Posted
by and

What if you get sued for property damage that occurred progressively over the course of two years, and you had separate GL policies for each year? Do you get the benefit of coverage for both years, or just the first year? Well, if you’re in New Jersey, you get coverage for both years, which generally will mean twice the limits, thanks to Potomac Ins. Co. of Ill., ex rel. One Beacon Insurance Company v. Pennsylvania Manufacturers Association Insurance Company, a case the New Jersey Supreme Court handed down earlier this week.

But what if one of the carriers provides a defense to the lawsuit, but the other refuses? Under One Beacon the carrier that provides a defense can sue the carrier that doesn’t. Time will tell the effect of that. One danger might be that carriers become reluctant to settle with insureds in a continuous loss case because of the risk of later being sued for more money by a co-insurer. Alternatively, it may – as the New Jersey Supreme Court believes – promote early settlement, as an insurer that anticipates paying an allocated portion of defense costs may factor those costs into a potential resolution of the underlying claim and will be incentivized to seek earlier settlement.

In Potomac Ins. Co. of Ill. ex rel. OneBeacon Ins. Co. v. Pa. Mfrs. Ass’n Ins. Co., (A-2-12) (070756) (N.J. Sep. 16, 2013), Roland Aristone, Inc. (“Aristone”) was hired as the general contractor to construct a new middle school. The school was completed in 1993, and almost immediately began experiencing leakage and other defects, primarily related to the roof. In 2001, the school sued Aristone for negligence and breach of contract due to continuous defects and resulting damages incurred at the school over the previous eight year period and continuing thereafter. Aristone notified its current and past insurance carriers of the claim (of which there were five) and sought defense and indemnification.
For the first two years of claimed damages, July 1, 1993, through July 1, 1995, Aristone was insured by Pennsylvania Manufacturers Association (“PMA”). Between July 1, 1995, and July 1, 1996, Newark Insurance Company provided Aristone’s insurance. From July 1, 1996, through July 1, 1997, Ariston was insured by Royal Insurance Company of America. From July 1, 1997, to July 1, 1998, OneBeacon provided Aristone’s CGL coverage. Between July 1, 1998 and July 1, 2003, Aristone was insured with Selective Way Insurance Company (“Selective”).

In response to the suit, OneBeacon and Selective paid for Aristone’s defense costs on a 50/50 basis. In contrast, Royal and PMA disclaimed coverage.
Ultimately, after a declaratory judgment was filed by Aristone against PMA, PMA agreed to contribute $150,000 toward the resolution of Aristone’s underlying dispute with the school in exchange for Aristone’s release. The release was for all claims, “including, without limitation, any and all claims by Aristone concerning PMA’s obligation to pay the attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in defense” of the underlying litigation.
Just a few days later, Aristone settled its dispute with the school for a total of $700,000. In addition to the $150,000 contributed by PMA, OneBeacon paid $150,000, Selective paid $260,000 and Royal paid $140,000.

After settlement, OneBeacon informed Royal and PMA that the defense costs shared by OneBeacon and Selective totaled $528,869. Invoking the “continuous trigger” methodology adopted by the New Jersey Supreme Court in Owens-Illinois Inc. v. United Ins. Co., 138 N.J. 437, 478-79 (N.J. 1994), OneBeacon proposed that defense costs be allocated based on each insurer’s time on the risk in the following manner: fifty percent paid by Selective; ten percent paid by OneBeacon; twenty percent paid by PMA; and twenty percent paid by Royal/Newark. Royal and Newark declined to contribute to Aristone’s defense costs.

OneBeacon then sought reimbursement of a portion of the defense costs in a direct action against PMA and Royal. The New Jersey Supreme Court found in favor of OneBeacon, holding that an insurer has a direct cause of action against its co-insurer for allocation of defense costs, even where the co-insurer has obtained a release for such costs from its insured. The court explained that recognizing such an action advances principles of fairness and economy. The court explained:

First, permitting such a claim creates a strong incentive for prompt and proactive involvement by all responsible carriers and promotes the efficient use of resources of insurers, litigants and the court. . . . .

Second, recognition of a direct claim by one insurer against another promotes early settlement. An insurer that anticipates paying an allocated portion of the policyholder’s defense costs may factor those costs into a potential resolution of the underlying claim. . . . .

Third, the allocation of defense costs creates an additional incentive for individuals and businesses to purchase sufficient coverage every year. If each insurer’s obligation to contribute to a defense is apportioned in accordance with the scope of its coverage . . . the policyholder is motivated to purchase coverage that is continuous, at a level commensurate to the policyholder’s personal or business risks. . . . .

Fourth, the allocation of defense costs among all insurers that cover the risk, enforced by a right of contribution between the co-insurers of a common insured, serves the principle of fairness . . . .

Justice Anne Patterson wrote the opinion for a unanimous court.

Posted
by

There are numerous contractor-related bills making their way through the California legislature this year. The following bills, although not an all-inclusive list, are worth noting:

Assembly Bill 44 – An Act to amend, repeal, and add Public Contract Code § 4104 relating to public contracts – signed into law by the Governor September 9, 2013 and operative July 1, 2014. The Subletting and Subcontracting Fair Practices Act, Cal. Public Contracting Code §§ 4100, et seq., requires an entity taking bids for the construction of any public work or improvement to specify that any person making a bid or offer to perform the work to, in his or her bid or offer, include specified information, including the name and location of the place of business of each subcontractor who will perform work or labor or render service to the prime contractor in or about the work or improvement. Commencing on July 1, 2014, any person making a bid or offer to perform the work to, in his or her bid or offer, will be required to include the California contractor license number of each subcontractor.

Assembly Bill 186 – An Act to add Business & Professions Code § 115.6 relating to professions and vocations, and making an appropriation therefore. As currently drafted, among other things, AB 186 would establish a temporary licensure process for an applicant who holds a current license in another jurisdiction, as specified, and who supplies satisfactory evidence of being married to, or in a domestic partnership or other legal union with, an active duty member of the Armed Forces of the United States who is assigned to a duty station in California under official active duty military orders. The temporary license would expire 12 months after issuance, upon issuance of the expedited license, or upon denial of the application for expedited licensure by the board, whichever occurs first.

Assembly Bill 433 – An Act to amend Business & Professions Code §§ 7026.12 and 7057, to add and repeal Business & Professions Code § 7026.13, and to add Health & Safety Code § 13110 relating to contractors. As currently drafted, among other things, AB 433 would authorize, until January 1, 2017, the installation of a residential fire protection system for a one- or 2-family dwelling by a contractor holding a fire protection contractor classification or a plumbing contractor classification.

Assembly Bill 811 – An Act to amend Government Code § Section 4216.6 relating to excavations – signed into law by the Governor September 6, 2013 and operative January 1, 2014. The new law requires statewide information, as defined, provided by operators and excavators regarding facility events, as defined, to be compiled and made available in an annual report by regional notification centers and posted on the Internet websites of those regional notification centers.

Assembly Bill 972 – An Act to amend Labor Code §§ 108.2 and 1776 relating to employment records. As currently drafted, among other things, AB 972 would require payroll records for projects that use an electrician to include the electrician’s state certification number.

Assembly Bill 993 – An Act to amend Business & Professions Code § 7085.5 relating to contractors. Existing law authorizes an arbitrator to grant any remedy or relief deemed just and equitable and within the scope of the Contractor State License Board’s (CSLB) referral to the arbitrator and the requirements of the board, including costs and expenses. As currently drafted, among other things, AB 993 would provide that a party that submits a dispute to arbitration waives any right to recover attorney’s fees or to challenge an arbitrator’s award of attorney’s fees in a civil action related to the dispute.

