The recent cooperation between the California Public Utilities Commission and the California Energy Commission on many aspects of state energy policy has revealed some fraying edges over the issue of transmission siting authority. In a joint September 12 meeting discussing the state's second interagency Energy Action Plan, a CEC member insisted that the document include the governor's endorsement of transferring transmission siting authority from the CPUC to the Energy Commission. Energy Commission member John Geesman maintained that the governor's intent to change authority should be included in the plan. He has been campaigning to move transmission siting to the CEC for the last couple of years—about as long as the two agencies have been attempting to cooperate on the Energy Action Plan. Geesman blamed the CPUC for almost gumming up a recent transmission project last week. Commission president Mike Peevey requested a three-month delay in California Independent System Operator approval for an underwater transmission line to bring power from the East Bay to San Francisco. A last-minute proposal from Pacific Gas & Electric outlined an alternative line that could, according to Peevey, cost consumers $75 million to $100 million less than the under-bay line. Peevey wanted the delay in order to determine whether there is a less costly measure that would bring the same transmission benefits—unclogging access to the San Francisco Peninsula— as the under-bay line. The CAISO board approved the line anyway (<i>Circuit<\/i>, Sept. 9, 2005). CPUC members bristled at the idea of losing their line-siting authority. They claimed that including an analysis of moving transmission authority from one agency to another would jam up a policy document that has near-unanimous agreement on 83 action items. These include energy efficiency, renewables, and market structure. "It's better to move ahead and get transmission planning fixed," said CPUC member Dian Grueneich. She wants to focus on making the process more adaptable instead of getting sidetracked by which agency would be responsible for the process. CEC chair Joe Desmond diplomatically concluded that more work needs to be done on streamlining transmission line approval. But, he added, "We need to have the ISO present here." Commissioners agreed, however, on the concept of increasing the importance of transportation fuels in the commissions' purview and including that in the joint agencies' Energy Action Plan II this year. The regulators also concurred that there should be coordination of the state's research and development money for vehicle fuels—and that there should be new funding for research along the lines of the current public-goods surcharge on consumers' bills. "It's stupid that in this great state we don't have" such funding, said CEC member Art Rosenfeld.