Why We Are Concerned

We support a reliable electric grid. Our concerns are about how and where BECI is built, and whether less-damaging alternatives have been fully explored. Below, "COMMUNITY CONCERN" means a potential impact or unanswered question we are asking MGS and regulators to evaluate - not an established fact.

FARMS AND AGRICULTURAL LAND

COMMUNITY CONCERN: The study area includes actively farmed land and prime farmland. Construction and permanent right-of-way use raise questions about topsoil segregation and preservation, subsoil compaction (especially on wet soils), drainage-tile damage, standing water or ponding, crop loss, permanent structure footprints, changes to machinery turning and field access, field fragmentation, construction access roads, and long-term restoration responsibility. Wisconsin's Agricultural Impact Statement process for major electric projects (administered by DATCP) covers many of these categories, which are established impact categories, not speculation. We ask MGS to distinguish temporary construction impacts from permanent impacts, route by route.

HOMES AND PROPERTY VALUES

COMMUNITY CONCERN: Peer-reviewed research shows transmission lines can affect nearby residential property values, but the size of the effect varies by distance, visibility, market, property type, and line characteristics - there is no single percentage that applies to every home. A particularly important issue is uncompensated neighbors: homeowners whose property is close enough to experience visual, marketability, noise, or stigma effects, but whose parcel is not physically crossed by the line and who may therefore receive no easement payment. See our Evidence Library for the underlying studies. We are asking MGS to perform BECI-specific, route-specific proximity and property-value analysis, including for adjacent non-easement properties.

WETLANDS, WATERWAYS, AND FLOODPLAINS

COMMUNITY CONCERN: Community map review has identified standing water and flood-prone conditions at multiple locations along study segments. We are asking MGS to overlay its study segments with Wisconsin DNR wetland inventory data, FEMA flood-hazard maps, and mapped hydric soils; to identify every wetland, waterway, and floodplain crossing for each route alternative; and to disclose construction methods, access plans, matting, erosion control, and wet-weather construction criteria.

NOISE, CORONA, AND ELECTRIC/MAGNETIC FIELDS

COMMUNITY CONCERN: 765-kV lines can produce corona-related audible noise, particularly in wet or foul weather; this is a recognized engineering and environmental design consideration for extra-high-voltage lines, not a fringe claim. We are asking MGS for BECI-specific modeling: predicted audible-noise levels at the right-of-way edge and at various residential distances, under fair and wet weather; conductor and structure design assumptions; and predicted electric and magnetic field levels. We do not claim that EMF from BECI causes cancer or that 765-kV lines are inherently unsafe - the stronger, evidence-based demand is for transparent, BECI-specific modeling and disclosure.

VIEWS AND RURAL CHARACTER

COMMUNITY CONCERN: Structures for a 765-kV line are substantially taller and larger than typical distribution or lower-voltage transmission structures, and can be visible over long distances depending on terrain and vegetation. We are asking MGS to provide honest scaled visual comparisons (clearly labeled as MGS-confirmed dimensions or representative examples) and to explain how visual impact was weighed in comparing a new greenfield corridor to alternatives that would share or parallel an existing corridor.

WOODLANDS AND WILDLIFE

COMMUNITY CONCERN: New greenfield corridors typically require more new clearing than routes that share or parallel an existing corridor. We are asking MGS to map wooded corridors, habitat blocks, and conservation lands in the study area and to compare clearing acreage across route alternatives.

CUMULATIVE IMPACT

COMMUNITY CONCERN: Rural communities that already host existing transmission, pipeline, or other infrastructure are being asked, in some cases, to accept an additional new corridor rather than share or expand an existing one. We are asking MGS and MISO to account for cumulative infrastructure burden when comparing route alternatives.