c) Evidence supports the Commissions determination that EITP meets the third prong - that the cost of the line is appropriately balanced against the certainty of the line's contribution to economically rational RPS compliance.

CBD claims that there is insufficient evidence to support the Commission's determination that the cost of the EITP line is appropriately balanced against the certainty of the line's contribution to economically rational RPS compliance, and thus satisfying prong 3 of the Commission's three-part test. This claim lacks merit.

Contrary to CBD's allegations, the following record evidence supports our determination in D.10-12-052 that EITP satisfies the third prong. This evidence shows: (1) that EITP will provide transmission facilities necessary to interconnect up to 1,400 MW of new generation in the Ivanpah area;²⁸ (2) EITP will avoid short-lived incremental solutions, minimizes environmental impacts, minimizes overall cost exposure to rate payers, and minimizes service interruptions and generation curtailments;²⁹ (3) voltage class solutions lower than 220 kV do not provide sufficient capacity for the amount of renewable resources requesting interconnection in the Ivanpah area;³⁰ (4) undertaking lower voltage class solutions to access renewable resources in this area may result in the need for multiple tear down and rebuild activities, which increase environmental impacts and costs of upgrades;³¹ (5) the 220 kV transmission plan of service to access renewable resources in the Ivanpah area is the most cost effective means available to interconnect and deliver renewable resources from the region;³² (6) Mountain Pass region fell within a competitive range with respect to other CREZ resource areas in weighted average rank costs;³³ (7) CAISO has approved the EITP; (8) with four Commission-approved contracts, the area will likely provide access to 717 MW of renewable energy; and (9) it is best to build transmission facilities one time instead of multiple cycles of rebuilding and expansion over a number of years.³⁴

In light of this evidence, it was reasonable for us to determine that EITP satisfies the third prong. CBD raises a series of vague allegations with respect to the Commission's application of the three prong test. CBD has failed to support its claim that our decision is erroneous, and thus we can reject CBD's allegations as incomplete. Specifically, CBD lists grievances without any explanation, citation to the record, or other legal or factual support. (See CBD's Rehrg. App., pp. 1-8.) CBD's "claim" that the Decision [or prong 3] is not supported by the evidence on costs, does not cure this deficiency, or satisfy Section 1732. In fact, CBD doesn't dispute anything or make any specific claim with respect to our discussion of the costs being balanced against economically RPS, and does not provide citations to the record or any other factual or legal support for its allegation.

CBD, however, is required, under section 1732, to "set forth specifically the ground or grounds on which the applicant believes the decision or order to be unlawful." (Pub. Util. Code, § 1732). Further, the Commission has ruled that "[s]imply identifying a legal principal or argument, without explaining why it applies in the present circumstances does not meet the requirements of Section 1732." (See Order Instituting Rulemaking to Consider Adoption of General Order and Procedures to Implement Digital Infrastructure (2006) [D.10-07-050] __Cal.P.U.C.2d__, p. 19.). An application for rehearing must contain specific claims because the applications purpose is "to alert the Commission to a legal error, so that the Commission may correct it expeditiously." (See Rule 16.1(c) of the Commission Rules of Practice and Procedure (hereinafter, "Rule").) As we have previously explained: "We should not be forced to guess how our decisions might be in error by extrapolating from such claims...If the parties do not explain, with specificity, in their applications for rehearing why a decision is in error, we have no opportunity to correct our decisions." (D.10-07-050, supra, at p. 20.) Thus, CBD does not provide any evidence that the line is not economical per section 1732 or provide anything to support its claim.

We have also previously found that building transmission facilities in key regions at one time is preferable in the renewable energy context to multiple cycles of rebuilding and expansion over a number of years.³⁵ Specifically, as compared to ATP, [D.07-03-013], supra, at p. 19, the Commission found that it is desirable for utilities to undertake proactive planning to avoid a situation where a line is constructed, torn down, and replaced with larger transmission line.

