Ohio’s solar market is very similar to those of neighboring states in that it is premised upon a RPS solar carve-out. 0.5% of Ohio’s total electricity supply by 2024, that is; half of which must be derived from in-state solar resources.

As we reported on back in March, there has been some solar trouble in Ohio. At that time, First Energy Corp had filed force majeure claiming they were unable to locate and secure a sufficient number of Solar Renewable Energy Credits (SRECs) to satisfy its 2010 solar obligation. Remarkably, this was the second year in a row First Energy filed for force majeure despite *good-faith* efforts. Two years of force majeure? Seems like there’d need to be a whole lot of good-faith going on. We’re not buying it. Again, our previous reporting details our doubts.

Despite *finding* 1,629 of the 3,206 SRECs required to meet their 2010 solar in-state obligation and refilling a force majeure application for a lesser amount, we are of the opinion that First Energy’s claims that Ohio’s solar market remains underdeveloped is the very reason to implement a solar carve-out.

And although indications are that First Energy will be soliciting for long-term SREC contracts moving forward (10-year terms), the absence of these opportunities was undoubtedly the primary reason that First Energy was unable to *find* sufficient SRECs in 2009 and 2010.

As experience from other neighboring markets demonstrates (e.g., Pennsylvania), of which First Energy is also active we might add, new and substantial solar development in any nascent market requires long-term revenue certainty for project developers and financiers. Without question, long-term SREC contracts can provide this requisite certainty.

Despite pushback from industry and a variety of other intervening stakeholders, including us, on August 3, 2011 the PUCO granted First Energy’s force majeure application. We can only hope that First Energy’s recently approved RFP to purchase SRECs through 10-year contracts will be enough good faith.

And as an aside, we will be closely watching developments around the Governor’s 21st Century Energy & Economic Summit coming up in September. But don’t go running off to get your ticket, invite only. Unfortunately we didn’t get the invite, but even more troubling, neither did any of our knowledgeable industry representatives. Some others did though. Stay tuned…

Vote Solar is a non-profit grassroots organization working to fight climate change and foster economic opportunity by bringing solar energy into the mainstream.

Related posts:

• Obama to Keep Pushing for Climate Bill
• Boeing Shatters Solar Power Record with 39.2% Cell Efficiency
• China Solar Energy Goal is Increased by 50 Percent for 2015
• New Orleans Tells Resident Not to Install Solar Panels
• San Francisco Pledges Astounding 100% Green Energy by 2020

In April, California made another big leap ahead in the clean energy race. At a solar panel factory in Milpitas, with Dept of Energy Secretary Steven Chu joining him on stage, Governor Jerry Brown signed legislation making the 33%-by-2020 Renewable Portfolio Standard(RPS) the law of the land. (Watch a video of the bill signing here.)

Vote Solar’s newest advocate, Susannah Churchill, took this happy opportunity to develop a memo including an update on how far California’s utilities and others have already gone towards 33%, as well as a summary of what the new law says about how much of the standard can be met via out-of-state renewable projects. Some of her key conclusions include:

• Despite aggressive contracting beyond 20%, California’s large IOUs should still have a significant appetite for renewables procurement in coming years.



• Munis, ESPs and CCAs in California are collectively far behind the large IOUs in their required progress toward 33% renewables. The newly RPS-obligated munis, which serve about one quarter of the state’s load, will represent an important source of renewables demand.

• Renewable projects outside the state that are able to interconnect to a California balancing area, or schedule or dynamically transfer energy directly into a California balancing area, will be better situated to meet future California renewables demand than those that cannot.

• Projects outside the state will be better able to compete for California renewables demand if adequate transmission is available to allow renewable energy to be delivered directly into a California balancing area.

Vote Solar is a non-profit grassroots organization working to fight climate change and foster economic opportunity by bringing solar energy into the mainstream.

Related posts:

• Challenging California’s Reverse Auction Mechanism
• Australian Parliament Adopts 20 Percent Renewables Standard By 2020
• California Wants to Lead With Solar Initiatives
• Colorado to Achieve 30% Renewables Eight Years Early
• Peaker Plants Needed to Integrate 33% Renewables? Not Likely

Good news from Sacramento on the push to make California’s the strongest renewable goal in the country. The much-anticipated bill to increase our renewable energy requirement (RPS) to 33% has passed the Senate. Now we need the Assembly to do the same.

