DOCSLIB.ORG

Altamont Solar Energy Center Project

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Altamont Solar Energy Center Project Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative Declaration: Altamont Solar Energy Center Project Prepared for: Alameda County Planning Department 224 West Winton Avenue, Suite 111 Hayward, CA 94544 Contact: J. Weldon 510/670-5400 Prepared by: ICF International 75 East Santa Clara Street, Suite 300 San Jose, CA 95113 Contact: C. Fukasawa 408/216-2811 August 2011 ICF International. August 2011. Altamont Solar Energy Center Project Mitigated Negative Declaration/Initial Study. Prepared for Alameda County, CA (Project #: 0090.10). Contents List of Tables ......................................................................................................................................... iii List of Figures ....................................................................................................................................... iii List of Acronyms and Abbreviations .................................................................................................... iv Page A. PROJECT DESCRIPTION ............................................................................................. 1 B. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED.............................. 13 C. LEAD AGENCY DETERMINATION ......................................................................... 13 D. EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS ................................................. 14 1. AESTHETICS .................................................................................................................. 17 2. AGRICULTURE AND FOREST RESOURCES ............................................................. 22 3. AIR QUALITY ................................................................................................................. 25 4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES .......................................................................................... 36 5. CLIMATE CHANGE AND GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS ................................... 68 6. CULTURAL RESOURCES ............................................................................................. 73 7. GEOLOGY AND SOILS ................................................................................................. 80 8. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS............................................................. 84 9. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY ...................................................................... 90 10. LAND USE AND PLANNING ........................................................................................ 97 11. MINERAL RESOURCES .............................................................................................. 105 12. NOISE ............................................................................................................................. 106 13. POPULATION AND HOUSING ................................................................................... 111 14. PUBLIC SERVICES ...................................................................................................... 113 15. RECREATION ............................................................................................................... 115 16. TRANSPORTATION ..................................................................................................... 116 17. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS ....................................................................... 120 18. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE ........................................................ 123 SOURCES...................................................................................................................... 135 E. MITIGATION MEASURES TO BE INCLUDED IN THE PROJECT AND AGREED TO BY THE PROJECT SPONSOR AND ALL SUBSEQUENT PROPERTY OWNERS AND PERMITTEES ............................... 137 F. AGREEMENT BY PROJECT SPONSOR ................................................................ 143 Appendix A EDR REPORT ii Tables Page Table 3-1. Annual Ambient Air Quality Data at Tracy Airport Monitoring Station ................................................... 26 Table 3-2. Air Quality Standards Applicable in California ......................................................................................... 30 Table 3-3. Phase 1 Total Operational and Area Source Emissions from the Project ................................................... 33 Table 3-4. Phase 2 Total Operational and Area Source Emissions from the Project ................................................... 33 Table 4-1. Special-Status Wildlife Species with Potential to Occur in the Project Region ......................................... 38 Table 4-2. Special-Status Plants Known to Occur or that May Occur in the Project Area .......................................... 46 Table 5-1. CO2 Reduction Calculations Due to Increase in Solar Energy with Project .............................................. 71 Table 5-2. Operational GHG Emissions, Phase 1 and 2 (MTCO2/year) ..................................................................... 71 Table 8-1. Contaminated and Potentially Contaminated Properties within 0.5 miles of the Project Site .................... 85 Table 10-1. Land Use and Zoning Designation Definitions ...................................................................................... 101 Table 12-1. Alameda County Code Exterior Noise Level Standards ........................................................................ 107 Table 12-2. Alameda County Code Exterior Noise Level Standards for Commercial Properties ............................. 