Communities should not be treated as blank space on a regional transmission map. Before routes are chosen, decision-makers must fully account for homes, farms, waterways, habitat, cultural resources, local planning, and the cumulative burden placed on communities already hosting major infrastructure.

The developer’s case is that the line will support reliability, resilience, power transfers, load growth, and future generation. Those may be legitimate goals—but they do not automatically prove that this particular line, at this scale, on this corridor, is the least-cost, least-harmful, and most publicly beneficial solution.

• What specific reliability problem does BECI solve, where, and by when?

• How much of the capacity is tied to projected demand growth, including potential large new industrial loads or data centers?

• With electricity retail sales declining, what is the purpose and who is the intended customer for the increased capacity?

• Who will use the line, and who will pay for it?

• What alternatives were considered, including local generation, energy efficiency, storage, upgraded existing corridors, distributed energy, and smaller transmission investments?

• What benefits remain in Wisconsin versus flowing through Wisconsin to regional markets?

• What is the full expected cost to Wisconsin customers, including upgrades beyond the line itself?

• How was the benefit return per dollar invested determined?

“Avoid my property” is not the only valid public comment. You can ask whether the project is needed, whether alternatives were adequately studied, whether the costs are fair, and whether the proposed process genuinely protects communities and the public interest.

A process that asks residents to identify preferred or less harmful corridors can be useful, but it can also narrow the public conversation too early. People should be able to say more than “put it somewhere else.”

A responsible review must weigh cumulative environmental, agricultural, community, and economic impacts—not just engineering feasibility. This should include:

• Prime farmland, drainage systems, soil compaction, and farm operations

• Wetlands, streams, forests, grasslands, and wildlife habitat

• Homes, neighborhoods, viewsheds, property use, and community character

• Tribal consultation and cultural-resource protection

• Environmental-justice and cumulative-impact concerns

• Alternatives that reduce harm and need for new long-distance infrastructure

• Long-term public costs and who benefits financially