Posted
by

Thirteen years after the complaint was filed, on Monday, December 16, 2013, California Superior Court Judge James P. Kleinberg, in People of the State of California v. Atlantic Richfield Co. et al., Santa Clara Superior Court Case No. 1-00-cv-788657, issued a proposed statement of decision (SOD) after a 23-day bench trial premised on an “alleged public nuisance created by lead paint manufactured or sold by five Defendants in ten jurisdictions in California.” SOD p. 1. The sole cause of action remaining in the fourth amended complaint (Complaint) was for a public nuisance stemming from sales of lead paint and pigments that were alleged to have contributed to the contamination of private homes and apartment buildings and risked residents’ health. The remedy sought was abatement of the public nuisance within the prosecuting entities’ jurisdictions. In the SOD, Judge Kleinberg found for the People and against ConAgra Grocery Products LLC (ConAgra), NL Industries Inc. (NL) and Sherwin-Williams Co. (SW) and dismissed the other two defendants.

Ultimately, the SOD ordered “institution of the abatement plan and establishment of the Fund,” as contemplated by the SOD. SOD p. 110. The abatement contemplated is “based solely on the issue of lead paint as produced, promoted, sold, and used for interior use.” SOD p. 10. The 4-year program is to encompass outreach efforts, inspections and, if necessary, abatement of lead paint hazards in about 2.84 million pre-1978 homes determined to pose the greatest likelihood of lead poisoning risk to children; $605 million, or 55% of the $1.1 billion Fund, will be set aside to pay for lead removal in Los Angeles County. SOD p. 108.

The Public Nuisance-Related Allegations

The operative Complaint alleges a single cause of action for “Public Nuisance On Behalf of the People of the State of California.” In support of this cause of action, the Complaint contends that “Defendants are liable in public nuisance in that they created and/or contributed to the creation of and/or assisted in the creation and/or were a substantial contributing factor in the creation of the public nuisance … , including, but not limited to: (a) “Engaging in a massive campaign to promote the use of Lead on the interiors and exteriors of private residences and pub lie and private buildings and for use on furniture and toys;” (b) “Failing to warn the public about the nature of Lead and its attendant health hazards;” (c) “Systematically selling, promoting, and distributing Lead throughout California for exterior and interior use, including use on furniture and toys, despite medical reports indicating that children were dying and suffering from serious injuries from Lead;” (d) “Engaging in a campaign to discredit the medical and scientific literature linking Lead poisoning to Lead;” (e) “Engaging in a concerted campaign to stop regulation of, and restrictions on, the use of Lead;” and (f) “Developing and establishing programs to increase the market for Lead.”

The Complaint further contends that “[a]s a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ conduct, Lead is present in, on and around large numbers of private and public buildings and property throughout the State of California, including residential homes.” It further contends that this Lead “inevitably has deteriorated and/or is deteriorating and/or will deteriorate thereby contaminating these homes, buildings, and property” and, “[a]s a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ conduct, large numbers of people throughout the State of California, and particularly children, have been exposed and/or are being exposed and/or will be exposed to Lead in, on and around the contaminated homes, buildings, and other property throughout the State of California, thereby affecting the health, safety, and welfare of each of those children.”

California’s Public Nuisance Law

California law defines “nuisance” to include “[a]nything which is injurious to health, including, but not limited to, … an obstruction to the free use of property, so as to interfere with the comfortable enjoyment of life or property.” Cal. Civ. Code § 3479. In turn, it defines “public nuisance” to mean a nuisance “which affects at the same time an entire community or neighborhood, or any considerable number of persons, although the extent of the annoyance or damage inflicted upon individuals may be unequal.” Cal. Civ. Code § 3480. The remedies against a public nuisance include abatement. Cal. Civ. Code § 3491. “A civil action may be brought in the name of the people of the State of California to abate a public nuisance … by the district attorney or county counsel of any county in which the nuisance exists, or by the city attorney of any town or city in which the nuisance exists.” Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 731; Cal. Gov. Code § 26528.

