Courage and creativity offer others a compelling strategy
The American Transmission Company has refiled its controversial application for a major transmission project serving a proposed hyperscale data center in Port Washington, Wisconsin—after state regulators revoked the completeness determination for its previous application—but when it did, something significant was missing from the new filing.
That something was the property of Tom and Mary Uttech, and the omission was likely not an accident.
The American Transmission Company (ATC) had originally considered routing the line across the Uttechs’ 52-acre property in Saukville. The thing is, Tom Uttech is an artist whose surrounding woods and wetlands have inspired his painting for decades, and, when his property was threatened, Uttech fought back.
He knew it would be a fight and a half. Uttech had no interest in selling, and so the prospect of eminent domain loomed on the horizon of both his actual and artistic landscapes. So Uttech turned to the Wisconsin Institute for Law & Liberty (WILL), which argued that the project failed the constitutional “public use” requirement for the use of eminent domain because it existed only to serve a privately owned data center.
The argument went beyond the familiar fight over where a transmission line should run or how much a landowner should be paid. WILL contended that the project existed principally to supply electricity to Vantage Data Centers’ planned hyperscale data center in Port Washington and would not have been built except for that private development. And if that was the case, WILL argued in a letter to ATC, then taking another private owner’s land to build it raised a fundamental question under the state and federal constitutions: Was the property really being taken for a public use?
If not, then any taking through eminent domain would be unconstitutional, WILL contended.
WILL and Uttech never got the opportunity to test that argument in court, and perhaps that was the goal. When the company returned with a new filing, the Uttech property was no longer among the proposed routes.
So the case did not produce a landmark eminent-domain ruling, but it produced something potentially more useful to landowners facing similar fates: a strategy to change what is presented by special interests as preordained destiny and fait accompli.
That is to say, when Uttech’s precious landscapes were threatened, he turned around and forcefully imagined a new legal landscape upon which to fight the battle—one centered on private property rights and the constitution and on proactively taking the fight to the developer before having to repel it once court proceedings were underway.
The landscape being rendered in this story is thus one not merely of rolling hills and marshes but of property rights in the United States, and the ongoing fight to protect the beauty of both the land and individual ownership of it.
Let’s take a look.
The Landowner and the Stakes
Tom Uttech was an unusually compelling landowner for such a fight, his attorney, WILL’s Lucas Vebber, wrote in an October 2025 letter to ATC. In the letter, Vebber pointed out that Uttech and his wife Mary had lived and worked for decades on the 52-acre property.
“It is a gem: a 52-acre landscape of gentle hills, scenic vistas, hardwood groves, and seasonal marshes that support a diversity of native flora and fauna,” Vebber wrote. “The property sits just west of the Milwaukee River, the Blue Heron Wildlife Sanctuary, and the Tendick Nature Park.”
Vebber wrote that the property serves not only as the Uttech family’s residence but also as Uttech’s studio. And it turns out that Uttech is not just any artist, but a nationally renowned Wisconsin landscape painter.
“Mr. Uttech’s paintings, often inspired by the unspoiled wilderness of Wisconsin, are highly sought-after and held by art museums and collectors,” the letter stated. “As a respected figure in contemporary American art, Mr. Uttech’s work features in permanent collections at institutions such as the Crystal Bridges Museum of American Art, the Leigh Yawkey Woodson Art Museum, the New Orleans Museum of Art, the Honolulu Museum of Art, the Milwaukee Art Museum and the Museum of Wisconsin Art.”
Throughout his long, award-winning career, Vebber wrote, Uttech’s work has been featured in innumerable solo exhibitions, and he continues to hold solo shows at prestigious venues like New York’s Alexandre Gallery.
“Maintaining the natural beauty and integrity of the property is vital to Mr. Uttech’s work and passion,” Vebber wrote. “The project proposes to upend all of this by slicing off part of the Uttechs’ private property to build a new power line. The project would irreversibly damage the natural beauty and tranquility of the Uttechs’ property, eliminate vistas, disturb the wildlife, and interfere with Mr. Uttech’s art and ability to earn a living in an incalculable way.”
That made Uttech a particularly sympathetic plaintiff, but the legal argument WILL painted did not depend upon his being a famous artist. The legal argument rested on why ATC wanted the line in the first place.
The Actual Beneficiary
In the October letter, Vebber stressed that the project was intended to serve Vantage’s planned hyperscale data center in Port Washington.
“The Data Center will require 1.3 gigawatts for its initial phase, with an expansion to 3.5 gigawatts at full buildout,” he wrote. “For perspective, the entire power grid in Wisconsin currently generates 17 gigawatts.”
The project’s sole purpose is to supply power to the data center, Vebber maintained.
Although ATC claims that the project will benefit the surrounding community, that is disputed,” he wrote. “The project is only necessary because of the new data center, but for the Vantage Data Center, the project would not have been proposed.”
The project route called for power lines to be strung through the Uttech property, and Vebber pointed to the Fifth Amendment’s Takings Clause, which provides that private property shall not “be taken for public use, without just compensation.”
“As explained, the project exists solely to benefit the data center; taking the Uttechs’ (or anyone else’s) private property for such a use would not satisfy the ‘public use’ requirements of the state and federal constitutions,” he wrote. “There is a breadth of case law regarding the extent of both the state and federal constitutional provisions. There is simply ‘no doubt’ that ATC is ‘forbidden from taking petitioners’ land for the purpose of conferring a private benefit to a particular party.’”
