Does Clean Line not love Arkansas anymore?

Well, it’s happened. Clean Line doesn’t love Arkansas anymore. “The markets have shifted," Mario says. First, we got friend-zoned (remember when they were just going to use us as an doormat for their extension cord to Tennessee?), then loved us no matter how much we didn’t want it (baby, I’m gonna give you all the taxes-not-really-taxes-voluntary-payments and jobs you can handle), and now Clean Line is moving on and trying to sell (kind of like multiple interested parties always said they would) this debacle of a project to American Electric Power (AEP) to "help" facilitate their proposed "Wind Catcher" project. We could go on for a while about what exactly "Wind Catcher" is, but this article by Jeffery Tomich of E&E News very effectively summarizes what it is and gives a brief summary of what Clean Line is now seeking:

Clean Line did disclose an unusual offer to a potential customer last week in an Oklahoma regulatory filing. 

In testimony filed at the Oklahoma Corporation Commission, the company suggested that the Plains and Eastern project provide the transmission for Public Service Co. of Oklahoma's piece of American Electric Power Co.'s Wind Catcher project.

The $4.5 billion AEP project would be able to provide wind energy to its utility customers in Arkansas, Louisiana, Oklahoma and Texas from a 2,000-MW wind farm being developed in Oklahoma and 350-mile high-voltage transmission line (Energywire, July 27).

Clean Line supports the Wind Catcher project and its ambitions to bring utility customers access to low-cost wind energy in the same way that utilities such as Xcel Energy Inc. and MidAmerican Energy Co. are doing, Hurtado said.

"It just happens that we're a number of years ahead on our project compared with the [transmission line] that they proposed back in July," he said. "We think our project can provide a lower risk and ultimately a lower-cost option to move that power that they want to serve their customers."

Clean Line, which has been an evangelist for the benefits of DC technology for long-haul transmission projects, even said it's willing to use alternating-current technology if that's what AEP wants to do.

"We didn't want the discussion about the benefits that this project brings to be focused on a technology discussion of AC versus DC," Hurtado said.

So far, Clean Line's very general proposal to play a part in Wind Catcher is just that.

Read that again. One more time. I had to read it four times to grasp exactly what Mario was saying here. And then I did a little research because I like to know what Mario and crew are up to. ;) In my search, I was able to locate the Wind Catcher docket at the Oklahoma Corporation Commission (OCC). By the way, OCC, you really should update your system so it can be more easily searched. Here's a small tutorial about how to view the whole docket:

1) Click Here. After the page loads, do this:

2) After the results have loaded, do this:

3) Viola! You now have access to the Wind Catcher docket at the OCC. I'm a pretty simple person, but this took me a decent amount of time. It shouldn't have, OCC. You should be able to search for terms such as "Clean Line" or "AEP" to bring up results. If the case number is unavailable or difficult to find, the "Search" function is pretty much useless.

Now that your chin is on the floor and you've learned how to access the Wind Catcher docket: click here and read. It is, at times, vomit-and-laughter inducing, but it's also revealing. Let's examine a little bit of that testimony, shall we? It's really important.

1) The "market has changed" and there is currently no demand for the Plains and Eastern project east of Oklahoma:

Translation: Clean Line STILL has no customers. This is something we've been trying to say for a long time, but it's pretty satisfying to see it finally coming from the horse's mouth directly. Something else is also revealed:

2) Clean Line is more than willing to re-route the project away from its current route and terminate the project at Tulsa. A "second phase could be built at a later date if market demands warrant such action."

Let that sink in for a moment. This has always been about HVDC, how great that technology is, and how this project is designed to "deliver the best wind energy to the mid-south and southeast" through a converter station in Pope county, Arkansas, and Shelby county, Tennessee. It's almost like Mario would have you believe everything that's happened for the last seven years didn't actually happen. Now, Mario is essentially saying: "Arkansas and the southeast United States, PSSSSH!, this thing is GREAT for Oklahoma. Did I mention this is GREAT for Oklahoma? We will do anything if you'll just get this thing off our hands, AEP. Please - BUY THIS. No, but seriously, we'll do ANYTHING. We'll even change it to AC, move the route so it stops at Tulsa, and we don't even care if we own it. In fact, we'd probably just rather sell it":

This is a fundamental change, folks. New territory. In fact, Mario made it sound so much like the project was pre-designed and destined for Oklahoma that he mentioned the word "Oklahoma" 119 times in his testimony. Arkansas got the short end of the stick with 2 mentions. You're hurting our feelings over here, guys. I could go on and on, but there are a couple key things to take away from this: 

1) Clean Line is proposing to do something altogether different than it has been for the past 7+ years with its Plains and Eastern project. It should be both frightening, as well as reassuring that Clean Line will literally do ANYTHING at this point to salvage something out of this project. Their desperation is becoming harder and harder to hide.

2) If you are a landowner that has been impacted by this debacle and are interested about where it is going, it is imperative that you follow the Wind Catcher docket at the OCC. Why? Because AEP is scheduled to respond by the 22nd of this month. We'll find out very soon if this is some off-the-wall proposal by Clean Line to AEP that will be laughed away, or if AEP is actually seriously considering Mario's sales pitch... which could almost completely re-write the route of this project and what it intends to accomplish.