107 Table 12-3. Construction Equipment Noise Emission Levels ................................................................................... 108 Table 12-4. Estimated Construction Noise in the Vicinity of an Active Construction Site (Maximum One-Hour Leq) ...................................................................................... 109 Table 16-1. V/C Ratio, Delay, and Traffic Flow Conditions for LOS Designations ................................................. 117 Table 18-1. Cumulative Project List (Past, Current, and Probable Future Projects) ................................................. 125 Figures Page Figure 1. Project Location and Vicinity ......................................................................................................................... 9 Figure 2a. Project Site Plans ........................................................................................................................................ 10 Figure 2b. Project Site Plans (cont.) ............................................................................................................................ 11 Figure 3. Example Solar Modules ............................................................................................................................... 12 Figure 4a. Views of the Site ........................................................................................................................................ 18 Figure 4b. Views of the Site (cont.) ............................................................................................................................. 19 Figure 5a. CNDDB Wildlife Occurrences ................................................................................................................... 57 Figure 5b. CNDDB Plant Occurrences ........................................................................................................................ 58 Figure 6. Cumulative Projects Map ........................................................................................................................... 124 iii Acronyms and Abbreviations AB 32 Assembly Bill 32 ABAG Association of Bay Area Governments ACDEH Alameda County Department of Environmental Health ADA American with Disabilities Act A-District Agricultural District af acre-feet ARB California Air Resources Board asl above sea level ASTM American Society for Testing and Materials BAAQMD Bay Area Air Quality Management District Bay San Francisco Bay Bay region San Francisco Bay region Bay-Delta Plan Water Quality Control Plan for the San Francisco Bay/Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta Estuary BBID Byron Bethany Irrigation District BMPs best management practices BO biological opinion CAAQS California Ambient Air Quality Standards CAISO California Independent System Operator CARROT California Climate Action Registry’s Online Reporting Tool CCAs Community Choice Aggregations CCR California Code of Regulations CDFG California Department of Fish and Game CEC California Energy Commission CEQ Council on Environmental Quality CEQA California Environmental Quality Act CESA California Endangered Species Act CH4 methane CHSC California Health and Safety Code CMA Alameda County Congestion Management Agency CMP Congestion Management Program CNPS California Native Plant Society CO carbon monoxide CO2 carbon dioxide CO2e CO2 equivalents Corps Army Corps of Engineers CPV Concentrating PhotoVoltaic CRHR California Register of Historic Resources CRLF California red-legged frog CRSB Coast Ranges-Sierran Block iv CUP conditional use permit CVP Central Valley Project CWA Clean Water Act dB Decibel dBA A-Weighted Decibel DBP disinfection byproducts Delta San Joaquin-Sacramento Delta DPM diesel particulate matter DTSC California Department of Toxic Substances Control DWR California Department of Water Resources EBRPD East Bay Regional Parks District ECAP East County Area Plan EDR Environmental Data Resources, Inc. EIR Environmental Impact Report EPA Environmental Protection Agency ESA
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Health and Safety Impacts of Solar Photovoltaics
    Filed with the Iowa Utilities Board on September 16, 2019, GCU-2019-0004 Health and Safety Impacts of Solar Photovoltaics The increasing presence of utility-scale solar photovoltaic (PV) systems (sometimes referred to as solar farms) is a rather new development in North Carolina’s landscape. Due to the new and unknown nature of this technology, it is natural for communities near such developments to be concerned about health and safety impacts. Unfortunately, the quick emergence of utility-scale solar has cultivated fertile grounds for myths and half-truths about the health impacts of this technology, which can lead to unnecessary fear and conflict. Photovoltaic (PV) technologies and solar inverters are not known to pose any significant health dangers to their neighbors. The most important dangers posed are increased highway traffic during the relative short construction period and dangers posed to trespassers of contact with high voltage equipment. This latter risk is mitigated by signage and the security measures that industry uses to deter trespassing. As will be discussed in more detail below, risks of site contamination are much less than for most other industrial uses because PV technologies employ few toxic chemicals and those used are used in very small quantities. Due to the reduction in the pollution from fossil-fuel-fired electric generators, the overall impact of solar development on human health is overwhelmingly positive. This pollution reduction results from a partial replacement of fossil-fuel fired generation by emission-free PV-generated electricity, which reduces harmful sulfur dioxide (SO2), nitrogen oxides (NOx), and fine particulate matter (PM2.5).
