10/15/2026
Friends of Pierson Township -
For those who were not able to attend the recent ITC listening session, here are the main takeaways from conversations with ITC representatives.
The current maps show possible route segments only. No final route has been selected. ITC said all of the segments shown are still under consideration, and this phase is focused on gathering local feedback before those segments are turned into more complete route options.
ITC explained that the routes are being developed around constructability — finding practical ways to move the project from Point A to Point B without unnecessary backtracking. They also consider homes, farms, lakes, wetlands, roads, utilities, public property, infrastructure, land-use plans, environmental concerns, and state requirements.
One point worth emphasizing: local feedback can still affect the routes. ITC told us these meetings are intended, in part, to uncover things that GIS maps cannot show — including property conditions, future plans, and other local concerns. Landowners can also suggest alternative segments, and ITC confirmed that feedback may cause some preliminary segments to shift before the next phase.
That is encouraging, but it also means this is the time to pay attention. Once the project moves further along, the room to change a route becomes more limited.
The current listening sessions are ITC’s second round of community engagement. The third round is tentatively planned for Spring 2027, when ITC expects to present more complete route options. Landowners on a possible route, and those within one mile, are expected to be notified.
After that, ITC will work toward identifying one proposed route and at least one alternate route. A final round of public meetings would then be held in every community where one of those routes could be built.
Once that process is complete, ITC would submit its application to the Michigan Public Service Commission. The MPSC has up to one year to review the application and make a decision. ITC estimates that decision could come in late 2028 or early 2029. The current target in-service date is 2032.
ITC also confirmed that the line would use single vertical steel monopoles, generally spaced about 800 to 1,200 feet apart, depending on terrain.
Pierson Township has requested GIS mapping of the preliminary route segments so we can review them more closely against local parcels, roads, homes, farmland, wetlands, public infrastructure, and other Township information. A line on a public map only tells us so much. We want to understand what those routes could actually mean on the ground.
Regarding long-term vegetation management, ITC clarified that specific landowner requests would be discussed with its real estate team as part of the easement process.
We also discussed EMF and health concerns. ITC is still confirming some of the technical information discussed at the meeting, so we are not going to repeat numbers or make assumptions until that information is verified.
ITC representatives also told us at the listening session that this project is not being developed in coordination with proposed data-center projects. We are taking that statement as information provided by ITC and will continue reviewing the broader MISO data on Michigan’s grid, load demand, capacity, and the regional need being used to support the project.
ITC also confirmed that this project is part of a larger group of transmission projects approved by MISO in 2024 as part of its Reliability Imperative
We also made Pierson Township’s position clear:
Based on what we know today, Pierson Township is not in favor of a route through our Township.
We understand the broader argument for strengthening Michigan’s electrical grid. What we have not yet heard is a clear explanation of why a route this far south through Pierson Township would be necessary or preferable to other workable options.
If a southern route means more land, more materials, more construction, and more impact on the rural nature of our community, then we want to understand what specific engineering, environmental, or other reason justifies that choice.
What We Shared with ITC
· As a consumer, we want to understand why the shortest and simplest practical route would not be the preferred route. More miles generally mean more land, more materials, more construction, and more long-term maintenance.
· As a taxpayer, we want clear answers about any public costs, incentives, subsidies, regulatory expenses, or other taxpayer-supported pieces tied to the project.
· As Township Board Members, our job is to look out for what is best for Pierson Township. We understand the broader argument for strengthening Michigan’s grid, but that does not automatically mean every proposed route makes sense for our community.
· As residents on the Board, we personally do not want to see large transmission structures changing the rural character of Pierson Township unless there is a clear and well-supported reason that this route is necessary.
We plan to stay in direct contact with the ITC personnel we met, continue asking questions, review the GIS data when we receive it, and make sure Pierson Township’s concerns and local information are part of the process while the routes are still being evaluated.
We are not going to assume the worst, but we are also not going to simply accept broad assurances without asking questions and looking at the details.
As we learn more, we’ll continue to share what we know.
Pierson Township Board