Assembly Bill 1114 – An Act to amend Business & Professions Code § 7157 relating to contractors. Existing law prohibits a salesperson or contractor’s agent from accepting compensation of any kind for, or on account of, a home improvement transaction, or any other transaction involving a work of improvement, from a person other than the contractor whom he or she represents with respect to the transaction, and from making a payment to any person other than his or her employer on account of the sales transaction. The law also prohibits a contractor from paying, crediting, or allowing any consideration or compensation of any kind to any other contractor or salesperson other than a licensee for, or on account of, the performance of a work of improvement or services, including, but not limited to, home improvement work or services, except as specified. As currently drafted, among other things, AB 1114 would delete the latter provision prohibiting contractors from paying, crediting, or allowing any consideration or compensation.

Assembly Bill 1236 – An Act to amend Business & Professions Code § 7071.19 relating to contractors – signed into law by the Governor August 16, 2013 and operative January 1, 2014. Existing laws authorizes the CSLB to issue a contractor’s license to a limited liability company, but requires, as a condition precedent to the issuance, reissuance, reinstatement, reactivation, renewal, or continued valid use of a limited liability company contractor’s license, that the applicant or licensee file or have on file a surety bond for damages arising out of specified claims of employees. It also requires the limited liability company to maintain a policy or policies of insurance against liability imposed on or against it for damages arising out of claims, as specified, as a condition of licensure, and the policy or policies of insurance secured to satisfy these provisions are required to be written by an insurer or insurers duly licensed by this state. Under the new law, those policies may be written by an eligible surplus line insurer, as specified.

Senate Bill 261 – An act to amend Business & Professions Code § 7114.2 relating to contractors – signed into law by the Governor August 27, 2013 and operative January 1, 2013. Existing law authorizes the CSLB to issue a citation, instead of initiating disciplinary proceedings, to a licensee when the CSLB has probable cause to believe that the licensee has committed acts in violation of the contractors’ State License Law, Business & Professions Code §§ 7000, et seq. In addition, under existing law, any person who willfully and intentionally uses, with intent to defraud, a contractor’s license number that does not correspond to the number on a currently valid contractor’s license held by that person, is guilty of a crime, and the CSLB may issue a citation to an unlicensed individual who is in violation of that provision, including an order of abatement and a civil penalty. Under the new law, any licensed or unlicensed person who commits any of those specified activities with respect to a contractor’s license is subject to the administrative remedies authorized by the Contractors’ State License Law.

Senate Bill 262 – An act to amend Business & Professions Code § 7068.1 relating to contractors – signed into law by the Governor August 27, 2013 and operative January 1, 2013. Existing law authorizes an applicant for contractor’s license to qualify the applicant’s knowledge and experience with a responsible managing officer (RMO), employee (RME), member, or manager who has certain qualifications. The license qualifier is responsible for exercising direct supervision and control of his or her employer’s or principal’s construction operations as necessary to secure full compliance with the Contractors’ State License Law and CSLB’s regulations relating to construction operations. Under the new law, among other things, instead, make the qualifying person responsible for exercising that direct supervision and control to secure compliance with that law and those regulations. A violation of these provisions is grounds for disciplinary action, and a misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment in a county jail not to exceed 6 months, by a fine of not less than $3,000, but not to exceed $5,000, or by both that imprisonment and fine.

Senate Bill 263 – An Act to amend Business & Professions Code § 7028 relating to contractors. Existing law makes it a misdemeanor for a person to engage in the business or act in the capacity of a contractor without having a license, unless the person is particularly exempted. As currently drafted, among other things, SB 263 would provide that, unless exempted, it is a misdemeanor for a person to engage in the business or act in the capacity of a contractor if the person either has never been licensed pursuant to the Contractors’ State License Law, or the person was a licensee, but performed acts covered by the law under a license that was inactive, expired, revoked, or under suspension for any reason failure to pay a civil penalty or comply with an order of correction, or failure to resolve all outstanding final liabilities, as specified.

