary to achieve the objectives (in other words, whether
the same objectives cannot be achieved with the international standards).
As for 1), the power quality standards generally have some characteristics of the trade
restrictiveness of electric equipment because they require products to satisfy certain levels of
50Normative elements: elements that describe the scope of the document and which set out provisions, and
informative elements, which provide additional information intended to assist the understanding or use of the document. ISO/IEC Directives, Part 2 Rules for the Structure and Drafting of International Standards, 2004.
41
emission limits or conformity assessment for products’ distribution in an import country. They
should be recognized, however, as a kind of necessary measure, given that international
standards, which have the same disciplines, have been developed and globally used. From this
standpoint, power quality standards would not be unnecessary obstacles to trade in terms of their
objectives. If criteria in one’s own such rules were unjustifiably more severe than those of the
international standards, however, they would be regarded as “unnecessary obstacles.” Therefore,
non-harmonized parts need to be recognized under the exceptional provisions.
The exceptional provisions in the TBT Agreement are provided in Articles 2.2 and 2.4 for
the technical regulations, and in provision F in the Code of Good Practice for standards while the
contents are slightly different. These are provided as follows.
Exception in provision F “... except where such international standards or relevant parts would be ineffective or inappropriate, for instance, because of an insufficient level of protection or fundamental climatic or geographical factors or fundamental technological problems.” Exception in Article 2.2 “... Such legitimate objectives are, inter alia: national security requirements; the prevention of deceptive practices; protection of human health or safety, animal or plant life or health, or the environment. In assessing such risks, relevant elements of consideration are, inter alia: available scientific and technical information, related processing technology or intended end-uses of products.” Exception in Article 2.4 “... except when such international standards or relevant parts would be an ineffective or inappropriate means for the fulfilment of the legitimate objectives pursued, for instance because of fundamental climatic or geographical factors or fundamental technological problems,” First, the terms “ineffective or inappropriate means” and “legitimate objectives” are
explained in the EC-Sardines case. According to the panel and the Appellate, the term
“ineffective” “refers to something that does not ‘hav[e] the function of accomplishing,’ ‘having a
42
result,’ or ‘brought to bear,’ whereas [the term] ‘inappropriate’ refers to something which is not
‘specially suitable,’ ‘proper,’ or ‘fitting’”51 In addition, the Appellate Body shared the panel’s
view that the terms “ineffective” and “inappropriate” have different meanings, “that it is
conceptually possible that a measure could be effective but inappropriate, or appropriate but
ineffective.”52 On the other hand, the IEC53 defined two types of exceptions; one is “conditions
of a permanent nature, such as mains voltages, mains frequencies or climate,54” and the other is
“differing practices of a less permanent nature.” As a note, the IEC requires THAT “a statement
regarding such a situation shall be included in the body (or forward in the latter case) of the draft
International Standard with reference to the country or group of countries concerned.” In this
view, if the magnitude of the voltage is recognized as of a permanent nature, the entire electric
power network for supplying voltage also seems to have a permanent nature.
51Thus, in the context of Article 2.4, an ineffective means is a means that does not have the function of
accomplishing the legitimate objective pursued, whereas an inappropriate means is a means which is not especially suitable for the fulfilment of the legitimate objective pursued. An inappropriate means will not necessarily be an ineffective means and vice versa. That is, whereas it may not be especially suitable for the fulfilment of the legitimate objective, an inappropriate means may nevertheless be effective in fulfilling that objective, despite its “unsuitability.” Conversely, when a relevant international standard is found to be an effective means, it does not automatically follow that it is also an appropriate means. The question of effectiveness bears upon the results of the means employed, whereas the question of appropriateness relates more to the nature of the means employed. Panel Report on EC-Sardines, para. 7.116 and footnotes 91-92 thereto.
52Panel Report on EC-Sardines, para. 7.116, and Appellate Body Report on EC-Sardines, para. 289.
53The ISO/IEC Directives Supplement – Procedures Specific to the IEC, Second edition 2004: 5. Inclusion of text concerning particular conditions existing in certain countries (exceptions).
54Two cases of particular conditions are distinguished:
a) conditions of a permanent nature, such as mains voltages, mains frequencies or climate: a statement regarding such a situation shall be included in the body of the draft International Standard with reference to the country or group of countries concerned;
b) differing practices of a less permanent nature: a statement regarding such a situation shall be included in the foreword of the draft International Standard with reference to the country or group of countries concerned.
It is the prerogative of a national committee to declare whether a given national situation is case a) or case b).
43
Therefore, deviations from the international standards in the normative elements are
possible insofar as non-harmonized parts are based on the supplied voltages in Japan, or even on
the network facilities as one of the conditions of a permanent nature, i.e., some standards that
relates to the voltage, such as one’s own emission limits, one’s own compatibility levels, etc.,
with technical rationality.
The meaning of “legitimate objectives” is considered as well. First of all, the relation
between Articles 2.4 and 2.2 has to be considered. In the EC – Sardines case, the Appellate
Body concluded that “the ‘legitimate objectives’ referred to in Article 2.4 must be interpreted in
the context of Article 2.2.”55 Therefore, at first glance, the term “fundamental technological
problems,” seems to meet the conditions of the electric power network given it is an
infrastructure. In addition, however, they should also include the nature of those in Article 2.2,
whose scope seems narrower than Article 2.4.
Such exceptions, however, still seem to be applicable to the power quality because the
objectives of setting these standards are to protect the electric environment in the network in
Japan, or even to apply clear rules to protect public safety in the case of harmonics and human
mental health in the case of voltage fluctuations.
Therefore, again, as far as non-harmonized parts limited to the emission limits and
compatibility levels, it would be possible to develop such standards with technical rationality in
terms of “ineffective or inappropriate means” and “legitimate objectives.”
55“Two implications flow from the Panel’s interpretation. First, the term ‘legitimate objectives’ in Article
2.4, as the Panel concluded, must cover the objectives explicitly mentioned in Article 2.2, namely: ‘national security requirements; the prevention of deceptive practices; protection of human health or safety, animal or plant life or health, or the environment.’ Second, given the use of the term ‘inter alia’ in Article 2.2, the objectives covered by the term ‘legitimate objectives’ in Article 2.4 extend beyond the list of the objectives specifically mentioned in Article 2.2. Furthermore, we share the view of the Panel that the second part of Article 2.4 implies that there must be an examination and a determination on the legitimacy of the objectives of the measure.” Appellate Body Report on EC-Sardines, para. 286.
44
On the other hand, it is unclear whether it is possible to apply them to the rules developed
by one’s own historical background, i.e., the use of one’s own indicator for voltage fluctuations,
one’s own measuring instruments for them, conformity assessment methods, etc., even though
not to use them would be a case of “ineffective or inappropriate means” to achieve objectives
under the current conditions. In this view, there is a doubt that the stipulation “some objectives
cannot be achieved with this international standard” cannot be fully explained on the
introduction of Japan’s own standards. This is unlike electric power-network-structure related
problems, such as compatibility level. This rule relates to products’ specifications. Therefore,
having such different kinds of standards, refusing to connect, or imposing higher responsibility
on the equipment are viewed as unnecessary obstacles to trade or trade-restrictive.