In Order Instituting Investigation to Facilitate Procedure Development of Transmission Infrastructure to Access Renewable Energy in Resources in California (2006) [D.06-06-034] __Cal.P.U.C.3d__, p. 10, we observed that "building surplus capacity from the outset may offer economies to scale to the extent that it is reasonable to assume that additional renewable projects will come online at a later date, filling the capacity." This is consistent with our approval of EITP.

As such, we based our finding that the costs were appropriately balanced on the evidence listed above. It was within our discretion to base our finding with respect to the third prong on this evidence, and CBD has failed to provide any evidence to refute this determination. In fact, CBD has failed to raise any legitimate argument that the Commission cannot rely on this evidence or factors as we have in the past.³⁶ Consistent with past Commission practice, for a third-pong analysis, it was proper for us to look at factors like ease of construction, avoidance of future costs, and to give some weight to the potential for facilities to develop as indicated by the aggregate number of interconnection requests in the CAISO Queue. And, while CBD demonstrates that the record may contain conflicting evidence regarding certain issues, the existence of conflicting evidence is not controlling. The Commission properly weighed the evidence and reached its determination that EITP meets prong 3. As discussed above, the record supports this determination. To make this abundantly clear we will modify p. 32, paragraph 2 of the Decision to make the basis of our decision explicit.

B. CBD's request that the Commission reweigh the evidence is improper.

As demonstrated above, we acted lawfully in our consideration of the evidence in support of EITP. In its application for rehearing, CBD in effect asks the Commission to reweigh the evidence. The request to have the Commission reweigh the evidence does not constitute an allegation of legal error.

Specifically, CBD attempts to relitigate our determination regarding the "need" for the project under section 399.2.5 by discussing how our determination runs contrary to the record evidence. We reject CBD's demand that we reweigh the evidence. The purpose of a rehearing application is to raise allegations of legal error. (See Rule 6.1, subd.(c), ["[It] is to alert the Commission to legal error]) and it should not be used as a vehicle for relitigation.

CBD further proposes that the Commission ignore certain evidence in the record. This contention is equally without merit. For example, CBD claims the Commission improperly relied on the existence of PPAs to establish need for EITP. Here again, CBD in effect is asking the Commission to reweigh the evidence, which is improper for the reasons discussed above.

The Commission did not improperly rely on the existence of PPAs to establish need under section 399.2.5. Specifically, we recently found that Commission-approved PPAs should be sufficient evidence to establish need for a transmission project of this type. (See ATP, [D.07-03-013], supra, at p. 14; see also Decision Granting a CPCN for Tehachapi Renewable Transmission Project ("TRTP") (2009) [D.09-12-044] __ Cal.P.U.C.3d __, pp. 13-14.) In fact, we found "simple and compelling" DRA's argument that reliance on Commission-approved RPS contracts provide "a far better indicator of the amount of renewable generation that the [project] would bring to the grid." (See ATP [D.07-03-013], supra, at p. 14.) See also Decision Granting a CPCN for Tehachapi Renewable Transmission Project ("TRTP") (2009) [D.09-12-044]
__ Cal.P.U.C.3d __, pp. 13-14, which states: "DRA relies upon Commission-approved RPS contracts which it contends provide a far better indicator of the amount of renewable generation that the [project] would bring to the grid." See also TRTP [D.09-12-044], supra, at p. 9 [Finding of Fact No. 9], which states: "The Commission has approved 9 RPS contracts that are estimated to produce a maximum of approximately 2300 MW of renewable energy to the grid. 1590 MW of renewable generation would otherwise be unavailable if the project was not constructed." See also RT, Vol., 1 p. 81 (Chacon), which states: "in TRTP, DRA suggested the use of PPAs as a better indicator to the certainty of compliance.")

Nor does the Commission improperly or largely rely on the existence of the Interconnection Queue to establish need, as alleged by CBD. As the Decision correctly noted, the CAISO Interconnection Queue provides a gauge for the amount of interest in renewable energy development in a particular area, and how much renewable energy may be unavailable in the absence of transmission upgrades. Our analysis, however, made clear that we "continue to emphasize the amount of generation already under RPS contracts with the investor owned utilities, and in this case only gives "some" weight to the number of interconnection requests in the area as an indicator of future growth." (See D.10-12-052, p. 28). See Ex. SCE-9. Therefore, the Interconnection Queue requests were not a determinative factor in establishing need as alleged by CBD, and instead, were one factor in the Commission's overall analysis of need under section 3992.5.

As such, it was both lawful and reasonable for us to acknowledge the existence of the Interconnection Queue and the Commission-approved PPAs as one factor in our overall assessment of the evidence supporting the EITP project. CBD failed to provide anything which would support its position that the acknowledgement of the Interconnection Queue or the use of the PPA information was unlawful.

C. Section 399.2.5 does not require that a transmission project interconnect renewable electricity projects only.

CBD asserts that EITP is not needed because "EITP's capacity may in the future carry fossil-fuel based generation." (See CBD Rehrg. App, p. 4.) This claim lacks merit.

CBD's allegation is based on a flawed reading of section 399.2.5. As the Commission has held, "the tests under §399.2.5 and under the three-prong test of
D.07-03-012, do not preclude non-renewable resources using the new transmission line. (See TRTP, [D.09-12-044], supra, at p. 14.) Instead, "the key is whether the new transmission line is needed to prudently access new renewable resources that are important to the states RPS needs, and not whether other resources may also be accessed." (Id.)³⁷ As set forth above, there is evidence demonstrating that EITP will access renewable energy projects in the Ivanpah Dry Lake area, and thus playing a critical role in California's progress toward its renewable goals. CBD's claim regarding fossil fuels is therefore baseless.

D. Issues Related to CEQA

The rehearing applications make one major CEQA claim. CBD and WWP argue that the EIR's cumulative impacts analysis must be revised to take into account newly submitted materials that are not part of the record in A.09-05-027 or the administrative CEQA record. The rehearing applications attach these materials as exhibits, but CBD and WWP make no motion or other request in support of these materials. These two parties also include brief, one-paragraph, lists of residual CEQA claims in the concluding sections of their rehearing applications.

In order to resolve several of these claims, we will refer to the timeline for this proceeding, which we summarize here. SCE filed its initial application for the EITP in May of 2009.³⁸ The EIR was prepared jointly with the federal Bureau of Land Management ("BLM"), which was responsible for environmental review under federal

law.³⁹ This Commission and BLM began the environmental review process in
June, 2010. The formal "scoping" that lead to the development of the EIR took place from June to August of 2009. (D.10-12-052, pp. 6, 10-11.) After scoping, the team preparing the EIR gathered information and established a "development date" of December 31, 2009. (EIR at p. 1-5.) The information that was available on that date was used to determine the scope of the draft EIR, which we released in April, 2010.

Public comments on the draft EIR were received until June 26, 2010. (D.10-12-052, p. 11.) The information in the comments was considered and further research was done to make the EIR more current. For example, the cumulative impacts section was updated to reflect projects that had become know between
December 31, 2009 and July 30, 2010. (EIR at p. 5-1.) We held hearings and received evidence on SCE's application in August, 2010. A revised, final, EIR was prepared to include this information, and issued by the Commission on November 5, 2010.
(D.10-12-052, p. 12.) The Commission adopted D.10-12-052 on December 16, 2010, relying on the final EIR. That decision was formally issued on December 27, 2010. The Notice of Determination ("NOD") for the EITP was received by the State Clearinghouse on December 23, 2010.⁴⁰

²⁸ See Ex. SCE-1, p. 9 (Chacon); see also Ex. SCE-3, Section C, pp. 9-11 and Sections A & D, generally (Chacon).