Senate Bill 417– An Act to amend Business & Professions Code § 7018, to add Government Code § 15810 and to add Public Contract Code §§ 10142 and 20103 relating to public building and works. The State Contract Act, Cal. Public Contract Code §§ 10100, et seq., and the Local Agency Public Construction Act, Cal. Public Contract Code §§ 20100, et seq., generally set forth the authority and duties of state and local agencies for bidding and awarding contracts on public works. Among other things, they authorize a state or local agency to require that each prospective bidder for a public works contract complete and submit to the state or local agency a standardized questionnaire and financial statement, as provided. In addition, the State Building Construction Act of 1955 authorizes the State Public Works Board to acquire and construct public buildings for use by state agencies, when authorized by a separate act or appropriation enacted by the Legislature. As currently drafted, among other things, SB 417 would authorize state and local agencies subject to these Acts, prior to advertising for bids for construction of a public building or a public works project, to advise the CSLB of any supplemental license, certification, or education required of a contractor to qualify to bid on the contract for that project. It would require the CSLB to review the information received regarding any supplemental license, certification, or education requirements, and to post any supplemental requirements it approves in an easily identifiable location on the CSLB’s website. Any supplemental requirements that are not posted on the CSLB’s website before the bid opening would not apply to the bidding process for that contract.

Senate Bill 822 – An Act to amend Business & Professions Code §§ 5096, 5096.2, 5096.12, 7026.1, 7065.3, 7114, 7141, 7206, 7210, 7887, 9807, and 17914, to add Business & Professions Code § 7851, to repeal Business & Professions Code §§ 102.1 and 102.2, and to amend Health & Safety Code § 44011 relating to professions and vocations, and making an appropriation therefor. As currently drafted, among other things, SB 822 would provide that the term “contractor” or “consultant” does not apply to a common interest development manager, and a common interest development manager is not required to have a contractor’s license when performing management services, as defined.

Posted
by

UPDATE: In its Notice of CSLB Quarterly Meeting, the Contractors State License Board (CSLB) indicated that, at its upcoming February 19, 2014 quarterly Board meeting, its Enforcement Committee Report may include an update on its Electrician Certification Enforcement Policy. The meeting is scheduled to commence at 9:00 a.m. on Wednesday, February 19, 2014, in Sandpebble Rooms C, D, E at the Hyatt Regency, 1333 Bayshore Highway, Burlingame, CA 94010, (650) 347-1234, and there will be a live webcast of the meeting.

The California Stare Contractors License Board (CSLB) recently reconfirmed that it has a “Zero Tolerance Policy In Effect for Non-Compliant Electricians.” In 2010 it established this policy and, at its June 11, 2013 board meeting, it reconfirmed its commitment to investigate and to initiate disciplinary action against any C-10 Electrical contractor that willfully employs an uncertified electrician to perform work as an electrician.

Except as otherwise contemplated by California Labor Code §§ 108(c) and 108.2, California Labor Code § 108.2(a) and (b) require anyone who performs work as an electrician for a C-10 Electrical contractor to hold an electrical certification card issued by the Department of Industrial Relations’ Division of Apprenticeship Standards (DAS) and, in turn, it requires DAS to report violations to the CSLB. An “electrician” is anyone who engages in the connection of electrical devices for a C-10 Electrical contractor (Cal. Lab. Code § 108(c)). The CSLB’s position is that electrical work must be performed by either a state-licensed or certified electrician; an indentured apprentice or state-registered electrician trainee may also perform electrical work if supervised by a state-certified electrician. The CSLB is legally required to open an investigation and initiate disciplinary action against the C-10 Electrical contractor (which may include license suspension or revocation) within 60 days of receipt of a referral or complaint from the DAS (Cal. Lab. Code § 108.2(j)).

In addition, existing California law requires that, except as specified, not less than the general prevailing rate of per diem wages be paid to workers employed on public works projects and, in addition, it requires contractors and subcontractors to keep payroll records that include, among other things, the name, address, and work classification of each journeyman, apprentice, worker, or other employee employed in connection with the public works project. Currently pending Assembly Bill 972 would further require contractors’ and subcontractors’ payroll records for public works projects that use an electrician to include the electricianss state certification numbers.

Additional Sources: Division of Labor Standards Enforcement, Electrician Certification Program; Division of Labor Standards Enforcement, Electrician Certification Program – Enforcement; Division of Labor Standards Enforcement, Electrician Certification FAQs; Statistics of the Division of Fair Labor Standards – Electrician Certification Unit (September 2013)

Posted
by

UPDATE – GOVERNOR BROWN SIGNED ALL 4 BILLS. Click here to read the chartered bills: Assembly Bill 327, Assembly Bill 43, Assembly Bill 217, and Assembly Bill 792

Four California solar-related bills were enrolled on September 11 and 12, and await Governor Edmund G. Brown Jr.’s signature. This legislation would, as a whole, provide residents, schools and businesses across California more opportunities to participate in, invest in and benefit from California’s growing solar economy.

Assembly Bill 327 (Perea) — Electricity: natural gas: rates: net energy metering: California Renewables Portfolio Standard Program
Senate Bill 43 (Wolk) — Electricity: Green Tariff Shared Renewables Program
Assembly Bill 217 (Bradford) — Electricity: solar electricity: low-income households
Assembly Bill 792 (Mullin) — Utility user tax: exemption: distributed generation systems
Additional Sources: Renewable Energy World.com

Posted
by

The United Kingdom’s Solar Trade Association (STA) recently published guidance on the 10 best practices for solar development, guidance its members have committed to follow in building and managing solar farms. The guidance sets forth STA’s views on the best practices for siting, land use and community engagement:

1. Focus on non-agricultural land or land which is of lower agricultural value
2. Be sensitive to nationally and locally protected landscapes and nature conservation areas, and welcome opportunities to enhance the ecological value of the land
3. Minimize visual impact where possible and maintain appropriate screening throughout the lifetime of the project managed through a Land Management and/or Ecology plan (e.g., hedging to hide the view of equipment and non-farm fencing, maintaining hedging to an appropriate height and in a healthy order to encourage bird and animal life, replacing any dead or diseased screening, avoiding extensive views into the site from roads, public rights of ways and hillsides, developing a comprehensive land management plan to enhance ecology and manage the site for the duration, consider partnerships with conservation groups to protect and support vulnerable plant or animal species)

4. Engage with the community in advance of submitting a planning application (e.g., newspaper articles, flyers, local advertising, parish council meetings, knocking on neighboring doors)

5. Encourage land diversification by proposing continued agricultural use or incorporating biodiversity measures with projects (e.g., sheep grazing, bird nesting, bee keeping, pheasants, bat boxes, rids of prey and other small animals, flower meadows)

6. Do as much buying and employing locally as possible
7. Act considerately during construction, and demonstrate “solar stewardship” of the land or the lifetime of the project (e.g., avoiding soil compaction and damage to land drains, choosing panel mounting systems to suit site conditions archeology, etc., storing and replacing topsoil and subsoil separately and in the right order while trenching)

8. Seek the support of the local community and listen to their views and suggestions
9. Commit to using the solar farm as an educational opportunity where appropriate
10. At the end of the project life, return the land to the former use

The guidance also identifies possible exceptions to its best practice guidelines(e.g., large farms with a high volume of electricity self-consumption, for enhanced environmental benefits, for reasons of national interest, etc.).

Additional Sources: Renewable Energy World.com (Sept. 8, 2013)

Posted
by

We have previously reported on Maryland’s efforts to modernize its public-private partnership (“P3”) law. Our own Jeff Gans has had considerable involvement with the new legislation, and, at the request of the Lt. Governor’s office, has testified before Maryland Senate and House committees considering the P3 legislation. The new law is about to be put to good use.

Last month, Maryland Governor Martin O’ Malley announced plans to utilize a P3 to build and operate a $2.2 billion public transportation project. The project is a light rail line – the “Purple Line” – which will run from Bethesda in Montgomery County to New Carrollton in Prince George’s County and tie into the existing Metrorail, MARC, and Amtrak train lines as well as bus routes.

