Clean Line Abandons Tennessee CCN, Rendering Plains and Eastern DEAD...

Well, it's been quite a while since I've done a blog post. As it turns out, life DOES happen after Clean Line. It has taken over four years to get to this point, but I can now definitively say that the Arkansas portion of the Plains and Eastern project is, in fact, DEAD. Why do I say this?

Shortly after the Department of Energy and Clean Line mutually agreed to part ways, Mr. Skelly attempted to sew the seeds of doubt in landowners, investors, and anyone else who would listen to his bluster that the project was not, in fact, dead... rather, it was "on a much slower track in Arkansas and Tennessee." We all knew better, but some egos (*coughSKELLYcough*) don't allow the acceptance of failure. The facts always come out in the end.

Not only has the Department of Energy nullified their contract with Clean Line, recently there has been some word that Clean Line is abandoning it's easement options in Arkansas. In addition to that, this past Friday (7/13/18), Clean Line's Dave Berry submitted a letter to the Tennessee Regulatory Authority (TRA) requesting that their Certificate of Convenience and Necessity be nullified in that state. Here's that letter:

And, just like that, it was over. After more than four years, many thousands of dollars, countless hours of research, writing, Facebooking, talking to people, meetings and booths, sleepless nights, strain on relationships and future plans, and pretty much everything in-between: it is OVER.

Congratulations, Arkansas landowners! For me, personally, it is difficult not to be bitter. But I won't be. As with all experiences in life, valuable lessons are learned, new and amazing friends are made, and you just have to try to do what you can to protect what's yours and grow from the experience. It has been a really wild ride, no doubt. This is likely the last blog post on this subject I will make, as I will probably leave it up to the other professionals I have met along the way to unearth the rest of the Clean Line saga... it promises to get interesting very soon.

Thank you to each and every one of you who have read and provided support to us along the way. I would hope that the blog that Alison and I have created together chronicling our experience with Clean Line Energy Partners, LLC, will serve as an illustration of exactly the WRONG way to develop infrastructure in this country... "clean" or otherwise. Potential developers take note. 

Arkansas Delegation Rolls Out the APPROVAL Carpet for Secretary Perry

I'm late. I meant to have this posted yesterday, but... life. Anyway, we're gonna keep this simple because some things don't need a lot of chatter...

On Monday afternoon, the Arkansas delegation filed the APPROVAL Act. 

On Tuesday, they sent a letter to newly confirmed Department of Energy Secretary Rick Perry. And it really perfectly distills the core issue with the Department of Energy's proposed participation in Clean Line Energy Partner's Plains & Eastern HVDC line:

Our objection to Clean Line’s application should not be viewed as a fight against renewable energy; we each understand the importance of having a reliable electricity grid and are strong advocates of a diverse energy portfolio, including wind, solar, hydropower, renewable biomass, and nuclear energy. Likewise, we do not take issue with the building of national infrastructure; robust infrastructure investments, including the enhancement of the electrical grid, are often productive undertakings.

Instead, our objections relate to the vast overreach the Obama Administration employed, allowing this project to skip the necessary protections which exist to protect state sovereignty and private property rights.

Throughout the history of electric transmission, factors for the approval of these lines have been reviewed and decided at the state level. As the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service has noted:

“The location and permitting of facilities used to transmit electricity to residential and commercial customers have been the province of the states (with limited exceptions) for virtually the entire history of the electricity industry. State and local governments are well positioned to weigh the local factors that go into siting decisions, including environmental and scenery concerns, zoning issues, development plans, and safety concerns”[1]

The rejection of the transmission line by Arkansas’s (PSC) forced DOE and Clean Line to resort to using Section 1222. This is the first time DOE has used Section 1222 to authorize the development, construction, or operation of transmission facilities, and the only partnership the Department has (to date) with an entity to do so.

Sigh. It's so good, right? Love those guys when it comes to this stuff... my Clean Line BFAPs. As to whether 1222 actually does give the DOE room to use eminent domain... I guess we'll wait and see what a judge has to say.

For a deeper dive into all of this stuff, please check out Keryn Newman's most recent blog post. She hits it as only Keryn can.

I should stop right here, but I can't. I promise I'm only going to address one of the reported responses to this legislation, though... And it actually didn't come from Clean Line (because we've all heard everything they say before. I read it and in my head I hear the noises grown ups make when they talk on Charlie Brown).

It actually came from the IBEW... Guys. C'mon.

Let me preface my comment by saying I am a freak for unions. I'm a Utah Phillips listening, Union Thugs following, right-to-work disdaining, union lover. However, "the IBEW strongly disapproves of politics getting in the way of American job creation"... Please. I'm assuming politics are fine as long as they actually create jobs then? It's just a problem when they get in the way?

Seriously, unions have got to stop allowing themselves to be used as corporate pawns. The whole concept of lifting and protecting the middle class goes out the window when you allow yourselves to be manipulated into strong arming regular people. You want jobs, we want you to have jobs... But we want to be kept whole, too. Is that not fair? We want bread, yes... but we want, what? What?? Roses too. Cripes.

 

Fake Newsiness

"A pre-inaugural list of top infrastructure projects, attributed to the transition team of President Donald Trump, doesn't reflect the administration's official views, White House officials say. 

In emails to the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette late Tuesday, presidential spokesman Sarah Huckabee Sanders said the list isn't a White House or a transition team policy document."

In my last solo blog post, I promised I would only write again if something really egregious

happened.

Guess what?

In the grand scheme of things, the 50 project infrastructure document "leaked" last week is not a big deal. Don't get me wrong, it's dubious as all get out. But the more that comes out about it's origins (consulting group= lobbyists), the clearer and clearer it becomes that this is more of a Governor's Association/Industry boner list than a well thought out proposal. If you're interested in reading more about the history of the list and don't have a subscription to Politico Pro, try these:

http://www.dallasnews.com/business/economy/2017/01/24/report-trumps-infrastructure-priorities-include-two-big-texas-projects

http://politics.blog.ajc.com/2017/01/25/donald-trump-tweets-a-motive-for-voter-fraud-claim/

http://m.dailykos.com/story/2017/01/25/1624695/-First-hints-of-just-what-might-be-in-Trump-s-infrastructure-bill-released-maybe-Or-not

Yes, you would expect some of these projects to be under consideration regardless of who was looking, but no... consideration doesn't equate to an action item. And in a time where "fake news" has become the rallying cry for anything one disagrees with, the fact remains (true, not alternative) that some of the reporting on this issue was grotesquely optimistic... I'm lookin' at you Arkansas Times ;) (P.S. If you're gonna quote a girl, call a girl) That witty, snarky banter makes for a nice echo chamber noise, but it's more truthiness than truth, Ernie. Why? Oh, because the truth is boring... and hard to get at... and maybe, just maybe, a little gray.

So, just for fun, let's talk a smidgen about permitting. I'm going to run defense for the entire Arkansas delegation for a minute here. Hold my coffee, Mr. Koch. Just kidding...

Ok, so both of the aforementioned Times articles push the idea that the delegation's support of the Keystone XL is evidence of their hypocrisy in terms of their stance on Clean Line. I understand. I get it. I cried for days after the election and I went to the Women's March in Little Rock. This last weekend was both heartbreaking and inspiring. We all approach issues from our own worldview. I believe there are valid reasons to challenge the delegation's general support of pipelines. And, honestly, if you want to go after them for taking money from the Koch brothers? Have at it. Just make sure you're publishing Clean Line's lobbying expenditures, too (Like you did on the $400 lunch)... And the AWEA... And every other moneyed special interest group that actually moves politics in this country.

If you want to go after them because of eminent domain, I'll pull your collar just a little, even though that's my primary area of interest. Same thing with permitting. Why? Because different types of infrastructure projects have different permitting requirements. Some happen at the state level (like transmission lines) and some happen at the federal level (like natural gas and some aspects of oil lines). Before we let our snark monsters rage at these guys, it's helpful to understand what's going on.

Keystone XL, DAPL, and Diamond require some level of federal permitting to build. Transmission lines, with a very few exceptions, are the providence of the state. Clean Line lost their bid for a CCN at the state level. Why? Because our state laws are not set up to permit merchant transmission lines without instate assets and with no mandate from an Regional Transmission Organization (RTO). This is not necessarily a bad thing depending on which side of the bench you're sitting on. If you're on Clean Line's side, it's a hindrance to development. If you're on the side of landowners, states rights advocates, and existing utilities, it protects the state and its residents from fly by night operations with no real intention of making a positive local impact. Mr. Dumas has no problem with Clean Line running to the Department of Energy (DOE) to kiss their CCN rejection boo-boo. Whatever, that's his prerogative, but the state legislature had a problem with it. So did the impacted landowners... And the federal delegation... because it's a valid complaint. Keep in mind that the legislation Dumas referred to was passed after Clean Line applied to the DOE, not before. They didn't try to fix it instate. They should have.

Now, if the argument is that the "balkanization" (they love that word, and all that it implies) of processes makes permitting huge projects like Plains & Eastern hard, there is every reason to have that discussion as a country, but you better bet your bottom dollar that the states aren't going to just roll over and hand the power that ensures their people are treated fairly to the feds. Especially if that means the feds use that authority to permit private projects that can't demonstrate necessity. Something tells me the RTO's won't be dancing in the streets about it either.

If anyone out there ready to rage against the delegation for their support of Keystone XL and DAPL... or Diamond for that matter, wants to help effectively (instead of just screaming into the abyss) they need to refocus their attention on the laws that govern regulatory agencies and the permitting processes that allow these projects to go through the way they do. Yelling at the delegation, the Corps of Engineers, or the PSC is like trying to put spilled milk back in a cup with a toothpick. If you want to effect change, you've got to change the laws. Bottom line... Or be ready to spend a lot of money on legal. The Diamond Pipeline is a four-hundred mile, 20" crude oil pipeline that was permitted without a comprehensive EIS because it didn't trigger a NEPA process and there is NO STATE LEVEL REQUIREMENT for one. If you're going to be pissed about something, be pissed about that.

Back to Clean Line... To be clear, both Keystone and DAPL were lacking permits that they needed to finish. In other words, there was a clear path the new administration could take to give those projects a push. How is that different from Clean Line? Well, for all intents and purposes, the Plains & Eastern project has been "approved" by the Department of Energy. Whether that "approval", or the process they used to get there, holds up in court is one thing, but the fact that they haven't started construction yet has nothing to do with the feds holding up their project and everything to do with the fact that Clean Line just can't seem to get it done. The Department of Energy set up specific requirements Clean Line has to meet before they will give them the go ahead to start construction on the line... These requirements (Conditions Precedent) for financing, subscription, etc... were established to protect the people of Arkansas, the SWPA, and the taxpayers in general. So what steps exactly could a new administration take to push P&E? Well, I don't know, but they'd have to be pretty creative. (By the way, if the new administration tried to get creative like that with a pipeline, the same people getting all warm and toasty over the possibility it could happen for Clean Line would be losing their marbles). And with all Skelly's bellyaching about changing the rules mid-process regarding the APPROVAL Act, they should be ready for a pretty significant backlash should they try anything sketchy.

While all these things seem kind of academic, it's pretty clear from Mario Hurtado's interview with NewsOK that the truthiness of this list isn't going to stop Clean Line from spinning it in a way they can use to preen (beg?) for financing and to pressure landowners.

"When the Trump campaign was looking at infrastructure, we thought it was a good thing to mention. We're just happy to be part of the conversation."

Like, when did you just happen to mention it? Did you run into them in the grocery store? How much did that conversation cost?

I'm not going to get into the potential psychological damage that comes from all these "nice" conversations my friend Mario claims to be having with people. I'm sure some of them probably are. Some of them probably aren't... and as I mentioned to an acquaintance the other day, we have a word for people who repeatedly contact you in spite of a clear request to be left alone. Who call you all the time and show up at your work and home uninvited. Who pressure you repeatedly into something you don't want to do, threatening you with financial harm. Who contact your family members to try and get in touch with you. Who make you feel alone and at risk... They're called "stalkers" and there is no other situation in society in which this kind of behavior is acceptable. By the way, is a "fair deal" an easement "option"?

This is already too long and I have other things to do today, but... in closing. There are three things everyone needs to remember in this somewhat surreal situation:

1. There is still an outstanding federal lawsuit against the Department of Energy regarding this project.

2. The Department of Energy has yet to announce that Clean Line has met the Conditions Precedent they need to move forward.

3. Lobbyists are constantly working on behalf of their clients. At the federal level and at the state level. So this kind of stuff... this "newsiness" is only the beginning. As the new administration settles in and establishes its goals, the swamp ain't going anywhere without a fight. And you can bet that whatever infrastructure plan, commission, or law finally takes place, it's going to have their greasy little fingerprints all over it. The ONLY way for people to get adequate representation in that process is for them to engage and fight for it. My generation was asleep and at war when the 2005 Energy Policy Act was passed. We've woken up. Stay awake.

Landowner Groups File Legal Complaint Against U.S. Department of Energy Over Clean Line Decision

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:

Please refer media inquiries to:

Gill Ragon Owen, P.A.
Jordan P. Wimpy
(501) 801-3816 or jwimpy@gill-law.com

Landowner Groups File Legal Complaint Against U.S. Department of Energy Over Clean Line Decision

Golden Bridge, LLC, and Downwind, LLC, two organizations representing the property rights and interests of member landowners along the entire route of the proposed "Plains and Eastern" HVDC transmission line in Arkansas, filed a legal complaint against the Department of Energy and the Southwestern Power Administration regarding their approval of and participation in the proposed project. "Landowners were never offered an appropriate avenue for due process during the DOE's review of Clean Line's application," said Dave Ulery of Golden Bridge. "An opportunity to comment is not the same as an opportunity to directly participate in the matter in an official capacity. Review is meaningless if those most affected are not given ample and significant opportunity to engage on a meaningful and substantive level."

The legal complaint raises concerns regarding the legality of the Department of Energy’s decision to participate in the project using Section 1222 of the Energy Policy Act. “While understanding the importance of infrastructure in the production, transmission, and distribution of electrical energy,” a spokesperson for Downwind noted, “the landowner-managed organization is concerned with the federal government’s legal authority, and the scope and manner of its proposed participation in transmission projects pursuant to Section 1222. There are lingering doubts about the substance and merits of the Department’s determination in this project, with particular concern relating to the potential use of federal eminent domain to condemn private property for the benefit of a private, for-profit company.”

Both groups continue to accept new members. For more information, please go to www.GoldenBridgeAR.org.

Contact:

GoldenBridgeAR@gmail.com
Golden Bridge, LLC
4300 Rogers Ave., Suite 20-148,
Fort Smith, AR 72903

My last blog post… Well, so I hope.

This is my last blog post.

At least it is barring some extreme Clean Line shenanigans. I’ve been meaning to write one for a while now. Ever since the Department of Energy’s Record of Decision/Participation Agreement with Plains & Eastern made it absolutely clear this project would end up in a courtroom instead of ending on Moniz’s desk. I don’t really blame the DOE for that decision… How many federal agencies stand up and say, “No, we really don’t have the power or authority to do XYZ”? It doesn’t happen. And in a way, this is better: Congress proposes, an administration acts, and judges rule. Is a law really a law before it’s been tested by fire? There’s this great line from Robert Graves' I Claudius: 

"Let all the poisons that lurk in the mud hatch out."

Courtrooms and the discovery process are pretty good places for the hatching out of poisons… And of redacted financial information.

So anyway, what prompted me to finally take up the keyboard for this quasi-final farewell was Clean Line’s self-aggrandizing press release following the defeat of Senator Boozman’s energy bill amendment (thank you, Senator) earlier this week. Don’t worry if you haven’t seen it. It’s not getting much exposure at this point. Maybe it will later. But either way, I promise you... you’ve heard Clean Line say everything in it before. Ad nauseum.

I mean… where to begin? Well, let’s start with the biggest shock. Where is Louis Schmoll? Louis, the landowner from Atkins who gets trotted out and quoted every. single. time Clean Line needs to show how Arkansans support their project. Not enough space to include him and/or Bob AND industry reps perhaps?

Instead, how about we begin with Micheal Skelly’s pleasure at the “bipartisan” nature of the vote? Guess what other big vote was bipartisan? Go on... Guess...

If you were thinking of the 2005 Energy Policy Act, you'd be correct. It passed by an almost 3/4ths majority mix of D&Rs. Compared to that vote, this week’s vote, a.k.a. the “vote to say no” (gag), looks a little weak. And pretty clearly, there are a number of senators ready to tug the reins at the DOE. Is that partisan? Meh, maybe somewhat. But “partisan” isn’t the answer to everything and, if there’s anything we’re learning from this election cycle, it’s that where the politicians are is vastly where the people aren’t.

Now, if you had actually read Clean Line's press release, depending on your point of view, you could have interpreted just a whiff of desperation. A kind of… “Look at us! We won! Pleeeeeeease look at us!” sorta thing. But what exactly did Clean Line “win”? Not much. Legally, this changes nothing. Not the vagueness or contradictions in 1222. Not the attempted application of the law by the DOE. And certainly not the applicability of Plains & Eastern to that law.

They got the adamant support of New Mexico Senator Heinrich (wonder why... WAPA territory, maybe?) and the support of Senators Lankford and Inhofe- yes, he of "snowball on the floor" climate change denying fame- (R-OK) and McCaskill (D-MO). Oh, if only us little people had had an extra $400k to spend in DC last year…  

So, I ask again, what did they win? Besides the chance for the continued confidentiality of certain financials? Well, they won the opportunity to have a senator get up and argue, on the record no less, that Boozman’s amendment… this little report to ensure transparency and fiscal responsibility… is a "job killing amendment". (@3:15:00) Really? Because Plains & Eastern is so vulnerable a report could kill it?

0.o

Yikes. With friends like that, who needs enemies?


Arrivederci


P.S. Omg- I didn't expect to be back so soon. I wrote this on Friday morning. It's now Saturday and all I can say is... clearly, nothing quite has the power to draw the poison out like another proposed amendment. This one, announced by Senator Cotton yesterday afternoon, blocks funding for 1222 projects (thank you, Senator). The response from "Clean Line" was truly breathtaking. Take a look at the sky above you, folks, because if this amendment passes, that sucker is coming down! D.O.W.N! Down! I think they covered just about every threat in the capitalist handbook: Hostile business environment? Check! Harder to build infrastructure? Check! Job KILLER? Check! Higher energy bills? Check! 

Except that... Well, in the interest of time, just read this.  And this. Or, like, open the business section of the Democrat Gazette.

The thing that really grinds my gears, though... The one thing in that statement that doesn't make me snicker into my coffee even a little is the argument that this is going to cause higher energy bills. And to me, it's kind of a perfect example of what I don't like about Clean Line. It assumes we'll pay a higher rate than what they say they can provide for us and presents that as if it were already a reality. The bottom line is that you can't lose what you don't already have.

Finally, this is it I promise, we have this gem: 

The company said the amendment is “a clear example of political meddling targeted at one company and changes the rules in the middle of the game, after tens of millions of private dollars have been invested. The Cotton amendment hurts American consumers and business by undermining the law that was passed under a Republican administration with bipartisan support. 

I have been very careful never to curse on this blog, but oh, how I want to... Instead I'm going to put on my cleanest Battlestar Galactica uniform and say... Frack you, buddy. Frack you.

How about this instead:

Clean Line spending hundreds of thousands of dollars on lobbying efforts in Washington D.C. in direct opposition to the APPROVAL Act is a clear example of big business meddling targeted at a small group of landowners and changes the rules in the middle of the game, after those landowners have spent their lives building sweat and financial equity in their properties, paying their taxes and living like decent human beings. The Cotton amendment is yet another attempt to protect those individuals and their state by bringing attention to a vague and contradictory section of a law that was passed in the era of Cheney's Energy Task Force with a glut of lobbying dollars spent on behalf of industry to provide them with a "piñata of perks".

Meddling.  Phooey.

Iowa Utilities Board denies Clean Line's THIRD attempt to inconvenience landowners...

Yesterday, the Iowa Utilities Board denied Clean Line Energy's THIRD attempt to bend state law to make it more convenient and less expensive for them, and more inconvenient for landowners who are fighting the "Rock Island Clean Line" project. Here is the story:

 Associated Press

IOWA CITY, Iowa -- The Iowa Utilities Board has dealt another setback to a proposed $2 billion transmission line to ship Iowa wind energy to customers in Illinois.

The board on Monday rejected the third request by Clean Line Energy Partners to split the case into two separate hearings. The board stood by its plan to decide whether to approve the line and whether to grant the use of eminent domain in one hearing.

The company has said that approach means it has to invest "tens of millions of dollars" acquiring land while running the risk that regulators could reject the line as not in the public interest. Groups representing union workers and wind energy supporters backed its request.

But the board says splitting the case would be inconvenient for landowners fighting the project.

 The IUB decision has several highlights, and can be viewed in its entirety here.

Administrative efficiency and landowner convenience:

Please keep in mind: If the Department of Energy chooses to partner with Clean Line Energy in their pursuit of the "Plains and Eastern" project by granting them Section 1222 authority, landowners in Arkansas and Oklahoma would have NO hearing or opportunity to contest the case. 

This just keeps getting worse...

When "The Solution" becomes "The Problem"...

Visit Clean Line's website touting the reasons Arkansas landowners should be comfortable with the Department of Energy granting this private company the right of federal eminent domain against unwilling sellers, and what do you find? "The Solution":

So, when does "The Solution" become "The Problem"? When Clean Line says things like this:

Opposition to the Plains and Eastern Project has been screaming for months that, should Clean Line (CLEP) get its way at the Department of Energy (DOE), they will be exempt from paying ad valorem taxes to counties within the state on both: 1) the transmission facilities within the state, and 2) the property that would be taken via federal eminent domain by the Southwestern Power Administration (SWPA). Clean Line has been touting the "ad valorem taxes" they would be paying to counties in Arkansas for at least the last year in an attempt to garner support from someone, anyone, in our state. The examples of Clean Line stating this are numerous: Here, here, here, and here. I am sure there are more, but I don't feel like looking for them, honestly.

The truth of the matter: If Clean Line is approved by DOE under their proposed terms, ALL transmission facilities and property obtained by the SWPA via federal eminent domain would, in fact, be tax exempt.

The Problem:

Clean Line has plainly admitted on the first page of the "Agreement" that their facilities will not only be exempt from any ad valorem taxation, but also that any payments that are given to counties are completely voluntary. Unless, of course, each of the twelve counties agrees to the terms of CLEP's agreement that their representatives have been busy bees distributing to them recently. So, given that fact, why is Clean Line still saying that they are going to be providing "tax revenues" to counties in Arkansas along the route? I don't know, but someone with authority should ask them. 

In addition, what happens to the tax revenues on the actual physical property that SWPA "opens up" via federal eminent domain? The portions of the parcels of land that would be owned by SWPA that property taxes are currently collected on would, presumably, become exempt from taxation as well. So, what happens if a large portion of landowners just say "no" in each county, and the SWPA is required to own a significant amount of parcels in those counties? What does that do to county revenues? Hypothetically, the revenues could either be a wash, or even a net negative.

The Problem:

In addition to plainly stating that they would be tax exempt in all counties, Clean Line is asking your county officials (you know, the ones you elected?) to guarantee them that the county wouldn't pass anything to "prohibit or materially burden the development, construction, or operation of the Project, or the enforcement of this Agreement" once it is signed. Read that a couple times for effect. Let's say landowners get really loud about this if it is approved. If your county has signed this agreement with Clean Line, you are powerless as a landowner to peaceably assemble and lobby your local government to do anything on your behalf against them. That seems important.

Further, Clean Line is setting the terms about how and when the "Agreement" can be terminated:

They do this by defining a "Company Default" and a "County Default" on page three: 

So, if a "Company Default" is defined as a "failure of the Company to pay when due the amounts set forth in Section 2" and "such Monetary Breach continues uncorrected through January 15 of the following year", what is the recourse for the county if Clean Line just doesn't pay? Well, Clean Line tells the county that they can break the agreement, or...? Who knows? Take Clean Line to court to enforce the agreement, presumably spending taxpayer money to do so?

Also, who determines that the county has executed a "County Default"? It appears like Clean Line is attempting to define what that would be, too. So, what happens when Clean Line says the county has "Defaulted"? It appears like Clean Line can terminate the agreement with the county. So, what does the county do? Again, take Clean Line to court, expending taxpayer money to try to attempt to enforce a voluntary agreement from this private company, or just not receive any money from CLEP anymore and they become tax exempt again... just as they would have been had the county not signed their agreement and agreed to shut out a sizable portion of citizens of the county in the first place? That seems important, too.

 Fourth Page:

The moral of the story here: if you are an affected party in any of the counties this monstrous private toll road would cross, if your county officials don't agree to shut you out of your right as a citizen to lobby your local government on your behalf, but instead to always side in Clean Line's favor: the county's not getting squat, PERIOD.

All that glitters isn't gold. Read carefully before signing any "solution" that Clean Line is offering... it may end up becoming the problem.

Some folks have some explaining to do, and it isn't us...

I am just going to leave this here. It speaks for itself: