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

Posted
by

On Monday, November 25, 2013, New York City Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg, Parks Commissioner Veronica M. White, Sanitation Commissioner John Doherty and Director of the Mayor’s Office of Long-Term Planning and Sustainability Sergej Mahnovski announced that the largest solar energy installation in New York City will be installed at Freshkills Park on Staten Island. SunEdison was selected through a public bidding process to design, construct, install and operate a solar power facility with the potential to generate up to 10 MW of power on 47 acres of property leased from New York City. This is boasted to be 5 times more than any solar energy system in New York City and enough to power approximately 2,000 homes.

Freshkillspark.jpg

At 2,200 acres, Freshkills Park is 3 times the size of Central Park and reportedly the largest park developed in New York City in over 100 years. This area was formerly the world’s largest landfill and the park represents a remarkable example of land reclamation. It is being transformed into a productive and beautiful cultural destination, symbolizing renewal and an expression of how society can restore balance to its landscape. Freshkills Park’s design, ecological restoration and cultural and educational programming is intended to emphasize environmental sustainability and a renewed public concern for our impact on the earth.

Additional Resources: The Official Website of the City of New York

Related Articles: NY Governor Announces SUNY to Develop First-Of-Its-Kind CNSE Photovoltaic Manufacturing and Technology Development Facility

Photo: Kristine Paulus, Taken Oct. 1, 2011 – Creative Commons

Posted
by

The light at the end of the tunnel moved further away for California’s high speed rail project on Monday, as a California court’s rulings placed much of the project’s funding in limbo.

In one ruling, in an action brought by the High-Speed Rail Authority and High-Speed Passenger Train Finance Committee to validate the Finance Committee’s decision to authorize issue of over $8 billion in bonds, the court refused to validate the bonds. Two state agencies were involved in the issuance: the Authority, which is charged with building the project and requested the bonds, and the Finance Committee, which is responsible for authorizing the bonds and did so. The court held that the Finance Committee was required by law to rely on evidence other than the bald request by the Authority for the bonds. As noted by the court, “[a]n agency that is specifically assigned to the task of building a project . . . may have a very different view of what is desirable than the public officials who sit on the authorizing committee, whose responsibilities include taking a view of the State’s finances that is broader than a single project.” The court found no other evidence in the record than the Authority’s request and denied validation.

In the second ruling, the court issued a writ of mandate directing the Authority to rescind its funding plan because it had not obtained all required environmental clearances, but declined to order rescission of the existing construction contracts, including the Tutor-Perini-Parsons contract we last blogged about in June.

What these two rulings mean for the future of high-speed rail in California is open for debate. According to the Associated Press’s Juliet Williams, the Authority’s CEO said the Authority did not think that addressing the rulings “will have any material effect on the project.” On the other hand, Ms. Williams also notes the observation of Michael Brady, an attorney for parties suing to halt the project, that “[I]t’s taken them five years to [get environmental clearances for] 28 miles, so how long will it take them to do 300 miles?”

Posted
by

2016 Update: Death of Del Paso; Sponsor A Dream: Iceland Ice Skating Rink

Update: Sacramento Business Journal, Sacramento Business Journal, North Sacramento public market plans official debut (Sep. 9, 2014); Domus looks at Del Paso Boulevard parcels for mixed-use projects (Aug. 15, 2014); Sacramento Business Journal, Enotria plans to reopen (Mar. 26, 2014); Comstock’s Magazine, Words of Art (Feb. 2014) — “[T]he Del Paso Design District has earned a Good Design Award for green urban planning from the European Centre for Architecture and the Chicago Athenaeum Museum of Architecture and Design.”

Monday, The Sacramento Bee announced that city officials and neighborhood activists have come together with what they believe will “reverse the downward spiral of Del Paso Boulevard, the gritty main street of north Sacramento.” It was reported that “[l]ocal business owners and developers are in negotiations to purchase some of the 12 properties the city owns” along Del Paso Boulevard. In addition, the Del Paso Boulevard Partnership is “a marketing consultant working for the neighborhood’s business association is attempting to brand the area as a ‘design district’ that appeals to small businesses.” These 10 uninterrupted blocks provide a rare development opportunity.

enotria bldg.jpgAn existing draw to this area is Enotria Restaurant Wine Bar located at 1431 Del Paso Boulevard. Enotria’s website describes its recent renovation and vision for its future: Enotria “underwent a multi-million dollar renovation in 2010 and now boasts an exciting new Winebar, beautiful courtyard, and brand new finishes in the original restaurant. Chef Pajo Bruich and his culinary team prepare contemporary California cuisine with fresh, local ingredients and change the menu seasonally. Enotria’s food is designed to pair with over 700 unique wine selections in house.” It also boasts that “[u]nder the direction of general manager, Jenny Yun, Enotria provides guests with a wine and food pairing experience that will be memorable for years to come.”

The Temp Gallery.jpg Just down the block at the Sacramento Temporary Contemporary located at 1616 Del Paso Boulevard art installations are often hosted. The November Art Installation, which runs from November 7 through November 24, will feature artists including Julie Didion, Susan Ballenger, Sally Shapiro, Susan Aulik, Mary Curtis Ratcliff and Marilyn Jennings.

DSC_0317.JPG Not far from them is another popular draw to the area. Prime Time Boxing is located at 1931 Del Paso Boulevard. Prime Time Boxing is the self-proclaimed “creator of the ‘boxing class’.” Now, Prime Time Boxing explains, “the old boxing class has become the new boxing camp. We are committed to changing your life in a positive way!” It promises that “[y]ou are never just another face in the crowd at Prime Time. Once you commit to this program we promise to keep you motivated, sweating and achieving the goals you have set for yourself.”

Iceland.jpgThe nostalgic Iceland Ice Skating Rink is also located along this corridor at 1431 Del Paso Boulevard. Iceland “opened in 1940 and for almost 70 continuous years provided skating fun in Sacramento. Iceland was burned down by arson fire on March 28, 2010.” It reopened as a seasonal rink in November, 2010. Iceland is now managed by Sacramento Iceland, Inc. Iceland is preparing to open for the winter season on November 22, 2013.

The beautiful Woodlake neighborhood is also not far. Woodlake is a stately 1930s and 1940s neighborhood within the boundaries set by Arden Way to the north, N. Sacramento Freeway to the south, Royal Oaks Drive to the east and Del Paso Boulevard (Uptown Art District) to the north-west. Woodlake is mostly inhabited by career professionals and is often cited in Sacramento publications as one of Sacramento’s most desired neighborhoods.

Andrea Lepore, a co-owner of the popular Hot Italian restaurant in Sacramento’s midtown, recently confirmed to The Sacramento Bee that four local business owners are in talks with city officials to buy properties on Del Paso Boulevard. Although Lepore did not identify the business owners negotiating to buy the properties, she reportedly confirmed that the projects that they would be seeking to build along Del Paso Boulevard would include “a local graphic design firm, a local brewery and a developer interested in building a midsize apartment building on the boulevard.” She also reportedly confirmed that “a well-known local chef wants to open a “culinary center” that would include not only a restaurant, but also other food-related amenities.” Negotiations are reportedly ongoing, which kept Lepore from providing further details.

In addition, Lepore also indicated that the plan would involve rehabilitation of the “the former Grand Theatre, which opened in 1942 but closed in 1960.” The Grand Theatre is located at 1917 Del Paso Boulevard. The proposed concept for the Grand Theatre, “which once featured a neon sign facing Del Paso Boulevard, is to reopen the space as a movie theater serving full meals and adult drinks, similar to the Parkway Theater in Oakland.” Another new draw to this area could include plans for a public market to cover multiple properties on Del Paso Boulevard. The market – reportedly “the idea of prominent designer and furniture retailer Dan Friedlander” – is expected to include “permanent vendors selling meat, bread and produce.”

Additional Attractions on Del Paso Boulevard: Stoney’s Rockin’ Rodeo, 1320 Del Paso Blvd.; North Sacramento – Hagginwood Library, 2109 Del Paso Blvd.; Big Idea Theatre, 1616 Del Paso Blvd.; Fenix Studios, 2110 Del Paso Blvd.; The Green Boheme, 1825 Del Paso Blvd.; Mama Kim Eats, 1616 Del Paso Blvd.

Additional Sources: The Sacramento Bee; Del Paso Boulevard Partnership; Bennett Engineering Services

Photos: Del Paso Boulevard Partnership, All Rights Reserved; Prime Time Boxing Inc., All Rights Reserved; Comstock’ Magazine

Posted
by

On October 31, 2013, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) announced a new concentrating solar power (CSP) project that will be led by the Sacramento Municipal Utility District (SMUD). CSP technology uses sunlight to produce steam, which is then used to generate electricity, and improves the efficiency and performance of traditional fossil fuel-powered plants. The SMUD project will integrate utility-scale CSP technology with SMUD’s 500 MW natural gas-fired Cosumnes Power Plant, and it will help design, build and test cost-competitive CSP-fossil fuel power generating systems in the United States. When completed, the project will feed solar-produced steam directly into the Cosumnes Power Plant’s turbines – generating at least 10 MW of new electric generation capacity. The project will also include energy storage technology to improve system performance and meet peak and off-peak power needs.

As reported by the DOE, “[t]oday, between 11 and 21 gigawatts of CSP could be built and integrated into existing fossil fuel plants in the United States – enough to power to between 3 million and 6 million homes.”

Additional Sources: U.S. Department of Energy

Posted
by

On November 1, 2013, the U.S. Department of Energy opened the competition to select up to 20 collegiate teams to compete in the U.S. Department of Energy Solar Decathlon 2015. The teams selected will begin a 2-year project to build solar-powered, highly energy-efficient houses that combine affordability, consumer appeal, and design excellence. The U.S. Department of Energy reported in its announcement that, for the first time in the Decathlon’s history, the houses constructed for the U.S. Solar Decathlon 2013 all generated more electricity than they consumed during the 10-day competition.
2013 Solar Decathlon Closing Ceremony.jpg The Vienna University of Technology won the U.S. Solar Decathlon 2013 that took place in Irvine, California in October.

The U.S. Department of Energy released a funding opportunity announcement (“FOA”) to support the participation of up to 20 college and university teams in the Solar Decathlon 2015. Important dates for the Solar Decathlon 2015 teams FOA:
• Issue date: Nov. 1, 2013 • Submission deadline: Dec. 20, 2013, at 5 p.m. EST/2 p.m. PST • Expected notification date: Feb. 14, 2014 • Expected timeframe for award negotiations: Feb. 14 – Apr. 14, 2014.

To apply to theFOA, applicants must register with and submit application materials through EERE Exchange, the Department of Energy Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy’s online application portal. Questions regarding the FOA must be submitted to solardecathlon2015@go.doe.gov no later than 3business days prior to the application due date.The Solar Decathlon 2013 Rules will be the basis for the Solar Decathlon 2015 competition, though the rules will be revised prior to the 2015 competition based on lessons learned and technology advancements at Solar Decathlon 2013.

Additional Sources: Vienna University of Technology Shines at US Solar Decathlon 2013

Photo: Dept of Energy Solar Decathlon (Oct. 12, 2013) – Creative Commons