²⁹ See Ex. SCE-1, p. 9 (Chacon) citing SCE PEA, Vol. 1, Section 1.0, pp. 1-5. See also Ex. SCE-5, Section A, p. 7 (Chacon), which states: " EITP was developed to provide interconnection to the numerous potential renewable generation projects in the Ivanpah Dry Lake Area in a manner that: (1) addresses the generation needs; (2) avoids short-lived "piecemeal" solutions, (3) minimizes environmental impacts furthering the goals of CEQA; (4) minimizes overall cost exposure to rate payers; (5) minimizes service interruptions; (6) minimizes the need for generation curtailments while upgrades are implemented and
(7) provides the minimum set of facilities as the projects materialize."

³⁰ See Ex. SCE-1, p. 10 (Chacon).

³¹ See Ex. SCE-1, p. 10 (Chacon); see also Ex. SCE-3, Section C, pp. 9-11 (Chacon).

³² See Ex. SCE-1, p. 10 (Chacon), which states: "...because the 1400 MW limitation is associated with the maximum generation tripping allowed by the CAISO under commission mode double outage contingencies (N-2 Spinning Reserve Limitation), constructing the 220 kV transmission lines to 500 kV standards do not allow for the integration of more than 1,400 MW." See also Ex. SCE-3, Section C,
pp. 9-11 (Chacon).

³³ See Ex SCE-17, p. 1-7.

³⁴ See Ex. SCE-5, Section A, pp. 7-9 (Chacon); see also Ex. SCE-1, p. 10 (Chacon).

³⁵ See Order Granting CPNC Concerning Antelope-Pardee Project ("ATP") [D.07-03-012], supra, at
p. 11, which states: "making the line 500 kV capable would avoid the need to construct, tear down, and replace multiple 220 kV facilities with 500 kV facilities in the future....It also determined that constructing the facility to 500 kV standards and energizing at 220 kV was necessary considering the potential magnitude of additional renewable resources that may develop in the Tehachapi area."

³⁶ See TRTP [D.09-12-044], supra, at p. 9-20; see also DPV2 [D.09-11-007], supra, at p. 15-18.

³⁷ Moreover, requiring that only renewable electricity could utilize a specific transmission line violates federal statue and FERC regulations, which obligates SCE to provide adequate transmission to interconnect potential generation sources, and the CAISO tariff, which prohibits discriminatory access to the CAISO-controlled grid. (See 16 U.S.C. §§ 824i, 824k; CAISO Tariff, Section 2.1.)

³⁸ SCE's application was revised and re-submitted in September 2010. (D.10-12-052, p. 7.)

³⁹ Because CBD and WWP challenge the adequacy of the state-mandated EIR, the environmental review document is referred to as the "EIR" although it is, technically, a Final Joint EIR/EIS.

⁴⁰ Under Public Resources Code section 21167, subdivision (c), a party must commence litigation within 30 days of the filing of the NOD, but this requirement is equitably tolled by sections 1731 and 1756 which require that an application for rehearing must be filed and denied before "a cause of action arising out of any order or decision of the commission shall accrue in any court[.]" (Pub. Util. Code, § 1731, subd. (b).) Sections 1733 and 1756 provide that a rehearing application can either: (i) be denied by order of the Commission, or (ii) if such an order does not issue within 60 days, the rehearing application may be deemed denied so that a cause of action can accrue. (Pub. Util. Code, § 1736, subd. (b).) In this instance, the first date on which an action could accrue to CBD and WWP was March 26, 2010, the date on which CBD and WWP's rehearing applications could be deemed denied. Public Resources Code section 21167, subdivision (c) was therefore tolled until March 26, 2010, causing the statutory deadline for filing any petition for review in the California Supreme Court asserting that the EIR prepared for the EITP did not comply with CEQA to occurr on April 25, 2010. (Pub. Resources Code, §§ 21167, subd. (c), 21168.6.) Given these deadlines and BrightSource and First Solar's request that we expedite this matter we have endeavored to issue this order in response to the rehearing applications as quickly as possible.