The Alternatives

WISCONSIN'S EXISTING-CORRIDOR POLICY

FACT: Wisconsin Statute 1.12(6) sets a state siting policy for new electric transmission facilities, including high-voltage transmission lines. "To the greatest extent feasible that is consistent with economic and engineering considerations, reliability of the electric system, and protection of the environment," corridors should be used in this priority order: (a) existing utility corridors; (b) highway and railroad corridors; (c) recreational trails, under certain conditions; and (d) new corridors. (Source: Wis. Stat. 1.12(6), docs.legis.wisconsin.gov.)

ANALYSIS: This hierarchy is real and it matters, but it is not absolute - feasibility (economic, engineering, reliability, and environmental) must still be evaluated. That means Wisconsin policy does not automatically require MGS to use an existing corridor. It does mean MGS should have to show its feasibility analysis for existing corridors before a new greenfield corridor is approved.

FACT: The Public Service Commission of Wisconsin and Wisconsin DNR's Transmission Line Application Filing Requirements (updated September 30, 2025) require applicants to describe route alternatives, right-of-way dimensions and their relationship to existing right-of-way, and environmental, agricultural, water, wetland, and community information. Route-by-route alternatives analysis is a required part of the eventual PSC application, not an optional courtesy.

FACT: MISO's own BECI Competitive Transmission Project Selection Report (January 6, 2026) discusses Wisconsin's corridor-siting hierarchy directly, and states that at least one developer proposal did not mention routing in accordance with Wisconsin's siting priorities, which MISO identified as creating some risk. It also discusses routing risk involving water crossings and forested areas. (Source: MISO BECI Selection Report, cdn.misoenergy.org).)

WHY NOT EXISTING CORRIDORS?

Our position is not that MGS "can simply put the line on the existing ATC line." A 138-kV right-of-way is not automatically capable of carrying a 765-kV facility, and we do not claim otherwise. Our position is: Show us the analysis, including the need, because according to the US Dept of Energy's website, Wisconsins's electricity demand has been flat for over 20 years.

QUESTIONS WE ARE ASKING MGS

• Why is a new greenfield corridor necessary in each specific location, including through farmland such as the Cold Spring/Fremont Road area?

• Which existing utility, highway, and railroad corridors were evaluated for each proposed greenfield study segment?

• Could BECI parallel an existing corridor rather than cutting a new one?

• Could an existing corridor be widened, rebuilt, or reconstructed to accommodate a higher-capacity line?

• What engineering, environmental, cost, or reliability criteria caused each alternative to be accepted or rejected?

• How many new right-of-way acres, agricultural acres, wetland/waterway/floodplain acres, and residences would each alternative affect, compared to the greenfield study segment?

See "Questions MGS Must Answer" for the full accountability list, and "The Need Question" for questions about whether and why BECI is needed at this voltage and scale in the first place.