IN MY OPINION: PSC must weigh impact of data-center power lines on natural areas

Wisconsin communities have been thrust into fast-paced, often behind-the-scenes negotiations regarding hyperscale data centers and their required energy infrastructure when we really need to have a frank conversation about this emergent sector and its impacts on our communities.

The closest we’ve come to a frank conversation is now hurriedly unfolding via a highly technical evaluation at the Wisconsin Public Service Commission, which is reviewing a proposed 123-mile high-voltage transmission line by American Transmission Company to serve the Port Washington data center.

If approved, the project would affect hundreds of acres of high-quality natural areas—lands protected, restored and carefully stewarded over decades. These places support biodiversity, improve water quality and provide meaningful access to nature. Their loss and fragmentation would be significant.

Based on American Transmission Company’s application, there is little evidence that permanently conserved lands, wildlife habitat or conservation data were central to route selection.

To defend the integrity of these lands and ensure the PSC relies on the best available science, Restoring Lands has formally intervened in the proceeding. We have engaged legal counsel, retained PhD-level scientists,and conducted fieldwork so these lands preserved for future generations are treated with the seriousness the law and science-based decision-making require.

A final decision on transmission routes is expected in late fall 2026. In the meantime, one aspect of the process centers on the draft environmental impact statement (EIS) that is intended to inform decision-makers before choices are made.

Unlike ATC, the public agencies that prepared the draft proactively identified the conserved lands that may be affected by the transmission line. They also acknowledged protections that are built in to protect conserved lands and limitations on development. 

While we appreciate the diligence of public agencies in preparing the EIS, key aspects of the draft nonetheless understate the scale and magnitude of impacts.

Too often, the EIS describes impacts as things that “may” happen, when many will  happen if the project proceeds. Clearing a 150-foot-wide corridor through forest will fragment ecosystems. Installing transmission towers approaching the height of the Statue of Liberty will permanently alter rural landscapes. These are not possibilities—they are outcomes.

This distinction matters because the routes cut through some of the largest remaining intact and permanently conserved natural areas in southeastern Wisconsin. These are not interchangeable acres. Forests and forested wetlands, once cleared, do not return to their prior condition.

Fragmentation affects sensitive wildlife species—from cerulean warblers to spotted salamanders to bobcats—that depend on large, unbroken habitats.

The human impact also deserves greater attention. Lands such as Riverbend and County Line Preserves are open for hiking, hunting, birdwatching and quiet recreation. Many are protected through conservation easements and public programs like the Knowles-Nelson Stewardship Program. These values are not incidental—they are the reason these lands were protected.

  The final EIS is due in July and must take into account the concerns addressed by comments from Restoring Lands and others. The PSC will also take testimony from parties to the case like Restoring Lands, as well as citizens via public comment, later this summer and fall, before making its final decision.

We offer two recommended reforms to ensure at least a baseline level of protection for our community’s conservation values going forward:

First, Wisconsin should follow Pennsylvania’s lead. In 2018, that state strengthened its eminent domain code by requiring courts to determine that no reasonable alternative exists before conserved land can be taken. Wisconsin should similarly treat conserved lands as a last resort—not as open space awaiting development.

Second, to mitigate the loss of habitat and preserve rural character and outdoor recreation traditions, any conversion of natural or agricultural land should be offset by permanently conserving acreage of equal or greater conservation value.