b) Joint Parties Arguments Based on Cross-examination Testimony

Joint Parties argue that exempting the Sandhill project from the cap is arbitrary because the project "has so little going for it in the context of the contradictory and ad hoc presentations given by San Gabriel in its defense," and also because the Decision does not discuss "all of the pertinent history." (Joint Reh. App., pp. 8 - 9.) Joint Parties provide an example, seemingly in support of both allegations, claiming that San Gabriel,

. . . decided to push a much more expensive version of Sandhill without Commission review or meaningful internal review of the costs/benefits while at the same time trying to convey the impression that such Commission and internal review had already occurred.

(Joint Reh. App., p. 9.) In support of this argument, Joint Parties include a passage from the hearing transcript that includes a witness' inconsistent statements on cross-examination regarding whether we had previously approved the current Sandhill project.

(Joint Reh. App., p. 10, citing R.T., vol.2, pp. 134 - 135 (Diggs/SG).)

The testimony, on its face, does not support Joint Parties' claim that it was an effort to mislead the Commission. The testimony may simply reveal the witness' uncertainty regarding the implications of the previous decision. In any case, the prior decision and the underlying record in the previous GRC would resolve any dispute about whether the greatly expanded project was considered or approved in that earlier proceeding. Joint Parties seemingly claim also that the passage is an example of San Gabriel's "contradictory and ad hoc presentations," and, further, that it is "pertinent history," and the lack of a reference to it reveals arbitrariness in the Decision. This brief series of responses on cross-examination and the fact that they are not referenced in the Decision do not demonstrate an inferior showing by San Gabriel or arbitrariness in the Decision. Joint Parties do not provide any specific grounds for finding legal error in the Decision related to the passage of cross-examination testimony. These arguments are without merit.