Posted
by

The 20 collegiate teams competing in the U.S. Department of Energy Solar Decathlon 2013 and XPO are gearing up for the start of the Decathlon on October 3. This award-winning program challenged 20 teams to design, build, and operate solar-powered houses that are cost-effective, energy-efficient, and attractive with the ultimate winner being the team that best blends affordability, consumer appeal, and design excellence with optimal energy production and maximum efficiency. The competition houses will be open to visitors for 8 days from 11 a.m. to 7 p.m. daily: (A) Thursday, October 3 through Sunday, October 6, 2013, and (B) Thursday, October 10 through Sunday, October 13, 2013. The event is open to the public free of charge.
2013SolarDecathlon.jpg

After successfully maneuvering through the rigorous selection process, the 20 chosen teams spent two years designing and building a solar-powered house that will be cost-effective to build, energy-efficient and attractive. If that were not enough, their houses must be capable of transportation to the Orange County Great Park in Irvine, California (distances ranging from 41 miles to 16,000 miles). Since the shipping containers arrived in Irvine, the 20 teams have been focusing on reassembling their houses, appliances and furniture for the public exhibit. The teams have only 9 days to reassemble their houses before the start of the competition. As the houses near completion of the reassembly process, they will undergo a variety of inspections, including building, electrical, plumbing, mechanical, and final safety inspections, to ensure compliance with local building codes.

Like the Olympic decathlon, the Decathlon consists of 10 contests designed to gauge how well the houses perform and how livable and affordable they are. Each contest is worth a maximum of 100 points and teams can earn points 3 ways: (1) task completion, e.g., cooking, washing dishes, and doing laundry, (2) monitored performance, (3) jury evaluation. Jurors who are experts in their field (such as architecture, engineering, and communications) award points for features that cannot be measured (such as aesthetics and design inspiration). Contests based on task completion or monitored performance are called measured contests; contests based on jury evaluation are call juried contests. The 10 Decathlon contests are:
—Architecture Contest (juried)
—Market Appeal Contest (juried)
—Engineering Contest (juried)
—Communications Contest (juried)
—Affordability Contest (juried)
—Comfort Zone Contest (measured)
—Hot Water Contest (measured)
—Appliances Contest (measured)
—Home Entertainment Contest (measured and juried)
—Energy Balance Contest (measured).

The 1st, 2nd, and 3rd place winners of these contests will be announced at 10 a.m. in Hangar 244 at the Orange County Great Park: (1) October 10 — Affordability Contest and Market Appeal Contest, (2) October 11 — Communications Contest and Architecture Contest, and (3) October 12 — Engineering Contest. On October 12 at 10 a.m., the other winners of the Decathlon contests will be announced and the competition awards ceremony will take place at Hangar 244 of the Orange County Great Park.

Docents will be available on a first-come, first-served basis to provide 30 to 60 minute walking tours of the Solar Decathlon village with tours departing every 15 minutes from each end of the Solar Decathlon village. Each Decathlon team will provide tours of its competition house during public exhibit hours.

The XPO itself will feature the SunShot Innovation Pavilion, the Bosch Community Fund Powerful Ideas Classroom, the Transportation Zone, the Palm Court Arts Complex, the XPO Food Pavilion, the Foundation for the Great Park Powerful Ideas Symposium, the Competitors Pavilion, the Farm + Food Lab, the ABC Green Home. The XPO.org provides information for guests of the Decathlon and XPO, including driving directions from Interstate 5, Interstate 405 and the 133 Freeway/241 Toll Road.

Additional Sources: Oct. 3-13: U.S. Department of Energy Solar Decathlon 2013 & XPO; The-XPO.org; U.S. Department of Energy Solar Decathlon; Energy Blog

Photo: U.S. Department of Energy Solar Decathlon 2013 collegiate teams gather at Orange County Great Park in Irvine, Calif. on Friday, January 11, 2013 for an all-team photo taken by Stefano Paltera/U.S. Department of Energy – Creative Commons.