In this case, however, a few options can be considered. If it can be ensured that the
results of the Japanese assessment will always be less restrictive than those of international
standards, the assessment might be recognized by other countries. Fortunately or unfortunately,
the research results have shown that conventional Japanese indicators underestimate their output
levels as compared to the IEC flicker, as explained in Chapter 1. If follow-up work in order to
examine past research results in the fields is undertaken, it might secure scientific evidence to
show that this is a non-discriminatory measure. From the same standpoint of securing non-trade-
restrictiveness, another way might be also possible if the informative elements of the standard
show how to deal with the relevant international standard in a non-discriminatory manner.
Based on the assessment of necessity in this section, developing one’s own standards seem to be
possible with some conditions.
Summary
45
In the first half of this chapter, the author assessed the legal risks of two options. One is
that the utilities stay in their current situation and do not develop power quality standards in the
JIS. The other is that they develop power quality standards in the JIS, based on the historically
used non-harmonized rules in Japan, from the viewpoints of the TBT disciplines, i.e.,
nondiscrimination, harmonization, and necessity. The following conclusions were obtained.
Staying in the current situation involves no risk of violation of any WTO agreements. But
this situation seems unfavorable to the utilities in terms of securing transparency,
accountability, and rationality of operating rules in the long-term perspective.
Developing standards including non-harmonized contents would also be possible with one
of following conditions: 1) transforming common parts into normative parts and non-
harmonized parts into informative parts; 2) ensuring non-harmonized rules never
overestimate the emission levels when compared with the IEC standards; or 3) speculating
on how to deal with the international standards in a non-discriminatory manner if imported
products cannot fulfill the JIS requirements.
How Japanese Electric Utilities Should Act
For the electric utilities, the second option seems more favorable than the first because
the Japanese electric utilities can obtain better transparency, accountability, and rationality of
operating standards-conformed rules among related sectors. Moreover, not only would they not
be against the TBT Agreement, but also they are based on historically used rules, so that the
various sectors would not need to bear the switching costs for the introduction of international
standards. Some considerations below, however, imply that certain problems are still unsolved
though this option would be effective for the short or medium term.
46
First, it will not contribute to solving the problem of the rapid increase of new
disturbance sources, such as renewable energies, because traditional indicators of voltage
fluctuations still underestimate their disturbance levels.
Second, while the main rules are still different from the IEC, market and technique
relating to power quality would be still somewhat economically and technically isolated from the
world. Theoretically, if the market is fragmented, each player gets less benefit than if it is
unified. Using a practical case as an example, it can be said that fragmentation of the market in
this area limits the adequate distribution of measuring instruments, monitoring systems, some
special equipment for power quality improvement, etc. inside the country, which would result in
keeping their prices high and the market less sustainable. Furthermore, since power quality
relates to electric facility planning, design, and operation, that the chances of an overseas
business in this area or the chances of Japanese utilities getting involved in research for future
networks in the world, will also be unstable.
Finally, a new kind of problem is likely to emerge, i.e., the complexity of dealing with
double-criteria power quality standards. For the long-term perspective, continuation of such a
situation would result in a more high-cost structure or unsustainable circumstance in this market.
Therefore, the final objective for utilities would be the international harmonization of
domestic rules to the full extent. The author discusses how the utilities should act in the
domestic market as the third option. This is a discussion of how to introduce international
standards directly into the JIS while mitigating the switching costs among interests with a
combination of a committee-oriented and a market-oriented approach in order to form a
consensus. The author deals with voltage fluctuations whose issues are in Chapter 1, which
47
would be an applicable example to others. Then, the author also proposes how the utilities
should act internationally.
The Third Option: Background
There are five standards that are the objectives of the discussion: IEC 61000-2-2 and IEC
61000-2-12 (environment – compatibility levels in low- and medium-voltage networks); IEC
61000-3-3 (emission limits for appliances); IEC/TR 61000-3-7 (emission limits for corporate
customers); and IEC 61000-4-15 (function and design specifications of the flickermeter). Before
going into the discussion, some points need to be clarified.
First, the introductions of IEC 61000-2-2 and IEC 61000-2-12 should be bundled with
other standards because the compatibility levels are stipulated by the IEC indicator. They also
refer to IEC 61000-3-3 and IEC 61000-4-15, respectively, in normative (??). Though there was
a controversy as to whether the same compatibility levels can be used in Japan, recent research
results have shown that Japanese networks were likely to satisfy these levels.56
Second, the introduction of IEC 61000-3-3 seems to be opposed by appliance
manufacturers. The direct application of the IEC standards to appliances is believed likely to
result in failures of compliance with the emission limits by most appliances. The reason for this
is probably that, thanks to Ohm’s law, given the same rated power of an appliance, it requires
more current in the Japanese 100V system than in the European 230V system, which results in
larger voltage fluctuations.
Third, the introduction of IEC/TR 61000-3-7 seems to be opposed by customers or
industries whose demand for electricity is large and often changes in an abnormal or a non-linear
56ETRA Report, “Power Quality in Japanese Distribution Networks.” Vol. 60, No. 2 (2005).
48
manner. When lower emission limits are allocated due to new methods, or when emissions are
underestimated by the conventional flickermeter, they have to invest in new emission-reducing
equipment in their facilities, which costs a huge amount of money.
Fourth, it is believed that IEC 61000-4-15 should not be forced into development without
a consensus on introducing IEC 61000-3-3 or IEC/TR 61000-3-7. This is because it seems to
make the situation worse and make it difficult to persuade opposing parties.
The Third Option: How to Act
At least, it seems that there are two things that the electric utilities can do first. One is to
seek development of the standard explained as the second option, which is moderately
harmonized with the Japanese standard while stipulated both the Japanese and the IEC
flickermeter. The other is to fully commit to this standard in the procurement of equipment and
facilities. Beginning with the latter option, the utilities should use their purchasing strength with
their suppliers.
As explained in Chapter 1, because of the necessity of clarifying power quality levels in
the networks, some utilities are investing in installing power quality monitoring equipment in
their networks. In addition, the necessity of possessing portable measuring equipment is also
increasing for the same reason. From this standpoint, if the utilities’ allies create common
specifications for using measuring tools as well as the form of output data to maintain
interoperability among different manufacturer’s products, the measuring instrument or other
related industries are supposed to follow this lead for their products given that the market is
expected to be larger than before. If the use of such equipment by the utilities increases,
hopefully this would result in its prevalence among other customers and interested industries.
49
When this effect spreads widely enough to get a major share of measuring instruments in the
market, there would be no reason to refuse to introduce IEC 61000-4-15.
At the same time, the problems for appliances manufacturers have to be solved. This still
needs to be managed by a committee-oriented approach, but a solution seems possible not by
adopting the IEC emission limits directly, but by adopting a deviation from the IEC, namely,
Japan’s own emission limits as obtained results from the legal analysis. Though there are still no
advantages for them to do so, most manufacturers have sufficient technology to satisfy the IEC
standard and export their products into the European market, where conformity to EN 61000-3-3
or EN 61000-3-11 is compulsory under the EC directives. In this view, if achievable limits for
appliances manufacturers are set, it seems that there would be no reason to disagree with the
introduction of IEC 61000-3-3.
Finally, as for the introduction of IEC/TR 61000-3-7, this would involve negotiations
between the utilities and the industries or the customers, with consideration of any possible
measures to mitigate the switching costs for the customers. One solution is a guarantee by the
utilities not to impose the new limits on existing customers for a certain and prolonged period.
Although this might occasionally be problematic if a new customer needs to connect to the same
network, it is still better than nothing. Alternatives could also be offered by agreeing in advance
to a contract between an electric utility and an existing customer as to how to share the burden in
such a special case. Another solution is to clarify the transition period from the Japanese
conventional rule to the IEC rule so as not to impose a sudden change of assessment methods.
For example, the IEC voltage standard IEC 60038 has allowed 20 years of transition from
220/380V or 240/415V to the integrated standard voltage, 230/400V. Therefore, such flexibility
50
in the standards should be acceptable. Consequently, IEC/TR 61000-3-7, IEC 61000-2-2, and
61000-2-12 could be introduced.
Thus, the introduction of a set of international standards directly into the JIS still seems to
be possible even though this stands on many optimistic assumptions. In any case, while
recognizing one’s own strengths and utilizing them to get complementors to cooperate with them,
it would be advisable to use a combination of a committee-oriented and market-oriented
approaches in order to form the final consensus.
More Commitment to International Standardization
Japanese electric utilities have committed to international work in WGs in IEC/SC77A as
well as domestic work in its National Committee. Because of the uniqueness of technical
fundamentals, such as the supplied voltage and grounding system, and having their own power
quality standards, the author believes that they have had some difficulties to deal with. From
now on, however, Japanese utilities should switch their stance to harmonize their standards with
the international standards, and should seek harmonized standards among themselves.
First, the IEC standards have already been developed as a comprehensive system.
Moreover, they will not be easily changed because of the stability of the unified European
countries. In addition, given the legal force of the international standards, it is obvious that
countries that have not adopted these standards will adopt them sooner or later. In this sense, it
can be said that the market has already tipped off toward these standards. As noted at the
beginning of this section, theoretically this leads to a situation in which the longer Japanese
utilities stick to the traditional standards, the more isolation they will experience, resulting in
fewer business opportunities and higher switching costs.
51
Second, there is some ambiguity about the market growth of this industry, given the
recent decrease of the birth rate and the low growth of demand for electricity in Japan. In order
to secure sustainable business circumstances as well as to reduce the cost of products,
harmonization of technical rules and specifications should be facilitated in terms of increasing
commonalities with other countries.
From these standpoints, not only should the Japanese utilities ally with each other to seek
harmonization of their rules and specifications inside the country to avoid fragmentation, but
they should also commit to the IEC work, both in setting international standards and
harmonizing domestic rules as much as possible. This harmonization work is particularly
important in terms of securing common fundamentals between foreign countries and Japan to
commit to international work, expanding the national market and avoiding technical isolation
from other IEC-compliant countries.
52
CONCLUSION
In this paper, the author began by raising the question of how Japanese electric utilities
should deal with issues of non-harmonization with the international standards when such rules
have been long adopted in creating domestic infrastructure. In order to discuss this question in a
more concrete way, the author dealt with one of the controversies in this area, i.e., the non-
harmonization problems related to power quality standards, and analyzed: 1) to what extent
electric utilities should harmonize with international standards, and 2) how the second movers of
international standardization should deal with these issues.
In Chapter 1, the author clarified the meaning of standards, the legal implication of the
TBT Agreement, and the differing circumstances in the EU, the United States, and Japan. This
section concluded that Japanese electric utilities should develop comprehensive power quality
standards in JIS as de jure standards, then transform them into corporate requirements in order to
secure transparency, accountability, and technical and economical rationality in operating their
rules. At the same time, it was also clarified that Japanese conventional de facto rules, with
which the electric utilities and their customers have complied, cannot be simply applied to the
national standards, JIS, because of the existence of the TBT Agreement.
In Chapter 2, the author assessed the legal risks of two options: 1) that the utilities stay in
their current situation and do not develop power quality standards in the JIS, and 2) that they
develop power quality standards in the JIS based on the historically used non-harmonized rules
in Japan. This analysis was conducted from the viewpoints of the following principles of the
TBT Agreement: nondiscrimination; harmonization; and necessity. As a conclusion, the two
options were evaluated as follows.
The first option involves no risk of violation of any WTO agreements.
53
The second option would be possible by ensuring the nondiscrimination principle of the
WTO and related to exceptional clauses, which are: 1) transforming common parts into
normative parts and non-harmonized parts into informative parts; 2) ensuring non-
harmonized rules never overestimate the emission levels when compared with the IEC
standards; and 3) speculating how to deal with the international standards in a non-
discriminatory manner when imported products cannot fulfill the requirement in JIS.
In addition, a third option, to seek harmonization to the full extent, was proposed, briefly
examining the real situation to reach consensus by applying a mixture of committee and market-
oriented approaches. This seems the best way to achieve sustainable development, even though
switching costs will have to be borne
It was also clarified that there is a huge structural difference between the EU and Japan in
developing standards. Thanks to their well-organized system, European countries will continue
to play a central role on the international standard-setting scene. Japan can stay domestic so far
as the nation can secure sustainable development, but the infrastructure industry should consider
things from a very long-term perspective, given the various ambiguous circumstances mentioned
in the last part of Chapter 2.
Consequently, it is still necessary for Japan to commit to the IEC work with view to
creating standards with as much global relevance as possible so as to benefit every sector. Then,
an effort to harmonize its own technical bases to international standards should be made while
seeking to integrate accumulated know-how into them to create new values. But the first priority
for Japanese utilities would be to seek domestic harmonization of various kinds of standards and
specifications among themselves.
54
HV = High voltage (equal or more than 35,000V) MV = Medium voltage (equal or more than 1,000V, less than 35,000V) LV = Low voltage (less than 1,000V) DG = Distributed generator
Figure 1
The Concept of Disturbance and Affected Voltage Shape in AC Electric Power Systems
Transformer
LV
Deteriorated shape of the AC voltage
MV
DG
Load B
Generator A
Generator B
Ideal shape of the AC voltage
Load A
Load C Current flow
Current flow
+
linear non-linear
Current flow
+linear non-linear
MV HV
Transmission line
Distribution line
55
Par
amet
er
Fea
ture
D
efin
itio
n C
ause
C
onse
quen
ce
Sup
ply
Vol
tage
(V
olta
ge
mag
nitu
de
vari
atio
n)
In
crea
se
and
decr
ease
of
th
e vo
ltage
mag
nitu
de
Var
iatio
n of
the
tot
al l
oad
of a
dis
trib
utio
n sy
stem
or
part
of
it
A
ctio
ns o
f tr
ansf
orm
er t
ap-
chan
gers
S
witc
hing
of
ca
paci
tor
bank
s or
rea
ctor
s
Mis
oper
atio
n, s
top,
m
alfu
nctio
n
D
ecre
ase
of i
llum
inan
ce
of li
ghtin
g
D
ecre
ase
of li
feti
me
Har
mon
ic
Vol
tage
D
isto
rtio
n
A
typ
e of
non
-lin
eari
ty v
olta
ge
dist
orti
on
char
acte
rize
d by
th
e pr
oduc
tion
of o
utpu
t com
pone
nts
wit
h fr
eque
ncie
s th
at a
re i
nteg
ral
mul
tipl
es o
f th
e fr
eque
ncy
of t
he
sinu
soid
al in
put s
igna
l
TV
rec
eive
rs
Aud
io a
mpl
ifie
rs
Was
hing
mac
hine
P
erso
nal c
ompu
ters
C
onve
rter
s
A
rc f
urna
ces
Inve
rter
s fo
r di
sper
sed
gene
ratio
n
Incr
ease
d he
at o
f ro
tati
ng
mac
hine
ry
(mot
or
and
gene
ratio
n)
Hea
ting
of
equi
pmen
t (t
rans
form
ers
and
cabl
es)
Fau
lty o
pera
tion
of
ele
ctro
nic
equi
pmen
t
Vol
tage
F
luct
uati
ons
Im
pres
sion
of
un
stea
dine
ss
of
visu
al
sens
atio
n in
duce
d by
a
light
stim
ulus
who
se l
umin
ance
or
spe
ctra
l di
stri
butio
n fl
uctu
ates
w
ith ti
me
Wel
ding
mac
hine
s
M
otor
s
A
rc f
urna
ces
Ele
ctri
c fu
rnac
es
X-r
ay m
achi
nes
Rol
ling
mill
s
E
leva
tors
Illu
min
atio
n of
a
lam
p va
ries
(e
yes
are
very
se
nsiti
ve t
o it
and
abov
e a
cert
ain
mag
nitu
de
the
reso
lutio
n go
lig
ht f
licke
r an
d be
com
es
rath
er
dist
urbi
ng)
Vol
tage
U
nbal
ance
A c
ondi
tion
in
whi
ch t
he r
.m.s
. (r
oot-
mea
n-sq
uare
) va
lues
of
the
phas
e vo
ltage
s or
th
e ph
ase
angl
es
betw
een
cons
ecut
ive
phas
es
are
not
all
equa
l in
a
thre
e-ph
ase
syst
em o
f A
C p
ower
sy
stem
s
Unb
alan
ced
load
s
R
ailw
ay tr
actio
n su
pply
A
rc f
urna
ces
Cap
acito
r-ba
nk a
nom
alie
s
Add
ition
al h
eat
prod
uctio
n in
the
w
indi
ng o
f in
duct
ion
and
sync
hron
ous
mac
hine
s
Sou
rce:
Bol
len,
200
0, I
EC
600
50-1
61 (
mod
ifie
d)
Fig
ure
2
Th
e F
eatu
res,
Def
init
ion
s, C
ause
s, a
nd
Con
seq
uen
ces
of P
ower
Qu
alit
y P
aram
eter
s
Pro
babi
lity
dis
trib
utio
n of
vo
ltag
e m
agni
tude
110V
12
0V
130
V
Probability distribution
Bal
ance
d 3-
phas
e vo
ltag
e U
nbal
ance
d 3-
phas
e vo
ltag
e
tim
e
Voltage Voltage
tim
e
56
AGREEMENT ESTABLISHING THE WORLD TRADE ORGANIZATION
ANNEX 1
ANNEX 1A: MULTILATERAL AGREEMENTS ON TRADE IN GOODS
General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994
General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1947
Agreement on Agriculture
Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures
Agreement on Textiles and Clothing
Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade
Agreement on Trade-Related Investment Measures
Agreement on Preshipment Inspection
Agreement on Rules of Origin
Agreement on Import Licensing Procedures
Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures
Agreement on Safeguards
ANNEX 1B: GENERAL AGREEMENT ON TRADE IN SERVICES
ANNEX 1C: AGREEMENT ON TRADE-RELATED ASPECTS
OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS
ANNEX 2: UNDERSTANDING ON RULES AND PROCEDURES
GOVERNING THE SETTLEMENT OF DISPUTES
ANNEX 3: TRADE POLICY REVIEW MECHANISM
ANNEX 4: PLURILATERAL TRADE AGREEMENTS
Figure 3
The Structure of WTO Agreements
57
AGREEMENT ON TECHNICAL BARRIERS TO TRADE
Preamble GENERAL
Article 1 General Provisions TECHNICAL REGULATIONS AND STANDARDS
Article 2 Preparation, Adoption and Application of Technical Regulations by Central Government Bodies Article 3 Preparation, Adoption and Application of Technical Regulations by Local Government Bodies
and Nongovernmental Bodies Article 4 Preparation, Adoption and Application of Standards
CONFORMITY WITH TECHNICAL REGULATIONS AND STANDARDS Article 5 Procedures for Assessment of Conformity by Central Government Bodies Article 6 Recognition of Conformity Assessment by Central Government Bodies Article 7 Procedures for Assessment of Conformity by Local Government Bodies Article 8 Procedures for Assessment of Conformity by Nongovernmental Bodies Article 9 International and Regional Systems
INFORMATION AND ASSISTANCE Article 10 Information About Technical Regulations, Standards and Conformity Assessment Procedures Article 11 Technical Assistance to Other Members Article 12 Special and Differential Treatment of Developing Country Members Article 13 The Committee on Technical Barriers to Trade Article 14 Consultation and Dispute Settlement
FINAL PROVISIONS Article 15 Final Provisions
ANNEX 1 TERMS AND THEIR DEFINITIONS FOR THE PURPOSE OF THIS AGREEMENT ANNEX 2 TECHNICAL EXPERT GROUPS ANNEX 3 CODE OF GOOD PRACTICE FOR THE PREPARATION, ADOPTION AND APPLICATION OF
STANDARDS
Figure 4
The Structure and Concept of the Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade
Country A Country B
Standards Technical
Regulation
Conformity assessment procedures
Technical Regulation
Standards
Conformity assessment procedures
Guides and recommendations for conformity assessment procedures
Harmonization:
International Standards
“Members” or “the standardizing body” “shall use them, or the relevant parts of them, as a basis for their technical regulations,” “the standards,“ or ”their conformity assessment procedures.”
