VII. FAILURE TO ADOPT RENEWABLE CONDITION

In addition to faulting the Decision for failing to adequately analyze the renewable condition, CBD/Sierra Club also allege that our failure to adopt the condition violates CEQA. For many of the reasons discussed above, CBD/Sierra Club are mistaken.

As discussed, we did not consider the renewable condition as mitigation, or as an alternative, or as part of the project. This was because the condition was not suggested or developed until after the EIR was prepared, and at that point the Commission judged that the condition was not feasible. Therefore the authority CBD/Sierra Club cite to the effect that feasible alternatives or mitigation must be incorporated into a proposed project (Citizens for Quality Growth v. City of Mount Shasta (1988) 198 Cal.App.3d 433, 440-1) is inapposite. The renewable condition is not an alternative, nor mitigation, nor is it feasible, as the EIR concludes. Similarly, CBD/Sierra Club's complaint that mitigation must be enforceable (CBD/Sierra Club App. Rehg, at p. 10) is misplaced, because the proposed renewable condition is not mitigation, as explained.

CBD/Sierra Club allege an inconsistency between citing the transmission of renewables as an objective of the Sunrise line, while not requiring carrying renewables to be a condition of the project. They cite the Grueneich Alternate and the ALJ Proposed Decision as support for their view that the renewables condition is necessary to guarantee the objective of the project. (CBD/Sierra Club App. Rehg, at p. 9.) As SDG&E points out, however, there is a distinction between making reasonable assumptions regarding future conditions (e.g. there will be renewable development in the Imperial Valley) and requiring that those assumptions will occur (renewable condition). (SDG&E Response, at p.27.) Many of the particulars involved in developing sufficient renewable resources for Sunrise to carry are outside the jurisdiction of the Commission, as SDG&E also notes. Moreover, the Grueneich Alternate and the ALJ Proposed Decision, though they indicate some disagreement on these points, are neither authority nor evidence. CBD/Sierra Club, therefore, cannot rely on them to demonstrate legal error. Accordingly, CBD/Sierra Club have not identified any error in our decision not to adopt the renewable condition.