Best Practices Construction Law : Construction Lawyer & Attorney : Matthew DeVries : Smith Cashion & Orr Law Firm : Green Building & LEED Litigation

I wonder who that sad little scrap of paper is?  Do you know?  Oh, yeah, he's just a bill ... he's just a bill on capitol hill.

You knew that Nashville was the Music City, right? Reminiscent of the "Schoolhouse Rocks" days, last night I attended the kick off dinner for the AGC of Tennessee’s “Day on the Hill”… an event where AGC members attend hearings and meet with state senators and representatives about various bills relating to the construction industry in the state of Tennessee. Although there are reported to be more than 1300 bills introduced for consideration by the General Assembly in the 2010 regular session, approximately 15-20 of those impact or affect the construction industry in some manner. The top five bills for which the AGC of Tennessee has stated their position include the following:

• Worker's Compensation Insurance Reform. There have been a number of bills introduced in the session of the General Assembly regarding the issue of subcontractors not having workers compensation insurance coverage. I previously blogged about Public Chapter 1041, who's implementation date was recently deferred until March 28, 2011.  The law would have required all contractors to obtain workers compensation coverage, even on themselves if they were sole proprietors. Rather than taking a position on the individual bills that were introduced in this session, the AGC of Tennessee suggests that any legislation proposed on this issue consider the following recommendations:

1. Allow up to three officers of a company to “opt out” from being required to have coverage;
2. Require the filing of an affidavit with the Department of Labor that specifically names the individuals who have opted out of coverage;
3. Proof of at least 10% ownership;
4. Submission of a federal employer identification number with any filing;
5. An acknowledgment of a waiver of all rights of recovery, including workers compensation and tort claims, if the opt out individual is injured on the job; and
6. A provision that any individual who opts and files a claim would be guilty of fraud.

• Drug Free Workplace.  This legislation was first introduced by 2008 by the AGC of Tennessee. SB 1524 and HB 1604 make certain changes for denying workers compensation claims involving drugs or alcohol. By changing the burden of proof by the injured employee from a “preponderance of evidence” to “clear and convincing” evidence. This legal language change would make it more difficult for the employee to prove that drugs did not contribute to the cause of the accident. AGC of Tennessee strongly supports this change to the current legislation.
• Listing of Masonry Contractors. SB 2722 and HB 2794 requires information concerning those bidding for masonry contractor work be included on the outside of the envelope containing a bid, in addition to those contractors currently required to be listed. AGC of Tennessee strongly opposes this legislation, consistent with the position taken by the Tennessee Board for Licensing Contractors. Currently, masonry contractors are not required to have a license in Tennessee. Adding this requirement to current legislation as suggested by the AGC, would be put an additional burden on the general contractors bidding a project.
• Electronic Bidding. SB 3607 and HB 3158 revise the current requirements concerning information that must be contained on the outside of the envelope containing a bid to also require the same information be included in an electronic bid. AGC of Tennessee strongly supports this legislation because it brings the bid process into the electronic technological arena.
• Local Bid Preferences. AGC of Tennessee strongly supports SB 3607 and HB 3160, which clarifies that the only bid preferences that are permissible in public construction projects of local governments are those created by the General Assembly by general law. This legislation is intended to prevent local jurisdictions and governments from creating special bidding rules for construction projects.

Although there are numerous other bills before the General Assembly, these are the main ones being discussed by AGC members this morning at the “Day on the Hill” program. 

I once worked as a staff member on Capitol Hill more than 15 years ago and I truly miss being involved in the legislative process.  Whether you support or oppose any of the above measures, the real lesson is to get involved to help shape the laws that can (and will) affect your business.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks

My wife thinks I am nerd.  She's right.  I rushed the kids to bed early one night last week so that I could sit in the kitchen to watch . . . okay . . . I will say it . . . the Metro Nashville Council vote on the fanancing package of the new convention center and the ensuing aftermath.  I love this stuff!   

• In a vote of 29-9 last week, the council approved the $585 million downtown convention center, the largest building project in the City's history
• Councilmember Randy Foster opposed the measure and tweeted about the bill's passage right before it happened
• As reported on the tube, there are 1,329 days between today and the first booked event at the new convention center

There remains one pending lawsuit that could affect construction, although most commentators believe a compromise will be reached.  Tower Investment owns a parcel of land within the convention center's overall footprint.  The dispute relates to the emminent domain proceedings by Metro to secure the land.  Interestingly, a number of council members have been subpoenaed to give testimony in the case.  Proceedings are set to begin in February.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

On December 24, 2009, the United States Senate voted to pass its own version of the health care package.  You have probably heard cries about the length of the bill (1,990 pages).  You have probably heard the cries about the costs.  But have you heard about an amendment that may significantly affect the construction industry?

