b) Evidence supports the Commissions determination that EITP meets the second prong - that the area within the line's reach would play a critical role in meeting the RPS goals.
In making our determination in D.10-12-052, we reviewed the evidence before us. Contrary to CBD's allegations, we looked at all the evidence and did not unlawfully disregard information or alternatives to reach our conclusion that EITP meets prong 2.
In a review of the record, there is legally adequate evidence to support the determination that EITP meets the second prong. This evidence demonstrates: (1) RETI estimated the potential renewable resources in the area to be about 2,878 MW reflecting about 2,000 MW of solar and 878 MW of wind potential in the area;19 (2) RETI has estimated that to meet a 33% RPS target as currently contemplated by legislature would require an additional 59,710 gigawatt hours of renewable energy that will need to be generated and delivered;20 (3) EITP is estimated to support up to 1,400 MW, all of which are from renewable resources; (4) EITP was developed to provide interconnection to the numerous potential renewable generation in the Ivanpah area;21 (5) delay of the EITP decision will impede the interconnection of renewable generating resources which will contribute to achievement of California's renewable portfolio standard goals;22 (6) PPAs have been executed with generation resources from this area;23 (7) SCE has executed two renewable generating resources contracts in the Ivanpah area which total between 400 and 410 MW;24 (8) PG&E has executed 2 PPAs in the area totaling approximately 310 MW;25 and (9) the projects (PPAs) were approved in part because of the contribution they are expected to make to California's 20% RPS goals.26
Thus, there is evidence in the record supporting our determination in the Decision that the area within the EITPs reach will play a critical role in meeting the states RPS goals. Therefore, we properly reasoned based on the record evidence that EITP will play a critical role in timely progress towards the state's ambitious RPS goals, thus satisfying the second prong of the section 399.2.5 three-part test. Here again, the Commission has the responsibility to weigh the evidence, and CBD's disagreement as to how the Commission has weighed the evidence does not demonstrate legal error.27
19 See Ex. SCE-3, Section C, p. 9 (Chacon).
20 See Ex. SCE-5, Section B, p. 3 (Allen); see also SCE's Opening Brief, p. 14; see also DPV2
[D.09-11-007], supra, at p. 17, which states: "... in order to reach the 33% goal, California will likely need to construct significant new transmission resources in SCE's service territory...."
21 See Ex. SCE-3, Section C, p. 3 (Chacon).
22 See Ex. SCE-5, Section A, p. 3 (Chacon).
23 See Ex. SCE-5, Section A, pp. 7-9 (Chacon).
24 See Ex. SCE-1, p. 7 (Allen); see Ex. SCE-3, Section C, p. 8 (Chacon); See also SCE AL No. 2339-E.
25 See Ex. SCE-3, Section C, p. 8 (Chacon); see also PG&E AL No. 3458; see also Resolution E-4266,
p. 9.
26 The 717 MW of capacity, as reflected in Ex. SCE-8 are represented by 4 PPAs, two with SCE, Solar Partners 1 and Desert Stateline, and two with PG&E, BrightSource PPA 1 and BrightSource PPA 2. These projects were approved via Resolution E-4261, E-4347 and E-4266. Each resolution contains language expressly recognizing the role these projects are anticipated to play in meeting the 20% RPS goal. (See Resolutions E-4261 at 8, E-4347 at 7, and E-4266 at 9.)
27 See Pacific Telephone and Telephone Company v. Public Utilities Commission (1965) 62 Cal.2d 634, 647.) The fact that we did not agree with CBD's position does not mean that we "unlawfully disregarded available transmission to reach the erroneous conclusion that EITP is needed," nor does CBD offer any support for such claim. See also Sunrise Decision Denying Rehearing [D.09-07-024], supra, at p. 2.