Vebber noted that Wisconsin courts historically have interpreted the state constitution to prohibit taking property for another private owner’s benefit, citing the Wisconsin Supreme Court’s 1869 decision in Osborn v. Hart, and he also pointed to the U.S. Supreme Court’s infamous Kelo v. City of New London decision, which broadly expanded the definition of “public purpose.”
“But for over 20 years, the Kelo decision has been roundly criticized and challenged,” he wrote. “Forty states, including Wisconsin, have enacted anti-Kelo statutes. Landowners, supported by public-interest law firms like WILL, have repeatedly filed petitions for certiorari seeking to overturn Kelo completely, some of which have garnered votes from dissenting justices.”
It is just a matter of time before Kelo is overturned, Vebber asserted.
“The data center, the project, and the unique nature of the property provide WILL with the perfect set of facts to do just that,” he wrote. “ATC wants to exercise the state’s sovereign power, delegated to it by statute, to take the private property of Wisconsin citizens for the benefit of a different private property owner, not for a public use. Such a taking is not lawful.”
What’s more, Vebber continued, the project is an example of an emerging national debate on energy production, transmission, and hyperscale data centers.
“While America must build and power these facilities, which are integral to our national security and prosperity, they are not a license to violate the Fifth Amendment (or the Wisconsin Constitution),” he wrote. “Public policy solutions exist to address these important issues, such as behind-the-meter reform. This innovative approach would permit and encourage new data centers to produce their own power on-site, whether through natural gas, small modular nuclear units, or renewable generation paired with storage. By producing power directly on-site, data centers would dramatically reduce the need for costly new transmission projects, lessen the burden on existing ratepayers, and minimize the disruption to private landowners.”
Vebber said he was not merely peddling fantasy.
“xAI recently filed a permit application to construct 41 permanent natural-gas turbines to power its Colossus 2 data center on adjacent property, eliminating the need for miles of sprawling power lines,” he wrote. “States like New Hampshire have already advanced legislation along these lines, recognizing that hyperscale data centers should not externalize their enormous power demands onto surrounding communities and that traditional utility regulation often adds years of costly delay. A reform of this kind would balance the economic benefits of new data center investment with the equally important need to respect fundamental property rights, control costs, and protect the landscape.”
While Vebber said he understood that ATC opposes efforts to reduce or eliminate the need for all future transmission projects, Vebber contended that the rampant construction of unnecessary and expensive power lines across the state and nation is untenable.
Vebber said ATC had choices.
“At this point in the process, ATC can still choose to go a different route and avoid the Uttechs’ property altogether,” he wrote. “We urge you to do so. By doing so, you can preserve Mr. Uttech’s art (which we assume you were unaware of when you chose this route) and avoid the unique legal issues presented by this route. We recognize that if you intend to go forward with the project, other landowners will potentially be harmed in the same way as the Uttechs are by the current route and, as a result, we urge you to find a route that minimizes the problem.”
This past week, after ATC made its choice and eliminated the Uttechs’ property from its proposed route, WILL made it clear that it doesn’t oppose the construction of data centers.
“But we took a clear stand for the property rights of our clients,” WILL stated. “Unlike other states, archaic Wisconsin regulations encourage the construction of miles of unnecessary and destructive power lines for data centers instead of on-site power generation.”
WILL exists to defend the rights of American citizens like Tom Uttech who faced down one of the biggest transmission companies in the Midwest, Vebber said.
“We are not fighting a war against AI, but we will not allow companies to seek eminent domain for private gain,” he said. “Period.”
Uttech said he was happy but still concerned.
“I am honestly relieved about this development, but I am afraid that this fight will continue across the entire country as more data centers are built,” he said. “I am thankful for WILL for playing an integral role in preserving my land, my means of making a living, and taking a principled stand against eminent domain.”
Challenge the project before the bulldozers arrive
The Uttech dispute illustrates the most important part of the strategy: intervene early. WILL did not wait for ATC to initiate condemnation proceedings. Its October 2025 letter put the company on notice while routes could still be changed, identified the constitutional challenge it intended to bring, and made clear that selecting the Uttech route could mean substantial litigation.
WILL also gave ATC an off ramp to choose another route. Its letter acknowledged that rerouting the line could affect other landowners but argued that ATC could avoid the specific legal dispute posed by the Uttech property by revising its plans.
Just as important for the future, WILL stacked a challenge to the premise underlying the proposed taking on top of its constitutional argument. In other words, it not only laid down the gauntlet against taking private property for private use but questioned why private property has to be condemned or obtained when other electrical generation options, especially on-site power, exist.
Or to say it another way, WILL has attempted to paint a different legal landscape for the world to take in—a landscape where private property is no longer the expendable color but the dominant color in the palette. The enormous power demands of hyperscale data centers cannot be allowed to paint over the rights of land ownership if the landscape that is American liberty is to retain any meaning at all.
And so a landowner threatened with condemnation need not limit the fight to compensation or the precise location of a proposed route. The questions can begin much earlier: Who actually benefits from the project? Would the project exist without that private beneficiary? Does that benefit constitute a genuine public use? And even if the project serves some public purpose, is taking this particular property—or any private property at all—necessary?
The Uttech case answered none of these questions in an Article III court but all of them in the court of public opinion. There was no judicial ruling stripping ATC of eminent-domain authority or establishing that a transmission line serving a data center necessarily constitutes an unconstitutional private taking. But there also was no taking of the Uttech property.
Tom Uttech spent his career preserving landscapes on canvas. When a transmission line threatened the landscape outside his own studio, he and WILL used the law—and the credible threat of using it in legal and public courts—to preserve the real thing and in the process offer a new world view of powering tomorrow.
