Open house for proposed high voltage MariBell transmission line draws large crowd, citizen concerns

Dec. 9, 2025

WESTBY, Wis. — A large number of residents attended a public informational open house on Thursday, Nov. 20, in Westby, regarding the proposed high voltage MariBell Transmission Project, demonstrating significant local concern or interest in the massive power line proposal. The open house was the third event held by the project partners in November to provide community members with information about the project’s timeline, design, and potential route.

It was hard to gauge exactly how many people attended the open house, but the lower level of the Bekkum Library was packed for almost the entire two hours as people came and went all night. Daniel Arnold, a Town of Webster resident, commented on the public reaction, describing the Westby meeting as a chaotic environment with roughly 150 people talking loudly at once in a room that was “too small”. Community members and potentially affected landowners protested outside the event with signs and petitions.

Project Proposed to Strengthen Regional Grid

The MariBell Transmission Project is being jointly developed and co-owned by Dairyland Power Cooperative, headquartered in La Crosse, Wis., and GridLiance Heartland, LLC, a subsidiary of NextEra Energy Transmission, LLC. Dairyland is the generation and transmission cooperative selected by the Midcontinent Independent System Operator (MISO) to build, operate, and maintain the line.

The project involves constructing an approximately 140-mile (or 139-mile), 765 kilovolt (kV) / 161 kV double circuit transmission line that stretches from Marion, Minn., to Bell Center, Wis., spanning portions of Vernon and Crawford counties in Wisconsin. The MariBell segment is part of MISO’s larger proposed North Rochester – Columbia 765-kV transmission line. If built, the 765 kV line would carry six times more electric power than the largest transmission lines (345kV) currently used in Wisconsin, and the new towers could stand up to 250 feet tall.

You can read our previous story with more details about possible routes here.

A representative for Dairyland Power Cooperative who was at the meeting, Eric Jacobson, outlined the justification for the proposed Project. Jacobson affirmed that the line is necessary to address a critical need for additional transmission infrastructure identified by MISO. He noted that MISO included the MariBell line in its Long Range Transmission Plan in December 2024 to boost reliability, increase access to additional energy resources, and help meet growing energy demand. Jacobson presented the project as beneficial to the community, stating that the proposed MariBell project would help keep power flowing to homes, farms, and businesses throughout the region, support the region’s growing economy, and generate significant economic investment. He added that the line is expected to generate $30 million in state tax revenue in Wisconsin over its lifetime that could be used to fund community services and public infrastructure.

Regarding the project’s development status, Jacobson stated that Dairyland and GridLiance Heartland are currently in the early stages of the project and are analyzing various corridors to identify a proposed route. He explained that the proposed route will be developed with input from landowners, environmental organizations, state and federal agencies, local governments, and other stakeholders. Ultimately, Jacobson confirmed that the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission and the Public Service Commission of Wisconsin (PSCW) will issue the final decision on the transmission line after independent analyses and public input are considered.

Dairyland Executive Vice President and Chief Operating Officer Ben Porath previously stated that a strong interstate connection “will improve the reliability and flexibility of the region’s transmission system, while supporting economic benefits and growth”. Officials also touted the expected economic benefits, noting the line is expected to generate $30 million or more in state tax revenue in Wisconsin over its lifetime.

Comments from Local Residents and Critics

Rob Danielson, a landowner near the Kickapoo Valley Reserve in Lafarge, Wisconsin, is sharply critical of the proposed MariBell 765‑kilovolt transmission line. He says the basic planning documents aren’t clear or credible enough to justify such a massive project.

“We really don’t, I wouldn’t even call any of the information that I’ve seen so far to be definitive,” said Danielson. “To my expectation, the map that they have doesn’t even have geographic references in it. It’s a little skinny line. They don’t show there’s no alternative proposed. If you look at the big picture, though, the regional utilities have said, Okay, utilities, we think that there should be a big transmission line, first ever in Wisconsin, 765 (kilovolts), basically to cross over the river at Genoa and then end up in Columbia, or near Portage.”

Danielson argues that state law requires utilities to use existing transmission corridors, roads, or railroads before cutting new paths through places like the Driftless Area, a standard he believes this proposal ignores.

“We know by state law that the utilities must first examine existing transmission lines for possible placement, and then they can look at roads,” said Danielson. “They can look at railroads. Then they can but cutting new territory is not it’s the lowest priority.”

He points out that utilities have already sketched out alternative 765 kV routes using existing high‑voltage corridors, “many of them along interstate highways,” yet “Dairyland comes up and says, Well, you know, no, no, we have this service territory here. We would like to propose… cutting yet another expansion transmission line through the one area that has been, side stepped because it was too environmentally sensitive and there was a lot of local concern about it.”

At the heart of his objection is the question of need. Danielson cites independent analyst Dr. David Patten, who he calls “the most qualified person on the planet Earth to evaluate the need for this 765 system,” and says Patten has repeatedly concluded there is no justified need for the 765 kV build‑out. “I just cannot find a justified need for this entire 765 KV layer,” Danielson quotes him as saying. “I don’t want to see it on my electric bill. I don’t want to see it on anyone’s electric bill, and should not take one square inch of land from anybody for a project that’s not needed… In fact, five state public service commissions in the Midwest have filed a complaint before the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission on the basis of his findings, and say, No, you cannot delegate cost sharing for this project.”

Economically, Danielson frames the project as the wrong kind of investment at the wrong time, locking ratepayers into high‑interest debt for infrastructure he believes the market is outgrowing.

“Our electric customers should not be paying for this,” said Danielson. “You’re going to have to demonstrate that there’s a need.”

Instead, he argues, people should be supported in making “equity” investments like rooftop solar and battery storage.

“You can pay for that in a reasonable amount of time, 10 years, and then after that, you don’t have electric bills for 20 years,” said Danielson. “That’s equity. Basically, in my opinion, their days are numbered. The future is not unlimited utility expansion… because when you build a power plant or you build a transmission line, that becomes debt that becomes amortized high interest, debt that is paid for by each and every electric customer.”

Sherry Quamme, who is chair of the Mississippi River Parkway Commission has concerns about the potential impact of such a line on tourism. She questioned the routing decisions, particularly why the large infrastructure was not planned along existing rights-of-way. She suggested the development should be “along roadways where they already have easements and rights of way” like the interstate, instead of going through areas “sensitive in terms of the environment”. Quamme raised concerns about the impact on the region’s scenic beauty, migratory bird patterns, and karst geology. She emphasized that tourism is strongly linked to the “natural landscape, the natural beauty, the environment,” and warned that once damaged, “it’s gone”. She concluded that the proposal is tragically “cutting right through” the region and insisted that the project “needs to slow down”.

Daniel Arnold, a supervisor in the Town of Webster, voiced frustration over the developers’ lack of communication, stating he learned about the line from other towns that “had caught wind of the developing situation”. Arnold said his town board passed a resolution requesting information, but only received a “brief brushoff response” that the town was not “currently” on the route.

Arnold is concerned about the health effects and the appearance of the towers, arguing the line would “do nothing except destroy the landscape”. He believes the line is unnecessary and “is only being built to connect to the data centers being built to our south and east”. Arnold criticized the proposal as an “outscale attempt by developers to move power to data centers crossing private land instead of using public right of ways like the interstate system”. He added that the proposed new line would not be tapped to provide power to the local areas it crosses.