    [Show full text]
  • Estimating the Quantity of Wind and Solar Required to Displace Storage-Induced Emissions † ‡ Eric Hittinger*, and Ineŝ M
    Article Cite This: Environ. Sci. Technol. 2017, 51, 12988-12997 pubs.acs.org/est Estimating the Quantity of Wind and Solar Required To Displace Storage-Induced Emissions † ‡ Eric Hittinger*, and Ineŝ M. L. Azevedo † Department of Public Policy, Rochester Institute of Technology, Rochester, New York 14623, United States ‡ Department of Engineering & Public Policy, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15213, United States *S Supporting Information ABSTRACT: The variable and nondispatchable nature of wind and solar generation has been driving interest in energy storage as an enabling low-carbon technology that can help spur large-scale adoption of renewables. However, prior work has shown that adding energy storage alone for energy arbitrage in electricity systems across the U.S. routinely increases system emissions. While adding wind or solar reduces electricity system emissions, the emissions effect of both renewable generation and energy storage varies by location. In this work, we apply a marginal emissions approach to determine the net system CO2 emissions of colocated or electrically proximate wind/storage and solar/storage facilities across the U.S. and determine the amount of renewable energy ff fi required to o set the CO2 emissions resulting from operation of new energy storage. We nd that it takes between 0.03 MW (Montana) and 4 MW (Michigan) of wind and between 0.25 MW (Alabama) and 17 MW (Michigan) of solar to offset the emissions from a 25 MW/100 MWh storage device, depending on location and operational mode. Systems with a realistic combination of renewables and storage will result in net emissions reductions compared with a grid without those systems, but the anticipated reductions are lower than a renewable-only addition.
    [Show full text]
  • Fire Fighter Safety and Emergency Response for Solar Power Systems
    Fire Fighter Safety and Emergency Response for Solar Power Systems Final Report A DHS/Assistance to Firefighter Grants (AFG) Funded Study Prepared by: Casey C. Grant, P.E. Fire Protection Research Foundation The Fire Protection Research Foundation One Batterymarch Park Quincy, MA, USA 02169-7471 Email: [email protected] http://www.nfpa.org/foundation © Copyright Fire Protection Research Foundation May 2010 Revised: October, 2013 (This page left intentionally blank) FOREWORD Today's emergency responders face unexpected challenges as new uses of alternative energy increase. These renewable power sources save on the use of conventional fuels such as petroleum and other fossil fuels, but they also introduce unfamiliar hazards that require new fire fighting strategies and procedures. Among these alternative energy uses are buildings equipped with solar power systems, which can present a variety of significant hazards should a fire occur. This study focuses on structural fire fighting in buildings and structures involving solar power systems utilizing solar panels that generate thermal and/or electrical energy, with a particular focus on solar photovoltaic panels used for electric power generation. The safety of fire fighters and other emergency first responder personnel depends on understanding and properly handling these hazards through adequate training and preparation. The goal of this project has been to assemble and widely disseminate core principle and best practice information for fire fighters, fire ground incident commanders, and other emergency first responders to assist in their decision making process at emergencies involving solar power systems on buildings. Methods used include collecting information and data from a wide range of credible sources, along with a one-day workshop of applicable subject matter experts that have provided their review and evaluation on the topic.
    [Show full text]
  • Alphabet's 2019 CDP Climate Change Report
    Alphabet, Inc. - Climate Change 2019 C0. Introduction C0.1 (C0.1) Give a general description and introduction to your organization. As our founders Larry and Sergey wrote in the original founders' letter, "Google is not a conventional company. We do not intend to become one." That unconventional spirit has been a driving force throughout our history -- inspiring us to do things like rethink the mobile device ecosystem with Android and map the world with Google Maps. As part of that, our founders also explained that you could expect us to make "smaller bets in areas that might seem very speculative or even strange when compared to our current businesses." From the start, the company has always strived to do more, and to do important and meaningful things with the resources we have. Alphabet is a collection of businesses -- the largest of which is Google. It also includes businesses that are generally pretty far afield of our main internet products in areas such as self-driving cars, life sciences, internet access and TV services. We report all non- Google businesses collectively as Other Bets. Our Alphabet structure is about helping each of our businesses prosper through strong leaders and independence. We have always been a company committed to building products that have the potential to improve the lives of millions of people. Our product innovations have made our services widely used, and our brand one of the most recognized in the world. Google's core products and platforms such as Android, Chrome, Gmail, Google Drive, Google Maps, Google Play, Search, and YouTube each have over one billion monthly active users.