Because this policy sets the renewable target for California’ major utilities, it’s critical to continued solar development and job growth. For years now, California has tried and failed to pass legislation to raise the RPS to 33% renewables by 2020. We are left with the current law of 20% by 2010 and potentially reversible Executive Orders from former Governor Schwarzenegger that set the requirement at 33%. Having this pillar of California renewables standing on such tenuous legal ground is wreaking havoc on progress. The state’s two biggest utilities, PG+E and SCE, have already challenged their obligation to that higher goal because it’s not written in legislation. Not good.

But the new 2011 bill (SB 2X) is on the move, and it’s already looking strong. Its passage would support 13,000 megawatts of new renewables, enough to deliver power to 6 million homes and keep California at the forefront of the nation’s growing clean energy economy.

If you vote in California, click here to urge your assembly member to quickly pass SB 2X.

33% renewables is so close we can taste it.

Vote Solar is a non-profit grassroots organization working to fight climate change and foster economic opportunity by bringing solar energy into the mainstream.

Related posts:

• Challenging California’s Reverse Auction Mechanism
• China Secures Major Foothold in California’s Growing Solar Market
• California Tosses Out Solar Power Plant Lawsuit
• Good News on Climate Change: More Coal Power Leaving the Grid
• Meeting California’s 33% Renewables Standard

California’s failure to pass 33% RPS legislation is creating real havoc in the renewable market.

A month ago, the California Public Utilities Commission voted to create a new 1,000 MW program for distributed generation renewables (Reverse Auction Mechanism (RAM)). It’s a great program, but earlier this week, Southern California Edison (pdf) and Pacific Gas and Electric filed legal challenges. Their argument? Once they’ve met the current 20% legislative standard, they believe that means they are off the hook for doing anything more. Read PG+E’s here (pdf) and SCE’s here (pdf) for the full deal.

The legal merits of their position notwithstanding, it’s clear that we have an acute problem in California’s renewable energy markets–one that can be solved by immediate action to raise the RPS to 33%. Last summer we came close, but the Legislature failed to move the legislation across the finish line before the clock ran out and the session came to a close. The Legislature needs to make this a priority and move on a 33% solution immediately.

Vote Solar is a non-profit grassroots organization working to fight climate change and foster economic opportunity by bringing solar energy into the mainstream.

Related posts:

• California’s 33% RPS is So Close We Can Taste It
• Is Solar PV Already Below Grid Parity?
• Wind Power Takes Center Stage At Brazilian Power Auction
• Brazil to Invest $5.5 Billion in Renewable Energy Sources by 2013
• Industry Leaders Share their Recipe for Achieving Brown’s 12 GW Renewable Vision

Just across the bay from Vote Solar HQ, the team of researchers at Lawrence Berkeley National Lab has been busy as ever cranking out detailed reports of valuable information on clean energy markets, policies, costs and benefits. We found two recent reports particularly illuminating:

State RPS Policies are Key to U.S. Solar Market Growth
The dynamic Wiser/Barbose duo issued a report on the various approaches to renewable portfolio standards (RPS) taken across the country – and their effectiveness in deploying solar.

The results are in: RPS’s with solar carve-outs (currently in place in 16 states + DC) have been an important factor in the solar market growth the U.S. has experienced of late. And with new programs gearing up in states nationwide and solar prices becoming competitive with the lower cost renewable resources, this policy mechanism is set to seriously kick up the solar wattage in the coming couple years. BUT not all RPS policies are created equal when it comes to deploying solar. The RPS is just the target – the solar market needs the right policy road to get there, and states have had varying success in providing a smooth path to growth. Resource constraints, restrictive cost caps, inadequate contract terms and a general lack of transparency and predictability can undermine solar deployment under a state’s RPS.

These are issues we discuss with policymakers in forums from Arizona to Pennsylvania. No longer a theoretical exercise, state leaders can now draw on real world experience and proven best practices to design effective programs. This report from LBNL provides a roadmap for navigating those RPS lessons learned.

Geographic Diversity Smooths Solar Output
For folks in the business of keeping the lights on, there’s much debate around how much variable renewable power the grid can support before it becomes a problem . . . the wind doesn’t always blow, clouds happen, how are utilities supposed to deliver the reliable power their consumers demand? Does adding significantly more renewables require more dirty generation to balance it? Or can we really depend on wind, solar and other clean energy sources to meet our nation’s electricity needs? Lots of questions, and there are just not many answers founded in real world data out there.

