A Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals decision ruled that states should get more leeway in siting new transmission lines. California and Southern California Edison were among those legally interested in the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission’s interpretation of the 2005 Energy Policy Act, which increased regulators’ say over siting high voltage lines. The February 18 order denies federal regulators’ “expansive” interpretation of their authority over national transmission corridors. That is, the commission presumed if a state did not act on siting a new transmission line within a year, the application was denied and federal regulators could take over and permit the line. The court decision requires federal regulators to consult with the Council on Environmental Quality in transmission siting. It did not, however, require FERC to prepare Environmental Impact Statements when issuing procedural regulations. The court sent the matter back to FERC for reinterpretation of its transmission siting authority under the 2005 Energy Policy Act. California filed an “amicus brief,” known as a “friend of the court” brief. Edison and San Diego Gas & Electric were intervenors. Both utilities have plans for new major power lines. Edison wants to build the Palo Verde-Devers line from Arizona to its load center. SDG&E plans to string the 500 kV Sunrise Powerlink line from the Imperial County’s low desert to its urban areas. They both want federal regulators to be able to step in and site transmission lines not approved by California or other state regulators. An Edison spokesperson said that it’s too soon to comment on the court decision. Utilities and some regulators maintain that without the lines, renewable power from solar and wind cannot be delivered. Regulators approved Sunrise Powerlink late last year, but are now being sued by consumer groups over the move. Opponents say that the power can be produced close to consumers and that the line may not even be needed (see story above).