    [Show full text]
  • Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Leo Solar Project
    DRAFT Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration LEO Solar Project November 2019 Lead Agency: Kings County 1400 West Lacey Boulevard, Building. #6 Hanford, California 93230 Prepared for: Apex Energy Solutions, LLC 604 Sutter Street, Suite 250 Folsom, California 95630 (916) 985-9461 Prepared by: 2525 Warren Drive Rocklin, California 95677 Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Leo Solar Project DRAFT MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION LEO SOLAR PROJECT Lead Agency: Kings County Community Development Agency, Kings County Government Center, 1400 West Lacey Boulevard, Hanford, California 93230 Project Proponent: Apex Energy Solutions, LLC, 604 Sutter Street Suite 250, Folsom, California 95630 Project Location: The proposed Leo Solar Project (Project) occupies ±30 acres of a 40-acre parcel located near 25th Avenue 15 miles south of unincorporated Kettleman City, California (Assessor’s Parcel Number [APN] 048-350-016- 000). The project site is situated in the unincorporated area of Kings County, California, along the Kings County/Kern County border, between California State Route (SR) 33 and Interstate 5 (I-5), approximately 0.5 mile east of 25th Avenue. The site corresponds to a portion of Section 36, Township 24 South, and Range 19 East of the Mount Diablo Base and Meridian (MDBM) of the “Avenal Gap” topographic quadrangles 7.5- minute quadrangle (U.S. Geological Survey [USGS] 2015). Project Description: The Project includes the development of up to a 5-megawatt (MW) solar photovoltaic (PV) energy generating facility and battery storage system (BESS) facility on ±30 acres of 40 undeveloped acres. The facility would consist of solar PV modules mounted on stationary fixed-tilt, ground- mounted racking or single-axis trackers and would include up to 5-MW alternating current (AC) maximum capacity, four-hour battery energy storage system.
    [Show full text]
  • 2011 Indiana Renewable Energy Resources Study
    September 2011 2011 Indiana Renewable Energy Resources Study Prepared for: Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission and Regulatory Flexibility Committee of the Indiana General Assembly Indianapolis, Indiana State Utility Forecasting Group | Energy Center at Discovery Park | Purdue University | West Lafayette, Indiana 2011 INDIANA RENEWABLE ENERGY RESOURCES STUDY State Utility Forecasting Group Energy Center Purdue University West Lafayette, Indiana David Nderitu Tianyun Ji Benjamin Allen Douglas Gotham Paul Preckel Darla Mize Forrest Holland Marco Velastegui Tim Phillips September 2011 2011 Indiana Renewable Energy Resources Study - State Utility Forecasting Group 2011 Indiana Renewable Energy Resources Study - State Utility Forecasting Group Table of Contents List of Figures .................................................................................................................... iii List of Tables ...................................................................................................................... v Acronyms and Abbreviations ............................................................................................ vi Foreword ............................................................................................................................ ix 1. Overview ............................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Trends in renewable energy consumption in the United States ................ 1 1.2 Trends in renewable energy consumption in Indiana
    [Show full text]
  • Environmental and Economic Benefits of Building Solar in California Quality Careers — Cleaner Lives
    Environmental and Economic Benefits of Building Solar in California Quality Careers — Cleaner Lives DONALD VIAL CENTER ON EMPLOYMENT IN THE GREEN ECONOMY Institute for Research on Labor and Employment University of California, Berkeley November 10, 2014 By Peter Philips, Ph.D. Professor of Economics, University of Utah Visiting Scholar, University of California, Berkeley, Institute for Research on Labor and Employment Peter Philips | Donald Vial Center on Employment in the Green Economy | November 2014 1 2 Environmental and Economic Benefits of Building Solar in California: Quality Careers—Cleaner Lives Environmental and Economic Benefits of Building Solar in California Quality Careers — Cleaner Lives DONALD VIAL CENTER ON EMPLOYMENT IN THE GREEN ECONOMY Institute for Research on Labor and Employment University of California, Berkeley November 10, 2014 By Peter Philips, Ph.D. Professor of Economics, University of Utah Visiting Scholar, University of California, Berkeley, Institute for Research on Labor and Employment Peter Philips | Donald Vial Center on Employment in the Green Economy | November 2014 3 About the Author Peter Philips (B.A. Pomona College, M.A., Ph.D. Stanford University) is a Professor of Economics and former Chair of the Economics Department at the University of Utah. Philips is a leading economic expert on the U.S. construction labor market. He has published widely on the topic and has testified as an expert in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims, served as an expert for the U.S. Justice Department in litigation concerning the Davis-Bacon Act (the federal prevailing wage law), and presented testimony to state legislative committees in Ohio, Indiana, Kansas, Oklahoma, New Mexico, Utah, Kentucky, Connecticut, and California regarding the regulations of construction labor markets.