That’s why we were so excited to see an LBNL’s report on the topic: ”Implications of Wide-Area Geographic Diversity for Short-Term Variability of Solar Power.” Full PDF here and slightly more digestible PPT presentation here.

Conventional power quality analysis has typically looked at output from a single PV system – as you can imagine, a passing cloud can have a real impact on the hour-by-hour performance of that solar system. But LBNL questioned whether that would ring true for the aggregate output from distributed systems across multiple sites. So they tracked solar data from 23 sites throughout Kansas and Oklahoma taken at one-minute intervals for a year to find out.

Conclusion: geographic diversity can significantly reduce extreme changes in aggregated PV output, the resources required to accommodate that variability, and the associated costs of managing variability. These smoothing benefits correlate closely with distributed wind energy production as well.

Low carbon grid, here we come.

Vote Solar is a non-profit grassroots organization working to fight climate change and foster economic opportunity by bringing solar energy into the mainstream.

Related posts:

• Investment in Renewables Outstrip Fossil Fuels in Europe and U.S.
• Clean Tech Bursts Ahead, Exceeding Growth Expectations
• Wind Power in Texas Begins to Reduce Electricity Costs
• OECD Reports Most Active Nations in Environmental Research
• Large-Scale Solar Sector Surges in U.S. as Panel Costs Drop

I was keeping a tally sheet at last week’s Renewable Energy Finance Forum, so I could let readers know the issue that was brought up most often and granted the most overall prominence. The clear winner: China is eating our lunch in the migration to renewables. Inexplicably and tragically, the US is content to drop further and further behind in the development of energy technology with each passing week. While China is hiring, researching, developing, importing, exporting — and dominating the world of 21st Century energy, we seem to be content to argue and point fingers at each other.

As Winston Churchhill observed, “America will always do the right thing — after it has exhausted all other options.” But can anyone see this moving anytime soon — for any reason — least of all because it’s “the right thing?” None of the promises of renewable energy: jobs, national security, addressing concerns about peak oil and the climate issue — seem to motivate action on our part.

Perhaps the most visible proof of our nation’s abdication of technology leadership is the absence of a federal renewable energy portfolio standard (RPS). What are we to make of the fact that we seem to be a million miles from such a piece of legislation? Clearly, it’s the result of leaders’ pandering for votes, while scrupulously avoiding areas of controversy that might be used against them.

And now, with the recent Supreme Court decision enabling corporations to provide unlimited funding to anonymous entities that can, in turn, spend millions of campaign advertising dollars to defeat perceived enemies, our leaders need to be even more careful than they were when their enemies had to identify themselves and use their own money to slander opponents. This, of course, is another true disaster for those of us who care about free and fair elections and continue (foolishly?) to hold out hope for the effectiveness of the democratic process.

But enough about that. What about the federal RPS? Is there any hope that we can re-establish ourselves as the leader in energy technology? Here’s another tidbit from the conference: Adding nuclear power into the mix of renewables might provide the political muscle to pass a federal RPS. After all, it IS carbon-free. Proponents claim, “Nuclear energy presents a safe, clean, and inexpensive alternative to other methods of producing electricity. Nuclear waste can either be reprocessed or disposed of safely.”

But is any of this true? No. Do most renewable energy supporters believe that nuclear should be included in the list of clean energy technologies? Of course not. But who cares? In the 10-or-so years it takes to plan and permit the next nuclear reactor, the cost/benefit of photovoltaics, wind, concentrating solar power, geothermal, and biomass will have improved to such a point that nuclear will be completely irrelevant.

Go on; invite them to the party. Give them all the political support they’ve worked so long and hard to purchase. In the end, it won’t matter. Despite the rhetoric, you’ll never see another nuke deployed in the US.

Related posts:

• Golden Rush-The Wild West Pursuit of Renewable Energy
• Solar Trouble in Ohio
• Will Federal Cap-and-Trade Preempt State Renewable Portfolio Standards?
• Australian Parliament Adopts 20 Percent Renewables Standard By 2020
• Examining the Building Energy Performance Assessment Standard

On Friday, Sept. 23, the California Air Resources Board (ARB) – in the absence of a California Legislature vote on the issue – approved a greenhouse gas reduction target of 33 percent for 2020 for the Los Angeles and greater San Francisco Bay areas – a target originally set by AB 32, the Global Warming Solutions Act in 2006.