If someone at AEP is reading this, I can give you a simple analogy about what Clean Line represents:

I am a car guy. Clean Line is what I would call a "fifty foot car." If you've ever purchased a used car before, you can relate. Let's say you are driving along the road, and you see a car for sale that catches your eye. It looked GREAT when you drove by. So, you decide to turn around and have a look. When you start looking it over, you notice that the paint is nice and shiny, but there's hail damage on the roof. You look at the tires and they're worn out. You climb underneath and notice that there are oil leaks everywhere, and it's obvious that things have been leaking for a long time. You open the doors and look inside, and the interior looks pretty nice, but there are cigarette burns on the seats and it smells like someone just smoked a pack of cigarettes in it. Then you look at the odometer and it reads 200k miles... just right at that point where, if you don't spend a lot of money replacing some core things, you're going to HAVE to spend more money changing those things later, likely after it's left you stranded on the side of the road in the bad part of town somewhere a couple hundred miles from home.

Now, let's say you make it past all of that because the current owner is offering you a killer deal. So, you decide to take her for a test ride! You start it up and it has a rough idle and it smokes a little bit. You put it in reverse and the differential makes a loud "click." You put it in drive and take off and the transmission doesn't shift properly. It's making a lot of noise, and the steering doesn't feel right. You make it back to where you started and you have to make a fundamental decision: Do I really want this car? Is the amount of work and money I am going to have to put into this car going to be worth what I am paying for it? Am I ready to accept all of the problems that it has, despite my better judgement telling me to RUN? You get the point.

AEP: Clean Line Energy Partners is a "Fifty Foot Car." She looks pretty good at fifty feet away but, upon closer inspection, she's really just an eight year old car that is rife with problems... past, present, and future. It would probably be a better decision to buy a newer model because this one is worn out. And, on top of all that, she's been owned by a few jerks her whole life. We'll all find out within the next few days if AEP is considering taking Clean Line for a test drive, or maybe deciding to RUN and look for a newer model. Unless, of course, the case is dismissed altogether as the Oklahoma AG has requested. Only time will tell.

Clean Line: Arkansas has been wanting to break up with you for a loooooong time now. We're beyond ready to call you an "ex." 

Mario Hurtado: Here's what I (and many other landowners) think of your quote...

Furthermore, the Plains and Eastern team has received many questions from landowners and other stakeholders in Oklahoma about the Wind Catcher project. The team has been asked if Plains and Eastern can be involved or assist in the Wind Catcher project given that Plains and Eastern has a construction-ready, long-haul transmission project that runs from the Oklahoma Panhandle to the east and has acquired easements on more than 750 parcels in Oklahoma.

I am calling BS.

Who wants some (MORE) Clean Line whine?

If you hadn't noticed, Clean Line is having a pretty rough go of it these days. I thought I would provide a little update, because I wouldn't want anyone who is interested (*coughINVESTORScough*) to miss out on anything important.

1) Clean Line denied a third time in Missouri:

As many of you probably already know, on August 16, Clean Line was denied for a third time in its bid to become classified a "public utility" (with the added benefit of eminent domain) in Missouri. We wrote about that here so I won't go into much detail, but it definitely put a wrinkle in their plan.

2) Tennessee Valley Authority says "thanks, but no thanks" to Clean Line:

This one speaks for itself.

The cost of meeting TVA's power demand also involves more than just the marginal costs of what intermittent power producers such as wind and solar generators can quote for TVA, Johnson said. 

Clean Line Energy Partners, a Houston-based company that proposes to bring wind-generated power from Oklahoma and Texas to the Southeast along a $2.5 billion transmission line, says it could deliver power to TVA at less than 2 cents per kilowatt-hour. 

TVA signed a memorandum of understanding with Clean Line Energy in 2011 to study the proposal. But the utility has yet to commit to buying any of the 3,500 megawatts of wind-generated power Clean Line Energy will bring to the western edge of TVA's territory along its 720-mile transmission line from near Diamond, Okla. 

TVA said it doesn't need more power generation because of the stagnant demand for electricity in its seven-state region, and Johnson said TVA still would have to maintain or build other generation capacity to make up for the Clean Line energy when the wind doesn't blow.  

Johnson said "it is hard for us to fit that [Clean Line Power generation] in our portfolio," but he said "we are evaluating it closely." 

"Wind comes at night between 2 a.m. and 6 a.m. when demand dips, so for us to take that we have to turn down nuclear plants, which essentially have no fuel costs, and we really don't want to do that," Johnson said. 

The production tax credits that would help keep Clean Line Energy rates lower are declining and will phase out completely for new wind turbines built after 2020, "so we shouldn't be delaying a decision on this great opportunity," Smith said. 

But Johnson said production tax credits "are really not our issue" and TVA must evaluate the price options for wind, solar and other intermittent sources of power based upon the full costs to the agency. 

"The price [from Clean Line Power], in and of itself, is a good price for wind," Johnson said. "But it actually costs us a lot more to import it and to make sure we have gas plants running or capable of running in case the wind doesn't show up." 

Johnson estimates having the additional capacity to make up for when the wind doesn't blow or the sun doesn't shine typically adds at least 2 cents per kilowatt-hour to the quoted price of such renewable energy. 

"At the moment, we have yet to conclude that [buying power from Clean Line Energy] is the right fit for what we are doing," he said.

3) Clean Line denied rehearing at the Missouri Public Service Commission:

This one is pretty simple. Clean Line requested a rehearing after their denial at the MOPSC. This was more out of procedure for Clean Line so (after denial of the rehearing) they could move on to the appeals process. Which is next on the list...

4) Clean Line appeals Missouri PSC decision and hired big, scary (but voted out), ex-governor Jay Nixon to represent them:

I would think an ex-governor would be fairly expensive, but since Clean Line seems to think money can buy their way through anything, they went ahead and hired former Missouri Governor Jay Nixon as their legal counsel for their appeal. I guess they thought having a flashy ex-governor as their legal counsel might in some way sway the opinion of the court. Good luck with that strategy, guys.

