V. GREENHOUSE GAS ANALYSIS

CBD/Sierra Club contend that the EIR's discussion concerning the GHG impact of the alternatives is insufficient because it relies on inadequate CAISO modeling, and only contains a limited discussion of the CAISO analysis. CBD/Sierra Club also attack the Decision's GHG analysis that went beyond the conclusions in the EIR. CBD/Sierra Club's specific criticisms of the analysis are (1) the EIR did not quantify the amount of GHG emissions for the main project or under alternate scenarios; (2) the Decision mistakenly assumes because of statewide renewable requirements, GHG emissions in the state will be the same for all alternatives, beyond those of construction, and operation and maintenance activities; and (3) the EIR does not discuss the CAISO modeling it relies upon in sufficient detail. UCAN also challenges the GHG analysis.

The EIR's GHG discussion must be evaluated in light of the general CEQA standards. As CBD/Sierra Club note, that information in an EIR must be sufficient to be informative about issues the proposed project raises and must be presented in an understandable manner. (San Joaquin Raptor Rescue Center v. County of Merced (2007) 149 Cal.App.4th 645, 659.) At the same time:

An evaluation of the environmental effects of a proposed project need not be exhaustive, but the sufficiency of an EIR is to be reviewed in the light of what is reasonably feasible. ... The courts have looked not for perfection but for adequacy, completeness, and a good faith effort at full disclosure.

(Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14 ("Guidelines"), § 15151.)

The EIR's analysis of the GHG emissions is contained in a number of EIR sections, including section D.11.13.3, as amended by General Response (GR) 8. The EIR concludes that there will be a net increase in GHG emissions as a result of the proposed project, based on the unavoidable emissions due to construction and operation and maintenance of the line (DEIR D.11-52-3). In mitigation, to some extent, the EIR contemplates that this increase will be offset by requiring SDG&E to obtain carbon credits, and the EIR also requires SDG&E to take specific measures to avoid sulfur hexafluoride emissions. (DEIR D.11-53-4.) In addition, to the extent the line facilitates renewable development, the GHG impacts may be lessened. (EIR, GR 8, p. 2-46.) Despite these mitigating factors, the EIR characterizes the construction phase GHG impacts as having a significant unavoidable effect on the environment. (DEIR D.11-52.)

Regarding the GHG impact of the Sunrise line compared to other transmission line alternatives, or the Sunrise line carrying energy from different sources, the EIR concludes that these impacts are speculative because the exact sources of the power Sunrise or other lines would carry is not known. (DEIR D.11-51.) However, for the two in-area generation alternatives where there is more information available concerning the generation, the EIR concludes that the New In-Area All-Source Generation Alternative would cause substantially more GHG emissions than the proposed project, and the New In-Area Renewable Generation would result in fewer net emissions. (EIR H.6.1, H.6.2.)

The EIR adequately assesses the GHG impacts of the project. CEQA does not require an agency to quantify specific amounts when the results are speculative and uncertain. (See Lake County Energy Council v. County of Lake (1977) 70 Cal.App.3d 851, 854-855.) Moreover, as SDG&E notes, the EIR cites to the CAISO modeling (see EIR at D.11-50), and is therefore not hiding any information from the public, contrary to CBD/Sierra Club's allegations.

We acknowledge, however, that the Decision expands upon the EIR's GHG analysis. As the Decision explains, the EIR gives an incomplete picture of the Sunrise project's actual GHG impacts because it appropriately limited "the scope of review to Sunrise, connected actions and alternatives." (Decision, at p. 164.) Accordingly, it did not analyze "the GHG impacts of Sunrise within the broader policy of the RPS and the systematic grid upgrades need to meet the 33% target by 2020." (Ibid.) Relying on this broader policy context, the Decision concludes that, assuming state renewable goals will be met, the use of non-renewable energy on the Sunrise line will not result in additional GHG emissions on a Western Electricity Coordinating Council ("WECC") system-wide basis. This is because if non-renewables are carried on Sunrise, renewable energy would need to be used or developed elsewhere in the system in order to meet the predicted 33% mandate. (Decision, at pp. 164 -167.) The Decision's conclusions are supported by the CAISO modeling. (See Exh. I-16.)

