March 20, 2026
By TIM HUNDT
VERNON COUNTY, Wis. – The Vernon County Board of Supervisors is officially putting up a fight against a high voltage transmission line proposed to cut through the county.
During their March 19 meeting supervisors unanimously passed a series of resolutions demanding extensive information from the utility developers and formally declaring the county opposition to the project. The unified front from local government follows months of growing public opposition over the potential environmental and economic impact the 765 kilovolt lines on the Driftless region.
The meeting opened with a room of concerned residents and a presentation from State Representative Tara Johnson (D-Town of Shelby). Johnson informed the board that she recently coauthored a bill with Senator Brad Pfaff (D-Onalaska) designed to change state laws regarding how transmission lines are sited. Johnson detailed that the bill would add clarity to state statutes and create a new top priority for siting mega transmission systems.
“The revision would read as follows,” said Johnson. “For mega transmission systems use consolidated utility corridors and UHVDC or other underground solution co-located with existing 345 kilovolt lines highways and railroads.”
Johnson explained the legislation would require developers to prioritize these underground high voltage direct current (UHVDC) solutions before resorting to new overland routes that would interrupt the scenic bluff views of the county.
Resident Rob Danielson from the town of Stark then took the podium to address the underlying justification for the lines. Danielson who said he has spent 15 years tracking utility expansion proposals argued that the Midcontinent Independent System Operator is pushing a massive infrastructure expansion based on faulty projections.
“The need does not exist,” said Danielson. “It is a proposal and that proposal is based on future projections of what anticipated need there would be in the future”.
Danielson noted that independent monitors have already testified that the projected need for these transmission expansions is exaggerated and unrealistic. He cited Dr David Patton who evaluates utility planning and found the utility projections exaggerated in five out of eight categories even when factoring in the future growth of electric vehicles and data centers. He urged the board to focus on this lack of necessity rather than just arguing over where the lines should be placed.
Genoa resident Tim Woodhouse spoke next detailing how the project would personally impact his beef cattle farm which sits just 300 feet from the proposed center line. Woodhouse also serves as the patrolman for the town of Genoa and warned the board that the heavy construction equipment required for the 200 foot towers would devastate local infrastructure.
“For 21 years I have been patrolman for the town of Genoa,” said Woodhouse. “I have given warning to our town board that the types of equipment used in construction would ruin our township roads”.
Woodhouse also expressed deep concerns from his perspective as a volunteer firefighter. He questioned who would fund coordinate and respond to an emergency involving the massive transmission lines noting that local emergency resources are already stretched incredibly thin.
Other residents echoed those fears during the public comment period. Barbara Richards spoke about the fragile karst geology of the region and the dangers of light and pesticide pollution. Mary Bradford criticized the county for adopting a comprehensive plan that she believes stripped away local control over utility projects. Krista Browne urged the board to protect the local agricultural heritage from being taken by outside corporate interests.
Following the public comments the board moved to discuss the formal resolutions. The first two resolutions targeted the specific developers behind the proposed routes. Dairyland Power Cooperative and NextEra Transmission are proposing the western segment known as the Maribell project while Transource Energy is proposing the eastern segment.
The resolutions demand that the developers provide the county with a map of eligible alternative routes detailed tower images cost estimates and documentation on how they plan to mitigate damage to wildlife habitat and local karst geology.
Supervisor Wayde Lawler suggested an amendment to both resolutions to broaden the language regarding local utility providers so no company was accidentally excluded. Lawler successfully amended the language to request information from any and all electric utilities that serve residents of Vernon County. He also drew attention to a section of the resolution demanding documentation on alternative underground technologies citing the SOO Green project which plans to run a high voltage line 350 miles entirely underground from Iowa to Illinois.
“I think the fact that there are existing projects that utilize far less disruptive technology in a more efficient manner should be recognized and emphasized in all of our conversations about this going forward,” said Lawler.
Lawler argued that the county should force developers to prove that underground lines are impossible due to the local terrain rather than just assuming massive overhead towers are the only option.
Supervisor Mary Henry then introduced a third resolution formally opposing the high voltage transmission line entirely. Henry cited the fragile landscape of the region the threat to the tourism economy and the disruption to agricultural operations including the large Amish community that would receive no benefit from the lines.
“I feel like the resolution itself speaks to all of the concerns that I have had but also the concerns of our constituents that have been attending our meetings,” said Henry. “This would be our first step at the local level”.
Henry also pointed out that Vernon County is currently being targeted by data centers because the county historically lacked zoning laws and has the cool climate and fresh water needed to run the massive tech facilities. She shared information from a recent state Land and Water Conservation Board meeting noting that data centers run incredibly hot and require massive amounts of water and energy which is driving the push for these new transmission lines.
Supervisor David Strudthoff asked a pointed question about the reality of the county passing these resolutions.
“I do not know can they just ignore this and just do it anyway,” asked Strudthoff.
County Clerk Jerry Pedretti confirmed that the utility companies and the state could absolutely ignore the local resolutions.
Lawler acknowledged that the Public Service Commission is the ultimate deciding body but stressed that the county must still use every tool available to push back. County Board Chair Lorn Goede agreed noting that the board has a duty to reflect the will of the people.
“We have to keep in mind that our citizens do not want them and we represent what our citizens want,” said Goede.
The push to adopt the opposition resolutions was born out of deep frustration following a February 19 presentation by Dairyland Power representatives. During that February meeting Dairyland officials told the board that the transmission lines were a regional necessity mandated by the grid operator. When supervisors and residents asked what they could do to stop the project or alter the route the developers repeatedly stated that the Public Service Commission makes the final choice and the county has no direct regulatory authority.
Realizing they could not stop the project through a simple local ordinance the General Government Committee spent several weeks drafting the information requests and the formal declaration of opposition to ensure the county goes on the public record against the development. Officials are also currently exploring options to hire outside legal counsel to formally intervene in the Public Service Commission hearings.
The board voted on the amended information request for Dairyland Power followed by the amended information request for Transource Energy. Both resolutions passed on unanimous voice votes. The board then voted on the resolution to formally oppose the transmission line project. That resolution also passed on a unanimous voice vote with no supervisors voicing opposition.
Add comment