According to a letter from the Associated General Contractors of America to Senator Mitch McConnell (pdf), the bill is non-workable and unnecessarily targets the construction industry.  The AGC opposes the health care package because of the complexity of the plan, the cost-shifting (rather than the cost- reductions), and the likelihood that it will increase insurance costs for those construction businesses that provide insurance to their employees.

Even worse, according to the AGC, is an amendment drafted by Senator Jeff Merkley (D-Or) and inserted into the bill by Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) that would exempt the construction industry from the small business exemption that was included in the original bill.  According to another letter from the AGC to Senator McConnell (pdf), this would cripple small construction businesses:

For all other industries, H.R. 3590, exempts employers with fewer than 50 employees from the fines levied on those who cannot afford to provide their employees with the federal minimum standard of health insurance. However, the Manager’s Amendment alters the exemption so that it singles out small businesses in construction for special punishment by applying the exemption to only those firms with fewer than five employees in the construction industry. . . . The 50 employee threshold was meant to exempt smaller firms, [and] this amendment will unfairly punish small construction contractors.

There remains considerable debate about the effectiveness of the health care package.  The introduction and consideration of the Merkley amendment is a reminder for all industries to do your homework as Congress enacts laws that may affect, both directly and indirectly, your company.

Photo: Flickr | pixelle54

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks

Back in November, I wrote about a Tennessee Attorney General Opinion that addressed the new workers' compensation law in Tennessee that requires sole proprietors to carry workers' compensation insurance on themselves. (Traditionally, there was an exclusion for sole proprietors.)  Just after release of the AG-Opinion, the leadership in the state house and senate came to an agreement to suspend the effective date of the new law.

Over the past month, there have been a number of grass roots campaigns to address this issue.  So, where does the law stand now?  According to an official bulletin from the Department of Commerce and Insurance Commissioner Leslie Newman (pdf), the statute goes into effect at midnight on December 31, 2009.  Although the General Assembly has reported that it will address the issue as soon as they convene on January 12, 2010, the statute as written and enacted is enforceable on January 1, 2010.  The most important tip from the Bulletin is about election of coverages:

The Department interprets this change in the law to mean that a sole proprietor, partner, or limited liability company member ("LLC member") who had not previously been required to have coverage on himself must  now obtain coverage on himself. . . . The Department wishes to make clear its position that failure of a sole proprietor, partner, or LLC member to obtain such coverage without having met an exemption, is in violation of [the new law] and could subject such person to penalties by the Department of Labor and Workforce Development.

The Bulletin also includes the "Certification of Election" form that must be filed with the Department. I plan on following this issue closely.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency yesterday issued a final rule in an effort to reduce water pollution on construction sites. The rule, which is set to take effect in February 2010 over a four-year period, is targeted to improve the quality of water nationwide.  According to a press release by the EPA, the impact is significant: 

Construction activities like clearing, excavating and grading significantly disturb soil and sediment. If that soil is not managed properly it can easily be washed off of the construction site during storms and pollute nearby water bodies.

The final rule requires construction site owners and operators that disturb one or more acres to use best management practices to ensure that soil disturbed during construction activity does not pollute nearby water bodies.

In addition, owners and operators of sites that impact 10 or more acres of land at one time will be required to monitor discharges and ensure they comply with specific limits on discharges to minimize the impact on nearby water bodies. This is the first time that EPA has imposed national monitoring requirements and enforceable numeric limitations on construction site stormwater discharges.

Soil and sediment runoff is one of the leading causes of water quality problems nationwide. Soil runoff from construction has also reduced the depth of small streams, lakes and reservoirs, leading to the need for dredging.