Posted
by

California contractors who violate prevailing wage laws do so at their peril. A recent case, Ogundare v. Department of Industrial Relations (2013) 214 Cal.App.4th 822, held that a one year debarment from bidding on public projects did not implicate a “fundamental vested right.” Consequently, trial court review of a Division of Labor Standards Enforcement decision imposing debarment should have been more deferential to the DLSE decision, evaluating whether substantial evidence supported the decision rather than exercising its independent judgment on the evidence.

In a hearing before the DLSE, a laborer presented his paystub showing that he had worked 61 hours for a contractor in a particular week for $915, or $15/hour. The certified payroll submitted by the contractor to the public owner for that week showed that the laborer had worked 25 hours at the prevailing wage of $36.10/hour. On the basis of this and additional evidence that two other workers had not been paid overtime, the DLSE ordered a one-year debarment of the contractor for commiting willful violations of California’s prevailing wage law with intent to defraud.

When the contractor sought mandamus to set aside the debarment order, the trial court assumed that the right to bid on public projects was a “fundamental vested right.” It then applied its independent judgment to the facts and found no “credible evidence . . . of an intent to defraud” and that willfulness alone was insufficient to support debarment under the relevant statute.

On appeal by the DLSE, the court found that the right to bid on public projects was not a “fundamental vested right”–the contractor was not prohibited from working on all projects, only public ones, and therefore the interest involved was instead “purely economic.” This distinction is critical–administrative adjudications affecting only “purely economic” interests are reviewed under the much more deferential substantial evidence test (phrased in one case as “unless the finding . . . is so lacking in evidentiary support as to render it unreasonable, it may not be set aside.”). The court then applied the substantial evidence standard, and despite the contractor’s pleas of clerical error and lack of intent to defraud, remanded to the trial court to affirm the debarment.

Posted
by

In addition to introducing their new celebrity part-owner, Shaquille O’Neal, the Sacramento Kings confirmed their concept for an “indoor-outdoor” facility for the new arena that will be constructed in Sacramento’s current Downtown Plaza.

At a recent press conference, majority owner Vivek Ranadive suggested that the design for the $448 million arena “will be the first basketball arena that has this indoor-outdoor feature to it. For concerts and other events, you could actually completely open it up and have 18,000 people inside and another 10,000 people outside.” He gave few other details, saying, “You’ll have to wait and see the plans.” Minority partner Mark Mastrov told The Sacramento Bee that attendees would be able to view events directly and on giant TV screens the arena’s bowl standing in an outdoor plaza. The designs have not been finalized and community input will be sought.

This news came on the heels of the Sacramento Kings’ announcement that AECOM has been selected as the lead architect for the Sacramento Kings’ new $448 million arena in Downtown Plaza. AECOM is responsible for designing a number of state-of-the-art sports and entertainment venue, including the acclaimed London 2012 Olympic Park and it is designing the Rio 2016 Olympic Park. It has served as the lead architect of 11 NBA arenas, including the Barclays Center, and it designed Aggies Stadium at the University of California, Davis.

The Sacramento Kings’ construction team includes previously hired project manager ICON Venue Group, lead builder Turner Construction, and Sacramento developer

Posted
by

Did you know that the U.S. Department of Energy’s website hosts a database for tax credits, rebates, savings and, in some cases, loan programs available across the nation to a variety of persons and entities for numerous categories of energy saving improvements? It also identifies loan programs for certain types of energy saving improvements. Searches can be performed using filters, including categories for the state, eligibility, energy saving improvement (“savings for”) and sponsor of the energy saver program. Once a tax credit, rebate, savings or loan program is identified, the database provides a brief summary of the program, and a link to the program sponsor’s official website.money.jpg

The categories of those eligible to enjoy energy saver credits, rebates, savings and, in some cases, loans include, just to name a few, commercial, industrial, institutional, installer/contractor, residential, retail supplier, schools, etc. The credits, rebates, savings and, in some cases, loans are available for a wide variety of types of energy saver improvements, including but not limited to weatherization, design and remodeling, windows, doors, and skylights, cooling, heating and cooling, appliances and electronics, lighting, water heating, water, solar, etc.

Additional Sources: U.S. Department of Energy
Photo: March 9, 2009, Sushiina – Flickr Creative Commons

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.