The Need Question

We are not asking readers to reject regional grid planning outright. We are asking MGS and MISO to justify this specific project, at this voltage, on this route, with transparent evidence.

MGS CLAIM: MGS says BECI is part of a MISO Long Range Transmission Planning (LRTP) Tranche 2.1 portfolio intended to strengthen reliability as energy resources change, older generators retire, and demand grows. MGS states that without additional transmission reinforcement, several existing 345-kV lines bringing power into Wisconsin could become overloaded by 2034, based on MISO's analysis.

ANALYSIS: A regional reliability need and the specific choice of a 190-mile, 765-kV, greenfield-heavy project are two different questions. Demonstrating that Wisconsin needs more transfer capacity does not, by itself, demonstrate that this voltage, this configuration, or this particular route is the best way to deliver it.

QUESTIONS FOR MISO AND MGS

• What specific reliability violations, contingencies, load-growth assumptions, or resource changes require BECI, specifically?

• What alternatives were modeled - including upgrades to existing facilities, reconductoring, grid-enhancing technologies, different voltages, different configurations, or other regional projects - and how did they compare?

• What benefits are attributable specifically to BECI, as opposed to the larger regional portfolio it is part of?

• What are the projected consumer benefits, and over what time horizon?

• Which Wisconsin customers or utilities will pay project costs, and how are those costs allocated across the MISO footprint?

• What assumptions about future load growth, generation retirements, extreme weather, and large new loads (including data centers) materially drive the need case - and what happens to the need or economics if those assumptions change?

FACT: FERC Docket ER26-2376 concerns rate treatment for Midcontinent Grid Solutions Wisconsin, LLC. In a joint concurrence dated June 26, 2026, Chairman Laura Swett and Commissioner David Rosner wrote that "project sponsors can and should do more to explain how their projects, and their requests for a hypothetical capital structure, will provide reliable power and save consumers money," and that transparency in how FERC evaluates incentive rate requests is essential to public trust. (Source: ferc.gov, Docket No. ER26-2376-000, verified against the FERC website.)

ANALYSIS: This is a statement from federal regulators about transparency and consumer benefit in general, in the context of a rate-incentive order they otherwise concurred in - it is not a finding that BECI itself is unnecessary or improperly justified. We think it is useful, credible context for why route-specific and need-specific transparency matters, and we present it as the commissioners' own words rather than our characterization.