It sort of seems like Clean Line has too many fires and not enough firemen to put them out, doesn't it? It's almost like they start trying to implement one PR strategy and then, within days, another fire gets lit that upends arguments they've made previously. We'll see if they continue to attempt to mislead everyone in the various states they're operating in, or if they will begin acknowledging the situation they currently find themselves in. A good example would be:

5) Clean Line acquires "legal hangnail" (Read: Legal Death Knell) in Illinois for its' proposed "Rock Island" project:

Just a few days after Clean Line hired former Governor Nixon and attempted to convince the media and everyone else that Missouri is the only state holding up the process and that they should just get out of the way, the Illinois Supreme Court handed them a decision that could represent a death knell for both their Rock Island and Grain Belt projects in Illinois.

Quite a while back, the Illinois Landowner Alliance filed an appeal with the Third District Court of Appeals contending that the Illinois Commerce Commission (ICC) erred in granting Rock Island public utility status. Later, that court determined that the ICC had, in fact, erred, and the order granting them utility status was reversed. Clean Line didn't like this, of course, so they appealed to the Illinois Supreme Court. The Illinois Supreme Court took the case and handed down a unanimous opinion reaffirming the lower court's opinion that Clean Line does NOT meet the definition of a public utility in that state.

How does this potentially apply to Clean Line's proposed "Grain Belt Express" line in Illinois? Well, the Concerned Citizens and Property Owners group (composed of landowners and citizens opposed to Grain Belt Express) appealed the ICC's order granting Clean Line a CCN for that project at the Fifth District Court of Appeals in Illinois. While that case is still pending, and the arguments are slightly different, it seems like a near certainty that the Fifth District will also state that the ICC erred in granting Grain Belt Express a CCN for that project.

A decision in that case is expected any time, so watch that one closely. So much for a "legal hangnail." As a good friend of mine stated to me: "Clean Line should be given props for being able to find a silver lining in literally anything."

6) On Monday, the Arkansas congressional delegation met with Secretary Perry about its' concerns with the proposed "Plains and Eastern" project:

Early this week, our full Arkansas congressional delegation went to the Department of Energy (DOE) to meet with Secretary Rick Perry about their concerns regarding the department's participation in Clean Line's proposed "Plains & Eastern" HVDC line. More here, as well.

Now, as anyone who has been paying attention to this issue for the last few years is aware, Clean Line was denied utility status at the state PSC way back in 2011. They saw an opening at the federal level with Section 1222 of the Energy Policy Act and they took it.

Over the past few years, there has been plenty of analysis and speculation about why and how a Request for Proposals (RFP) was issued by the DOE with such perfect timing as it applies to Clean Line's project. However, even assuming everything was on the up and up and the sudden "need" for a merchant transmission line was kismet (Ali's word, lol) or simple serendipity, there are issues with the statute and its application to this proposed project.

There are only so many ways you can beat a dead horse, but the process (or lack thereof) as it pertains to Section 1222 has been painfully insufficient and has, quite frankly, sucked. It is nice to see that the desire exists within Secretary Perry's office to revisit that process. Thank you! We stand ready to assist you in providing our experience with it.

7) Cherokee Nation Council rejects resolution to grant Clean Line easement in Oklahoma.

Wow, this is a MUST watch. It sounds like someone sent out a memo that had some pretty threatening language toward the Cherokee Council in it, doesn't it? Classy stuff, guys. It's pretty sickening, if you ask me.

That's all we've got for now! Hope you enjoy. :)

Golden Bridge Comment on Delegation Meeting with DOE's Secretary Perry

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:

September 28, 2017

Contact: GoldenBridgeAR@gmail.com

On September 25, 2017, the Arkansas Congressional delegation, composed of U.S. Senators John Boozman (R-AR) and Tom Cotton (R-AR) and U.S. Representatives Rick Crawford (AR-01), French Hill (AR-02), Steve Womack (AR-03) and Bruce Westerman (AR-04), met with Secretary Rick Perry of the U.S. Department of Energy to discuss the preservation of states’ rights as they pertain to transmission line development and to the federal review of Clean Line Energy Partners’ proposed Plains and Eastern Clean Line Project. Senator Boozman’s press release on the meeting can be found here:

https://www.boozman.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/press-releases?ID=58142CB4-200A-4077-BB22-6A4D84DF7967

Golden Bridge, LLC, would like to thank each member of Arkansas Delegation once again for their continued attention to the issues surrounding Section 1222 of the 2005 Energy Policy Act.

As an organization, we believe the process by which the Department of Energy determined to participate with Clean Line Energy Partners was flawed, and that the participation itself is built on a faulty premise that the State of Arkansas lacks authority to review Clean Line’s proposals.

Arkansas maintains robust procedures for the siting and development of transmission lines. Procedures that ensure the protection of local communities and their residents, and provide impacted individuals with a legally recognized process.

We appreciate the Arkansas delegation’s recognition that Section 1222 does not provide the same level of protection for landowners or the state. The ability to submit comments on an application does not provide due process for Arkansas landowners whose property may be taken in a scheme to use federal eminent domain for Clean Line’s gain.

Golden Bridge, along with Downwind, LLC, filed a legal challenge against Department of Energy to address these concerns. The organizations are committed to the cause and will continue their pursuit of these issues in each and every available forum.

“The balance between federalism and states’ rights is a delicate one, even though it’s often generalized and politicized,” said Alison Millsaps, a founding member of Golden Bridge, LLC. “We believe there are serious and valid issues of overreach in this instance. The Arkansas Public Service Commission denied Clean Line’s application for utility status in 2011, and invited Clean Line to return to the Commission when it revised its plans. The federal government should not exist simply as a vehicle to override established state decisions and statutory requirements. Clean Line often purports to have an interest in caring for the landowners and communities they want to put their line through. However, Clean Line’s attempt to go around Arkansas’s regulatory body speaks volumes regarding its true intentions.

###

Clean Line Dealt Significant Blow in Missouri...

Three strikes and Clean Line’s OUT in Missouri? For our friends up there, we hope so.

Investors: We hope you’re getting as weary as we think you should be.

Remember back in March when we explained that things weren’t looking good for Clean Line in Missouri? Yesterday, in a devastating (but not wholly unexpected) blow, the Missouri Public Service Commission unanimously denied Clean Line’s application for its’ proposed “Grain Belt Express” transmission project.

The landowners and others who organized to protect property rights in Missouri are amazing! Two different projects with two different sets of landowners unexpectedly came together to help deliver a voice to rural landowners (and a message to special interests) across the country. Let their dedication and hard work be an example for what can be accomplished if you work together and NEVER give up.

We’re going to keep this pretty simple today, because we are absolutely sick and tired of dealing with these “folks." That’s the nicest label Ali and I could come up with… we had others in mind. Let us sum up in the simplest terms possible:

1) Projects must benefit local communities. Not in a vague “taxes, jobs, economic development” kind of way, but in a substantial way that encourages the enthusiastic blessing of the people most directly affected by any project. The experience a company such as Clean Line has with landowners is directly proportional to the respect those landowners are given. Maybe that’s a hint about why you’ve found so much opposition to your projects?

2) You can’t force landowners to participate in venture-capitalist schemes. You just can’t. It is not our job to make you money. We don’t owe you our sweat equity. We’re already productive members of society and many of us have made sacrifices to infrastructure that you wouldn’t tolerate in the backyard of your McMansions. We don’t care about your investors, or their return on their investment. We just. Don’t. Care. It’s not our fault they made a bad investment in you. People make bad investments every single day. Maybe the Ziffs will take one less ride in their private jet this year, or buy one less yacht or “summer home.” Cry us a long and winding river.

3) Whining doesn’t help.

"We absolutely want to do the project," said Mark Lawlor, development director for Grain Belt Express. But he added: "Unfortunately, the message that we're getting from Missouri is that investments of these kind might be better spent in other places."

and:

Lawlor said the four commissioners' belief that the project was worthwhile but not approvable under state law "makes for an interesting argument" if Clean Line decides to instead seek federal permission to proceed.

And, what’s up with the hollow threat (again) to get the feds involved? Another multi-year-long, ~$100 million process? Doubtful. If you feel like you’re up to that challenge, we’re ready and willing to share our experience(s) and knowledge with our friends in Missouri.

Maybe that's why you've spent $750k on lobbyists in DC in the first half of this year, eh? (One such lobbyist being Arkansas Governor Asa Hutchinson's former Chief of Staff... but, more on that later.) I guess his newfound "opportunity" included being a lobbyist for Clean Line. Revolving-door politics is everywhere.

What really matters:

Despite the bluff and bluster coming from Clean Line, the positive things the Commission said about Grain Belt Express (in what seems like as much C-Y-A as it does genuine praise), and the "Blame Game" going around between Clean Line, the Commissioners, and the environmental groups... at the end of the day, only ONE fact remains:

YOU LOST, Clean Line. You can try to spin it however you like, but you still can’t build that transmission line in Missouri. Do not pass go, do not collect $200. Case closed.

Congratulations on your win, Missouri!

Clean Line's REALLY Bad Couple-a Months...

In what is shaping up to be an incredibly rough couple months for Clean Line Energy Partners, several major blows have been dealt to the speculative development company:

Arkansas Full Congressional Delegation Comes Out Swinging

1) Arkansas' Full Federal Delegation Re-Introduces the APPROVAL Act (03/06/17)

On Monday afternoon, Senators John Boozman and Tom Cotton, along with Representatives Steve Womack, Bruce Westerman, Rick Crawford, and French Hill, re-filed S.529, the Assuring Private Property Rights Over Vast Access to Land ("APPROVAL") Act. The Act would amend Section 1222 of the 2005 Energy Policy Act to allow a state's governor and public service commission chair the opportunity to reject a federal transmission project if they don't feel like the project is in their state's best interest.

2) Arkansas' Delegation Sends Opposition Letter to Secretary Perry (03/07/17)

Alison wrote about this earlier, so I will just leave the letter here for everyone to see. It's a beauty.

3) Senator Boozman Makes Comments on Talk Business Arkansas (3/12/17)

Senator Boozman made comments during an interview with Talk Business Arkansas' Roby Brock further explaining the delegation's position that the use of Section 1222 of the 2005 EPAct by Clean Line is inappropriate:

In his comments, Mr. Boozman also brought further doubt about need for Clean Line's "product" at Tennessee Valley Authority (We know, Mr. Skelly, this is "bigger than TVA," we know. Whatever.), which brings us to:

Things Don't Look Great for Clean Line at TVA

1) TVA Winter Board Meeting (02/16/17)

It all started at TVA's February 16 board meeting. As you may have read in our January 2017 update, Clean Line and a couple environmental groups have been lobbying the Tennessee Valley Authority to sign a contract for a sizable chunk of wind energy from the Oklahoma panhandle and use Clean Line's proposed Plains and Eastern transmission line to deliver it to them. We explained to you that, if TVA were to sign a contract, the prime time to have done so would have been by December 31, 2016. That date has come and gone, and there was no publicly available contract on January 1, and as of today there still is not.

In past TVA board meetings (specifically August 2016 and November 2016), Clean Line sent their revolving door DOE star, Jimmy Glotfelty, to lobby (*read - "beg") TVA to make a commitment to use their transmission line. At the most recent board meeting held February 16, however, there was a specific lack of anyone representing Clean Line. The only person that showed up (and, she always does) to lobby for them was Chris Lunghino of the Southern Alliance for Clean Energy.

Why do we say that things don't look good for Clean Line at TVA? We have a couple key pieces of evidence. The first involves a presentation Mr. Bill Johnson, President and CEO of TVA, gave during his update at the board meeting. Take a look at the following slide:

Do you see what I see? If not, look a little closer... specifically at the amount of wind and solar energy TVA receives in 2017, and is projected to receive in 2026. They remain unchanged at 3%. What does that mean? Well, it would appear that it means TVA has no plans to purchase capacity for a large chunk of wind energy between now and 2026. You can infer from that what you will. Again, we know, Mr. Skelly, this project is "bigger than TVA." But, where are the other customers? We reported earlier that Georgia Power (GP) is likely out for Clean Line, and that still stands. Georgia Power is only allowed to contract 300 mW of wind power through its REDI program, and the in-service dates for GP's don't mesh with Clean Line's fantasy in-service date.

2) Senator Alexander (R-TN) Reaffirms TVA Doubts on the Senate Floor (03/22/17)

It must be really difficult for Clean Line and its' investors to see the senior senator from Tennessee say this on the Senate floor:

Senator Alexander: If you are watching, we would like to give our thanks to you for making these comments!

Oklahoma State Legislature Moving to Eliminate Wind Tax Credits

1) Oklahoma House of Representatives Passes Legislation to Eliminate State-Level Production Tax Credit for Wind Energy (03/10/17)

As we reported in our January update, the Oklahoma legislature is apparently serious about attempting to fix their nearly $900 million budget deficit. The Oklahoma House made the first move to eliminate early the state "Zero Emissions Credit" for wind energy. Without going into many details, the credit amounts to millions of dollars per year that come out of the state's coffers (paid for by Oklahoma taxpayers) to support companies that are mostly out-of-state (or country, in some instances).

Oklahoma gets a decent-sized chunk of its electricity from wind energy produced in state. Much of the energy produced by newer generators is exported out of the state, therefore Oklahomans are subsidizing wind energy companies for producing energy that largely has little-to-no benefit to the citizens of their own state... aside from the royalties landowners receive for voluntarily hosting the turbines on their property.

Meanwhile, Clean Line would like to potentially use (for the first time) federal eminent domain to force a swath 720 miles long of Oklahoma and Arkansas landowners to give up their property rights to construct its' for-profit transmission venture that could also require Oklahoma taxpayers to subsidize an additional ~2,000 wind turbines with zero in-state benefit... again, except to the landowners who voluntarily host the turbines on their property.

Does that seem fair to you? To me, it doesn't.

2) Oklahoma Senate Panel Approves Rolling Back Wind Tax Credit (03/29/17)

According to a report released today:

OKLAHOMA CITY – Legislation that rolls back a state tax credit for the wind energy industry has been approved by an Oklahoma Senate panel. 

The Senate Committee on Appropriations on Wednesday voted 34-6 for the House-passed measure and sent it to the full Senate for consideration. 

The bill modifies the tax credit for electricity generated by zero-emission facilities like wind turbines. It says facilities must be in operation by July 1 in order to qualify for the credit, instead of the current deadline of Jan. 1, 2021. 

Gov. Mary Fallin has proposed eliminating the credit to increase revenue amid a projected $868 million budget shortfall next year. The tax credit will cost $40 million this year and will average $60 million a year over the next 15 years.

The legislation appears to be poised to pass. We will see if the Oklahoma Senate is as serious about it as the House in the coming days. If the Senate passes the bill, it will be delivered to Governor Fallon for signature.

3) Mario Hurtado says: "No Big Deal" to Losing Oklahoma PTC (03/29/17)

In his typical blustery and arrogant (disconnected?) fashion, Clean Line's Mario Hurtado said the following in a recent article:

Hurtado said HB 2298 should have little impact on a $2 billion high-voltage transmission line that will carry wind energy across Oklahoma and Arkansas to Mid-South and Southeast markets. The Plains and Eastern Clean Line transmission line, a 700-mile project that has been in the works since 2010, will have the capacity to deliver 3,500 megawatts of wind-generated electricity from the Oklahoma and Texas panhandles. 

Terminating the tax credits this year, if the bill becomes law, could have an impact on where those wind farms are sited. Hurtado said the companies that will build the more than 2,000 wind turbines needed to feed current through Clean Line’s transmission line base siting decisions on a number of factors, and tax policy is one of those factors. 

“It may change the amount of wind energy that connects to us ... (from) Texas versus Oklahoma — the Oklahoma Panhandle is not that wide (and) the wind doesn’t pay attention to state lines,” Hurtado said. “Unfortunately, that would mean less investment in Oklahoma and the school districts there — that could be a change, and that is certainly something we have made people aware of.”

There you have it, Oklahoma. Whatever, Mario.

4) Mario Hurtado says: "Foundations for generators are being dug and poured in the Oklahoma panhandle right now" (3/25/17)

In another recent article that is full of bluster likely targeted at the Missouri Public Service Commission and Clean Line's investors, Hurtado said the following:

Foundations for generators are being dug and poured in the Oklahoma panhandle right now, Hurtado said. General Electric — which will build converter stations located near Guymon, in Arkansas and near Memphis, Tenn. — has done a lot of engineering work ahead of building the stations, he said.

Pictures or it didn't happen, Mario. Today (03/29/17), you said that if the Oklahoma legislature repeals the in-state PTC, wind developers will just build generators to energize your line in Texas instead of in Oklahoma.

But, just four days ago, you said "foundations for generators are being dug and poured in the Oklahoma panhandle right now." What gives, Mario?

My analysis? Foundations for wind generators are most definitely being "dug and poured" in the Oklahoma panhandle, but they're not being "dug and poured" to supply Clean Line's proposed transmission line. For Mario to imply otherwise is disingenuous, deceptive, and pretty desperate, if you ask me.

You have to have customers for all that stuff to happen, Mario. To date, Clean Line has yet to release a single, legally bound, contractual customer on either the generation or end-use side of its proposed speculative transmission line. Unless and until a sizeable portion of their capacity is subscribed, everything Hurtado and Skelly say is bluster.

Things Don't Look Super Great for Clean Line in Missouri

1) Hearings Held on Clean Line's (latest) Grain Belt Express Application

As you may know, Clean Line had its week-long round of evidentiary hearings at the Missouri Public Service Commission last week. If you're interested about how the hearings went, I will leave that explanation to my friend, Keryn Newman. She wrote an excellent blog post summarizing the events.

2) Neighbors United Scores Victory That Could Dash Clean Line's Hopes in Missouri

In a nutshell, Staff at the MOPSC recommended that: 1) Commissioners deny Clean Line's application, or 2) Commissioners condition Clean Line's CCN with the requirement that they receive assent from all impacted counties. I'll leave you with Keryn's blog post about this decision, which explains how it could affect Clean Line's proposed "Grain Belt Express" line.

Due to State Action, Clean Line's "Rock Island" Project is Effectively Dead

According to a recent article:

House File 603, which Rep. Bobby Kaufmann, R-Wilton, called a “long-awaited bill protecting private property rights,” was approved by the House 93-0. 

The bill addresses what he labeled the state’s “largest blight,” the Rock Island Clean Line, an electric transmission line that would affect 1,500 Iowa landowners, as well the development of a reservoir in Clarke County and property owners displaced by Department of Transportation projects. 

“It should be hard to condemn private property, it should not be possible to condemn private property for personal profit, it should be illegal to condemn private property for anything other than public use,” Kaufmann said.

We're with you, Representative Kaufmann. Iowa landowners are lucky to have you.

In Closing

This is already far too long. So if you have made it this far, I really appreciate you reading it. I hope it has been informative and maybe, just maybe, it gives you a little bit of hope in what can feel like a helpless situation.

I just have to close by asking Clean Line's investors: When does enough become enough for you guys? When do you come to the realization that someone else has spent upwards of $200 million of your money and, after nearly a decade, those people haven't produced a single cent of revenue in return for you? And there's really no return in sight, is there? When do you say to yourselves: "We've harassed these people enough. It's time to throw in the towel"?

Maybe that's why you're holding on for so long. I get it. You've spent a lot of money. But, it doesn't make it right for the harassment to continue.

I think the time is (or should be) fast approaching. If you have any sense of decency about yourselves, you should realize how many thousands of people you have negatively affected for the last many years. Have you no conscience? Do you think things are just magically going to get better?

It is time for you to pull the plug.

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.

January 2017: Clean Line Post-Election Update...

Happy (belated) New Year from Ali and Dave!

We sincerely hope you had a wonderful, Clean Line-free holiday season. Unfortunately, with the holidays coming to a close, we all have to remain informed and vigilant. Remember, while many of you only found out about this project in late 2014, Michael Skelly and crew have been actively attempting to execute this boondoggle since 2009... maybe earlier. It's hard to say with certainty exactly when the idea for this first arose. As we have written about before, Jimmy Glotfelty (cofounder of Clean Line) lobbied Congress in 2003 during his stint at the Department of Energy (DOE) in support of the very same provisions (Section 1221 & 1222) that his company is attempting to utilize now. We thought we would take this opportunity to provide you with an update, as well as a few things you should be paying attention to as we move through 2017:

Donald Trump, Scott Pruitt, and Rick Perry

Donald Trump:

As a rule, we keep politics out of this issue. It is not a political issue. It is a private property and states' rights issue. However, as all of us are aware, we had an election last year. Hate it or love it: Donald Trump was sworn in as President of the United States of America on January 20. Elections have consequences. As a good friend of ours stated a couple days after the election: "I'll bet Clean Line woke up and sh*t their pants on November 9." We tend to agree. To say the results of the election were anything less than unexpected would be an understatement. Jimmy Glotfelty has already attempted to set the stage for a change in conversation at the TVA board:

"Election Day was a big sea change in America," Jimmy Glotfelty, executive vice president for Clean Line Energy Partners, told the TVA board last week. "But we believe that just because we've gone from Democrats to Republicans (in the White House) that does not change the need for jobs and low-cost energy in America and we believe we will provide that. We've been before this board for the past seven years and our project dynamics have not changed."

But the truth is that no one can say right now what the Trump presidency means for Clean Line, which is due in part to the very nature of the project. Yes, it represents private investment in infrastructure, but it also represents an example of gross federal overreach in which the Department of Energy virtually ignored not only state law, but an established state PSC ruling.

With past comments like these, it will be interesting to see what his position is:

Scott Pruitt:

As some of you may remember, Scott Pruitt is the Oklahoma Attorney General. During the comment periods for both the NEPA review and the Section 1222 "review", his office issued scathing comments in landowners' and states' favor in opposition to the process being used to advance this project.

Why is that important? Because Scott Pruitt has been nominated to become the next EPA Administrator. He has been a staunch opponent of the "Clean Power Plan" (CPP). The CPP has been a primary justification by Clean Line for the "necessity" of their line. Under a Trump administration, the CPP will likely be nullified. Love it or hate it, it is what it is.

If you're interested in viewing Mr. Pruitt's confirmation hearing, you can do so here (Part 1):

and here (Part 2):

Rick Perry:

Why is former Texas Governor Rick Perry involved in this? Because he has been nominated to be the next Secretary of the Department of Energy. He is sort of a wild card. While he is mostly an oil and gas person, he also supported the so-called "Competitive Renewable Energy Zone" (CREZ) transmission expansion for wind energy in Texas. Many environmental-types seem to see this as a positive attribute in Perry for renewable energy. Others see this support as having been less about wind energy, and more about an economic opportunity for Texas. The CREZ lines were concocted and approved IN Texas, FOR Texas. Whether or not support for larger projects like Clean Line's translates to support from Mr. Perry at the federal level remains to be seen. He is known for being a staunch states-rights advocate. In fact, Mr. Perry wrote in a 2009 blog post:

The Founding Fathers understood that a one-size-fits-all approach just doesn’t work, especially in a country the size of America, and it certainly doesn’t work for Texas. Our economic strength, compared to the federal budget mess and other states’ troubles, is evidence that Texans know what’s best for Texas. 

The Constitution simply does not empower the federal government to override state laws without restraint. 

I agree with Texas’ 7th governor, Sam Houston, who once said, “Texas has yet to learn submission to any oppression, come from what source it may.”

We didn’t like oppression then and we certainly don’t like it now. Unfortunately, pressure is increasing from a federal government that is growing increasingly oppressive in its size, its intrusion into the lives of our citizens, and its interference with the affairs of our state.

Also:

In his book, he sets out a view that the founders intended a federal system that allowed “people of like mind” in the states to make their own decisions about how to live, while the national government’s role was properly focused on national security. “From marriage to prayer, from zoning laws to tax policy, from our school systems to health care, and everything in between,” he wrote, “it is essential to our liberty that we be allowed to live as we see fit through the democratic process at the local and state level.”

While we don't have much indication as to which side Mr. Perry will ultimately fall on RE: Clean Line, we are paying attention. We stand ready to work with the new DOE Secretary (whether Perry or someone else) on this important issue. We are hopeful Mr. Perry, if confirmed, will bring the same respect and zeal for states' rights to the Department of Energy.

If you're interested in listening to Mr. Perry's confirmation hearing, it can be viewed here:

Tax Credits for the Wind Industry

Federal Production Tax Credit Down 20% in 2017:

As you may know, Congress passed an extension to the Production Tax Credit (PTC) for the wind industry in late 2015. However, a year-over-year PTC reduction will occur until the end of 2019:

The tax credit is phased down for wind facilities and expires for other technologies commencing construction after December 31, 2016. The phase-down for wind facilities is described as a percentage reduction in the tax credit amount described above: 

• For wind facilities commencing construction in 2017, the PTC amount is reduced by 20% 
• For wind facilities commencing construction in 2018, the PTC amount is reduced by 40% 
• For wind facilities commencing construction in 2019, the PTC amount is reduced by 60%

Oklahoma's Budget Deficit and In-State Wind Tax Credits:

As many of our readers may know (Oklahoma's, especially), Oklahoma has, by state standards, a massive budget deficit. From a recent article:

(Reuters) - Oklahoma's budget deficit will be $868 million next year, higher than recent estimates as sustained low oil prices, tax cuts and corporate tax credits continue to weigh on the state's finances, the Oklahoman newspaper reported on Tuesday. 

Governor Mary Fallin estimated just days ago that the state would face a $600 million gap for the 2018 fiscal budget year, but Finance Secretary Preston Doerflinger told reporters at a news conference on Tuesday that the hole will be deeper.
A $900 million budget shortfall would represent nearly 15 percent of its expected $6 billion in spending power. 

With less money to spend, state lawmakers could choose to make cuts to government services like education and health care or raise taxes. 

"I think it's important for everybody to realize you're not cutting your way out of this situation," Doerflinger said. "We have to have a serious conversation about revenue."

One of the "corporate tax credits" weighing on Oklahoma's budget is a state tax credit for wind energy. Tax credits paid by taxpayers to (mostly out-of-state) wind companies have ballooned in the past few years:

"Oklahoma is bankrupt and unable to pay its bills because of $1 billion worth of tax cuts, hundreds of millions of dollars in gross production tax giveaways to the oil and gas industry, and $2 billion worth of tax credits and exemptions to wealthy corporations, all of which this governor supported," said House Democratic leader Rep. Scott Inman, of Oklahoma City. "That's the reason we're in this mess. To get out of it, we need to roll back those irresponsible tax plans, not raise taxes on working families." 

Another likely target for revenue will be some of those hundreds of millions of dollars in incentives Inman spoke of — specifically a credit for the production of wind energy that an independent consulting group has recommended be capped or ended. Payments under that program have skyrocketed from $3.7 million in 2010 to more than $113 million in 2014.

Numbers were not available for 2015 and 2016, but many, many more wind turbines have been constructed in Oklahoma in those two years. That number would have to be much higher for 2016. What do you think the 2,000 additional wind turbines Clean Line would like to see constructed in the Oklahoma panhandle would do to that figure? Our opinion: since wind tax credits account for at least 15% of Oklahoma's budget deficit, lawmakers in that state are going to be required to get serious about capping or eliminating them in the 2017 session. Will they wind up with a result that is fair to Oklahoma taxpayers? Who knows. In this age of "pay-to-play" politics, we would say that nothing would be surprising.

Relation to Clean Line:

So, how does this relate to the Plains and Eastern (P&E) project? Quite simply, as the years progress, Clean Line's "delivered product" becomes more expensive and less financially appealing to end-use utilities. The price of delivered energy on P&E to an end-use utility (such as TVA, Georgia Power, etc) is composed of the price a wind generator can produce the energy for, added to the cost of delivery Clean Line will charge to deliver the electricity to the TVA system, plus whatever TVA would charge to wheel that electricity through their system to them. If the cost of the electricity rises on the generation end, the cost of the electricity on the receiving end rises, as well. So, how does this relate to the TVA?

Clean Line and the Tennessee Valley Authority

As discussed above, the "prime time" to sign up for capacity on Clean Line's proposed transmission line was by the end of last year. And, Clean Line and others have parsed no words in attempting to push TVA to sign a contract for electricity on Plains and Eastern. Take, for example, this fluffy article from Dave Flessner that seemed to imply that TVA was right on the brink of signing a contract with Clean Line before year's end:

The Tennessee Valley Authority is studying whether to contract this year to buy into what would be one of the biggest wind energy projects in the country. 

Despite last week's election of a new president who has pledged his support for more fossil fuel power generation, TVA President Bill Johnson said the utility is still studying whether to ink a deal in the next six weeks to buy at least some of the wind-generated power windmills a Houston group is trying to transfer across the middle of America. 

Clean Line Energy Partners LLC is planning to build high-voltage, long-distance transmission lines to carry power generated by windmills in Texas and Oklahoma to the Tennessee Valley. The development group wants to reach a deal with TVA to buy its power before the end of this year to take advantage of maximum federal tax incentives for wind generation that will not be as generous after this year.

Or, this earlier article by Mr. Flessner with an equal amount of fluff (there seems to be a pattern with him):

Jimmy Glotfelty, executive vice president for Clean Line Energy Partners, told the TVA board last week that it could deliver wind-generated power from Oklahoma and Texas up to 60 percent of the time at around 3 to 3.5 cents per kilowatt-hour, which is cheaper than some of TVA's other energy costs. Such wind-generated power could be available in two to three years after new wind turbines are erected in Oklahoma and Texas, where the wind blows more steadily than in the Southeast, and after Clean Line builds its proposed 700-mile line from the panhandle of Texas to Memphis. 

The cost will be cheaper this year because the maximum federal production tax credits, worth the equivalent of 2.2 cents per kilowatt-hour, will begin to decrease after Jan. 1."We continue to have strong discussion with utilities in the Southeast and we continue to have productive talks with TVA because we believe this is a very competitive source of clean energy which we think would add value to their portfolio," Glotfelty said.

(If you're interested in watching Mr. Glotfelty plead as an ordinary citizen for TVA to purchase their "product" before the end of 2016 at their August 2016 board meeting, click here and fast forward to minute 138:00 or 2:18:00, or at their November 2016 board meeting by clicking here and fast forwarding to minute 35:00 or 0:35:00.)

Environmental groups have also been lobbying TVA hard to sign a contract with Clean Line by the end of 2016. Back in August, Dr. Stephen Smith of the "Southern Alliance for Clean Energy" even went so far as attempting to offer the Plains and Eastern transmission project as a potential aid in the solution to the Zika virus (it's hard to make this stuff up, folks). In November, Allie Brown (also of SACE) had this to say:

Clean Line’s transmission project is a no-brainer for TVA and other Southern electric companies to buy into. It will help diversify our energy mix, create tens of thousands of jobs, protect natural resources, and provide health benefits by decreasing pollution from fossil-fuel generation in our region. 

Critical deadlines regarding the federal production tax credit for wind power are fast approaching. Fortunately, contracts for wind power can be signed today, but can take delivery as late as December 2020, and still qualify for the important tax incentive. We strongly encourage TVA’s board of directors to immediately contract for at least 1,000 megawatts of wind power on the Plains and Eastern Clean Line. We need your help to urge TVA to buy wind power from Clean Line today:

SACE even created this nifty petition.

This guy even threw his hat into the ring with an op-ed entitled: "Tennessee Valley Authority should get into wind power". Leaving out the obvious fact that TVA is already "into wind power," the opinion piece seemed to be neatly crafted with all of Clean Line's dead-horse talking points. Accident? Probably not. The op-ed was printed after December 31, however, so it's doubtful anyone at TVA actually read it.

Clean Line STILL Has No Publicly Available Contracts:

Despite all the fluff and bluster, Clean Line has still yet to release a single publicly available contract for transmission capacity on Plains and Eastern from TVA or anyone else. As with any business, customers draw more customers, so it seems highly unlikely that Clean Line wouldn't have released information about a major contract with TVA. As we have become accustomed, it seems incredibly hard for them to keep positive news on the proverbial "down low". It would also seem unlikely, with credits being reduced, that a rising "delivered product" price for Clean Line would provide increased incentive for an end-user contract in 2017.

But what do we know? We're just "misinformed" landowners.