DOCSLIB.ORG

Energy Efficiency in the United States: 35 Years and Counting

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Energy Efficiency in the United States: 35 Years and Counting Energy Efficiency in the United States: 35 Years and Counting Steven Nadel, Neal Elliott, and Therese Langer June 2015 Report E1502 © American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy 529 14th Street NW, Suite 600, Washington, DC 20045 Phone: (202) 507-4000 ● Twitter: @ACEEEDC Facebook.com/myACEEE ● aceee.org 35 YEARS AND COUNTING © ACEEE Contents About the Authors ..............................................................................................................................iii Acknowledgments ..............................................................................................................................iii Executive Summary ........................................................................................................................... iv Introduction ............................................................................................................................... iv The Past 35 Years ...................................................................................................................... iv The Next 35 Years ..................................................................................................................... vi Pathway to an Energy-Efficient Future ............................................................................... vii Conclusion .................................................................................................................................. x Introduction .......................................................................................................................................... 1 The Past 35 Years ................................................................................................................................. 1 Energy Intensity ......................................................................................................................... 1 Benefits to the US Economy, Our Security, and the Environment ..................................... 2 Buildings and Equipment ......................................................................................................... 4 Industry ....................................................................................................................................... 9 Transportation .......................................................................................................................... 12 Utilities ...................................................................................................................................... 17 Summary ................................................................................................................................... 18 Energy Efficiency Drivers over the Past 35 Years ......................................................................... 18 Market Drivers ......................................................................................................................... 18 Policies ....................................................................................................................................... 21 Discussion ................................................................................................................................. 30 Challenges ................................................................................................................................. 32 The Next 35 Years .............................................................................................................................. 33 Opportunities ........................................................................................................................... 33 i 35 YEARS AND COUNTING © ACEEE Pathway to an Energy-Efficient Future ................................................................................ 37 Conclusion .......................................................................................................................................... 43 References ........................................................................................................................................... 45 ii 35 YEARS AND COUNTING © ACEEE About the Authors Steven Nadel is ACEEE’s executive director. He has been at ACEEE for 26 years and served as deputy director of the organization and director of ACEEE’s Utilities and Buildings programs before being promoted to executive director in 2001. Prior to joining ACEEE, he planned and evaluated energy efficiency programs for New England Electric, a major electric utility; directed energy programs for the Massachusetts Audubon Society, the state’s largest environmental organization; and ran energy programs for a community organization working on housing rehabilitation in the poorest neighborhoods of New Haven, Connecticut. He has worked in the energy efficiency field for 35 years and has more than 200 publications on energy efficiency subjects. Neal Elliott coordinates ACEEE’s overall research efforts. He is an internationally recognized expert and author on energy efficiency, energy efficiency programs and policies, electric motor systems, combined heat and power (CHP) and clean distributed energy, and analysis of energy efficiency and energy markets. A frequent speaker at domestic and international conferences, he joined ACEEE in 1993. Therese Langer works to improve the efficiency of both vehicles and systems for the movement of passengers and freight. Her current areas of focus include advancing technologies and policies to improve light- and heavy-duty fuel economy, integrating transportation into greenhouse gas reduction programs at the state and national levels, quantifying the economic impacts of overdependence on oil, expanding the multimodal goods movement infrastructure, and understanding consumers’ vehicle purchase decisions. She joined ACEEE in 2001. Acknowledgments The authors gratefully acknowledge external reviewers, internal reviewers, colleagues, and sponsors who supported this report. External expert reviewers included Carl Blumstein (University of California), Jeff Harris (Alliance to Save Energy), Mark Levine (Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory), Jim McMahon (Better Climate), Maxine Savitz (retired from Honeywell), and Rodney Sobin (National Association of State Energy Officials). Internal reviewers included Jennifer Amann, Jim Barrett, Naomi Baum, Patrick Kiker, Maggie Molina, Glee Murray, and Lowell Ungar. External review and support do not imply affiliation or endorsement. Last, we would like to thank Fred Grossberg for managing the editorial process, Elise Marton and Roxanna Usher for copy editing, Eric Schwass and Charlie Herron for graphics support, and Patrick Kiker for his help in launching this report. iii 35 YEARS AND COUNTING © ACEEE Executive Summary INTRODUCTION In 1973, the Arab members of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) imposed an oil embargo that increased energy prices and spurred efforts to conserve energy and improve energy efficiency in the United States and worldwide. In 1980, energy efficiency researchers formed the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy (ACEEE), whose mission is to act as a catalyst to advance energy efficiency policies, programs, technologies, investments, and behaviors in order to help achieve greater economic prosperity, energy security, and environmental protection. From our vantage point as we turn 35 this year, we believe that energy efficiency has been a major success story, providing net benefits for households, businesses, the US economy, our security, and the environment. Over those 35 years we have learned many lessons and accomplished many goals, which this paper highlights. But just as important, we look ahead at possible and recommended pathways for the next 35 years, through 2050. THE PAST 35 YEARS From 1980 to 2014, US energy use increased by 26%. However, over this same period, US gross domestic product (GDP) increased by 149%. A common approach for looking at these two variables together is to examine energy intensity, defined as energy use per real dollar of GDP. Energy intensity declined from 12.1 thousand Btus per dollar in 1980 to 6.1 in 2014, a 50% improvement. The improvement in energy intensity averaged 2.0% per year over this period. Energy efficiency was an important contributor to this improvement. However efficiency gains were also partly due to shifts in the US economy away from some energy- intensive segments (e.g., heavy manufacturing). Based on available data, we conservatively estimate that about 40% of the improvement in energy intensity was due to structural shifts, and 60% was due to efficiency improvements. Energy efficiency savings in 2014 were about 58 quadrillion Btus (a quadrillion is 10 to the 15th power), saving US consumers and businesses about $800 billion in 2014 (based on the average 2014 energy price). This comes to about $2,500 per capita. Efficiency investments and savings also generate jobs, including direct jobs installing efficiency measures, indirect jobs upstream in the supply chain, and jobs induced as energy bill savings are spent elsewhere and multiply through the economy. Energy savings can also help to drive modest overall growth in the US economy. Further, energy efficiency savings over the past 35 years have contributed to our nation’s security and improved our environment. For example, looking specifically at petroleum, imports accounted for 33% of US crude oil use in 1983 (the recent low point), increasing to 67%
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Energy Consumption by Source and Sector, 2019 (Quadrillion Btu)
    U.S. energy consumption by source and sector, 2019 (Quadrillion Btu) Sourcea End-use sectorc Percent of sources Percent of sectors 70 91 Transportation Petroleum 24 3 28.2 36.7 3 5 2 <1 (37%) (37%) 1 34 40 9 Industrial 4 3 26.3 Natural gas 12 33 (35%) 32.1 16 11 (32%) 36 8 44 7 Residential 41 11.9 (16%) 12 9 22 39 Renewable energy 7 3 Commercial 11.5 (11%) 2 <1 9.4 (12%) 56 49 10 Total = 75.9 Coal <1 11.3 (11%) 90 Electric power sectorb Nuclear 100 8.5 (8%) Electricity retail sales 12.8 (35%) Total = 100.2 Electrical system energy losses 24.3 (65%) Total = 37.1 a Primary energy consumption. Each energy source is measured in different physical content of electricity retail sales. See Note 1, "Electrical System Energy Losses," at the end of units and converted to common British thermal units (Btu). See U.S. Energy Information EIA’s Monthly Energy Review, Section 2. Administration (EIA), Monthly Energy Review, Appendix A. Noncombustible renewable c End-use sector consumption of primary energy and electricity retail sales, excluding electrical energy sources are converted to Btu using the “Fossil Fuel Equivalency Approach”, see system energy losses from electricity retail sales. Industrial and commercial sectors EIA’s Monthly Energy Review, Appendix E. consumption includes primary energy consumption by combined-heat-and-power (CHP) and b The electric power sector includes electricity-only and combined-heat-and-power (CHP) electricity-only plants contained within the sector. plants whose primary business is to sell electricity, or electricity and heat, to the public.
    [Show full text]
  • ARIZONA ENERGY FACT SHEET Energy Efficiency & Energy Consumption April 2016
    ARIZONA ENERGY FACT SHEET Energy Efficiency & Energy Consumption April 2016 An Overview of Energy Efficiency Quick Facts: Energy efficiency means reducing the amount of energy Population, 2014: 6,731,484 that you need to perform a particular task. When you Population growth rate, 2006-2014: 0.79% per year practice energy efficiency, you increase or maintain your Number of households, 2014: 2,387,246 level of service, but you decrease the energy used to Source: United States Census Bureau. provide that service through efficient technologies. Examples include ENERGY STAR appliances, compact fluorescent and LED light bulbs, better insulation for Primary Energy Consumption (2013) buildings, more efficient windows, high efficiency air Primary energy consumption: 1,415 trillion Btu conditioning equipment, and vehicles with higher miles Growth rate, 2006-2013: -0.57% per year per gallon (mpg). Another distinct strategy is energy con- servation, which means that you change your behavior or Primary energy consumption per capita: 213 million Btu lifestyle to reduce energy use. Examples include carpool- Ranking, energy consumption per capita: 43 ing, using mass transit, turning thermostats down in the Ranking, total energy consumption: 27 winter and up in summer, and other behavioral changes. Ratio of consumption to production: 2.38 Improving energy efficiency is a “win-win” strategy — Energy Expenditures (2013) it saves money for consumers and businesses, reduces the need for costly and controversial new power plants, Total energy expenditures: $ 22.8 billion increases the reliability of energy supply, cuts pollution Ranking, energy expenditures: 23 and greenhouse gas emissions, and lowers energy Energy expenditures per capita: $ 3,434 imports.
    [Show full text]
  • Rethinking the Energy-Efficiency Gap: Producers, Intermediaries, and Innovation
    EI @ Haas WP 243 Rethinking the Energy-Efficiency Gap: Producers, Intermediaries, and Innovation Carl Blumstein and Margaret Taylor May 2013 Energy Institute at Haas working papers are circulated for discussion and comment purposes. They have not been peer-reviewed or been subject to review by any editorial board. © 2013 by Carl Blumstein and Margaret Taylor. All rights reserved. Short sections of text, not to exceed two paragraphs, may be quoted without explicit permission provided that full credit is given to the source. http://ei.haas.berkeley.edu Rethinking the Energy-Efficiency Gap: Producers, Intermediaries, and Innovation May 2013 Carl Blumstein California Institute for Energy and Environment 2087 Addison Street, 2nd Floor Berkeley, CA 94704 Email: [email protected] Margaret Taylor Precourt Energy Efficiency Center, Stanford University Jerry Yang and Akiko Yamazaki Environment and Energy Building 473 Via Ortega, Room 385 Stanford, CA 94305-4206 Email: [email protected] Abstract The economic justification for energy efficiency policy primarily focuses on market failures and barriers that prevent energy consumers from undertaking privately profitable investments in efficiency. These consumer- oriented market imperfections are the subject of a substantial and growing body of research regarding human behaviour and economic incentives that influence the demand for energy-efficient technologies. But the literature has focused much less on the producers of energy efficient technologies, and intermediaries such as retailers,
    [Show full text]
  • Investigation Into the Energy Consumption of a Data Center with a Thermosyphon Heat Exchanger
    Article Mechanical Engineering July 2011 Vol.56 No.20: 21852190 doi: 10.1007/s11434-011-4500-5 SPECIAL TOPICS: Investigation into the energy consumption of a data center with a thermosyphon heat exchanger ZHOU Feng, TIAN Xin & MA GuoYuan* College of Environmental and Energy Engineering, Beijing University of Technology, Beijing 100124, China Received October 18, 2010; accepted February 17, 2011 A data center test model was used to analyze the energy dissipation characteristics and energy consumption of a data center. The results indicate that adequate heat dissipation from a data center cannot be achieved only from heat dissipation through the build- ing envelope during Beijing winter conditions. This is because heat dissipation through the building envelope covers about 19.5% of the total data center heat load. The average energy consumption for an air conditioner is 4 to 5 kW over a 24-h period. The temperature difference between the indoor and outdoor air for the data center with a thermosyphon heat exchanger is less than 20°C. The energy consumption of the thermosyphon heat exchanger is only 41% of that of an air conditioner. The annual energy consumption can be reduced by 35.4% with a thermosyphon system. In addition, the effect of the outdoor temperature on the en- ergy consumption of an air conditioner is greater than the indoor room temperature. The energy consumption of an air conditioner system increases by 5% to 6% for every 1°C rise in the outdoor temperature. data center, energy consumption, thermosyphon heat exchanger, ambient energy Citation: Zhou F, Tian X, Ma G Y.
    [Show full text]
  • Protocol an Evidence Gap Map of Energy Efficiency Interventions
    Protocol An Evidence Gap Map of energy efficiency interventions Deliverable 1 – Evidence Gap Map Protocol Version 1 International Initiative for Impact Evaluation (3ie) Project summary To add Page 2 of 37 Table of contents Contents Project summary............................................................................................................................................................ 2 1 Background .......................................................................................................................................................... 4 1.1 Global emissions and energy efficiency trends............................................................................................ 4 1.2 Why is it important to do this Evidence Gap Map? ..................................................................................... 5 1.2.1 Investments in the sector ..................................................................................................................... 5 1.2.2 Existing impact evaluations and evidence synthesis ........................................................................... 6 1.3 Study objectives and questions .................................................................................................................... 7 2 Scope of the EGM ................................................................................................................................................ 8 2.1 Conceptual framework and theory of change .............................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 1: Energy Challenges September 2015 1 Energy Challenges
    QUADRENNIAL TECHNOLOGY REVIEW AN ASSESSMENT OF ENERGY TECHNOLOGIES AND RESEARCH OPPORTUNITIES Chapter 1: Energy Challenges September 2015 1 Energy Challenges Energy is the Engine of the U.S. Economy Quadrennial Technology Review 1 1 Energy Challenges 1.1 Introduction The United States’ energy system, vast in size and increasingly complex, is the engine of the economy. The national energy enterprise has served us well, driving unprecedented economic growth and prosperity and supporting our national security. The U.S. energy system is entering a period of unprecedented change; new technologies, new requirements, and new vulnerabilities are transforming the system. The challenge is to transition to energy systems and technologies that simultaneously address the nation’s most fundamental needs—energy security, economic competitiveness, and environmental responsibility—while providing better energy services. Emerging advanced energy technologies can do much to address these challenges, but further improvements in cost and performance are important.1 Carefully targeted research, development, demonstration, and deployment (RDD&D) are essential to achieving these improvements and enabling us to meet our nation’s energy objectives. This report, the 2015 Quadrennial Technology Review (QTR 2015), examines science and technology RDD&D opportunities across the entire U.S. energy system. It focuses primarily on technologies with commercialization potential in the mid-term and beyond. It frames various tradeoffs that all energy technologies must balance, across such dimensions as diversity and security of supply, cost, environmental impacts, reliability, land use, and materials use. Finally, it provides data and analysis on RDD&D pathways to assist decision makers as they set priorities, subject to budget constraints, to develop more secure, affordable, and sustainable energy services.
    [Show full text]
  • Router Energy Per Bit Router Energy Efficiency 10000
    Energy Considerations in Data Transmission and Switching Rod Tucker Department of Electrical & Electronic Engineering University of Melbourne Summary • Big‐picture view of data and energy in network & DCs • Snapshot of 2017 and projections for 2021 • Key energy bottlenecks – Access networks – Servers in data centers – Data storage – Switches and routers – Global optical transmission • Gap between technology limits and reality The Internet Storage Servers Switches Router Routers etc Global Data Core Network Base Center Station Switch Data Center Data Networks Center Metro/Edge Access Network Network Data Center Content Distribution OLT ONU Data Networks Router Center This talk Fiber Optical TX/RX Router Data usage in 2017 ‐ 1.5 Zettabytes >15 ? 12 Zettabytes/year 200 Tb/s 3200 Tb/s 800 Tb/s (40 %) 1.5x1021 bytes/year* Global 500 Tb/s (avg.) Data Core Network 135 kb/s (avg.) Center Data Center Data Networks Center Metro/Edge Access Network Network Data Center 300 Tb/s Content Distribution 3.7 billion users Data Networks (50 % of world pop.) Center 300 Tb/s (60 %) Sources: Cisco, VNI*, 2016‐2021, (2017); Google; Facebook; Akamai 2021 ‐ Twice as much data as 2017 > 40 ? 25 Zettabytes/year 300 Tb/s 6.4 Pb/s 1.6 Pb/s (30 %) 3.3x1021 bytes/year* Global 1Pb/s (avg.) Data Core Network 220 kb/s (avg.) Center Data Center Data Networks Center Metro/Edge Access Network Network Data Center 600 Tb/s Content Distribution 4.5 billion users Data Networks (60 % of world pop.) Center 700 Tb/s (70 %) Sources: Cisco, VNI*, 2016‐2021, (2017); Google; Facebook; Akamai Data, energy and efficiency Data (~ 25 % p.a.
    [Show full text]
  • Energy and Power Units and Conversions
    Energy and Power Units and Conversions Basic Energy Units 1 Joule (J) = Newton meter × 1 calorie (cal)= 4.18 J = energy required to raise the temperature of 1 gram of water by 1◦C 1 Btu = 1055 Joules = 778 ft-lb = 252 calories = energy required to raise the temperature 1 lb of water by 1◦F 1 ft-lb = 1.356 Joules = 0.33 calories 1 physiological calorie = 1000 cal = 1 kilocal = 1 Cal 1 quad = 1015Btu 1 megaJoule (MJ) = 106 Joules = 948 Btu, 1 gigaJoule (GJ) = 109 Joules = 948; 000 Btu 1 electron-Volt (eV) = 1:6 10 19 J × − 1 therm = 100,000 Btu Basic Power Units 1 Watt (W) = 1 Joule/s = 3:41 Btu/hr 1 kiloWatt (kW) = 103 Watt = 3:41 103 Btu/hr × 1 megaWatt (MW) = 106 Watt = 3:41 106 Btu/hr × 1 gigaWatt (GW) = 109 Watt = 3:41 109 Btu/hr × 1 horse-power (hp) = 2545 Btu/hr = 746 Watts Other Energy Units 1 horsepower-hour (hp-hr) = 2:68 106 Joules = 0.746 kwh × 1 watt-hour (Wh) = 3:6 103 sec 1 Joule/sec = 3:6 103 J = 3.413 Btu × × × 1 kilowatt-hour (kWh) = 3:6 106 Joules = 3413 Btu × 1 megaton of TNT = 4:2 1015 J × Energy and Power Values solar constant = 1400W=m2 1 barrel (bbl) crude oil (42 gals) = 5:8 106 Btu = 9:12 109 J × × 1 standard cubic foot natural gas = 1000 Btu 1 gal gasoline = 1:24 105 Btu × 1 Physics 313 OSU 3 April 2001 1 ton coal 3 106Btu ≈ × 1 ton 235U (fissioned) = 70 1012 Btu × 1 million bbl oil/day = 5:8 1012 Btu/day =2:1 1015Btu/yr = 2.1 quad/yr × × 1 million bbl oil/day = 80 million tons of coal/year = 1/5 ton of uranium oxide/year One million Btu approximately equals 90 pounds of coal 125 pounds of dry wood 8 gallons of
    [Show full text]
  • Energy-Efficiency Gap.” Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard Environmental Economics Program, January 2015
    Januar y 2015 RFF DP 15-07 Assessing the Energy- Efficiency Gap Todd D. Gerarden, Richard G. Newell, and Robert N. Stavins 1616 P St. NW Washington, DC 20036 202-328-5000 www.rff.org DISCUSSION PAPER the harvard environmental economics program The Harvard Environmental Economics Program (HEEP) develops innovative answers to today’s complex environmental issues, by providing a venue to bring together faculty and graduate students from across Harvard University engaged in research, teaching, and outreach in environmental, energy, and natural resource economics and related public policy. The program sponsors research projects, convenes workshops, and supports graduate education to further understanding of critical issues in environmental, natural resource, and energy economics and policy around the world. acknowledgements The Alfred P. Sloan Foundation provided generous support for the research project on which this paper is based. The Enel Endowment for Environmental Economics at Harvard University provides major support for HEEP. The Endowment was established in February 2007 by a generous capital gift from Enel SpA, a progressive Italian corporation involved in energy production worldwide. HEEP receives additional support from the affiliated Enel Foundation. HEEP also receives support from Bank of America, BP, Castleton Commodities International LLC, Chevron Services Company, Duke Energy Corporation, and Shell. HEEP enjoys an institutional home in and support from the Mossavar-Rahmani Center for Business and Government at the Harvard Kennedy School. HEEP collaborates closely with the Harvard University Center for the Environment (HUCE). The Center has provided generous material support, and a number of HUCE’s Environmental Fellows and Visiting Scholars have made intellectual contributions to HEEP.
    [Show full text]
  • Does Information Provision Shrink the Energy Efficiency Gap?
    April 2015 RFF DP 15-12 Does Information Provision Shrink the Energy Efficiency Gap? A Cross-City Comparison of Commercial Building Benchmarking and Disclosure Laws Karen Palme r an d Margaret Walls 1616 P St. NW Washington, DC 20036 202-328-5000 www.rff.org DISCUSSION PAPER Does Information Provision Shrink the Energy Efficiency Gap? A Cross-City Comparison of Commercial Building Benchmarking and Disclosure Laws Karen Palmer and Margaret Walls Abstract Information failures may help explain the so-called “energy efficiency gap” in commercial buildings, which account for approximately 20 percent of annual US energy consumption and CO2 emissions. Building owners may not fully comprehend what influences energy use in their buildings and may have difficulty credibly communicating building energy performance to prospective tenants and buyers. Ten US cities and one county have addressed this problem by passing energy benchmarking and disclosure laws. The laws require commercial buildings to report their annual energy use to the government. We evaluate whether the laws have had an effect on utility expenditures in office buildings covered by the laws in four of the early adopting cities—Austin, New York, San Francisco, and Seattle— and find that they have reduced utility expenditures by about 3 percent. Our view is that these estimated effects in the early days of the programs are largely attributable to increased attentiveness to energy use. Key Words: energy efficiency, information, commercial buildings, differences-in-differences regression JEL Classification Numbers: L94, L95, Q40, Q48 © 2015 Resources for the Future. All rights reserved. No portion of this paper may be reproduced without permission of the authors.
    [Show full text]
  • U.S. Mining Industry Energy Bandwidth Study
    Contents Executive Summary.................................................................................................................1 1. Introduction..................................................................................................................5 2. Background ..................................................................................................................7 2.1 Mining Industry Energy Sources ...................................................................................7 2.2 Materials Mined and Recovery Ratio ............................................................................7 2.3 Mining Methods.............................................................................................................8 3. Mining Equipment.......................................................................................................9 3.1 Extraction.....................................................................................................................10 3.2 Materials Handling Equipment....................................................................................11 3.3 Beneficiation & Processing Equipment.......................................................................12 4. Bandwidth Calculation Methodology ......................................................................13 4.1 Method for Determining Current Mining Energy Consumption .................................14 4.2 Best Practice, Practical Minimum, and Theoretical Minimum Energy Consumption 16 4.3 Factoring
    [Show full text]
  • Energy Efficiency and Cost Savings Opportunities For
    Energy Efficiency and Cost Saving Opportunities for Metal Casting An ENERGY STAR® Guide for Energy & Plant Managers January 2016 Document Number 430-R-16-001 Office of Air Programs—Climate Protection Partnership Division Energy Efficiency and Cost Saving Opportunities for Metal Casting An ENERGY STAR® Guide for Energy and Plant Managers Katerina Kermeli, Utrecht University Richard Deuchler, Utrecht University Ernst Worrell, Utrecht University Eric Masanet, Northwestern University January 2016 Disclaimer This guide was prepared for the United States Government and is believed to contain correct information. Neither the United States Government nor any agency thereof, nor any persons or organizations involved in its development, makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe on privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by its trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise, does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States Government or any agency thereof, or any persons or organizations involved in its development. The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States Government or any agency thereof. Development of this guide was funded by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. The research embodied in this report was initially supported by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency through U.S. Department of Energy Contract No. DE-AC02-05CH11231 and was completed under the U.S. Environmental Protection Contract No.
    [Show full text]