Feb. 18, 2026
by TIM HUNDT
VERNON COUNTY, Wis. — As opposition mounts across the Driftless Area against the largest transmission line ever proposed for the region, project leaders sat down for an interview Tuesday, Feb. 11, to defend the necessity and design of the MariBell Transmission Project.
The proposal, a joint venture between La Crosse-based Dairyland Power Cooperative and GridLiance Heartland, a subsidiary of the world’s largest renewable energy developer, NextEra Energyi, nvolves constructing approximately 140 miles of double-circuit transmission lines. The project would replace aging infrastructure with massive steel towers carrying 765 kilovolts (kV) and 161 kV of electricity from Marion, Minnesota, to Bell Center, Wisconsin.
Current timelines indicate the developers plan to file a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity with the Public Service Commission of Wisconsin (PSCW) in the fall of 2026. A final route decision is expected from state regulators by January 2028, with construction tentatively slated to begin in 2031 for a June 2034 in-service date.
In a recent interview regarding the project, Jessica Hewitt, Senior Director of Transmission Development for NextEra, Angel Gardner, Senior Communications Strategist for NextEra and Eric Jacobson, spokesperson for Dairyland Power, addressed several key areas of public concern.
Senior Communications Strategist for NextEra
General Reliability Versus Big Tech Demand
A primary contention from residents and local officials is that the line is being built to connect to data centers to the south and east, offering no benefit to the rural communities it crosses. NextEra Energy is heavily invested in powering the technology sector, having recently announced a partnership with Google to restart the Duane Arnold nuclear plant in Iowa and a deal with Meta to develop 2.5 gigawatts of clean energy capacity.
Despite these commercial ties to tech giants, Hewitt clarified that the MariBell project is not directly tied to any specific data center or tech campus. She noted that the planning studies conducted by the Midcontinent Independent System Operator (MISO), which identified the need for this line, forecasted a 1.25% annual increase in electrical demand based on general usage trends, not the explosive load growth of data centers.
“That (MISO forecast) did not take into account data centers,” Hewitt said. “This project is meant to be one piece of a very large goal that MISO has established”.
Opponents have challenged these growth projections using local data. Residents like Carl Volden and landowner Rob Danielson cite statistics showing that Wisconsin’s retail electricity sales have been statistically flat, trending at -0.2% per year from 2007 to 2023, while peak demand fell by 0.6% between 2004 and 2024. They argue that efficiency improvements have offset growth, making the “mega-scale” line unnecessary.
Additionally, opponents point to the rapid adoption of local renewables as a better alternative. Danielson commented in a recent county meeting that Vernon Electric Cooperative has seen 22% annual growth in member solar installations since 2009. Critics argue that the region is already transitioning to a distributed energy future that relies on local solar and battery storage.
When asked why utilities do not simply invest in these local solutions, Hewitt argued that while helpful, local renewables are mathematically insufficient to secure the grid. She stated that distributed generation “does not decrease it enough” to meet the reliability standards and demand identified by MISO, particularly when factoring in the electrification of transportation and heating.
The Debate Over “Justified Need”
The project’s justification has faced high-level scrutiny. Critics frequently cite Dr. David Patton, MISO’s own independent market monitor, who stated he cannot find a “justified need” for the 765 kV layer of transmission.
Patton’s opposition centers on the economic modeling used to approve the project. In a report to MISO, he argued that the grid operator used flawed assumptions that artificially inflated the project’s benefits. Specifically, Patton contended that MISO assumed future power plants would be built in remote locations even if transmission wasn’t available, rather than shifting closer to population centers. He also argued MISO “massively overvalue[s]” reliability benefits by assuming expensive power outages would occur without the line, rather than cheaper operational adjustments grid operators typically use. Patton concluded that if these flaws were corrected, the project’s costs would outweigh its benefits.
When asked about these findings, Hewitt acknowledged the report but framed Patton as an outlier in a massive consensus-building process. She noted that MISO conducted more than 300 meetings involving roughly 40,000 stakeholders to finalize the planning studies that approved the line.
Scale and Visual Impact
The proposed 765 kV towers would stand between 150 and 200 feet tall, dwarfing the existing 70-foot wooden poles. Jacobson and Hewitt argued that the massive scale is an efficiency measure. Hewitt explained that to move the same amount of power with standard 345 kV lines, they would need six separate corridors.
“You can have the one corridor with the 765 or you have six corridors with the 345 kV lines, the impact is far less by using the 765,” Hewitt said. She added that the new steel lattice structures would be spaced much further apart—1,200 to 1,500 feet—compared to the current wooden poles which are every 600 to 800 feet, resulting in fewer total structures on the landscape.
Landowners counter that “efficiency” on paper does not translate to the reality of the Driftless landscape. They argue that expanding a right-of-way to 200 or 250 feet in some areas would force the removal of trees, barns, and potentially homes that were built close to the smaller, existing lines over the last 60 years.
Route Selection: Why Not the Interstate?
At recent meetings residents have asked why the line cannot be routed along major highways like the Interstate system, which are already developed corridors, rather than cutting through the sensitive coulees and ridges of the Driftless Area.
Hewitt explained that while the preference is to use linear infrastructure, Interstates are already crowded with utilities. She argued that simply putting the 765 kV line in that corridor is impossible because there is not enough room, which would force the developers to secure a new easement outside the road right-of-way.
“You’re going to have to go outside of the road right away, and now you are impacting homes and businesses,” Hewitt said.
Hewitt noted that the existing 161 kV line owned by Dairyland is aging and needs to be rebuilt regardless. Building a separate line along the Interstate would increase project costs because ratepayers would pay for rebuilding the 161 kV line in its current spot while simultaneously paying for a “greenfield,” or brand new, corridor for the 765 kV line. By contrast, Hewitt was adamant that the current proposal protects structures.
“There will be no homes or businesses taken because of that route, that existing corridor being expanded,” Hewitt said.
Health and Noise Concerns
Residents have raised alarms about the “corona effect”—a phenomenon associated with high-voltage lines that can cause buzzing, hissing, and ultraviolet light emissions. Carl Volden, a local resident, likened the potential noise to a “handheld vacuum cleaner” and noted concerns about UV light affecting livestock and wildlife.
Hewitt acknowledged state regulations regarding noise, noting that in Minnesota, noise at the edge of the right-of-way cannot exceed 50 decibels, roughly the sound of a quiet conversation or a refrigerator hum. She stated the engineering team designs the lines to meet these state and federal standards. Regarding health concerns, Hewitt said the utilities follow the science closely.
“Based on the science, there is no causal link to health effects, including cancer, and that is based on organizations such as the National Cancer Institute and the World Health Organization,” Hewitt said.
To address fears regarding Electromagnetic Fields (EMF), the developers pointed to data comparing the transmission line’s output to common household items. Hewitt referenced a fact sheet illustrating that the EMF levels produced by the transmission line are comparable to those emitted by household appliances, such as a hair dryer held six inches from the head.
Local Benefits
A recurring complaint is that the project treats the region as a “flyover” zone for power, offering no local off-ramps for the electricity while imposing all the visual and environmental costs. Hewitt pushed back strongly on this, emphasizing specific local economic advantages.
Hewitt noted that the project is expected to create hundreds of jobs during construction, benefiting local gas stations, restaurants, and hotels. Beyond temporary construction benefits, developers emphasized that the project strengthens the local grid. Hewitt explained that the existing substations along the 161 kV line will continue to infuse power into the local grid. Additionally, the 765 kV line will have a major substation near Portage, Wisconsin, and another in North Rochester, which will provide power into those communities and beyond.
“If we do not do this project, reliability is going to be compromised,” Hewitt warned, citing the risk of brownouts and blackouts if infrastructure does not keep pace with demand.
Financially, Hewitt noted the project is expected to generate approximately $30 million in revenue for the state of Wisconsin over its life, money that counties and the state can use for public services. Critics point out that $30 million spread over 40 years is a negligible amount compared to the potential loss in property values and tourism revenue.
Response to Meeting Format Complaints
Following the initial open houses in November, many residents voiced frustration with the event format. Town of Webster Supervisor Daniel Arnold described the Westby meeting as a “chaotic environment” with “150 people talking loudly all at once” in a room that was “too small,” arguing that the format prevented clear answers.
In response to these complaints, Dairyland officials defended the open house model, stating it provides community members with the opportunity to speak one-on-one with project representatives who can address individual concerns. However, acknowledging the feedback, the developers have made specific adjustments for the upcoming sessions in March.
“We organized meetings closer to the project area with larger meeting spaces,” stated a Dairyland representative in an email regarding the changes. The utility is also expanding the hours for the events to ensure more opportunity for engagement. Dairyland said the new sessions will feature parcel maps detailing the specific route from the Mississippi River to Bell Center. GIS specialists will be on hand to work directly with landowners to determine if their property lies within the proposed project area.
Upcoming Meetings
The debate over the project will continue in several upcoming forums for local government and the public.
First, on Feb. 19 the Vernon County Board of Supervisors is expected to receive a presentation regarding the project and a potential information request resolution, following a recent recommendation from the county’s General Government Committee.
Next, the citizen opposition group “No765line” will host a public information meeting on Sunday, Feb. 22. The event will begin at 1 p.m. at the Gays Mills Community Commerce Center and will feature expert speakers on property valuation and eminent domain.
Finally, Dairyland and GridLiance will host two modified open houses in March:
- March 10: Gays Mills Community Center, 11 a.m. – 1 p.m. and 4 p.m. – 7 p.m.
- March 12: Retreat Sportsman’s Club in De Soto, 11 a.m. – 1 p.m. and 4 p.m. – 7 p.m..
Add comment