Although the GHG analysis in the Decision differs from the EIR, as discussed, there is no legal error in either analysis. The EIR did an analysis of the impacts of the generation alternatives by looking at those emissions, without considering the GHG impacts of other projects which would be used and developed system-wide in order to meet the RPS mandate. This is appropriate scope for an EIR, the role of which is to consider the environmental impact of the proposed project and related projects, and should terminate discussions where analysis becomes unduly speculative. (Guidelines, § 15145.) Accordingly, regarding the transmission line impacts, beyond construction and operations and maintenance ("O&M"), the EIR declines to assess the amount of GHG impacts because the generation mix the line would carry is too speculative.

In its discussion of the renewable condition, the Decision's analysis takes the additional step of considering the generation that would be developed and used across the region in addition to the GHG impacts of the project alone. In this way, the Decision's analysis incorporates policy and regional considerations that go beyond the project itself. Thus, based on CAISO modeling, and the CARB Climate Change Scoping Plan, the Decision concludes that whether or not the Sunrise line carries renewables, when projects across the rest of the region are considered, there is no substantial difference in the ultimate GHG impacts. Although this analysis goes further than the EIR, both the EIR analysis and the Decision's analysis are legally adequate. There is no prohibition against an agency going beyond the factual analysis in the EIR to incorporate policy forecasts that go beyond the physical impacts of the projects themselves.

Given the WECC-wide GHG perspective, UCAN takes issue specifically with the Decision's conclusion that Sunrise will reduce GHG emissions. According to UCAN, since the Decisions views the "mix of generation (and thus GHG emissions) throughout the WECC" and concludes that renewable development will remain the same with or without Sunrise and whether or not Sunrise carries renewables, it should also conclude that "GHG emissions will be basically the same with and without Sunrise." (UCAN Rehrg. App., at p. 53.)

While both the EIR and the Decision's analysis of the GHG impacts are legally sufficient, we concede that the Decision's discussion is somewhat inconsistent. At times, the Decision adopts the broader WECC-wide perspective while at other points it remains with the EIR's more restricted analysis. We will therefore modify the Decision's GHG analysis, to explain more clearly our position with respect to the GHG impacts of the Sunrise project. One point bears emphasis in particular. Despite statements in the Decision to the contrary, we do not in fact conclude that the Sunrise project will result in lower GHG emissions. Rather, we conclude that Sunrise will facilitate the 33% renewable procurement goal "within a reasonable period of time with the greatest economic benefits...." (Decision, at p. 270.) We note that the EIR, as certified by us, concludes that the GHG emissions associated with the construction and operation of the line are an unavoidable significant impact of the project. While the purpose of the renewable goal is largely to decrease the GHG emissions, we recognize there is no guarantee at this point about the exact degree to which that will occur. The precise amount of GHG emission savings attributable to as yet undeveloped renewable generation facilities has not been and cannot be accurately quantified or predicted in this proceeding. Therefore, we only conclude that the Sunrise project will facilitate compliance with a 33% renewable procurement goal, and although the purpose of this goal in part is to decrease GHG emissions, we do not and cannot determine the extent to which this will occur.

Bearing this in mind, UCAN's argument that Sunrise will not lessen GHG emissions because, according to the Commission's analysis, the renewable mix will essentially stay the same is misplaced. UCAN is correct that we assume compliance with a future 33% renewable mandate, with or without Sunrise. Again, we do not conclude that Sunrise will increase renewable procurement, make compliance with a 33% renewable target possible or lessen GHG emissions. What we conclude is that Sunrise will facilitate renewable compliance in a timely and cost-effective manner. There is no error or inconsistency in this conclusion.

UCAN also argues that there is no modeling to support the comparison of WECC-wide emissions for the alternatives. While this is correct, it is reasonable to conclude, based on CARB estimates, and the modeling that was done, that if RPS goals are met system-wide and development or use of non-renewable energy is approved, those non-renewables will need to be balanced with new development or use of renewable energy. While ultimately, as discussed, the precise system-wide GHG impact is speculative, it is reasonable to conclude that non-renewables will be balanced with renewables in order to meet the predicted 33% RPS mandate.

We acknowledge that we have struggled with the GHG analysis in this proceeding, as the analytic approaches to such analyses for power projects are still being developed. Yet, we have developed a thorough and coherent view of the ultimate GHG impacts of the Sunrise project and its alternatives, based on the evidence in this proceeding. Accordingly, in today's order we will modify the Decision to clarify the GHG discussion concerning the above points.