Called a renewable portfolio standard, or RPS, the reduction will be achieved by switching from fossil-fuel based electricity production to clean, renewable technologies like solar and wind. The important thing to remember about the vote is that the ARB is easier to overturn than the Legislature.

The ruling has some, like the oil-rich Koch brothers, running for cover under an umbrella bill, Proposition 23, that aims to prevent the RPS from ever becoming law. The provisions of AB 32 could also be suspended by a California governor, and Republican hopeful Meg Whitman has admitted she would call for a one-year moratorium to study AB 32’s effect on jobs in a state that has gone from 75 and sunny to so dismally cash-strapped some cities have threatened to limit essential services.

When the Air Resources Board vote was made known, solar manufacturing firms like U.S.-based First Solar and international Trina Solar rose, while California-based SunPower Corp. fell.

Word on The Street for Sept. 24 was that the optimists were running the asylum, but a closer reading of the article might have led one to believe that the asylum was in Germany, where solar has always been a big hit (or in China, where it’s more a money-maker than an avocation).

In California, expect inmates to turn out their empty pockets and arrive at the polls in a nasty mood this November, ready to vote for Prop 23 as a backlash against all those years of being clean, green, and now broke. Don’t, however, expect them to vote for Whitman when longtime political player Jerry Brown is back on the ticket for governor.

And with law-savvy Brown in office, expect California’s government to make a legal end run around the oil lobby and bring solar right back to the forefront, giving solar manufacturing firms a brief hiatus in which to regroup with better (and hopefully cheaper) technology.

Related posts:

• The Clean Tech Industry’s Stake in California on November 2nd
• Two Propositions Put California’s Clean Economy at Risk
• Prop 23: Oil Companies Fight Dirty in California
• Could Efforts to Save California’s Climate Change Law be a Model for National Policy?
• What Wind Turbine 2.0 Will Look Like

FERC may have recently put the kibosh on states implementing European-style Feed-in Tariffs, but that doesn’t mean the U.S. is left high and dry without ways to drive wholesale solar markets. We’re seeing daily action from utility PV programs that play by FERC’s rules.

Just today, Southern California Edison announced 60 MW worth of contracts under its new wholesale distributed generation (WDG) program. These winning bids will be installed on 31 rooftops and five ground-mounted sites across SCE’s service territory and deliver clean, reliable, wholesale power to the grid (as opposed to meeting on-site load).This is the first traunch of contracts for the utility’s 500 MW distributed solar program – half of which the utility will own and half of which must be contracted like this through independent producers.

As you may recall, SCE proposed the program as a mechanism for meeting its RPS requirements. The RPS may have set the end-goal of 20% by 2010 (with efforts still underway to increase to 33% by 2020), but it was the utility that opted to develop distributed solar to meet part of that requirement – a departure from the previously exclusive focus on large-scale projects in the 10 – 500 MW range. SCE’s move into WDG is significant for a few reasons:

Northern California’s PG&E has a similar program in the works, so expect to see more WDG on the way.

Vote Solar is a non-profit grassroots organization working to fight climate change and foster economic opportunity by bringing solar energy into the mainstream.

Related posts:

• First Solar Announces Major Solar Project for Mojave Desert
• SCE Makes Pricing for Solar More Favorable
• Is Solar PV Already Below Grid Parity?
• Who Says Solar is Too Expensive?
• 600MW of Solar in the Nevada Desert

During President Obama’s speech this week at Carnegie Mellon University, he signaled emphatically that he would go after the votes to pass a clean energy bill this year, assuring that while “the votes may not be there right now… I intend to find them in the coming months… and we will get it done.”This is exactly the sort of presidential resolve that’s needed. The president went on to say,

[T]he only way the transition to clean energy will succeed is if the private sector is fully invested in this future – if capital comes off the sidelines and the ingenuity of our entrepreneurs is unleashed. And the only way to do that is by finally putting a price on carbon pollution.

He got it exactly right – investors are waiting to see what Congress decides. And once we do set a price for carbon pollution, a huge amount of money will be back in play to invest in clean energy.