    [Show full text]
  • RE-Powering America's Land Initiative: Benefits Matrix, July 2017
    RE-Powering America’s Land Initiative: July 2017 Benefits Matrix Through the RE-Powering America’s Land Initiative, the U.S. Environmental RE-Powering America’s Protection Agency (EPA) is encouraging the reuse of formerly contaminated Land Initiative lands, landfills, and mine sites for renewable energy development when such development is aligned with the community’s vision for the site. Using publicly To provide information on renewable energy available information, RE-Powering maintains a list of completed renewable energy on contaminated land projects not currently installations on contaminated sites and landfills. As part of its inventory, RE-Powering appearing in this document, email cleanenergy@ tracks benefits associated with completed sites, such as energy cost savings, epa.gov. To receive updates, newsletters, and other increased revenue, and job creation. information about the RE-Powering program, click the banner below. To date, the RE-Powering Initiative has identified 213 renewable energy installations on 207 contaminated lands, landfills, and mine sites1, with a cumulative installed capacity of just over 1,235 megawatts (MW) in a total of 40 states and territories. Subscribe Although all renewable energy installations on contaminated sites likely have some EPA’s RE-Powering Listserv extrinsic or intrinsic value to the developer or community, the specific benefits realized for any one project are not always touted publicly. EPA launched @EPAland on By researching an array of publicly available documents (including press releases, Twitter to help you learn fact sheets, and case studies), however, RE-Powering has identified self-reported what is being done to protect benefits for 178 of the total 213 renewable energy installations that the Initiative and clean up our land.
    [Show full text]
  • A Comparative Life Cycle Assessment of PV Solar Systems
    A Comparative Life Cycle Assessment of PV Solar Systems Kristine Bekkelund Master of Energy and Environmental Engineering Submission date: August 2013 Supervisor: Anders Hammer Strømman, EPT Norwegian University of Science and Technology Department of Energy and Process Engineering Comment to master thesis description In agreement with supervisor and co-supervisor, a slight change in the object of the master thesis has been done. It has been decided to perform a comparative life cycle analysis on different PV technologies rather than conducting a detailed analysis on thin film alone. The scope has been broaden to include multicrystalline silicon PV technology in order to assess the relative competiveness with thin film PV technology in terms of environmental impact. Life cycle inventories should be collected and harmonized. In addition, it has been decided to perform a sensitivity analysis on selected parameters and compare the results with existing renewable energy technology, in this case wind power. The main focus of the sensitivity analysis will be on climate change (GWP). Future implications and possible improvements of the PV value chain should be discussed. i ii Preface This is the preface of the report "A Comparative Life Cycle Assessment of PV Solar Systems" written during the spring of 2013, as part of my master degree in "Science and Technology - Energy and Environment" at the Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU) in Trondheim, Norway. I have learnt a lot from working with this master thesis and have gained interesting insight in the infinite field of photovoltaics. I would like to thank all the people who have shared their valuable knowledge with me: First, I would like to thank my supervisor Anders Hammer Strømman for academic support and guidance during weekly meetings.
