Public utility commissions have experts on their staff who understand EMF and are able to make objective judgments about its health effects. At the same time, public utility commissions are political entities, especially in states that elect the head of the commission or its commissioners. This subjects them to pressure to do something about EMF, even if scientifically the agency is not convinced that EMF causes any harm. Scientifically, study and wait is probably the most defensible course, but politically it can be a difficult course to maintain. While most states are still in the study and wait posture, they are under increasing pressure to do more about the problem.
Prudent avoidance is the most politically appealing course.
Power companies are required to site new power lines away from existing homes and schools, as long as it can be done at reasonable expense. Aggressive action, which only a few states do, includes monitoring of EMF at residential sites, using low EMF designs for all power lines, locating new lines away from homes and schools without regard to extra costs, and, in some cases, relocating existing lines. Prudent avoidance and aggressive action both have the pitfall of seeming to endorse fears that EMF causes human illness. This creates ever greater demands for action and, in the long run, probably hurts property values in the areas where lines are located. More problematically, it creates a regulatory precedent for acting on poor or none existent scientific evidence.