The pre-publication rules (pdf), as well as the EPA's Fact Sheet on the final rule (pdf) are available online.  While it is too early to comment on the draft rule (...primarily because I have not had a chance to digest it all...), it is interesting to note that adoption of the rule came in response to a court order in a lawsuit alleging that the EPA failed to issue certain regulations under the Clean Water Act.  According to the Wall Street Journal, the court requried the EPA to issue the rule no later than December 1, 2009.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Last week Scott Judy, Editor-in-Chief of Southeast Construction magazine, sent me a tweet about a courthouse project in Jacksonsville, Florida where a large number of fake IDs surfaced on the site.   As reported in the article, Federal officials discovered about 100 fake documents after looking at the paperwork collected by the city.  The mayor was expected to forward the list of 100 illegal workers to the contractor, Turner Construction, last week and demand that the badges badges be revoked for those workers.  

Scott then raised an interesting question: Can the owner use the issue of job-site fake IDs to consider the builder in breach of contract?  I hate to be trumpeting the same tune, but again the answer to this problem is, “It depends.” Here is why:

• As you might expect, the parties’ contract will largely dictate the rights and obligations of each party, whether it relates to payment, building specifications, delays, insurance requirements, and even compliance with federal, state and local law. So whether an owner has a cause of action for breach of contract for the presence and employment of undocumented workers on the site will largely depend on the exact terms of the parties’ contract.
• The applicable laws and regulations will often dictate additional obligations or provisions that must be included in the parties’ contract. For example, in 2007 Tennessee enacted a new requirement that "no person may enter into a contract to supply goods or services to the state or other state entities without first attesting in writing that the person will not knowingly utiluze the services of illegal immigrants in the performance of the work...." Tenn. Code 12-4-124.  Practically speaking, this means the contractor working on a public job is required to certify in writing that it will not use undocumented workers.  It must also require that its subcontractor sign the same type of attestation clause.  These statutory obligations are written into the parties' contract.
• Even if there is not a contractual requirement, there may be some statute or regulation that gives rise to liability for a contractors use and employment of undocumented workers. For instance, the same Tennessee statute cited above carries a penalty of debarment (i.e., prohibited from submitted a bid on any public project for period of one year) for any knowing violation of the law.  This statute applies ever wheter the requirement is not written into the parties' contract.

One way for a contractor to protect itself in these types of circumstances is to include a blended attestation-indemnification clause, such as:

The subcontractor, identified above, does hereby attest, certify, warrant, and assure that the subcontractor shall not knowingly utilize the services of an illegal immigrant in the performance of the Work and shall not knowingly utilize the services of any sub-subcontractor who will utilize the services of an illegal immigrant in the performance of the Work.  Subcontractor further agrees to indemnify and hold harmless the contractor for any violation of this provision.

Applying these principals to the situation in Florida, it will be interesting to watch how the contractor responds to the allegations raised. It appears from the article that "the city's contract with Turner prohibits knowingly hiring undocumented workers and Turner's agreements with subcontractors contain the same language."  Whether there is a breach of those contracts will depend largely on; (a) the express language of agreement, (b) the "intent" requirement of the statute, (c) the knowledge of the parties involved, and (d) the immigration status of the workers.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Following on my earlier post ... nevermind.  Leadership of the Tennessee House and Senate recently reached a bipartisan agreement to immediately introduce legislation in January 2010 to suspend the effective date of Public Chapter 1041 from January 1, 2010 to February 28, 2011.  As reported last week, the new law was enacted to require a sole proprietor to carry workers' compensation insurance on himself.  The effect of the new ruling was addressed in Tennessee Attorney General Opinion 09-173 (pdf). 

In a statement, Representative Judd Matheny, Chairman of the House Consumer and Employee Affairs Committee alluded that timing was an issue:

 “Although there are merits in this legislation which need to be addressed, its effective date could not come at a worse time for the portions of the industry affected or the already fragile economy.”

Matheny is sponsoring HB 1839 along with Representative Joe Pitts to immediately suspend the effective date of PC 1041 until February 28, 2011.

According to House and Senate Leadership, a suspension of PC 1041’s implementation until February 28, 2011 is the first of two steps in reconsidering the issue of the sole proprietor and workers’ compensation in the construction industry. The second step would be considering alternative ways to address gaps in coverage for workers in companies of all sizes in the various construction fields. Recommendations for alternatives have been collected from consumers and affected industries and are being looked at closely. No action on implementing any alternatives is expected until February 28, 2011 at the earliest.

This action should assist sole proprietorships for the time being.  However, unless the move is taken immediately at the start of the January 2010 session, there will still be some period where the new law will be in effect which requires workers' compensation coverage.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Over the past two months, I have received a few inquiries from small business owners about an amendment to Tennessee's workers' compensation laws.  The primary question is whether the new law, which takes effect on December 31, 2009, will require a sole proprietor to carry workers' comp insurance on himself?  (Traditionally, there was an exclusion for sole proprietorship under Tennessee law.)

According to the recent Tennessee Attorney General Opinion No. 09-173, the answer to the above question is a resounding, "YES."  Based upon the AG's opinion, here is how the law now stands:

1. If you are a general contractor or subcontractor, you must provide workers' compensation insurance coverage for your employees. ("Any person engaged in the construction industry, including principal contractors, intermediate contractors and subcontractors, shall be required to carry workers' compensation insurance.")
2. If you are a sole proprietorship ... and you have no employees and you are performing the work yourself ... you are required to carry workers' compensation insurance on yourself, unless: (a) you contract directly with the homeowner; or (b) you are working on your own residence.

It will be interesting to watch how the construction industry responds to this issue.  The legislative history of the amendment reveals that the change in the law was prompted by a need to ensure that all subcontractors and employees working on a construction site were properly covered by workers' compensation insurance.  According to the legislative discussion, some employers were purportedly avoiding paying for coverage by claiming that their employees or subcontractors were actually sole proprietorships.

Question: What's happening in your state on this issue?

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

This weekend my eldest son turned six years old.  What right of passage does every six-year-old boy celebrate in the South?  He goes to a SEC football game.  And so we set out on Saturday evening for a little "guy time" with the Vanderbilt Commodores, hot dogs, nachos and popcorn.  My son was decked out in his new blue polo shirt sent from his O'Ma, while I had on my favorite red, slim-fitting AGC golf shirt.  The problem is ... Vandy's colors are black and gold!  Which means that you are summoned ... ordered ... required ... mandated ... dictated ... to wear either black or gold!  My lack of knowledge did not excuse my non-compliance with the black and gold ritual.  Imagine being the only person in the entire stadium with a red shirt.

If you are a federal contractor, don't be the only person with a red shirt.  Effective today, contractors and subcontractors will be required to use the E-Verify system to verify their employees’ eligibility to work in the United States. In the past, the government attempted to mandate the use of E-Verify, the web based system that employers can use to confirm the legal status of their employees. The proposed law was set to take effect in January of 2009. However, the legislation instigated much debate and several controversial provisions kept it from taking effect.

Although the amended proposal which takes effect today has significantly less bite, E-Verify has broadened in scope. Not only do the provisions apply to contractors and subcontractors on federal projects, but also to any business receiving funds under the federal stimulus project. For more details about E-Verify and some of the hot issues surrounding its controversial history, check out some of the following sites:

• Michael Payne's post on Federal Construction Contracting Blog, which gives a good overview of the law's applicability to certain contracts
• An extensive summary by Nixon Peabody attorneys Kent Jonas and Matthew Zandi
• An article by Federal Times about the federal district court in Maryland which found the  regulation to be legal
• A Wall Street Journal report on the 11th hour bid to overturn the law

Given the current state of the economy, more and more contractors are taking on public projects. For this reason, all contractors and subcontractors would be well advised to prepare for compliance with the mandated use of E-Verify.  Don't be the only one wearing a red shirt.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (2)
• Trackbacks

A few weeks ago I tweeted about the local building code in Nashville "under review."  Actually, those words were a little weak.  What about these words: "Contractor Leads Attack Against Nashville's LEED Legislation" ... the exact words used by my colleague Stephen Del Percio, attorney and author of Green Real Estate Law Journal.  A good analysis by Steve!  

The original article by Michael Cass in The Tennessean highlights a local contractor's frustration with the LEED requirements on a school project.  However, Councilman Duane Dominy, sponsor of the bill, said he didn't write the legislation specifically to help the contractor and isn't trying to "do away with LEED." 

According to the title of the legislation at issue (BL2009-503), the bill seeks "to allow an alternative to LEED certification based upon lowered measured energy use."  The legislation was introduced on July 21, 2009 and passed its first reading. The bill was then referred to the Codes Committee. It was scheduled for three votes on August 6, 2009, but was "deferred" for a later time.

Importantly, the preamble contains a statement that any alternative should be allowed "provided the alternative system will result in actual lower measured energy use."  There are many signficant highlights of the proposal, including the following:

• it allows for a city-wide approval of an alternative to LEED certification;
• it requires "actual lower measured energy use" for an alternative system
• it requires the governing authority (Metro Goverment) to approve a certified or duly recognized "business energy professional" to monitor the energy use 12-18 months after substantial completion

Finally, here are the two kickers:

D. If the energy use objectives are not met, the pre-determined entity responsible for the warranty shall reimburse the Metropolitan Government for excess energy use costs for any year of the warranty period based on the energy rate costs prevailing during the first year of the warranty period. The entity responsible for the warranty shall provide the Metropolitan Government an irrevocable warranty surety.

E. No warranty penalty or reimbursement shall be applicable if the Metropolitan Government significantly changes the function of the facility beyond what was originally authorized by the final use and occupancy permit.

A couple of thoughts on this new legislation: First, it will be interesting to see whether a surety will step up to the plate with an irrevocable warranty.  I cannot imagine the difference in energy costs savings and losses would be so significant so as to place the risk beyond insurability. 

Second, there remains a carve-out in the event that the owner changes the function of the building beyond what was anticipated.  In other words, there appears to be a less stringent standard ... or no penalty ... for major rennovations that perhaps change the function of the building.

Finally, the legislation demonstrates that there is, and will continue to be, tension between the LEED rating system and alternative rating systems, particularly as local and state jurisdictions become more green-saavy in their understanding of sustainable design, energy performance, and longterm investment strategies.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

I know that I am a few hours early, but Governor Phil Bredesen is scheduled to sign the Tennessee Clean Energy Future Act of 2009 today at 1:30pm.  He will be joined by key legislators, as well as members of his Energy Task Force.

Among other provisions, the new law will provide for: (1)  a limited statewide residential building code to promote energy efficiency, (2) new energy usage guidelines for state buildings and vehicles, and (3) an extension of Tennessee’s emerging industry tax credit to the clean-energy technology sector. You can find the bill summary on the General Assembly's website, along with the full text of the new law.

Under the new law, the State Building Commission has the authority to implement various cost-saving measures. 

The measures may include, but shall not be limited to, maintenance, repair or replacement of lighting and mechanical equipment and related controls. Energy cost saving measures may be implemented through contracts with energy professionals including, but not limited to, energy service companies, commissioning and retro commissioning firms and agencies and energy auditing consultants.

There are no new state-wide LEED certification requirements, though.  In due time ... in due time.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Within the past couple of months, BNA started a new report called Infrastructure Investment & Policy Report.  Earlier this week, I was contacted by BNA reporter Kate Naseef to share some thoughts about HR 2454, the climate change legislation that was recently approved by the House Energy and Commerce Committee and its affect on the construction industry. 

According to AGC and ABC representatives, Naseef writes, the climate change bill is a "mixed bag" because it offers both opportunities for new construction and building modifications, but it could also lead to increased costs and delays given the regulatory hurdles. The article also highlighted comments from Cathy Altman, a good friend and construction attorney in Dallas:

Fewer, Bigger, Green Projects

 

As building shifts to more carbon-friendly facilities, there will be fewer, but bigger projects “because of the higher capital costs of green construction,” Cathy Lilford Altman, an attorney with Carrington, Coleman, Sloman & Blumenthal, L.L.P in Dallas, said.

 

A cap-and-trade program and renewable energy standards are going to further experimentation and use of new technologies and new construction means and methods, “which could open up opportunities, but also create risks,” Altman said. “There's a certain amount of trial-and-error that is going to be inevitable,” she said. Owners are going to want guarantees that designers and contractors might not be able to give until the new technologies and processes are tested.

 

Designers, engineers, and contractors are going to have to get accustomed to working with new materials and new technologies that add cost on the front-end of a project, Matthew DeVries, an attorney with Smith Cashion & Orr, PLC in Nashville and author of www.bestpracticesconstructionlaw.com, a construction law blog, said. Whether or not this results in savings down the road remains to be seen, he said. 

Although there are reports that HR 2454 will be brought to the House floor next week, it will be interesting to see any mark-ups from the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee chaired by Rep. James L. Oberstar.  For those of us outside the Beltway, keep us informed BNA!

------------------

According to its website, BNA "publishes—in print and electronic formats—more than 350 daily, weekly, monthly, and up-to-the-minute news services covering the full range of legal, legislative, regulatory, and economic developments that impact the business environment around the nation and the world."  If you are not a subscriber of BNA, you can take a test run of all of its services. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

That's not exactly how the headline reads ... but close enough.  The actual title is BIM Promotes Sustainability: Practitioners are Finding Paths to Green through Interoperable Software.  As reported by McGraw Hill Construction, this article demonstrates the practical utility of Building Information Modeling (BIM) on a construction project ... a green one!  MH reports about the restoration of the historic Grant School in Washington, D.C.: "The contractor had nearly finished the time-consuming coordination of mechanical, electrical, and plumbing trades. Then work ground to a halt. Local legislation had just passed requiring all public buildings to achieve LEED certification."

Although the project was exempt from the change in the law, the School wanted to demonstrate their commitment to green by seeking LEED certification.  Using BIM, modifications to the design (including the mechanical systems and the acoustics) were relatively straightforward.   Without BIM, the work would would have been prohibitive given the increased costs and delays associated with the re-design.

Two cool things ...

First, the Grant School project featured by MH typifies the benefits of technology in the industry.  According to Dwayne Sellars, BIM manager for Turner Construction, his company is using BIM even in situations where the architect does not because the model reveals conflicts between systems that are often discovered only in the field. 

Second, not only does the Grant School project illustrate the effective use of BIM technology, the format of article itself is exciting.  The article is presented in a case-study format as part of McGraw Hill's Continuing Education Center.  You can review the information and take a test for 1.00 credit for HSW/SD.  According to CEC, after reading the full article you will be able to: 

• Describe building-information modeling (BIM).
• Explain strategies for applying BIM to promote sustainability.
• Discuss uses of BIM at different phases of a building's life cycle.
• Understand how BIM relates to green "best practices" within your own discipline.

The real import of the article--and particularly the convergence of BIM and LEED--is realized upon reading the concluding paragraph:

Architects are receiving better, earlier energy-related analysis; engineers are providing more focused expertise during design; builders are reducing waste in construction; and facility managers are increasing the efficiency of their operations. And many of those experiencing the benefits of technology and teamwork have visions of still more capabilities and benefits in the future.

No time for the test, McGraw Hill ... but thanks for the good information.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

As I was driving to work, a super-hero-like voice interrupted my morning news program on the radio: "Green Power Switch is coming to a neighborhood near you!  Green Power Switch will allow you, the consumer, to choose to purchase “green” energy from the companies that sell the power that TVA generates."

That’s right! The Tennessee Valley Authority and local power companies are banding together to offer their customers various alternatives of renewable energy (i.e., solar, bio fuels and wind).

Self, I ask, what’s the big deal with that? The big deal is that the speeches and PowerPoint presentations we’ve heard on renewable energy legislation and its effects on the construction industry are becoming a reality.  

Just a few weeks ago, the Green Ribbon Committee on Environmental Sustainability issued its recommendations to Nashville Mayor Karl Dean, including the following: 

• "Implement program at NES to switch from petroleum oil to a soybean-based oil for transformers used city wide."
• "Develop a Metro Green Fleet program to expand the use of electric vehicles, hybrids and bio-diesel to help diversify energy supplies, decrease emissions and support regional economic activity."
• Adopt an Advanced Metering Infrastructure (AMI) system for NES residential customers that would enable them to manage their energy consumption and conservation efforts.

From government initiative ... to legislative enactment  ... to industry standard ... to consumer incentive ... renewable energy will have a dramatic effect on the construction industry as a whole. Already, we are seeing green-related ordinances that affect the day-to-day business operations of your hard-hat construction contractors, laborers and suppliers.  Take, for example, the green cement ordinance in Dallas, Texas that requires use of cement from "dry kilns" versus "wet kilns."  That's good news if you operate a dry kiln ... not so good news if you operate a wet kiln.  In other instances, the issue is finding its way into the court system like City of Albuquerque v. AHRI, which blocked enforcement of various state energy conservation codes in New Mexico on preemption grounds. The plaintiffs were a group of HVAC and water heating equipment trade organizations, contractors and distributors.  (Steve Del Percio discusses the City of Albuquerque v. AHRI case on www.greenbuildingsNYC.com.)  

These are just a few examples of the 411 (... information ...) that you can find here at Best Practices Construction Law.  Check back soon for an overview of other green-related legislation affecting the construction industry.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks