May 8, 2026
VERNON COUNTY, Wis. – Vernon County is moving forward with plans to join neighboring Crawford county in exploring a legal defense against a proposed Maribell high voltage transmission line even as the county navigates the sudden departure of its top legal advisor.
At the May 6 General Government Committee meeting the newly reorganized committee approved a motion to seek an initial joint consultation with a specialized utility attorney to fight the massive transmission line project.
The infrastructure project which would cut directly through the Driftless region involves two separate developers. 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 Vernon County Board of Supervisors previously passed resolutions in March formally opposing the project citing threats to the fragile environment local agriculture and the Amish community.
The county is not alone in its fight. During previous meetings transit advocate Rob Danielson noted that local opposition began at the grassroots level. Danielson explained that the town of Stark and the Kickapoo Valley Reserve were the first local institutions to draft resolutions demanding more information from the utility developers. That movement quickly spread across the region. The Richland County Conservation Committee advanced a similar resolution while Crawford County passed its own version demanding answers from Dairyland Power. Across the border the Houston County Board of Commissioners in Minnesota formally resolved to oppose the transmission facility entirely.
The strategy to mount a joint legal defense among the Wisconsin counties stems from discussions held earlier this spring. Corporation Counsel Nikki Swayne previously advised Vernon County that simply filing public comments is often the least impactful way to influence the Public Service Commission. Swayne recommended that the county file a formal request to intervene in the case which allows the county to file sworn testimony engage expert witnesses and actively participate in the hearings.
During an April committee meeting Swayne reported that she had reached out to both Crawford and Richland counties about retaining an expert attorney to represent their shared interests.
“I have reached out to them and one has confirmed that they will talk with their county and circle back to me,” said Swayne. “The other has not gotten back to me yet but I expect probably will relatively soon.”
However the May 6 decision to push forward with the joint legal consultation was made without Swayne in the room. Swayne is not a county employee but is under contract for legal services with the county and recently submitted notice she was exercising her option to end the contract with a 90 day notice. Swayne was not in attendance at the General Government Committee meeting on May 6, but did submit a written report and input on several issues that had been requested by Eggen.
Supervisor Wayde Lawler who was recently removed from the committee strongly criticized the decision to exclude the county attorney during the public comment period.
“You will note that corporation counsel is not in the room,” said Lawler. “This is the committee that corporation counsel reports to and you will note that the other staff members that report other departments that report to this committee are in the room.”
Lawler warned the new committee members that trying to save a few dollars by keeping their attorney at home was putting the county in a dangerous position especially when discussing complex legal interventions against massive utility developers.
“It also raises serious questions about the legal risk and liability that this committee and therefore the full county would be exposed to not having adequate legal counsel at the table,” said Lawler.
Instead of attending the May 6 meeting to discuss these nuances Swayne provided a written memo addressing the transmission line and other legal matters.
Eggen read the written memo from Swayne aloud after pushback from former committee chair Alycann Taylor. The memo contained a warning from Swayne about the dangers of providing written legal advice without being present.
“Written advice provided in isolation carries inherent limitations and I cannot be fully accountable for guidance given without access to a deliberate context that would inform it,” wrote Swayne. “It bears noting as well that preparing a comprehensive written legal Memorandum of this kind is time sensitive. The committee is encouraged to reconsider this practice.”
Ultimately the committee agreed to join Crawford County in seeking shared legal advice on how to respond to the proposed transmission line, but stopped short of a formal intervention.
Committee members backed a motion to partner with Crawford County on a one‑time consultation with an attorney experienced in Wisconsin Public Service Commission (PSC) proceedings. The goal is to understand what options the county has and what a more aggressive role might cost.
Committee Chair Dave Eggen framed the step as exploratory rather than a full commitment.
He summarized the memo from Corporation Counsel that suggested a joint approach with neighboring counties. Eggen told the committee that Richland County had already declined to participate because the Maribell route would not affect its territory, but Crawford County had signaled interest.
He then proposed moving ahead with Crawford County on a fact‑finding basis.
“This is kind of a one step approach to see if we want to join with Crawford County to explore a joint one-time consultation with an attorney experienced in the field,” Eggen said.
Supervisor Bruce Kilmer said the shared approach made fiscal sense.
“I think anytime we could share costs with somebody and get this positive result is a good thing,” Kilmer said.
Supervisor Sandy Schweiger backed the move and noted that Crawford County residents are already paying close attention to the line.
“I agree also, and I even had someone from Crawford County come to the public safety meeting about this issue,” Schweiger said.
The committee approved a motion to move forward jointly with Crawford County “in looking into obtaining more information on the projected cost of a consultation.” The motion carried on a voice vote with no opposition noted.
County staff and the clerk clarified that the action is limited to scoping work with a PSC‑savvy attorney, not a decision to file as a formal intervenor.
The clerk summarized the intent as “to join Crawford County and looking into obtaining more information on the projected cost of consultation,” and the committee agreed that more detail will come back once those cost numbers are known.
The committee ultimately voted to set the final separation window for Swayne at 90 days which will keep her on contract until late July. Because the utility developers are expected to file their application with the Public Service Commission later this year a completely new attorney or law firm will likely be representing Vernon County by the time any formal legal intervention alongside other counties begins.
Add comment