Acceptance
Acceptance
Source: JISC web site (modified) <http://www.jisc.go.jp/cooperation/wto-tbt-guide.html>
57
International Standards-developing Body
58
Sources: IEC Web site <http://www.iec.ch/about/struct-e.htm>, <http://www.iec.ch/news_centre/an_report/p2006/ p2006_p12.htm>
Figure 5
The Structure of the IEC
Technical Advisory Committees
Sector Boards
Conformity Assessment System
Working Groups (449) Project Teams (240) Maintenance Teams (441)
Technical Committees
Sub Committees
Standardization Management Board [Management of international consensus Standards Work]
Conformity Assessment Board [Management of Certification]
Central Office
Management Advisory Committee
IEC Council
Executive Committee
Council Board
178
59
Part Parameter Publication Number Voltage class
Part 2 Environment
all IEC 61000-2-2 Low
IEC 61000-2-12 Medium or Higher
Part 3 Limits
Harmonics
IEC 61000-3-2 (<= 16A/phase)* IEC 61000-3-12 (<=75A/phase)*
Low
IEC/TR 61000-3-6 Medium or Higher
Voltage fluctuations
IEC 61000-3-3 (<= 16A/phase)* IEC 61000-3-11 (<= 75A/phase)*
Low
IEC/TR 61000-3-7 Medium or Higher
Voltage unbalance
- Low
IEC/TR 61000-3-13 (under development)
Medium or Higher
Part 4 Testing and
measurement techniques
Harmonics IEC 61000-4-7 all
Voltage fluctuations IEC 61000-4-15 all
Power Quality IEC 61000-4-30 (including IEC 61000-4-7, 61000-4-30)
all
*: input current (ampere per phase) Source: IEC web site (modified)
Figure 6
Sou
rces
: IE
C w
eb s
ite,
JIS
C w
eb s
ite,
JE
C w
eb s
ite,
CE
NE
LE
C w
eb s
ite,
AN
SI w
eb s
ite,
IE
EE
web
site
Th
e P
ub
lica
tion
N
um
ber
s of
th
e IE
C
Sta
nd
ard
s D
iscu
ssed
in
Th
is
Pap
erIn
tern
atio
nal
SD
O
Reg
iona
l or
Nat
iona
l SD
O
CG
P-a
ccep
ted
CG
P-n
on-a
ccep
ted
IEE
E/
IEE
E s
tand
ard
asso
ciat
ion
Sta
ndar
d C
oord
inat
ion
Com
mitt
ee
22
AN
SI
pr
ivat
e, n
ot-f
or-
pro
fit o
rgan
izat
ion
mem
bers
hip
A
ccre
dita
tion
of th
e st
anda
rds
deve
lopm
ent
CE
NE
LEC
[EN
- X
X]
Non
gove
rnm
ent
al,
non-
prof
it te
chni
cal
orga
niza
tion
set u
p un
der
Be
rgia
n L
aw
…
UK
: BS
I [B
S-E
N-X
X]
Fra
nce:
UT
E [C
EI-
XX
]
Ger
man
y: D
IN [D
IN-E
N-X
X]
(CE
NE
LEC
has
30
mem
ber
coun
trie
s)
23 m
embe
rs fr
om
the
EU
CE
N/C
EN
ELE
C I
nter
nal
Reg
ulat
ions
[Man
dato
ry
adop
tion
of E
N s
tand
ards
w
ithou
t m
odifi
catio
ns]
Dre
sden
Agr
eem
ent
[com
mon
pla
nnin
g of
ne
w w
ork
and
para
llel
IEC
/CE
NE
LEC
vot
ing]
IEE
J/JE
C
S
tand
ardi
zatio
n C
omm
ittee
on
EM
C
IEC
/SC
77A
NC
Spe
cial
Com
mitt
ee o
n JI
S
JIS
C [J
IS -
XX
]
Cen
tral
-gov
ernm
enta
l bod
y es
tabl
ishe
d un
der
the
ME
TI,
base
d on
In
dust
rial S
tand
ard
izat
ion
Act
.
com
mis
sio
n
Japa
n
SC
77A
[3
6 m
em-
bers
The
Co
-ope
ratio
n an
d Li
cens
e A
gree
men
t [D
evel
opm
ent
of IE
C-I
EE
E D
ual L
ogo
Inte
rnat
iona
l Sta
ndar
ds]
60
Eur
ope
The
U.S
.
Figure 7 The Structural Relationships among International, Regional, and National Standards-developing Bodies
Dev
elop
men
t of
JIS
dra
ft
mem
bers
hip
IEC
CE
NE
LEC
UT
E (
Fra
nce)
Par
amet
er
Pub
licat
ion
Num
ber
P
ublic
atio
n N
umbe
r
Pub
licat
ion
Num
ber
Env
ironm
ent
IEC
610
00-2
-2
E
N 6
1000
-2-2
CE
I 610
00-2
-2
IEC
610
00-2
-12
E
N 6
1000
-2-1
2
CE
I 610
00-2
-12
-
EN
501
60
N
FE
N 5
0160
Har
mon
ics
IEC
610
00-3
-2
E
N 6
1000
-3-2
CE
I 610
00-3
-2
IEC
610
00-3
-12
E
N 6
1000
-3-1
2
CE
I 610
00-3
-12
IEC
/TR
610
00-3
-6
-
C
EI 6
1000
-3-6
(T
R)
fluct
uatio
ns
IEC
610
00-3
-3
E
N 6
1000
-3-3
CE
I 610
00-3
-3
IEC
610
00-3
-11
E
N 6
1000
-3-1
1
CE
I 610
00-3
-11
IEC
/TR
610
00-3
-7
-
C
EI 6
1000
-3-7
(T
R)
Unb
alan
ce
IEC
610
00-3
-13
-
-
Mea
surin
g In
stru
men
t
IEC
610
00-4
-7
E
N 6
1000
-4-7
CE
I 610
00-4
-7
IEC
610
00-4
-15
E
N 6
1000
-4-1
5
CE
I 610
00-4
-15
IEC
610
00-4
-30
E
N 6
1000
-4-3
0
CE
I 610
00-4
-30
B
SI (
UK
)
BS
-EN
610
00-2
-2
BS
-EN
610
00-2
-12
BS
-EN
501
60
BS
-EN
610
00-3
-2
BS
-EN
610
00-3
-12
BS
-IE
C/T
R
610
00-3
-6
BS
-EN
610
00-3
-3
BS
-EN
610
00-3
-11
BS
-IE
C/T
R00
0-3-
7 D
C-6
1000
-3-1
3 B
S-E
N 6
1000
-4-7
B
S-E
N 6
1000
-4-1
5 B
S-E
N 6
1000
-4-3
0
EN
501
60
CE
I 610
00-3
-6
CE
I 610
00-3
-7
A D
NO
in F
ranc
e
Cor
pora
te
cust
omer
s in
Fra
nce
EN
610
00-3
-2
EN
610
00-3
-12
EN
6100
0-3
-3
EN
610
00-3
-11
Req
uire
men
ts f
or
man
ufac
ture
rs
EC
“E
MC
” D
IRE
CT
IVE
S f
or
(D
irec
tive
89/3
36/E
EC
& 2
004/
108/
EC
)
D-C
ode
EN
A G
5/4
(har
mon
ics)
EN
A
EN
A P
28
(vol
tage
fluc
tuat
ions
)
EN
A P
29
(vol
tage
unb
alan
ce)
Cor
pora
te
cust
omer
s in
the
U.K
.
EN
501
60
EP
D-2
90
A D
NO
in U
.K.
CP
-290
D-c
ode
Req
uire
men
ts
and
asse
ssm
ent
Req
uire
men
ts
and
asse
ssm
ent
Not
es:
W
hile
the
Fre
nch
and
Bri
tish
stan
dard
s ar
e sh
own
here
, bot
h na
tiona
l sta
ndar
ds a
re h
arm
oniz
ed w
ith
rele
vant
inte
rnat
iona
l sta
ndar
ds.
E
mis
sion
lim
its
of
elec
tric
eq
uipm
ent
are
man
dato
ry a
s re
gula
ted
by th
e E
C D
irec
tive
s.
E
N 5
0160
is
a st
anda
rd t
hat
spec
ulat
es n
etw
ork
leve
ls o
f ev
ery
pow
er q
ualit
y pa
ram
eter
, de
rive
d fr
om E
N61
000-
2-2
or E
N61
000-
2-12
.
Sou
rces
: all
IEC
sta
ndar
ds
Cen
elec
<
http
://w
ww
.cen
elec
.eu/
Cen
elec
/Web
site
.ht
m>
U
TE
<ht
tp://
ww
w.u
te-f
r.co
m/F
R/>
B
SI<
http
://w
ww
.bsi
grou
p.co
m/>
D
code
<ht
tp://
ww
w.d
code
.org
.uk/
>
Figure 8 The Adoption of Standards among International, Regional, and Domestic Standards Developing Bodies and Electric Companies in Europe
61
Sou
rces
: All
IE
C s
tand
ards
, IE
EE
519
, IE
EE
145
3, N
ST
AR
web
sit
e <
http
://w
ww
.nst
aron
line.
com
/doc
s3/m
isc/
elec
requ
ire.
pdf?
uniq
ue=
2008
0228
0734
15>
IEC
IEE
E
Par
amet
er
Pub
licat
ion
Num
ber
P
ublic
atio
n N
umbe
r
Env
ironm
ent
IEC
610
00-2
-2
IEC
610
00-2
-12
-
Har
mon
ics
IEC
610
00-3
-2
-
IEC
610
00-3
-12
IE
EE
519
IE
C/T
R 6
1000
-3-6
IEE
E 5
19
fluct
uatio
ns
IEC
610
00-3
-3
-
IEC
610
00-3
-11
IE
EE
145
3
IEC
/TR
610
00-3
-7
IE
EE
145
3 (5
19*)
Unb
alan
ce
IEC
610
00-3
-13
A
NS
I C84
.1
Mea
surin
g In
stru
men
t
IEC
610
00-4
-7
IE
EE
519
IE
C 6
1000
-4-1
5
IEE
E 1
453
IEC
610
00-4
-30
IE
EE
115
9 *
Bec
ause
IEE
E 5
19 w
as u
sed
to li
mits
for
fluct
uatin
g lo
ads,
th
e re
leva
nt p
art c
an b
e st
ill u
sed.
IEE
E 5
19
IEE
E 1
453
DN
O
Req
uire
men
ts
Cor
pora
te c
usto
mer
s in
the
med
ium
or
high
vo
ltage
net
wor
k
Sm
all c
orpo
rate
cu
stom
ers
in th
e lo
w
volta
ge n
etw
ork
IEE
E 1
159
Not
es:
U
nlik
e th
e IE
C s
tand
ards
, th
ere
is n
o st
anda
rd t
hat
spec
ifie
s li
mit
s of
cur
rent
em
issi
ons
from
app
lianc
es.
IE
EE
51
9 ha
s th
e sa
me
obje
ctiv
e,
but
a di
ffer
ent
stru
ctur
e fr
om I
EC
/TR
6100
0-3-
6.
It s
eem
s no
t to
be
nece
ssar
ily h
arm
oniz
ed.
IE
EE
145
3 fu
lly
impo
rts
from
IE
C 6
1000
-4-1
5 an
d ad
opts
em
issi
on l
imits
fro
m I
EC
610
00-3
-3 f
or l
ow-
volta
ge, m
ediu
m-v
olta
ge, a
nd h
igh-
volta
ge li
nes.
62
Figure 9
The Adoptions of Standards among International and Domestic Standards Developing Bodies and Electric Companies in the United States
IEC
JIS
Par
amet
er
Pub
licat
ion
Num
ber
P
ublic
atio
n N
umbe
r
Env
ironm
ent
IEC
610
00-2
-2
-
IEC
610
00-2
-12
-
Har
mon
ics
IEC
610
00-3
-2
JI
S C
610
00-3
-2
IEC
610
00-3
-12
-
IEC
/TR
610
00-3
-6
-
fluct
uatio
ns
IEC
610
00-3
-3
-
IEC
610
00-3
-11
-
IEC
/TR
610
00-3
-7
-
Unb
alan
ce
IEC
610
00-3
-13
-
Mea
surin
g In
stru
men
t
IEC
610
00-4
-7
JI
S C
610
00-4
-7
IEC
610
00-4
-15
-
IEC
610
00-4
-30
-
Ter
ms
and
Con
ditio
ns
DN
O
Cor
pora
te
cust
om
ers
EN
610
00-3
-2
Req
uire
men
ts fo
r m
anuf
actu
rers
Not
ifica
tion
(non
-ma
ndat
ory
r
ule)
ME
TI
Gui
delin
e:
Lim
its fo
r ha
rmon
ic c
urre
nt e
mis
sion
s fr
om c
usto
mer
s co
nnec
ted
to m
iddl
e-vo
ltage
or
high
-vol
tage
net
wor
ks
Req
uire
men
ts
ET
RA
Res
earc
h R
epo
rt:
Em
issi
on li
mits
of v
olta
ge
fluct
uatio
ns, f
or a
rc fu
rnac
es
conn
ecte
d to
MV
and
HV
po
wer
sy
ste
ms
Pub
lic-s
ervi
ce c
orpo
ratio
n
Ass
essm
ent
Ele
ctric
Util
ity L
aw:
Pro
visi
ons
for
supp
ly v
olta
ge
Tec
hnic
al s
tand
ards
for
elec
tric
faci
litie
s:
Pro
visi
ons
for
volta
ge u
nbal
ance
Reg
ulat
ion
(onl
y ap
plic
able
to
load
s of
“ra
ilwa
y”)
Reg
ulat
ion
Com
pany
sta
ndar
ds
for
netw
ork
plan
ning
Indi
rect
ap
plic
atio
n
Sou
rce:
JIS
C w
eb s
ite,
ET
RA
rep
ort V
ol. 6
0 N
o.2,
ME
TI
web
sit
e <
http
://w
ww
.met
i.go.
jp/in
tro/
koue
ki_h
oujin
/hoa
n-1.
htm
>, T
EP
CO
web
si
te <
http
://w
ww
.tepc
o.co
.jp/p
rovi
de/e
ngin
eeri
ng/w
sc/r
ule-
j.htm
l>
Not
es:
JI
SC
6100
0-3-
2 an
d JI
SC61
000-
4-7
are
harm
oniz
ed
with
in
tern
atio
nal s
tand
ards
with
mod
ific
atio
ns.
A
s fo
r ru
les
by M
ET
I, w
hile
an
elec
tric
uti
lity
law
and
tech
nica
l st
anda
rds
for
elec
tric
fac
ilit
ies
are
man
dato
ry r
egul
atio
ns,
a gu
idel
ine
does
not
hav
e le
gal p
ower
vis
-à-v
is a
vio
lato
r.
W
hile
the
DN
O h
as u
sed
thei
r ru
les
and
clar
ifie
d ta
rget
ed le
vels
, th
e re
fere
nced
doc
umen
ts a
re n
ot c
ompr
ehen
sive
ly o
rgan
ized
, an
d ha
ve s
ome
prob
lem
s as
sho
wn
at th
e en
d of
Cha
pter
1.
Figure 10 The Adoptions of Standards among International and Domestic Standards Developing Bodies and Electric Companies in Japan
63
64
BIBLIOGRAPHY
ANSI. “About ANSI” 19 February 2008.
<http://www.ansi.org/about_ansi/overview/overview.aspx?menuid=1>. ---. “National Standards Strategy for the United States, 2000.”
<http://publicaa.ansi.org/sites/apdl/Documents/News%20and%20Publications/Brochures/national_strategy.pdf> .
---. “United States Standards Strategy, 2005.”
<http://publicaa.ansi.org/sites/apdl/Documents/Standards%20Activities/NSSC/USSS-2005%20-%20FINAL.pdf>.
Blind, Kurt. The Economics of Standards. Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar Publishing Limited,
2004. Boli J. Constructing World Culture – International Nongovernmental Organizations since 1875.
Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1999. Bollen, Math H.J. Understanding Power Quality Problems: Voltage Sags and Interruptions.
Hoboken, NJ: Wiley & Sons Inc., 2000. BSI. “Standards & Publications,” 20 February 2008. <http://www.bsigroup.com/>. BusinessWeek. Various issues. CENELEC. “About CENELEC.” 18 February 2008
<http://www.cenelec.eu/Cenelec/About+CENELEC/default.htm>. ---. “ CENELEC Masterplan 2006-2010.” 2006,
<http://www.cenelec.org/NR/rdonlyres/98740E90-7956-45CD-96B6-6655E2060902/1788/cenelec_master_200610.pdf>.
---. “CENELEC’S Visions Until 2010.” 1996,
<http://www.cenelec.org/Cenelec/Code/Frameset.aspx>. ---. “ EN – The European Standard,” 19 February 2007,
<http://www.cenelec.eu/Cenelec/About+CENELEC/Our+work/What+is+a+standard/EN+-+The+European+Standard.htm>.
---. “Our Members.” 18 February 2008
<http://www.cenelec.eu/Cenelec/About+CENELEC/Our+organization/CENELEC+Members/Default.htm>.
65
CIGRE. The CIGRE Technical Brochure No. 311, Operating Dispersed Generation with ICT (Information & Communication Technology). CIGRE 2005.
DCode. The Distribution Code and the Guide to the Distribution Code of Licensed Distribution
Network Operators of Great Britain/ Issue 8, November 2006. <http://www.energynetworks.org/dcode/pdfs/D%20Code%20Issue%208%20hl.pdf>.
Denki Hyoron [Electricity Review]. “Haiden Gijutsu no Saishin Doko [Recent Trends in R&D
on the Distribution Automation System].” Vol. 502, Oct. 2006.
European Commission, Council Resolution 1985 (85/C 136/01).
---. Web site <http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:C:2007:225:0001:0019:EN:PDF>.
European Union. “Council Directive 89/336/EEC on Electromagnetic Compatibility,” 16
February 2008. <http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/newapproach/standardization/harmstds/reflist/emc.html>.
---. “Council Resolution of 7 May 1985 on a New Approach to Technical Harmonization and
Standards (85/C 136/01),” 16 February 2008. http://eur-<lex.europa.eu/Notice.do?val=117475:cs&lang=en&list=117475:cs,&pos=1&page=1&nbl=1&pgs=10&hwords=&checktexte=checkbox&visu=#texte>.
ENA. “About ENA.” 15 February 2008. <http://2008.energynetworks.org/about-ena/>. EPRI. “Intelligrid: A Smart Network of Power.” EPRI Journal Fall 2005. ---. “ETRA Report Vol. 20, No. 8. Aruku ro ni yoru Furika no Kyoyochi [Emission Limits for
Flicker Caused by Ark Furnaces].” Tokyo: Electric Technologies Research Association, 1964.
---. “ETRA Report Vol. 46, No. 2. Denryoku Keito ni Okeru Kochoha to Sono Taisaku
[Harmonic Distortions in Electric Power Systems and Measures for them].” Tokyo: Electric Technologies Research Association, 1990.
---. “ETRA Report Vol. 60, No. 2. Haiden Keito ni Okeru Denryoku Hinshitsu no Genjo to
Taio Gijutsu [Power Quality in Japanese Distribution Networks].” Tokyo: Electric Technologies Research Association, 2005.
Grindley, Peter. Standards, Strategy, and Policy. New York: Oxford University Press Inc.,
1995. Hallstrom, Kristina T. Organizing International Standardization. Northampton, MA: Edward
Elgar Publishing Limited, 2004.
66
IEC. Administrative Circular 138/AC: Co-operation and License Agreement Between IEC and IEEE.
---. “Basic EMC Publications.” 27 November 2007, <http://www.iec.ch/zone/emc/baspubs.htm>. ---. “EMC Zone.” 15 January 2008 < http://www.iec.ch/zone/emc/>. ---. “IEC – CENELEC Agreement.” <http://www.iec.ch/about/partners/agreements/cenelec-
e.htm>. ---. International Standard 61000-4-30 First ed., Geneva: IEC, 2003. ---. ISO/IEC Directives, Part 2: Rules for the Structure and Drafting of International Standards,
Fifth ed., Geneva: International Organization for Standardization, International Electrotechnical Commission, 2004.
---. ISO/IEC Directives: Supplement — Procedures Specific to IEC Second ed., 2004, Geneva:
International Electrotechnical Commission, 2005. ---. IEC Master Plan 2006, 2006,
<http://www.iec.ch/news_centre/onlinepubs/pdf/masterplan.pdf>. ---. “Mission and Objectives.” 27 November 2007. <http://www.iec.ch/about/mission-e.htm>. ---. “Structure and Management.” 27 November 2007. <http://www.iec.ch/about/struct-e.htm>. ---. “TC8: Systems Aspects for Electrical Energy Supply.” 16 January 2008.
<http://www.iec.ch/cgi-bin/procgi.pl/www/iecwww.p?wwwlang=e&wwwprog=dirdet.p&progdb=db1&css_color=purple&committee=TC&number=8>.
---. “What EMC Is.” <http://www.iec.ch/zone/emc/whatis.htm>. IEEE. Standard Association. “IEEE SA International Program.” 26 January 2008.
<http://standards.ieee.org/intl/iec.html>. ---. IEEE Industry Applications Society/Power Engineering Society. IEEE Std 519-1992: IEEE
Recommended Practices and Requirements for Harmonic Control in Electrical Power Systems. New York: IEEE, Inc., 1993.
---. IEEE Power Engineering Society. IEEE Std 1453™-2004: IEEE Recommended Practice for
Measurement and Limits of Voltage Fluctuations and Associated Light Flicker on AC Power Systems. New York: IEEE, Inc., 2005.
Institute of Electrical Engineering of Japan. Technical Report. Vol. 72 (1978).
67
Jackson, John H. William H. Davey, and Alan O. Sykes, Jr.. Legal Problems of International Economic Relations (Fourth ed. 2002). St. Paul, MN: West Group. January 2002.
---. 2002 Documents Supplement to Legal Problems of International Economic Relations
(American Casebook Series and Other Coursebooks) (Paperback). St. Paul, MN: West Group. 2007.
JISC. Industrial Standards Research Office. “Hyojunka Senryaku [Strategy for Standardization].” 2001 <http://www.jisc.go.jp/policy/pdf/hyoujun_senryaku_h13.pdf>.
---. “Kokusai Kyojunka Katsudo Kiban Kyoka Akushon Puranu [Action Plan for Intensifying
International Standardizing Activity’s Base].” 2004 <http://www.jisc.go.jp/policy/pdf/action_plan_all.pdf>.
---. “23. Denki Gijutsu Bunya ni Okeru Kokusai Hyojunka Akushon Puranu [23. Action Plan for
International Standardization in the Electric Technological Area].” 2007 <http://www.jisc.go.jp/jisc/pdf/jiscsc42/kakuron/23denki.pdf>.
---. “23. Denki Gijutsu Bunya ni Okeru Kokusai Hyojunka Katsudou Kiban Kyoka Akushon
Puranu [23. Action Plan for Intensifying International Standardizing Activity’s Base in the Electric Technological Area].” 2005 <http://www.jisc.go.jp/jisc/pdf/jiscsc24_03-AP/23_APdennki.pdf..
JISC. “Kokusai Kikaku no Keigosei Joho [Information about Harmonization of JIS with
International Standards].” 16 December 2007. <http://www.jisc.go.jp/qa/index.html#A704>.
---. “TBT Kyotei ni Tsuite [About the TBT Agreement],” 10 February 2008.
<http://www.jisc.go.jp/cooperation/wto-tbt-guide.html>. Johnson, Ben C. Donald G. Dunn, and Richard Hulett. “Seeking Global Harmony in Standards/”
IEEE Industry Applications Magazine. January/February 2004. JSA. GATT Standard Code and Kokusai Hyojunka [International Standardization]. Tokyo:
Japanese Standards Association, 1980. Katz, Michael L., and Carl Shapiro. “Network Externalities, Competition, and Compatibility.”
The American Economic Review, Vol. 75, No. 3. June 1985. Marceau, Gabrielle, and Joel P. Trachtman. “The Technical Barriers to Trade Agreement, the
Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures Agreement, and the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade: A Map of the World Trade Organization Law of Domestic Regulation of Goods.” Journal of World Trade 36(5), 2002.
McDonald, Jan. “Domestic Regulation, International Standards, and Technical Barriers to
Trade.” World Trade Review (2005), Vol. 4, No. 2.
68
METI. “Keizai Sangyosho Koeki Hojin Ichiran [A List of Public Service Corporations of METI]” 15 February 2008. <http://www.meti.go.jp/intro/koueki_houjin/hoan-1.htm>.
NSTAR. Information & Requirements for Electric Service, 2005.
<http://www.nstaronline.com/docs3/misc/elecrequire.pdf?unique=20080301000530>. O’Neill, Anne. “What Does GATT Mean for IEEE PES Standards?” IEEE Power Engineering
Review, January 1995. Santoso, Surya H. Wayne Beaty, and Roger C. Dugan, and Mark F. McGranaghan. Electrical
Power Systems Quality. New York: McGraw-Hill, 2002. TEPCO. “Sohaiden Keito Riyo ni Kansuru Ruuru [Rules for Connection to Transmission and
Distribution Systems].” 15 February 2008. <http://www.tepco.co.jp/provide/engineering/wsc/rule-j.html>.
United Utilities. “Power Quality”
<http://www.unitedutilities.com/?OBH=4887&SCH=power%20quailty&ID=0>. UTE. “Le Catalogue,” 20 February 2008. <http://www.ute-fr.com/FR/>. Yonekura, Kazuhiko. “Saikin no Haiden Jidoka Shisutemu to Gijutsu Kaihatsu Doko [Recent
Trend of the R&D on Distribution Automation Systems].” Denki Hyoron [Electricity Review] Vol. 502, October 2006.
Yukihira, Kenji. “Dennatsu Hendo Hyoka Shuho no Mondaiten to Kongo no Kadai: Deiruta
V10 Metoru to IEC Furika Metoru no Hikaku [Problems of Estimation Technique for Voltage Fluctuation and Research Subjects: Comparison Between Delta V10 Meter and IEC Flicker Meter].” CRIEPI Research Report No. T99041. Tokyo: Central Research Institute of Electric Power Industry, 2000.
---. “Dennatsu Hendo no Hyoka Hoho to Gendochi: IEC Furika Metoru Donyuu to Shomei Kiki
no Hattatsu ni Yoru Minaoshi [Estimation Technique and Limits of Voltage Fluctuation: Reconsideration on Introduction of the IEC Flickermeter and Development of Lighting Equipment].” CRIEPI Research Report No. T00040, Tokyo: Central Research Institute of Electric Power Industry, 2001.
World Trade Organization, Appellate Body. “Canada - Certain Measures Affecting the
Automotive Industry – AB-2000-2 – Report of the Appellate Body (WT/DS139/AB/R, WT/DS142/AB/R).” 31 May 2000.
---. “European Communities – Trade Description of Sardines - AB-2002-3 - Report of the
Appellate Body (WT/DS231/AB/R).” 26 September 2002. ---. ”Japan – Taxes on Alcoholic Beverages – AB-1996-2 – Report of the Appellate Body
(WT/DS8/AB/R).” 4 October 1996.
69
World Trade Organization, Committee on Technical Barriers to Trade. “List of Standardizing
Bodies That Have Accepted the Code of Good Practice for the Preparation, Adoption and Application of Standards since 1 January 1995 (G/TBT/CS/2/Rev. 12)” 17 February 2006.
World Trade Organization, Information and Media Relations Division. “Understanding the
WTO.” <http://www.wto.org/english/thewto_e/whatis_e/tif_e/understanding_e.pdf> 2007.
World Trade Organization, Panel. “EC Measures Concerning Meat and Meat Products
(Hormones) - Complaint by the United States - Report of the Panel (WT/DS26/R/USA).” 18 August 1997.
---. “EC Measures Concerning Meat and Meat Products (Hormones) – Complaint by Canada –
Report of the Panel (WT/DS48/R/CAN).” 18 August 1997. ---. “European Communities - Trade Description of Sardines - Report of the Panel
(WT/DS231/R).” 29 May 2002. World Trade Organization. “WTO Analytical Index: Agreement on Sanitary and Phytosanitary
Measures/” 26 February 2008. <http://www.wto.org/english/res_e/booksp_e/analytic_index_e/sps_e.htm>.
---. “WTO Analytical Index: Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade.” 26 February 2008.
<http://www.wto.org/english/res_e/booksp_e/analytic_index_e/tbt_e.htm>. ---. “WTO Analytical Index: General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994.” 26 February 2008.
<http://www.wto.org/english/res_e/booksp_e/analytic_index_e/gatt1994_e.htm>.
![Problems of harmonization and implementation WTO rules …iele.weebly.com/uploads/2/5/1/8/25181752/mylnikova.pdfPortugal v Council[1], Chiquita[2], Biret[3], Intеnational Fruit Company[4],](https://static.documents.pub/doc/80x56/5eba2b240488ad4ba80310b9/problems-of-harmonization-and-implementation-wto-rules-iele-portugal-v-council1.jpg)
