By the Numbers

No 765 Line, Inc. · A Wisconsin 501(c)(3) · Sourced. Coordinated.
Wisconsin PSC · MariBell fall 2026 · BECI early 2027
The case, in numbers

By the numbers.

Every figure on this page carries its source. We present MISO’s own numbers alongside its own market monitor’s — and let the record speak. Confident, specific, checkable.

−2.9%
Wisconsin’s total retail electricity sales were lower in 2024 than in 2005 — flat-to-declining demand across two decades. Source · EIA Form EIA-861, 2005–2024
1 member-owned co-op
Of the companies developing the two lines, only Dairyland Power Cooperative is member-owned. The rest — Transource Energy (AEP/Evergy), BHE Transmission (Berkshire Hathaway), and GridLiance Heartland (a NextEra subsidiary) — are private, for-profit firms earning a regulated return. Source · Project filings — Dairyland; GridLiance/NextEra; Transource/AEP-Evergy; BHE Transmission
150–200 ft
The height of the proposed steel transmission towers carrying the lines across southern Wisconsin. Source · MariBell and BECI project descriptions
<40¢
For every dollar spent, MISO’s own Independent Market Monitor estimates the project returns less than forty cents of benefit — against the $1.80–$3.50 MISO’s planning case claims. We show both. Source · MISO LRTP Tranche 2.1 benefit metrics; Potomac Economics (MISO Independent Market Monitor), comments to FERC, Docket EL22-83-000, March 13, 2025, p. 3; IMM feedback to the MISO Board, Oct. 30, 2024
The trend, charted

The same two facts, drawn from the record.

Wisconsin electricity demand, 2005–2024

Total retail sales — flat to declining (−2.9% over the period).

2005 2024 Source · EIA Form EIA-861, 2005–2024
Data table
YearWI total retail sales (GWh)
200570,335.7
200669,820.7
200771,301.3
200870,121.8
200966,286.4
201068,752.4
201168,611.6
201268,820.1
201369,124.0
201469,494.8
201568,698.9
201669,736.3
201769,079.1
201870,959.5
201969,157.5
202067,448.4
202169,426.6
202269,875.9
202368,563.9
202468,291.4 (−2.9% vs 2005)

Benefit per dollar spent

“Benefit” means the savings the line is supposed to produce for electricity customers — the justification for charging ratepayers to build it. MISO’s planning case claims $1.80–$3.50 back for every dollar spent; MISO’s own independent market monitor estimates under 40¢. The monitor’s corrected estimates run about 40 to 70 cents per dollar, and its March 2025 filing with federal regulators says a properly calculated figure would be under 40. Less than half a dollar back per dollar in is a loss for the people paying.

MISO case: $1.80–$3.50 IMM: <$0.40 Source · MISO LRTP Tranche 2.1 benefit metrics; Potomac Economics (MISO Independent Market Monitor), comments to FERC, Docket EL22-83-000, March 13, 2025, p. 3; IMM feedback to the MISO Board, Oct. 30, 2024
What the record shows

Three facts that shape whether these lines make sense for southern Wisconsin.

Demand

The growth isn’t here.

The corridors are not designed to deliver power to the communities they cross — and the data-center projects driving recent demand forecasts are separate proposals in separate proceedings.

Source · EIA-861; utility interconnection siting filings
Cost

Ratepayers carry it.

The line is part of MISO’s Long-Range Transmission Plan, and its cost is allocated to Wisconsin ratepayers and others across the MISO Midwest region. The developers earn a regulated return on building it.

Source · MISO Long-Range Transmission Plan (Tranche 2.1) cost allocation
Benefit

The case is contested.

MISO’s planning case projects $1.80–$3.50 of benefit per dollar. MISO’s own Independent Market Monitor puts it below forty cents. That gap is the heart of the proceeding.

Source · MISO LRTP Tranche 2.1 benefit metrics; Potomac Economics (MISO Independent Market Monitor), comments to FERC, Docket EL22-83-000, March 13, 2025, p. 3; IMM feedback to the MISO Board, Oct. 30, 2024
What we are — and aren’t — saying

The line itself is a publicly planned MISO project, not a private or “merchant” venture — we don’t claim otherwise. We don’t claim the grid never needs investment. We claim something narrower and checkable: on the numbers as filed, the case for routing these lines across southern Wisconsin does not hold up, and Wisconsin ratepayers carry a cost whose benefit MISO’s own monitor disputes.

From the developer’s own letter
“Specific routes, structures, siting impacts, or localized effects cannot yet be answered.”
— Transource Energy · letter of April 24, 2026