This infusion of capital is critical to job creation. Every study that is done to assess job creation potential of the new energy economy builds off assumptions about how much capital will be devoted to energy efficiency, renewables, and the like. For example, the June 2009 University of Massachusetts report “The Economic Benefits of Investing in Clean Energy” assumed that the provisions of the House-passed American Clean Energy Leadership Act (ACELA), building on stimulus funds already committed, would bring $150 billion in new investment per year for the next decade – creating 2.5 million jobs. If that capital came 100% from the oil and gas sector, the net job creation (net of jobs lost in oil and gas) would be 1.7 million jobs.

While I believe some of that capital will come from diverting money from oil and gas, not all of it will. And, given unemployment numbers, there is quite a bit of capital sitting on the sidelines.

But don’t just take it from me, listen to a venture capitalist. In his testimony before the House Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming, delivered April 2008, Mission Point venture capitalist Dan Abbasi noted:

We testified before Congress that we and other leading investment firms have mobilized billions of dollars from blue-chip investors with a mandate to invest in the decarbonization of our economy. And we stand ready to do much more if Congress passes a law to set some long overdue rules of the road.

A long-term stable price signal for carbon is imperative to encourage innovation and to promote investment. It needs to be long enough to reward investors for locking up their capital in asset-intensive, long lead-time energy projects and taking on the associated technical, construction and market risks. Moreover, only a long-term carbon price will motivate investment in the supply chain companies that must scale up and thrive if we’re to drive down the price of low-carbon energy.

While we’re finding some attractive investments today, candidly we are also holding back a lot of “dry powder” — or uninvested capital – and the economic downturn is only partly to blame. The biggest factor is continued uncertainty over whether Congress will pass a bill capping carbon. Renewable loan guarantees, grants and tax credits from the stimulus package are helping us to finance the supply of low-carbon solutions, but without a cap we won’t see the market demand needed to fully pull those solutions through.

In Europe, after the passage of their Emissions Trading System, the ETS, James Graham, Director of the Commercial Division for Camco International, noted that “If you look at the pricing for credits from renewable energy projects before and after the creation of the EU ETS, the pricing was much higher afterwards. Higher prices means more projects are happening. More capital is being allocated to investing in renewables because of enhanced returns from the addition of a carbon revenue stream to such projects.”

According to Clean Tech Venture Network, California saw a 20% compound annual growth rate in clean technology investments in 2002 after passage of a Renewable Portfolio Standard, but that jumped to 98% compound annual growth rate when AB 32 (putting a price on carbon) was introduced and passed 18 months later. (Clean Tech Venture Network data)

Last month, columnist David Brooks discovered capital sitting on the sidelines as well. If the American Power Act (the Senate version of comprehensive energy and climate legislation passes with a price on carbon) passed, utility executives noted just 4 weeks ago that they would move capital off the sidelines:

“Regarding wind energy investment at our NextEra Energy Resources subsidiary, we think we might invest about $1.5 billion to $2 billion more per year. Regarding solar, we think NextEra Energy Resources might invest $500 million or more per year outside of Florida and that our Florida Power & Light subsidiary might invest about $1 billion a year inside Florida.” — Lew Hay, chief executive of the power provider FPL Group.

“[NRG] could double the number of clean energy projects, from 17 to 36; it could triple the megawatts of clean generating capacity it is planning to add; it could produce three times as much nuclear power and 40 times as much coal with carbon capture and sequestration. — David Crane, the CEO of NRG Energy.

“The Renewable Portfolio Standard should be considered a short-term technique to “jump-start” a new industry but seen as a temporary incentive. In contrast, monetizing carbon and placing a cap on carbon signals a major shift in the industry framework and provides a long-term market signal that is very different than the RPS approach,” according to BJ Stanbery, founder, Chairman and Chief Strategy Officer of HelioVolt, a Texas-based manufacturer of thin film solar.

Getting this capital off the sidelines and into clean energy projects is a clear path to job creation. But it’s not just about getting capital off the sidelines, it’s about keeping capital here in the U.S. Who can forget Jeff Immelt saying at a Wall Street Journal event in 2008 that “If the U.S. doesn’t buy my wind turbines, I’ll go to Turkey.” In this economy, we can hardly afford to have the next generation of energy projects shipped overseas. The U.S. can and should be a leader in clean energy, and with the right investment, we can make it happen.

