Where Could It Go?

IMPORTANT: STUDY SEGMENTS ARE NOT AN APPROVED ROUTE

MGS CLAIM: MGS says it is early in the routing process and that no final route has been selected anywhere on the BECI project. The lines shown on MGS's county map books and its online map tool are "study segments" - areas MGS is evaluating - not a filed or approved alignment.

MGS's official county map books (Richland, Crawford, Sauk, Columbia, Rock, Jefferson, Dodge, Dane, and Walworth counties) are posted on the MGS project website. Review the map to see current study segments near you.

JEFFERSON COUNTY / COLD SPRING CASE STUDY: STUDY SEGMENT 36, 40, 41, 43

ANALYSIS: Community review of MGS's Jefferson County aerial-map export (dated July 29, 2026) identified Study Segment 43 crossing Fremont Road and continuing through rural agricultural parcels in the Cold Spring area, in the vicinity of existing American Transmission Company (ATC) 138-kV infrastructure near Whitewater. This and other Jefferson County segments (including Segments 31/33 and Segment 38) were observed to encounter or approach existing transmission infrastructure elsewhere on their path.

COMMUNITY CONCERN: If a new 765-kV greenfield corridor and an existing 138-kV corridor are both present in the same area, residents want MGS to publicly explain why the existing corridor was not used, rebuilt, expanded, or paralleled for this segment.

ANALYSIS: Maps showing a study segment near an existing line are not proof that MGS can put a 765-kV line inside an existing 138-kV right-of-way, or that the existing corridor is technically adequate. Engineering, reliability, clearance, ownership, environmental, and cost analysis are required to know that. Our position is not "MGS can simply use the existing line." Our position is: MGS should publicly show the route-specific analysis that explains why a new greenfield corridor is necessary here, rather than an existing-corridor alternative.

POTENTIAL COLD SPRING REQUESTED POSITION: No new 765-kV greenfield transmission corridor through the Town of Cold Spring should advance until MGS has demonstrated, with route-specific evidence, why existing utility corridors cannot reasonably be used or paralleled to reduce impacts to farmland, wetlands, residences, woodlands, and private property. Stronger language may be adopted. 

Map source note: Cold Spring findings referenced above are based on MGS's Jefferson County aerial-map export dated July 29, 2026 (core sequence: Maps 158-161 of 214) and a resident-prepared existing-corridor briefing. Maps change as MGS updates its study segments - always check the current MGS map book for your area before relying on a specific segment number or location.