Feb. 18, 2026
by TIM HUNDT
VIROQUA, Wis. — The Vernon County General Government Committee debated how to best voice opposition to a massive proposed high-voltage transmission line during a meeting earlier this month, ultimately deciding to delay action on a formal resolution until after a scheduled presentation from Dairyland Power.
The MariBell Transmission Project, a proposal by Dairyland Power Cooperative and NextEra Energy to build a 765-kilovolt (kV) line through the Driftless Area, has drawn sharp criticism from residents and local officials. While the committee members expressed near-unanimous opposition to the project during their Feb. 4 meeting, they clashed over whether to pass a resolution immediately denying the project or to adopt a strategic “information request” resolution to gain legal standing in the regulatory process.
The full Vernon County Board of Supervisors is scheduled to receive a presentation from Dairyland Power representatives regarding the project on Feb. 19.
Citizens Voice Health and Economic Concerns
During the public comment period of the committee meeting, residents urged the county to take action, citing concerns over the necessity of the project, potential health effects, and the preservation of the region’s landscape.
Carl Volden, a local resident circulating petitions against the line, questioned the project’s justification. He cited David Patton, the independent monitor for the Midcontinent Independent System Operator (MISO), who has reportedly advised that the 765 kV projects should be postponed until the impacts of previous lines are understood.
“High cost of a 765 addition is unfair to ratepayers and undermines more cost effective and investment in distributed resources,” said Volden, quoting Patton’s assessment. “A second question would be, what are the trends for electricity usage in Wisconsin? Despite continued projections by experts for increased usage, Wisconsin has basically flat lined over the past 20 years.”
Volden also raised concerns about “corona discharge,” a phenomenon associated with high-voltage lines that can emit audible noise and ultraviolet light. He argued these emissions would disturb both residents and wildlife in the rural county.
“Emitted noises can be as loud as a screeching bared owl or as loud as a handheld vacuum cleaner,” said Volden. “I also believe strongly that we need to focus a more produce it where you use it approach to regional energy production, instead of spreading spending billions of dollars on production of power in the West.”
Rob Danielson, a town of Stark resident and energy researcher, presented the committee with a draft resolution modeled after one used by 18 counties in 2011 to oppose a previous transmission line. He emphasized the unprecedented scale of the MariBell proposal, noting the towers could reach 200 feet in height.
“This is the first time that we have ever had this super level, mega level of transmission proposed in the state of Wisconsin. It’s never happened before,” said Danielson. “These transmission lines carry about six times more power than the largest transmission line installations that we have in Wisconsin.”
Board Members Debate Strategy: Rejection vs. Information Request
Following public comments, the committee discussed a draft resolution that would formally request specific routing maps and technical data from the developers. Some supervisors, however, felt the measure was too passive and advocated for a direct rejection of the project.
Supervisor Dave Eggen expressed frustration with the lack of local control over siting decisions but suggested the county should take a hardline stance regardless of legal authority.
“We should just make a motion to deny consideration of construction and send them a letter and that we don’t want you here,” said Eggen.
Supervisor Wayde Lawler pushed back against a flat denial, arguing that because the Public Service Commission of Wisconsin (PSCW) holds the ultimate authority, the county must be strategic. He contended that passing an information request resolution creates a paper trail and public record that is harder for regulators to dismiss than a simple “no” vote.
“If we immediately put ourselves in the hardest corner we can find, which is to say, Absolutely not under no circumstances. I think that’s much easier to dismiss out of hand,” said Lawler. “A win is us being a thorn in their side to the point that they say, You know what, it’s easier to go along the interstate. That’s a win for us.”
Danielson supported Lawler’s approach, advising the committee that asking detailed questions forces the utility to be accountable and provides the county with data needed to intervene legally later in the process.
“You really can’t tell a developer that you don’t like their project, and at the same time, they haven’t really told you anything about their project,” said Danielson. “This just basically moves it forward in a constructive sequence of things, and the counties can intervene and actually have a role in the proceeding.”
Concerns Over Local Impact
Supervisor Mary Henry voiced strong opposition to the project, citing the potential damage to the Driftless Area’s tourism economy, unique geography, and Native American burial grounds. She argued the line offers no local benefit while imposing significant environmental costs.
“There is no benefit to us, absolutely none. We are just a point on the way of this happening,” said Henry. “We get nothing for this, absolutely nothing other than disturbing our beauty, and we’re going to have all the repercussions of it because of what it’s going to do to these steep embankments.”
Next Steps
County Administrator Cassandra Hanan recommended that the committee delay voting on any resolution until after the full board hears directly from Dairyland Power representatives at the Feb. 19 meeting. She noted this would allow supervisors to incorporate information from the presentation into a future resolution.
“We do have the gentleman from Dairyland coming to the county board meeting this month. There may be things that come out of that presentation that we want to include in a future resolution,” said Hanan. “We have this on the agenda. We can go through those resolutions, and then if we want to move that on the county board in March, I think that would be appropriate.”
The committee agreed to circulate legal counsel’s comments on the draft resolutions and revisit the issue at their March meeting, following the presentation.
765Kv lines are for high electric use, their next step is local data centers straining our water resources.