    [Show full text]
  • Community Solar Power
    Community Solar Power Obstacles and Opportunities JOHN FARRELL [email protected] Revised November 2010 A publication of New Rules Project 612-379-3815 1313 5th St. SE, Suite 303 www.newrules.org Minneapolis, MN 55414 New Rules Project www.newrules.org i Comment on Revisions The original edition of Community Solar Power received a lot of attention, for which we at the Institute for Local Self-Reliance are very grateful. The grading system we used for community solar projects was of particular interest, especially our offer of higher scores for projects placed on rooftops rather than on the ground. In particular, the excellent folks at the Clean Energy Collective (whose project is featured in this report) engaged us on the criteria we used for rooftop and ground-mounted solar power. After several in-depth conversations, we offer this revision to Community Solar Power and to the grades we provided for solar project location. We think that our revised grading system better reflects the advantages of distributed renewable energy as well as the best efforts of community solar projects to provide their participants with the best value. See the table below for the revised grades (an updated scorecard is in the report). For a more thorough discussion of the location conversation, see this post to our distributed energy web resource, Energy Self-Reliant States: Community Solar: Better on the Roof? Sincerely, -John Farrell Community Sol Simple University Green- Solar Sun- Solar CEC Partners Solar Park house Pioneer Smart Ellensburg Sakai Scorecard:
    [Show full text]
  • Department of Energy Loan Guarantee Program: Update on Loan Guarantee Applicants
    Department of Energy Loan Guarantee Program: Update on Loan Guarantee Applicants Passed as part of the Energy Policy Act of 2005, the Department of Energy’s (DOE) Title XVII Loan Guarantee Program has $34 billion in authority to give loan guarantees to innovative technologies.1 The 1705 program also had about $2.4 billion in American Reinvestment and Recovery Act funds to pay for the credit subsidy cost for renewable and energy efficiency projects, but those funds expired on September 30, 2011. So far, the DOE has finalized $15.1 billion worth of loans and committed another $15 billion. Over the life of the program, the DOE loan programs office has received a total of 460 applications as a result of nine solicitations with an median requested loan amount of $141 million—and a high of $12 billion to support the development of a nuclear power plant.2 Below is a list of those applicants which have received conditionally committed or finalized loans based largely on our independent research. There are also companies that are in the process of applying for a loan and companies which have withdrawn or defaulted for financial reasons. Nuclear Power Facilities Current DOE loan guarantee authority for the financing of nuclear projects is set at $18.5 billion with an additional $4 billion now identified for uranium enrichment (see see front-end nuclear cycle below).1 President Obama has requested more. In both his FY2011 and FY2012 budgets, he included an additional $36 billion in loan guarantee authority for nuclear reactors. In late 2009 and early 2010, reports indicated that the final contenders for the first nuclear loan guarantee were: UniStar Nuclear Energy, SCANA Energy, Southern Company, and NRG Energy.
    [Show full text]
  • US Solar Industry Year in Review 2009
    US Solar Industry Year in Review 2009 Thursday, April 15, 2010 575 7th Street NW Suite 400 Washington DC 20004 | www.seia.org Executive Summary U.S. Cumulative Solar Capacity Growth Despite the Great Recession of 2009, the U.S. solar energy 2,500 25,000 23,835 industry grew— both in new installations and 2,000 20,000 employment. Total U.S. solar electric capacity from 15,870 2,108 photovoltaic (PV) and concentrating solar power (CSP) 1,500 15,000 technologies climbed past 2,000 MW, enough to serve -th MW more than 350,000 homes. Total U.S. solar thermal 1,000 10,000 MW 1 capacity approached 24,000 MWth. Solar industry 494 revenues also surged despite the economy, climbing 500 5,000 36 percent in 2009. - - A doubling in size of the residential PV market and three new CSP plants helped lift the U.S. solar electric market 37 percent in annual installations over 2008 from 351 MW in 2008 to 481 MW in 2009. Solar water heating (SWH) Electricity Capacity (MW) Thermal Capacity (MW-Th) installations managed 10 percent year-over-year growth, while the solar pool heating (SPH) market suffered along Annual U.S. Solar Energy Capacity Growth with the broader construction industry, dropping 10 1,200 1,099 percent. 1,036 1,000 918 894 928 Another sign of continued optimism in solar energy: 865 -th 725 758 742 venture capitalists invested more in solar technologies than 800 542 any other clean technology in 2009. In total, $1.4 billion in 600 481 2 351 venture capital flowed to solar companies in 2009.
    [Show full text]