According to the SOD, “the following language of the Appeals Decision is controlling:

“Here, the representative cause of action is a public nuisance action brought on behalf of the People seeking abatement. Santa Clara, SF, and Oakland are not seeking damages for injury to their property or the cost of remediating their property. Liability is not based merely on production of a product or failure to warn. Instead, liability is premised on defendants’ promotion of lead paint for interior use with knowledge of the hazard that such use would create. This conduct is distinct from and far more egregious than simply producing a defective product or failing to warn of a defective product; indeed, it is quite similar to instructing the purchaser to use the product in a hazardous manner, which [City of Modesto Redevelopment Agency v. Superior Court , 119 Cal.App.4th 28 (2004)] found could create nuisance liability.’ (emphasis in original) [County of Santa Clara v. Atlantic Richfield Co., 136 Cal. App. 4th 282, 309 (2006)].
***
Because this type of nuisance action does not seek damages but rather abatement, a plaintiff may obtain relief before the hazard causes any physical injury or physical damage to property. A public nuisance cause of action is not premised on a defect in a product or a failure to warn but on affirmative conduct that assisted in the creation of a hazardous condition. Here, the alleged basis for defendants’ liability for the public nuisance created by lead paint is their affirmative promotion of lead paint for interior use, not their mere manufacture and distribution of lead paint or their failure to warn of its hazards. Id. at 309-310.

***

‘[L]iability for nuisance does not hinge on whether the defendant owns, possesses or controls the property, nor on whether he is in a position to abate the nuisance; the critical question is whether the defendant created or assisted in the creation of the nuisance.’ (emphasis supplied by Judge Kleinberg) Id. at 306, quoting Modesto at 38[.]”

SOD at 7. “[A]lthough California’s general nuisance statute expressly permits the recovery of damages in a public nuisance action brought by a specially injured party, it does not grant a damage remedy in actions brought on behalf of the People to abate a public nuisance.” People ex rel. Van de Kamp v. American Art Enterprises, Inc., 33 Cal.3d 328, 333 n.11 (1983).

Prohibition On Use of Lead Based Paint

In 1978, the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission prohibited the use of lead-based paint in homes. 16 C.F.R. § 1303.4. According to the People: “ConAgra manufactured lead pigments for use in house paints from 1894 until 1958. ConAgra was a member of the [Lead Industries Association (LIA)] from 1928 through 1958 and a Class A member of the [National Paint Varnish and Lacquer Association (NPVLA)] from 1933 through 1962.” SOD p. 21. “NL manufactured lead pigments for use in house paints from 1891 until 1978. NL was a member of the LIA from 1928 until 1978 and a member of the NPVLA from 1933 through 1977.” SOD p. 22. “SW manufactured lead pigments for use in house paints from 1910 to 1947. It manufactured paints with lead pigments from 1880 through the 1970s. SW was a member of the LIA from 1928 through May 1947 and was a Class A member of the NPVLA from 1933 through 1981.” Id.

The Proposed Statement of Decision

Judge Kleinberg was “convinced that the [defendants’] knowledge need not be actual, although proof of actual knowledge has been put in evidence, but that constructive knowledge will suffice.” Id. at 9. He found that the defendants’ constructive knowledge
“took a variety of forms,” citing to numerous sources, including NL Industries internal publications, medical journal articles going back to 1917, information from trade associations going back to the 1930s and other litigation. Id. at 13. He concluded that:

“Despite this actual and constructive knowledge, each Defendant promoted lead pigment and/or lead paint for home use. Defendants’ assertion that they were not aware of the effects of low-level lead exposure until long after they stopped producing and promoting lead paint is of no moment. Each Defendant certainly knew or should reasonably have known that exposure to lead at high levels, including exposure to lead paint, was fatal or at least detrimental to children’s health. That knowledge alone should have caused each Defendant to cease its promotion and sale of lead pigment and/or lead paint for home use. Instead, after becoming aware of the hazards associated with lead paint, they continued to sell it.”

Id. at 10 (internal citations omitted). He further found that “[a]t the same time they were promoting lead paint for home use, each Defendant knew that high level exposure to lead–and, in particular, lead paint–was fatal. Each Defendant also knew that lower level lead exposure harmed children.” Id. at 24. He found “ample authority to hold the Defendants liable.” Id. at 95.

Judge Kleinberg recognized that “[s]eeking the abatement of lead by inspections and rehabilitation of tens of thousands of homes – at a minimum — is a daunting decision.” Id. at 94. However, he was “convinced that although great strides in reducing lead exposure have been made, and the incidence of exposure with correlative blood lead levels has declined to a low level, thousands of children in the jurisdictions are still presently and potentially victimized by this chemical.” Id. He then confirmed that the proposed abatement plan, as amended by the court, “is an appropriate remedy justified by the facts and the law.”

Judge Kleinberg was not persuaded “that since the various lead control programs have been successes no further efforts are appropriate.” Id. at 96. He reasoned that “the existence of other sources of lead exposure has no bearing on whether lead paint constitutes a public nuisance. It does not change the fact that lead paint is the primary source of lead poisoning for children in the Jurisdictions who live in pre-1978 housing.” Id.

The companies likely will file objections to the SOD and, if the objections are not accepted, the defendants may ask for a new trial or mistrial. If that is denied, they may appeal. If the decision stands, the companies will be jointly responsible for paying $1.1 billion into a specifically designated, dedicated, and restricted abatement fund that will be used to abate lead paint contamination in potentially millions of homes in 10 California counties and cities.

Other Sources: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development; California Department of Public Health; Los Angeles Times; People of the State of California v. Atlantic Richfield Co. et al. Docket; Environmental Protection Agency

Posted
by

Six months from now, on June 27, 2014, the 2014 Solar Decathlon Europe will kick-off. The Decathlon will be held in Versailles, France and run from June 27 through July 14. The participating teams are:

* Lucerne University of Applied Science and Arts – School of Engineering and Architecture * Universidad de Castilla – La Mancha and Universidad de Alcala de Henares University
* Chiba University
* ENSA Nantes, ESB, Audencia Group, Audencia Nantes, Ecole des Mines Nantes, ISSBA, IUT Nantes, Architectes, Ingenieurs Associes, Atlansun, Institut des Materiaux Jean Rouxel, Medieco, Novabuild, SAMOA, and SCE * Technical Institute of Denmark * Academy of Architecture and IIT Bombay * Universidad Tecnica Federico Santa Maria – Valparaiso and Universite de La Rochelle – Espace Bois de I’IUT * Universite d’Angers and Appalachian State University * University of the Arts Berlin and Technical University of Berlin * Technical University of Civil Engineering Bucharest, University Politehnica of Bucharest, and University of Architecture and Urbanism “Ion Mincu”
* Rhode Island School of Design, Brown University, and University o Applied Sciences – Erfurt * Delft University of Technology * University of Applied Science Frankfurt am Main * Costa Rica Institute of Technology – Cartago
* Universite Paris-Est, ENSA Paris Malaquais, ENSA Marne la Vallee, ESTP Paris, Ecole des Ponts Paris Tech, ESIEE Paris, ENSG, and IFSTTAR * Universita Degli Studi di Roma TRE * King Mongkut’s University of Technology Thonburi * Universitat Politecnica de Caralunya – Barcelona * National Chiao Tung University * Universidad Nacional Autonoma de Mexico and the Center of Research in Industrial Design and the School of Engineering and the School of Arts
Additional Resources: U.S. Department of Energy Solar Decathlon; Solar Decathlon Europe

Posted
by

UPDATE: CSLB Message From the Board Chair: “… I am troubled by the increasing number of complaints CSLB is receiving about predatory C-20 Warm-Air Heating, Ventilating and Air-Conditioning (HVAC) contractors who are targeting vulnerable consumers after being called out for simple repairs or routine maintenance….” (Summer 2014)

In its 2013 California Licensed Contractor newsletter, the California Contractors State License Board (CSLB) announced that it and the Santa Clara County District Attorney’s office “will conduct a 2014 pilot program to identify HVAC contractors who are out of compliance with permitting and worker’s compliance insurance regulations.” It reported that the California Energy Commision will assist with the pilot program “by providing CalCERTS inspectors who will report non-compliance issues.” Contractors will be held accountable for code compliance on their own dime. This effort is in response to the CSLB finding that “the majority” of HVAC installations being performed are without the required permit; “an estimated 400,000 units were sold in California in 2012 and only 10 percent of those received building department permits.”

The CSLB further commented that it “will not accept illegal or unethical business practices” by HVAC contractors, referring to service and repair companies’ advertising low prices but up-selling or making unnecessary repairs. Its enforcement record includes convicting scammers on 71 felony counts, freezing scammers’ assets, and pursuing restitution for victims.

Additional Resource: Contractors State License Board

Posted
by

UPDATE: CSLB industry Bulletin No. 14-02, Compliance Dates Delayed For Some Energy-Related Regulations in CA Building Standards Codes (Feb. 10, 2014) — New Effective Date Jul. 1, 2014
UPDATE: California Energy Commission, Blueprint (Jan. 23, 2014) – The California Energy Commission has established an “early adopter” program for compliance with the new energy efficiency standards.

On December 11, the California Energy Commission revised the effective date for the 2013 California Building Energy Efficiency Standards for residential and non-residential buildings from January 1, 2014 to July 1, 2013. The Standards are updated on an approximately three-year cycle. The Standards are located at Title 24, Part 1, Chapter 10 and Part 6 of the California Code of Regulations.

Additional Resource: California Energy Commission

Posted
by

We previously reported that, in August, Maryland announced plans to utilize a public-private partnership (“P3”) to build and operate its $2.2 billion light rail project known as the Purple Line, which will run between Montgomery and Prince George’s Counties. This past Tuesday marked the deadline for companies competing to be the project’s private partner to respond to a Request for Qualifications to design, build, finance, operate, and maintain the Purple Line project.

According to the Maryland Department of Transportation (“MDOT”), six groups comprised of local, national, and worldwide private companies made submissions. Those groups are: (1) M-PG Connect LLC (Plenary Group USA Ltd. and Bechtel Development Company Inc.); (2) Maryland Purple Line Partners (VINCI Concessions, Walsh Investors, InfraRed Capital Partners, ALSTOM Transport, and Keolis S.A.); (3) Maryland Transit Connectors (John Laing Investments Limited, Kiewit Development Company, and Edgemoor Infrastructure & Real Estate LLC); (4) Purple Line Development Partners (CSCEC and United Labor Life Insurance Company, Inc.); (5) Purple Line Transit Partners (Meridiam Infrastructure Purple Line, LLC, Fluor Enterprises, Inc., and Star America Fund GP LLC); and (6) Purple Plus Alliance LLC Proposer (Macquarie Capital Group and Skanska Infrastructure Development Inc.).

In January, MDOT plans to select no more than four of these groups to submit a detailed proposal for the Purple Line project by next fall. MDOT will then choose the winning proposal by early 2015. The private partner is expected to contribute between $400-900 million, and additional funding for the project will come from the federal government. If that federal funding is obtained, MDOT predicts that construction of the Purple Line will begin in the spring of 2015 with services planned to begin in 2020.

Posted
by

If you need a little eye candy for your Friday, CNN recently posted pictures of what building data company Emporis of Hamburg, Germany, has concluded are the most “spectacular” BOA Pic.jpgbuildings in the banking industry.

The buildings include:

* Bank of America Tower (New York) — Architects: Cook + Fox Architects; Adamson Associates
* Bank of China Tower (Hong Kong) — Architects: I.M. Pei & Partners; Shermann Kung & Associates * DnB NOR Headquarters (Oslo, Norway)
* European Investment Bank (Luxembourg) — Architects: Ingenhoven Architects
* Isbank Tower (Istanbul, Turkey) — Architects: Swanke Hayden Connell Architects; Tekeli & Sisa

* Islamic Development Bank (Jeddah, Saudia Arabia) — Architects: Nikken Sekkei Ltd.
* Macquarie Bank Centre (Sydney) — Architects: Fitzpatrick + Partners
* National Bank of Dubai (Dubai, U.A.E.) — Architects: Norris Group Consultants Int. Ltd.; Carlos Ottawa Architect
* ING House (Amsterdam, Netherlands) — Architects: Meyer en Van Schooten Architecten
* One Churchill Place (London) — Architects: HOK International Ltd.
* Saxo Bank International HQ (Hellerup, Denmark) — Architects: 3XN Architects
* Scotia Plaza (Toronto, Canada) — Architects: WZMH Architects

If you need more, CNN also posted pictures of 25 amazing skyscrapers, including pictures of the following buildings:

empirestatebuilding-224x300* Empire State Building (New York) — Height: 437 Meters * China Central Television Headquarters (Beijing) — Height: 234 Meters * Commerzbank Headquarters (Frankfurt, Germany) — Height: 300.1 Meters * The Shard (London) — Height: 310 Meters * Elephant Tower (Bangkok) — Height: 102 Meters CB.jpg* Chrysler Building (New York) — Height: 320 Meters * Bitexco Financial Tower (Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam) — Height: 262 Meters * Ryugyong Hotel (Pyongyang, North Korea) — Height: 330 Meters * Transamerica Pyramid (San Francisco) — Height: 260 Meters * Bank of China Tower (Hong Kong) — Height: 367.4 Meters * Kingdom Centre (Riyadh, Saudi Arabia) — Height: 302 Meters * Petronas Twin Towers (Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia) — Height: 452 Meters * Tokyo Mode Gakuen Cocoon Tower (Tokyo) — Height: 204 Meters * Shanghai World Financial Center (Shanghai) — Height: 492 Meters * Hotel & Casino Grand Lisboa (Macau) — Height: 261 Meters * Bahrain World Trade Center (Manama, Bahrain) — Height: 240 Meters * Two International Finance Center (2IFC) (Hong Kong) — Height: 415 Meters * Burj al Arab (Dubai, United Arab Emirates) — Height: 321 Meters * Taipei 101 (Taipei, Taiwan) — Height: 508 Meters * Torre Agbar (Barcelona, Spain) — Height: 142 Meters * Burj Khalifa (Dubai, United Arab Emirates) — Height: 828 Meters * 30 St. Mary Axe (London) — Height: 180 Meters * Turning Torso (Malmo, Sweden) — Height: 190 Meters * One World Trade Center (New York) — Height: 541 MetersWorld Trade.jpg
* Marina Bay Sands (Singapore) — Height: 194 Meters
I’m not sure if it is possible to pick a favorite.

Photos: Bank of America Tower, Taken January 3, 2013, Kiah Ankoor – Creative Commons; Empire State Building, Taken September 18, 2005, matze_ott – Creative Commons; Chrysler Building, Taken May 2009, David Shankbone – Creative Commons; One World Trade Center, Taken June 22, 2012, Charlie Phillips – Creative Commons

Posted
by

In Stresscon Corp. v. Travelers Prop. Cas. Co. of Am., 2013 COA 131, 2013 WL 4874352 (Colo. Ct App. Sept. 12, 2013), http://www.cobar.org/opinions/opinion.cfm?opinionid=9084, the Colorado Court of Appeals addressed the question of whether an insured’s breach of a “no voluntary payment” clause will always bar the insured from receiving benefits and ruled that under Colorado’s notice-prejudice rule, the answer is no.

Stresscon began with a construction accident on the Fort Carson Army Base where sections of a partially erected building collapsed after a crane hook caught on a safety stanchion and pulled a concrete component off its support beams. Bodily injury claims were settled and the general contractor sought indemnity from its concrete subcontractor for delay damages on the project. The concrete subcontractor tendered the claim to its insurer. After the insurer issued two reservation of rights letters and a letter to the general contractor denying the subcontractor’s liability, the general contractor and the insured subcontractor reached a settlement, which included delay and other damages but no allocation between the types of damages settled. The subcontractor did not obtain the insurer’s consent for the settlement.

Thereafter, the subcontractor sued its insurer for bad faith under Colorado statute, C.R.S. §10-3-1116, which carries a statutory penalty of reasonable attorneys fees and two times the covered benefit that was wrongfully denied. The subcontractor also sued the crane team (its sub-subcontractors on the project) and their insurers for indemnity for the settlement with the general contractor. In the first of two trials, the jury first found the crane subcontractors liable. In the second trial, the jury found that the insurer had unreasonably denied the delay claim and that the insurer was not prejudiced by the insured’s failure to obtain the insurer’s consent to the settlement. It also made an allocation of the settlement to reflect the amount of covered versus uncovered damages.

On appeal, the insurer argued that the trial court erred in denying its motion for directed verdict in which it had asserted that Colorado’s notice-prejudice rule applies only to late notice and not to an insured’s violation of a “no voluntary payment” clause and also that an insurer is prejudiced as a matter of law when an insured settles with a third party claimant before that third party has filed a lawsuit.

In addressing the issue, the court of appeals first explained that under Colorado’s notice-prejudice rule courts do not strictly enforce notice-of-claim language unless the lack of notice prejudiced the insurer. Discussing Friedland v. Travelers Indemnity Co., 105 P.3d 639, 645-646 (Colo.2005), the court reported that the rule addresses three public policy concerns: “(1) the adhesive nature of insurance contracts, (2) the public policy objective of compensating tort victims, and (3) the inequity of an insurer receiving a windfall … due to a technicality.” Where notice is not given until after the insured has settled, the law presumes prejudice to the insurer. If the insured rebuts the presumption, the burden shifts to the insurer to prove actual prejudice. As there was sufficient evidence at trial for the jury to find that the insurer was not prejudiced, in particular that the insured had obtained all material information necessary to analyze the claim and that the insurance company would not have achieved a materially better result, the court affirmed this aspect of the judgment.
In applying the rule here, the court rejected the insurer’s argument that the notice-prejudice rule only applies to violations of notice of claim clauses. “The supreme court [in Friedland] made clear that the insured’s settlement was the reason for the creation of a presumption of prejudice in favor of the insurer.” It also rejected the insurer’s second argument that an insurer is prejudiced as a matter of law if the settlement occurs before the third party claimant files suit in favor of case-by-case analysis, observing that “[n]othing about the pre-suit nature of a settlement renders it any less trustworthy than the post-lawsuit settlement.” The court continued, “Even assuming, for the purposes of argument, that, without a bright-line rule, policyholders and third parties will be tempted to collude to “set up” insurers, we conclude that the presumption of prejudice, and the insurer’s opportunity to prove prejudice if the insured overcomes the presumption of prejudice, provide ample protection against this putative risk.”

On cross appeal, the appellate court, affirmed the trial court’s ruling that the concrete company’s repair and replacement costs for its concrete components damaged in the accident were excluded under the policy. In particular, as the losses at issue were to “that particular part” of the construction project on which the subcontractor and its sub-subcontractors were actively working, they fell within the policy’s (j)(1), (j)(5) and (j)(6) exclusions.

Also on cross appeal, the court affirmed the trial court’s reduction of the award against the insurer by the amount paid by one of the crane subcontractors to satisfy the judgment in the first trial.

Lastly, the court took up the issue of whether an insured is entitled to its attorneys fees for bringing a motion for attorney’s fees under the statute. The trial court had denied those fees to the concrete company reasoning that the statutory penalty already awarded sufficiently compensated the insured for its “fees-on-fees.” The appellate court reversed reporting that “If a fee-shifting provision in a statute is part of a larger remedial scheme, appellate courts in Colorado have upheld awards of “fees-on-fees” based on the compensatory purpose of fee-shifting.” As the court further explained, C.R.S. § 10-3-1116(1) states that an insured may bring an action to recover “attorney fees and court costs and two times the covered benefit.” The trial court’s action of denying fees-on-fees “effectively turned the statutory ‘and’ into ‘or.'”

Posted
by

LINKS UPDATED AUGUST 30, 2017

California’s Contractors State License Board (CSLB) issues licenses to applicants to contract for particular trades or fields — each such trade or field is a “classification.” The classifications are a “Class A” general engineering contractor, “Class B” general building contractor, and “Class C” specialty contractor (which includes an extensive number of
subcategories). A licensed contractor may add any classification for which it is qualified. The law governing the classifications are set forth in California Business & Professions Code §§ 7008 and 7056-7059.

A Class A general engineering contractor’s principal business is in connection with fixed works requiring specialized engineering knowledge and skill. In contrast, a Class B general building contractor’s principal business is in connection with any structure built, or to be built, requiring in its construction the use of at least two unrelated building trades or crafts.

In contrast to both Class A and Class B classifications, a Class C specialty contractor’s principal business is in connection with specialized trades requiring use of the contractor’s art, experience, science and/or skill to construct and complete projects under their classification. For purposes of Business & Professions Code § 7059, work in other classifications is “incidental and supplemental” to the work for which a specialty contractor is licensed if that work is essential to accomplish the work in which the contractor is classified (16 CCR § 831). A specialty contractor may use subcontractors to complete the incidental and supplemental work, or it may use his own employees to do so (16 CCR § 831). (Also note that, for example, Class A, Class B, C-4, C-10, C-36, C-46, C-53 licensees are approved by the CSLB to perform solar projects.) The Class C specialty classification (and subcategories) are set forth in the Title 16, Division 8 of the California Code of Regulations:

  • C-2 Insulation and Acoustical
  • C-4 Boiler, Hot-Water Gearing and Steam Fitting
  • C-5 Framing and Rough Carpentry
  • C-6 Cabinet, Millworker and Finish Carpentry
  • C-7 Low Voltage Systems
  • C-8 Concrete
  • C-9 Drywall
  • C-10 Electrical
  • C-11 Elevator
  • C-12 Earthwork and Paving
  • C-13 Fencing
  • C-15 Flooring and Floor Covering
  • C-16 Fire Protection
  • C-17 Glazing
  • C-20 Warm-Air heating, Ventilation and Air-Conditioning (HVAC)
  • C-21 Building Moving/Demolition C-23 Ornamental Metal
  • C-27 Landscaping C-28 Lock and Security Equipment
  • C-29 Masonry C-31 Construction Zone Traffic Control
  • C-32 Parking and Highway Improvement
  • C-33 Painting and Decorating
  • C-34 Pipeline
  • C-35 Lath and Plastering
  • C-36 Plumbing
  • C-38 Refrigeration
  • C-39 Roofing
  • C-42 Sanitation System
  • C-43 Sheet Metal
  • C-45 Sign
  • C-46 Solar
  • C-47 General Manufactured Housing
  • C-50 Reinforcing Steel
  • C-51 Structural Steel
  • C-53 Swimming Pool
  • C-54 Tile (Ceramic and Mosaic)
  • C-55 Water Conditioning
  • C-57 Well Drilling
  • C-60 Welding
  • C-61 Limited Specialty, which includes “D” subcategories that were developed by CSLB staff and approved by the Board as policy:
    • D-03 Awnings D-04 Central Vacuum Systems
    • D-06 Concrete-related Services
    • D-09 Drilling, Blasting and Oil Field Work
    • D-10 Elevated Floors
    • D-12 Synthetic Products
    • D-16 Hardware, Locks and Safes
    • D-21 Machinery and Pumps
    • D-24 Metal Products
    • D-28 Doors, Gates and Activating Devices
    • D-28 Paperhanging
    • D-30 Pile Driving/Pressure Foundation Jacking
    • D-31 Pole Installation and Maintenance
    • D-34 Prefabricated Equipment
    • D-35 Pool and Spa Maintenance
    • D-38 Sand and Water Blasting
    • D-39 Scaffolding
    • D-40 Service Station Equipment and Maintenance
    • D-41 Siding and Decking
    • D-42 Non-Electrical Sign Installation
    • D-49 Tree Service
    • D-50 Suspended Ceilings
    • D-52 Window Coverings
    • D-53 Wood Tanks
      D-56 Trenching
    • D-59 Hydroseed Spraying
    • D-62 Air and Water Balancing
    • D-63 Construction Cleanup
    • D-64 Non-specialized
      D-65 Weatherization and Energy Conservation

Some licensees may hold a license in a classification that is now considered obsolete. The license, however, remains valid so long as the license is current with fees, bond and appropriate insurance.

In addition to obtaining a license, a licensee may obtain certifications, including an asbestos certification (ASB) or a hazardous substance removal certification (HAZ).

California also has reciprocity agreements with contractor licensing agencies in Arizona, Nevada, and Utah for certain classifications and subcategories. The contractor or license applicant must request reciprocity.

California Business & Professions Code §§ 7040, et seq., set forth various exemptions from the licensing law.

Additional Resources: CSLB’s Website; CSLB Description of Classifications

Posted
by

UPDATE: Environmental News Network, Renewables Now Cheaper Than Fossil Fuels in Australia (Jan. 8, 2014)

Citing to a recent report by Lux Research, Inc., on December 2, 2013, Forbes reported that “[u]tility-scale solar power is poised to become cost competitive with natural gas by 2025.” The Lux Research report entitled “Cheap Natural Gas: Fracturing Dreams of a Solar Future” evaluated the “levelized cost of energy” (LCOE) for unsubsidized solar, natural gas, and hybrid solar/gas technologies under a range of future natural gas prices across 10 different parts of the world. Forbes’ “takeaway” from the Lux Research report is “the LCOE for unsubsidized utility-scale solar globally will be only about $0.02/kWh above the price of power produced by combined cycle gas turbines by 2025.”

It further highlighted that “solar power continues to see strong growth:” “in October, solar projects led new electrical generation capacity installed in the United States … An impressive 504 megawatts of solar power capacity came online in October, out of 699 megawatts total new capacity for the month,” citing the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission’s Office of Energy Projects Energy Infrastructure Update For October 2013.

Additional Resources: Lux Research, Inc.; Forbes; Federal Energy Regulatory Commission; Go Solar California

Posted
by

LINKS UPDATED AUGUST 30, 2017

UPDATE: CSLB Streamlines License Experience Review Process; Watch YouTube Video of December 4 CSLB Experience Verification Seminar

As a quick primer, in California an applicant for a contractor’s license must have at least 4 years of experience in the class he/she is applying for to qualify to take the license examination, including submitting a Certification of Work Experience. Credit for experience is given only for experience at a journeyman level or as a foreman, supervising employee, contractor, or owner-builder. An applicant may also receive credit for technical training, apprenticeship training, or education toward the 4 years of required practical experience. At least 1 year must be practical experience.

All experience claimed must be verified by a qualified and responsible person, such as a homeowner, an employer, fellow employee, other journeyman, contractor, union representative, building inspector, architect, or engineer. This person must have firsthand knowledge of the applicant’s experience — he/she must have observed the work that was performed — and he/she must complete the experience certification portion of the application. The applicant must also provide written documentation of any training or education claimed in place of experience. Acceptable documentation includes copies of apprenticeship certificates and college transcripts. In addition, the Contractors State License Board (CSLB) will require the applicant to provide a certification of his/her experience and may require the applicant to furnish additional documentation of any experience claimed on the application — failure to provide this documentation will result in rejection of the application or denial of the license.

For purposes of determining the applicant’s year’s of experience: A “journeyman” is a “person who has completed an apprenticeship program or is an experienced worker, not a trainee, and is fully qualified and able to perform the trade without supervision.” A “foreman” or “supervisor” is a “person who has the knowledge and skill of a journeyman and directly supervises physical construction.” A “contractor” is a “person who manages the daily activities of a construction business, including field supervision.” An “owner-builder” is a “person who has the knowledge and skills of a journeyman and who performs work on his or her own property.”

On December 4, 2013, the CSLB will be hosting a live event and webcast to explain how it verifies a license applicant’s journey-level work experience. To join in person, go to the John C. Hall Hearing Room at the Contractors State License Board Headquarters located at 9821 Business Park Drive, Sacramento, CA 95827. To watch the live stream webcast, join the CSLB at www.cslb.ca.gov.

For additional information about what constitutes “journey-level experience,” the CSLB has posted Frequently Asked Questions About Journey-level Experience on its website. It explains, in part, that “[j]ourney-level experience applies to a person who has completed an apprenticeship program or is an experienced worker, not a trainee, and is fully qualified and able to perform a specific trade without supervision. However, that person does not have a license and is not able to contract for jobs that are more than $500 in labor and materials.”

The CSLB’s FAQ also notes that “[a]n “Apprenticeable Occupation” is one that requires independent judgment and the application of manual, mechanical, technical, or professional skills. It is best learned through an organized system of on-the-job training, together with related and supplemental instruction.” The California Department of Industrial Relations’ (DIR) website provides additional information on apprentice skills and programs. It explains, in part, that “[a]pprenticeship is a system of learning while earning, and ‘learning by doing.’ It combines training on the job with related and supplemental instruction at school. Today, it is utilized chiefly in the skilled crafts.” The DIR’s website also hosts a searchable database for available apprenticeship programs and for registered apprentices for public works.

Additional Resource: California Contractors State License Board; California Department of Industrial Relations