<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments for Smith, Gambrell &amp; Russell, LLP</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.sgrlaw.com/blog/comments/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.sgrlaw.com/blog</link>
	<description>Attorneys at Law</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 16 Apr 2013 19:11:50 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.5</generator>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Green Chamber of the South:  Greenhouse Accelerator by Jolicoeur Law Chambers</title>
		<link>http://www.sgrlaw.com/blog/2013/04/green-chamber-of-the-south-greenhouse-accelerator/comment-page-1/#comment-5540</link>
		<dc:creator>Jolicoeur Law Chambers</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 16 Apr 2013 19:11:50 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.sgrlaw.com/blog/?p=1524#comment-5540</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Nice post about environmental law, thanks for sharing.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Nice post about environmental law, thanks for sharing.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on New EPA Guidance Broadens Tenant Protections at Brownfield Sites by carnosine eye drops</title>
		<link>http://www.sgrlaw.com/blog/2013/02/new-epa-guidance-broadens-tenant-protections-at-brownfield-sites/comment-page-1/#comment-5455</link>
		<dc:creator>carnosine eye drops</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 28 Feb 2013 21:14:51 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://64.131.71.171/blog/?p=1396#comment-5455</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The tenancy interest that does not enjoy the BFPP protections of CERCLA is a tenant who leases from a potentially responsible party (PRP), has some site control but not enough to be a de facto owner, and who somehow “turns dirt” to a degree where that tenant could be liable as either an operator or transporter. This circumstance is likely to be the rule, rather than the exception, at many renewable energy Brownfield projects. In those situatiions, the tenant is basically just out of luck from a BFPP safe harbor standpoint, at least according to existing EPA Guidance.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The tenancy interest that does not enjoy the BFPP protections of CERCLA is a tenant who leases from a potentially responsible party (PRP), has some site control but not enough to be a de facto owner, and who somehow “turns dirt” to a degree where that tenant could be liable as either an operator or transporter. This circumstance is likely to be the rule, rather than the exception, at many renewable energy Brownfield projects. In those situatiions, the tenant is basically just out of luck from a BFPP safe harbor standpoint, at least according to existing EPA Guidance.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Solar Energy Incentives for New York Businesses and Residents by JakeyM</title>
		<link>http://www.sgrlaw.com/blog/2012/11/solar-energy-incentives-for-new-york-businesses-and-residents/comment-page-1/#comment-5450</link>
		<dc:creator>JakeyM</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 16 Feb 2013 10:40:18 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.sgrlaw.com/blog/?p=1304#comment-5450</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I agree, but everyone needs to realize that adding Solar to their property is an asset that will boost the long term valuation of their building if / when they choose to sell. With the environment the way it is going we simply cannot dismiss any product that gives no cost energy at no cost to both the consumer and more significantly the environment!]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I agree, but everyone needs to realize that adding Solar to their property is an asset that will boost the long term valuation of their building if / when they choose to sell. With the environment the way it is going we simply cannot dismiss any product that gives no cost energy at no cost to both the consumer and more significantly the environment!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