Maryland will provide $400 million for construction of the 16-mile, 21-stop route, plus $280 million for right-of-way acquisition and finalizing design. The private partner is expected to contribute between $400-900 million, and additional funding for the project will come from the federal government.

The Maryland Department of Transportation (“MDOT”) predicts that use of a P3 will promote efficiency and reduce costs by transferring risk to the private partner. In addition, P3 proponents point to the incentives and quality-control that are created when the designer and builder of a project is also the entity responsible for the project’s ultimate operation and long-term maintenance.

The presolicitation report submitted in accordance with Maryland’s new law, which outlines MDOT’s vision for the Purple Line project, can be found at MDOT’s website. Maryland will begin the process of selecting a private partner later this year. Each prospective partner will submit a detailed bid which includes estimates for building the project, plus a 30-year estimate for operating and maintaining the Purple Line. The partner’s profits will increase if it can provide the services for under the budgeted amount, but Maryland does not bear the risk related to budget overruns.

Maryland will maintain ownership of the Purple Line, and, after 30 years, the private partner operating the line will return it to the State. At that time, Maryland has options – it can decide to operate the line on its own, or it can rebid the operating function, which could result in the same company continuing to operate the line or a transition to a new operator.

According to MDOT, construction of the Purple Line is to begin in 2015, with rail services starting in 2020. In addition to vastly improving travel between Montgomery and Prince George’s counties, the project is expected to create thousands of jobs. As a Maryland resident living along the Purple Line’s planned route, I’m looking forward to the future.

Posted
by

The California Department of Public Health (CDPH) Fatality Assessment and Control Evaluation (FACE) program recently embarked on an effort to produce and release to the public work-place safety videos. Its second is a four-minute video that tells the tragic story of a solar panel installer’s 45-foot fall from the roof of a three-story apartment building.

The pre-project plan called for fall protection on the project due to the distance of the sloped roof to the ground and the slope of the roof, including 100% tie off on the sloped roof with single-D anchors, yo-yo type fall restraint life and full-body harness. It was not known how often management surveyed compliance with the fall protection plan on the job sites. On the first day of the particular project, a safety meeting was held by the project manager who told the work crews that fall protection safety equipment would be required when working on the roofs. The employer had an Injury and Illness Prevention Program (IIPP) that included, among other things, safety meetings, training and incentive and disciplinary measures. The IIPP incorporated guidance on the use of pre-project plans and job hazard analyses to evaluate work-place safety hazards. Its training program included new employee orientation, specific on-the-job training, job site orientation and weekly safety meetings.

On the day of the incident, however, none of the employees were tethered to the roof and no other fall-protection safety equipment was in place. One junior solar panel installer, while checking the alignment of the brackets that would hold the panels and walking backwards to get a better view, stepped off of the edge of the roof, falling three stories.The installer had underwent new employee orientation and had been receiving on-the-job training.

The FACE investigator that reviewed the incident determined that in order to prevent future incidents of a similar nature, contractors who install solar panels on roofs should ensure: (A) employees wear fall protection safety equipment when working on sloped roofs with identified fall hazards, and (B) worksite safety procedures and practices for fall protection are developed and implemented. In particular, fall protection safety equipment should be worn by employees working on sloped roofs greater than 30 degrees or whose work exposes them to a risk of a fall of greater that 7 1/2 feet. The two types of fall protection safety equipment typically used on roofs are: (1) a personal fall restraint (PFR) system and (2) a personal fall arrest (PFA) system. The former consists of anchorages, connectors, lanyards, and a body harness configured to prevent the employee from falling. The latter consists of anchorages, connectors, a deceleration device, and a body harness configured to stop the employee during a fall.

The FACE Investigator’s report, California Case Report 10CA003, suggests that a project pre-plan could include (1) a signature page which all employees on the job site were required to sign prior to starting work on the project, verifying that the worker was aware of his/her safety responsibilities and proving the worker with an opportunity to ask questions, clarify any misunderstandings, or request additional guidance, (2) initial and periodic inspections and audits of the job site by management personnel, identifying any safety hazards and correcting any unsafe practices on an ongoing basis. Corrective action could include progressive disciplinary measures, as well recognition or rewards for consistent compliance withe the safety plan.

With the growth in number of solar panel installations over the last number of years and expectation that this will continue due to the call for additional renewable energy sources, FACE recognized that there is an increasing number of solar installation workers exposed to fall hazards. The video explains the events that lead up to the fatal fall, and highlights fall-prevention safety recommendations. Photographs from the investigation supplement the project scenes recreated by the deceased installer’s co-workers. FACE encourages contractors to include its videos in their work-place safety training materials.

FACE has produced and released two other work-place safety videos, one on preventing falls through skylights and preventing wood chipper fatalities.

Additional Solar Work-Place Safety Training Materials: FACE Flash No. 1; FACE Facts No. 20; FACE Facts No. 21

Additional Sources: FACE Facts No. 24; California Licensed Contactor Newsletter (Summer 2012); ISHN Magazine

Posted
by

SolarPermit.org, a website developed by SunShot awardee Clean Power Finance and supported by a Department of Energy grant, “organizes and simplifies the solar permitting process by compiling permitting information in a single location.” The newly redesigned website hosts the National Solar Permitting Database, a free, online database of solar permitting requirements for cities and counties across the country. The website now contains “80% of jurisdictions with 200 or more residential installations per year.”

The website “is an interactive, crowd-sourced website – similar to Wikipedia – for solar permitting requirements.” Solar contractors and others can use the website to collect information from the database that may be helpful to them and to contribute information to the database based upon their experiences that may be helpful to others. Users of the website are able to provide feedback on the information provided by others. The “database contains jurisdictions for over 18,000 United States cities and counties. Each page includes over 100 data fields to give users an easy way to track a wide range of information about permitting requirements and processes.” Information made available on the website includes: (1) contact information, (2) turnaround times, (3) fees, (4) specifications for system designs, (5) inspection processes, and (6) common errors.

The website’s goal is to “minimize the time and resources required to… support the mass-market adoption of solar.”

Additional Resources: August 18, 2013 SunShot Newsletter; California Solar Permitting Guidebook (June 2012, 1st Ed.)

Posted
by

The U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management (BLM), as part of the Solar Energy Program, recently approved the establishment of a new Renewable Energy Evaluation Area (REEA) in California’s Imperial Valley. The West Chocolate Mountains REEA creates a new Solar Energy Zone (SEZ), which is part of President Obama’s “administration’s efforts to facilitate solar energy development by identifying areas in six southwestern states with high solar potential, few resource conflicts, and access to existing or planned transmission.” This REEA contemplates “[p]otential development of up to 3,456 megawatts of renewable energy within the REEA (3,306 megawatts of solar power and up to 150 megawatts of geothermal power).”

The Western Solar Plan, approved in October 2012, created 17 SEZs in six southwestern states with incentives for development within those zones and a process for considering additional zones. The Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS) for solar energy development is a blueprint for utility-scale solar energy permitting in (Arizona, California, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico and Utah) by establishing SEZs with access to existing or planned transmission, incentives for development within those SEZs, and a process through which to consider additional SEZs and solar projects.

BLM defines a SEZ “as an area well suited for utility-scale production of solar energy, where the BLM will prioritize solar energy and associated transmission infrastructure development.” A discussion of the criteria used to identify SEZs is provided in Section 2.2.2.2 of the Draft Solar PEIS.

BLM will identify new SEZs in accordance with the Identification Protocol for New or Expanded SEZs. When considering whether to identify new or expanded SEZs, BLM, in most situations, the SEZs should be relatively large areas that provide highly suitable locations for utility-scale solar energy development, and locations where solar energy development is economically and technically feasible, there is good potential for connecting new electricity-generating plants to the transmission distribution system and there is generally low resource conflict. The sequential process for identifying new SEZs includes assessing the demand for new or expanded SEZs, establishing technical and economic suitability , applying environmental, cultural, and other screening criteria, and analyzing proposed SEZs . The four-step process is to occur at least once every 5 years.

The West Chocolate Mountains REEA is the third SEZ in California and brings the national total to 19. The 19 REEAs include:

Arizona:
Agua Caliente SEZ
Brenda SEZ
Gillespie SEZ

California:
Imperial East SEZ
Riverside East SEZ
Western Chocolate Mountains SEZ

Colorado:
Antonito Southeast SEZ
De Tilla Gulch SEZ
Fourmile East SEZ
Los Mogotes East SEZ

Nevada:
Armargosa Valley SEZ
Dry Lake SEZ
Dry Lake Valley North SEZ
Gold Point SEZ
Millers SEZ

New Mexico:
Afton SEZ

Utah:
Escalante Valley SEZ
Milford Flats South SEZ
Wah Wah Valley SEZ

Other Sources: U.S. Department of Energy; U.S. Department of Interior; Solar Energy Development Programmatic EIS Information Center; Bureau of Land Management Solar Energy Program

Posted
by

On Thursday, August 15, the three-member Toll Bridge Program Oversight Committee voted to open the new San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge September 3, as originally planned. On July 8, it had been announced that the bridge opening would have to be delayed beyond the originally planned Labor Day weekend because they didn’t expect the failed bolt retrofit work to be completed until mid-December. Days later, hope was rekindled that a short-fix could be implemented quickly to address the failure of nearly one-third of the 96 bolts that secure earthquake shock absorbers known as shear keys to the deck when they were tightened in March. The August 15 decision followed a ruling by the Federal Highway Transportation Administration that an interim fix to address the bolt failures that occurred in March would allow the new span to open safely while the defective bolts are being retrofitted.

The San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge Seismic Safety Projects website confirms that “The Bay Bridge Will Be Closed Labor Day Weekend 8 P.M. Wednesday, Aug. 28 to 5 A.M. Tuesday, Sept. 3.” During the closure, the original East Span will be taken out of service and efforts made to open the new East Span to traffic. Work will be performed at the east (aka the Oakland Touchdown) and west (aka the Yerba Buena Island Transition Structure) ends of the new bridge to connect it to the existing Toll Plaza and Yerba Buena Island. Other “essential construction activities, including paving, striping and erecting barrier rail” as well as work “on the West Span, replacing lighting fixtures, cleaning and painting the cable, and repairing finger joints” will be performed as well. When the new San Francisco-Oakland “bridge reopens to traffic on Tuesday, Sept. 3, motorists will encounter a new driving experience, as traffic moves from the upper and lower decks of the original bridge to the parallel, side-by-side decks of the new East Span.” “The new side-by-side configuration will open up panoramic views of the San Francisco bay and the East Bay hills.”

The short-term fix will involve “inserting large steel plates, known as shims, into each of four bearings, enhancing their ability to safely distribute energy during an earthquake.” “The long-term solution to fixing the broken bolts on the eastern span is to cover them with an exterior saddle and cable system that is encased in concrete.” Work on the long-term solution will continue after the short-term fix is completed.

Transportation officials decided to close the San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge over Labor Day weekend instead of another weekend in September because traffic is lighter at that time and a lot of planning had already been done for that weekend in anticipation of opening the new span after Labor Day weekend.

Other Sources: New Bay Bridge to Open Labor Day Weekend, Sources Tell KPIX 5, CBS San Francisco and Bay City News Service, Aug. 14, 2013; New Bay Bridge Scheduled to Open September 3 After Labor Day Weekend Closure, San Jose Mercury News, Aug. 15, 2013; Toll Authority Confirms New Bay Bridge to Open Labor Day Weekend, CBS San Francisco and Bay City News Service, Aug. 15, 2013