Utilities outline Power on Midwest high‑voltage plan, schedule and public outreach

A utility project team on Friday presented an overview of the Power on Midwest transmission proposals, telling local stakeholders the portfolio of new lines is intended to preserve electric reliability, lower delivery costs and enable more renewable generation across the upper Midwest.

Ellen Heiny, who identified herself as a member of the siting and land rights group with XL/Excel Energy, said the projects respond to findings from the Midcontinent Independent System Operator long‑range transmission planning process and include both proposed 345 kV lines and larger 765 kV lines that would tie into the existing 765 kV backbone at locations such as Bigstone South, Brookings, Lakefield Junction, Pleasant Valley, North Rochester and Hampton. "That note about 'tomorrow's reliability starts today' is the key," Heiny said, summarizing the rationale for building ahead of rising demand.

The presentation laid out technical and design details: project staff said 765 kV lines carry more power over long distances with fewer structures than an equivalent set of 345 kV lines, and described typical structure dimensions the team is using in planning — roughly 150 to 175 feet tall, with ground clearances of about 60 to 80 feet and span lengths of roughly 1,200 to 2,400 feet (about five structures per mile). The team said it is seeking to minimize ground‑level impacts and preserve activities such as farming and road crossings where lines traverse private land.

Regulatory steps and schedule were a focus. The project team said the portfolio was filed with the state public utilities commission as a grouped certificate of need (filed in February '26, per the presentation). The certificate of need review is underway; separate route permit applications are expected to be filed for individual segments in the first quarter of 2027, with commission decisions anticipated in late 2028. The team described PUC review, follow‑on engineering and environmental surveys continuing through about 2029, with construction expected in a broad 2030–2034 window and individual segments coming into service roughly between 2032 and 2034.

Open houses to solicit landowner and stakeholder feedback are beginning this month, the presenters said. The team listed sessions moving from west to east, with mailings sent to affected landowners and a local session scheduled for June 12. Attendees were told the project team will show preliminary corridors and refined routes in a second round of open houses this fall after incorporating early comments.

The presenters also walked through how route development works: MISO‑identified endpoints define study areas and preliminary corridors, teams then refine centerlines with mapping and on‑the‑ground investigations, and the PUC conducts an environmental impact statement and can study alternatives proposed by stakeholders. The presenters noted one segment — Hampton to North Rochester — will be processed as a permit amendment because that corridor was previously studied and permitted.

During the question period, a participant asked about a recent meeting at the Zimrod VFW; presenters said that session related to the separate Gopher to Badger Link, another 765 kV project that will tie from the North Rochester substation toward Wisconsin and is being advanced by a different ownership partner. A meeting participant said most complaints they had heard about that project came from landowners south of Wanamingo, saying they worry "they're going to wreck our land." The presenters responded by distinguishing ownership and partnership arrangements for the related project while noting the two systems connect at the same 765 kV yard.

The team encouraged attendees to attend open houses and to submit comments; project contacts were offered for follow‑up. The presenters emphasized that the certificate of need and the route permitting are separate regulatory steps — the commission will evaluate the high‑level need and alternatives then study route‑level impacts before a final route decision is made.

The presentation included repeated assurances that teams are seeking to reduce surface impacts and to work with landowners during final engineering and land‑rights negotiations, but attendees raised concerns about land impacts in particular corridors. Next procedural steps are the planned public hearings later this year in the PUC certificate‑of‑need docket and the open‑house schedule currently under way.