II. CONCLUSION

For the reasons discussed in detail above, the rehearing applications fail to demonstrate error warranting the granting of rehearing. To clarify our decision, we will make the modifications set forth below. Rehearing of the Decision, as modified, will be denied.

1. SCE's request that we take official notice of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's Notice of Application in Docket No. CP11-46-000 (Dec. 21 2010) is granted.

2. Except for the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's Notice of Application addressed in Ordering Paragraph 1, above, the material submitted by CBD and WWP as exhibits to their rehearing applications is excluded from the record on which the Decision or the EIR were based pursuant to Rule 13.14, Rule 13.19, and Public Resources Code section 21177, subdivision (a).

3. The paragraph spanning pages 26 and 27 beginning "The first prong requires..." is restated to read as follows:

The first prong requires that the Eldorado-Ivanpah Transmission Project bring to the grid renewable generation that would otherwise remain unavailable. Unlike other recent transmission projects, this project is not being developed to meet demand.77 SCE's current interconnection capability in the Ivanpah Dry Lake Area is limited to approximately 80 MW via the existing line between the Mountain Pass Substation and the Eldorado Substation, on the Eldorado-Baker-Cool Water-Dunn Siding-Mountain Pass 115 kV transmission line.78 By developing this project SCE will have the ability to connect to capacity in an area with an acknowledged potential for renewable energy development.

4. The paragraph spanning pages 27 and 28 beginning "In the context of renewable energy..." is restated to read as follows:

In the context of renewable energy development, it is often the case that transmission must be planned and permitted before generation fully commits to an area. This is the situation here. While interest in developing renewable energy in this area is demonstrated by the CAISO Interconnection Queue, such projects must achieve a number of objectives in order to develop, not the least of which is obtaining financing. Consequently, in this case, the Commission is looking to the renewable potential for the area that the transmission line will serve as an indicator of the need for the proposed line. Our analysis continues to emphasize the amount of generation already under RPS contracts with the investor owned utilities, especially ISEGS, which is far along in its development and has agreed to PPAs specifying delivery over the EITP. (Res. E4266 at p. 15; Res. E-4261 at p. 5.) We also give some weight to the number of interconnection requests in the area as, collectively, an indicator of potential future growth.

5. The first sentence of full paragraph on page 28 beginning "Based on Commission approved PPAs..." is restated to read as follows:

Looking to Commission-approved PPAs, the capacity that has undertaken agreements to interconnect to the Eldorado-Ivanpah Transmission Project is considerable.

6. The paragraph spanning pages 28 and 29 beginning "We disagree with DRA's position..." is restated to read as follows:

We disagree with DRA's position, as presented in briefs, that these projects are not sufficiently mature or certain to justify a need determination for the proposed transmission project.82 It is appropriate to consider PPAs because, in a prior proceeding, after considering the positions of several different parties including DRA, we determined to use the existence of PPAs as an "indicator" to determine if the specific requirements of section 399.2.5 were met. This is appropriate because our review of a PPA considers a number of factors allowing us to rely on a PPA as an indicator of renewable potential. As such we find that these projects are strongly indicative of a line that if built, will be utilized.

7. A new sentence is added to the end of the partial paragraph at the beginning of page 30, immediately following footnote 85, which reads:

We need not contend with the question of whether our approval of PPAs currently proposing that capacity provided by BrightSource will utilize the EITP because we can rely on the existence of PPAs for this facility in combination with another factor: the identification of this region as having substantial renewable potential and the level of interest in attempting to develop this potential indicated by the CAISO Interconnection Queue.

8. The first sentence of the first full paragraph on page 30, which sentence begins, "While other transmission options..." is restated to read:

That is, while other transmission options may exist, we find that the substantial amount of renewable capacity represented not only by BrightSource's ISEGS project, but also by the overall potential of this region (as evidenced by that fact that capacity associated with the other Commission-approved renewable PPA also intends to utilize the EITP) results in the need for additional transmission capacity.

9. The last full paragraph on page 32, which begins "We now turn to the third prong..." modified to read as follows:

Based on the evidence in the record, we find that EITP satisfies the third prong regarding whether the cost of the line is appropriately balanced against the certainty of the lines contribution to economically rational RPS compliance. As discussed above, we have four solar projects with Commission approved PPAs totaling 717 MW of renewable generating capacity, which are intended to interconnect renewable generation in furtherance of the state's RPS goals. These projects were approved, in part, because of their cost reasonableness and the contribution they are expected to make towards California's 20% RPS goals, and they exceed the available capacity of the line located in the EITP right of way, thus necessitating upgrades to bring their power to California load centers. Further, construction has already begun for the project contemplated in at least one of these PPAs, representing a total of 365 MW.

Additionally, the RETI reports reflect that there is substantial resource potential in the area potentially serviced by EITP, and strong commercial interest in the region. We find that the RETI-identified resource potential and developer interest support the 220kV plan of service proposed for EITP. Anything less will likely may result in the need for future tear downs and rebuild activities, which may unnecessarily increase the environmental impacts and the cost of upgrades. Thus, the 220 kV transmission plan of service, with the expansion potential proposed by SCE, is the most cost effective means available to interconnect and deliver the renewable resources from this region. Given all of these factors, we find that the cost of the proposed project, as modified herein, is appropriately balanced against the line's contribution to economically rational RPS compliance, thus satisfying the third prong. In light of the foregoing discussion, we find that the project meets the requirements of the three-prong test, and is thus, "necessary" to facilitate achievement of the renewable power goals established in Article 16."

10. Finding of Fact 11 on page 58 is modified to read:

Once an interconnection request is submitted to the CAISO, numerous studies are required before an interconnection agreement can reasonable be executed.

11. Finding of Fact 12 on page 59 is modified to read:

A proposal for renewable energy must obtain financial backing if it is to proceed.

12. Finding of Fact 14 on page 59 is modified to read:

Nevertheless the number of existing proposals, in the aggregate, serves, along with additional factors, to show that there is adequate justification for the cost of the Eldorado Ivanpah Transmission Project.

13. Rehearing of D.10-12-052, as modified herein, is denied.

14. Application 09-05-027 is closed.

This order is effective today.

Dated April 14, 2011, at San Francisco, California.

President

77 The Final EIR/EIS finds that accessing renewable energy is the purpose of the project with "energy demand met by other means." (Final EIR/EIS at 6-9.)

78 Exhibit SCE-5, Section A at 8:20-26.

82 DRA Opening Brief at 10-13.

Previous PageTop Of PageGo To First Page