Article written by Jackie Roberts, Director of Sustainable Technologies, National Climate Campaign, Environmental Defense Fund.

photo: SEIU International

Related posts:

• Reducing Energy Costs While Creating Green Jobs
• DOE Offers Loan Guarantee to California Solar Energy Plant
• The Energy of Entrepreneurs
• How Many Jobs are Truly Created in a “Green Economy?”
• Solyndra: Illustrating a Recovery Act Supply Chain

Heading into the new year, we are left wondering what impact Copenhagen’s legacy (a nonbinding Accord) will have on the US Senate’s cap-and-trade bill.  With the House “ACES” bill passed, the attention is now squarely focused on the Senate as it reconvenes and takes another crack at legislation regulating greenhouse gas emissions.

Cap-and-trade legislation from Washington may include a federal renewable electricity standard (Washington’s version of a renewable portfolio standard).  How this standard would be integrated into existing state standards or vice versa will remain a hot topic throughout 2010.

To date, Congress has been sluggish to move on cap-and-trade, which prompted the EPA to apply pressure on the Senate by issuing a ruling that enables the agency to regulate greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act (Biomass Intel’s analysis of the EPA’s tailoring rule decision is available here) in the absence of legislation.

Meanwhile, over the past decade, twenty-nine state governments have enacted renewable portfolio standards (RPS) aimed at increasing the percentage of renewable generation capacity sold by utilities to end consumers.  Some more aggressive than others, an RPS is a legal requirement that electric utilities and other electricity providers obtain a minimum percentage — typically increasing over time — of their total electricity supply from qualifying renewable sources.  In short, they offer a means by which states can authorize and stimulate investment in renewable energy technologies that can indirectly reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

While these efforts have remained moderately successful to date, the next decade will prove to be a challenging one for utilities and state governments as requirements for renewable power increase more dramatically.  States like California, which is committed to 33 percent renewables by 2020, must continue to secure adequate funding and maintain grid reliability while integrating renewable generation capacity.

Given significant variability among current portfolio requirements among states, pressure to enact a federal standard has increased in recent years.  Accordingly, if the Senate moves on a cap-and-trade bill prompting Congress to enact legislation, we should expect at least a moderate federal renewable electricity standard out of Washington.

President Obama’s call for a 10% RPS by the year 2012 suggests that a federal bill will most likely provide at least a minimum RPS percentage that all states will be required to meet rather than preempt existing state programs already on the books.

A benchmark standard applicable in all states has many benefits including reducing discrepancies among clean energy programs around the country and enabling the growth of national biomass trading programs critical for sustaining industry growth throughout the country.

But predicting the outcome of a cap-and-trade bill and the corresponding legislation around renewable energy standards is fraught with difficulty as many changes are likely to be made in the coming year.

The House’s American Clean Energy and Security Act (H.R. 2454) “ACES” bill offers some indication of where federal legislation is moving.  Approved in the middle of 2009, ACES includes a combined efficiency and renewable electricity standard.  The bill mandates that electricity suppliers must meet 20 percent of their customers’ demand by 2020 through a combination of renewable power and energy savings.  The inclusion of energy efficiency differs from many state RPS programs.  The Senate version of the cap-and-trade bill, as it stands now, does not include a federal RPS.

A federal standard would have a dramatic impact on national demand for renewable sources of energy and boost investments in biomass-related projects.  At the heart of most state RPS programs around the country is the use of biomass-fueled generators and biofuel generators (except Kansas) as renewable resources; some also include municipal solid waste.  A federal RPS-type requirement that includes similar technologies would stimulate increased demand for biomass feedstocks and technologies throughout the country.  Accordingly, policy developments around cap-and-trade should be monitored closely heading into 2010.

Mackinnon Lawrence is an attorney, principal consultant with Biomass Advisors, and editor & publisher of Biomass Intel

[photo credit: erikadotnet]

Related posts:

• Cap & Trade – Obama’s Win Is the States’ Loss
• Congress: Start The Energy Revolution Without Me
• Golden Rush-The Wild West Pursuit of Renewable Energy
• U.S. Government, California Merge Timelines for Auto Standards
• AHRI defeats the City of Albequerque, Complicating Matters for Local Governments