PSO spokesman Stan Whiteford said the company is continuing to reach out to people in Bixby and surrounding areas on “study routes.”

“The council already indicated they are opposed, but we just want to make sure we have the opportunity to talk to all the people in Bixby so they have a chance to understand that 7,000 PSO customers in Bixby stand to benefit directly from reduced rates and also that Bixby schools will benefit with several million dollars from (property) taxes related to the project,” he said.

“We recognize certain landowners have concerns and we are trying to address those with them and will continue to respond to any and all questions and inquiries about the line route,” he said.

Whiteford said PSO will continue to reach out to residents, rate payers and government officials.

"We understand infrastructure development is often controversial and while many landowners welcome the payments they'll receive, and on-going benefits to schools and the community, others have equally valid personal reasons for opposing development. However, this project is important for PSO customers and for our state. Customers, especially those who create jobs in the areas we serve, increasingly expect renewable energy and we have an obligation to deliver it at the lowest reasonable cost. We're extremely disappointed that the City took this action since we've worked closely with Bixby for many years on economic and community development and have always held them in high regard. In the meantime, we will continue to reach out to people in Bixby and surrounding area, work to address landowner concerns and respond to any and all questions about the line route."

Stan was at the Bixby City Council meeting tonight. He was given the opportunity to address the council and citizens. He declined. He was asked for an interview but requested to go outside. He stood and gave his interview, under the guard of (our wonderful!!!) Bixby PD officer. He would not make eye contact. He would not smile, acknowledge, or address ANY of these landowners and people they want to “hear and respect”.

He is escorted back into the building and once he believes everyone is gone, he sneaks out the back door!!!! Successfully avoiding ANY conversation.

... although a few opponents have raised objections, the vast majority of Oklahomans support Wind Catcher,” he said.

... while many landowners welcome the payments they'll receive, and on-going benefits to schools and the community...

Nicholas K. Akins - American Electric Power Co., Inc.
I don't think there's a statutory deadline, but certainly there's a business deadline. I mean, we've been very transparent about the timing necessary and the procedural schedules have been set up consistent with getting a decision on time. So, I think it's really more driven by, I guess, one of the previous questions sort of brought out, when is our drop-dead date and that kind of thing. But I can just tell you that May and June fits.

Steve Fleishman - Wolfe Research LLC
So just if I recall back last fall, you had talked about wanting decisions by April to make sure that you would have it online to get the full PTCs.  Is May-June going to be okay to be able to capture full PTCs? Like, what is the real deadline?
Nicholas K. Akins - American Electric Power Co., Inc.
Yeah, we'll be fine. Really, we have to get to a point of getting these orders in place, and then we'll cover it with our board, obviously, in our July meeting. And then once they approve it, we're off and running. So if we get it in that June timeframe, we get the orders in the May to June timeframe, we'll be in good shape.

PUD and the Attorney General additionally respectfully request that public comment
by members of the public interested in the outcome of this proceeding be allowed at
any hearing to take evidence on the PSO Settlement and the Consumer Protection
Settlement Agreement.

Analysts report that consumers served by utilities on the nation's East and West coasts pay higher costs for their electricity than we do here.

For the aforementioned reasons, I sincerely support and endorse Wind Catcher Energy Connection and the benefits that it will bring to Oklahoma. Oklahoma cannot afford to miss out on this opportunity to invest in our state and the citizens of Oklahoma. I would like to thank the Oklahoma Corporation Commission for their thoughtful consideration on this matter.

"Across the country, we are seeing clear proof of how building new efficient transmission infrastructure provides substantial benefits for consumers, through the delivery of clean renewable energy at rock bottom prices, job creation, and economic development.  We have worked to bring the Western Spirit Transmission Line and the Mesa Canyons Wind Farm to advanced stages of development in New Mexico, and are very pleased that Pattern Development will now take both projects over the finish line," said Michael Skelly, President of Clean Line Energy Partners.

Each RTO has its own system for modeling and evaluating proposed projects, and nothing is more difficult than deciding who should pay what, according to Mike Skelly, founder and president of Clean Line Energy Partners, the one company currently trying to build long-distance transmission lines in the Midwest. He offered up a restaurant analogy.

“If you go out to dinner and everybody orders different dishes, and you’ve got to figure out who’s gonna pay for what, it gets tricky,” he observed. In the inter-regional transmission world, typically a number of utilities and other customers benefit from new transmission capacity, but no one is eager to pick up the tab.

Skelly said the messy business of dividing the bill is one reason Clean Line has structured its two Midwestern long-distance transmission lines in a way that minimizes dealings with RTOs. It has proposed using DC instead of AC current, will take on power at one location and deliver it to two locations.

“We felt like the inter-regional planning processes didn’t work nine years ago, and they don’t work today,” he said.
Clean Line’s Grain Belt Express would ferry wind energy from Kansas to Indiana – and from the SPP to PJM. The Rock Island transmission line would move wind energy from northwest Iowa to the Chicago area – and from the MISO to PJM. Skelly said he knows exactly who would benefit from the project, and who, therefore, would pay for it: usually the wind farms whose electrons are moving to the east.

Plaintiff is quick to claim that it does not need any court order to enter upon the lands because it has that inherent right pursuant to the Eminent Domain Code. (Plaintiff's Brief in Opposition to Defendants' Preliminary Objections ... p. 7.) Yet, Plaintiff is here in Court seeking just that -- a court order permitting it and its agents entry onto lands of Defendants.

...claiming an immediate need to access Defendants' property for the purpose of obtain[ing] critical information, including various environmental studies, (including, wetland delineations, habitat assessments, and threatened or endangered species surveys), appraisals, geotechnical surveys (including soundings and drillings for testing soil and bedrock, cultural resources surveys, civil surveys (including trimming or cutting vegetation necessary for survey purposes) and all other surveys and tests necessary to properly assess the area, design and construct the proposed electric transmission line ...
(Plaintiff's Motion,~ 22).

From this description, the nature of the proposed intrusion onto Defendants' land appears to be quite extensive, quite possibly resulting in damage to the land. In fact, Defendants acknowledge the possibility of damage by noting in its Motion that it stands ready to pay damages should such occur.

disrupt Defendants' peaceful possession and enjoyment of their lands with "soundings and drillings ... [and] trimming or cutting vegetation ... " possibly resulting damages, on the off chance that the power line may, in fact, run over a portion of those lands, with one exception.

We fully realize that the final route may not be able to be approved absent the studies Plaintiff seeks to undertake. However something more than Plaintiff's mere assertions as to whose lands might be affected is required to satisfy us that Plaintiff is not on the proverbial "fishing expedition." We are mindful of Plaintiff's argument that preventing discovery at this stage of the proceedings makes it difficult for it to obtain final route approval. However, our concern is not with what Plaintiff must do to satisfy the PUC, our concern within the context of this litigation in general, and regarding Plaintiff's discovery request in particular, is to ensure that a party does not suffer from "unreasonable annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, [or] burden" during the discovery process.

PSO will suffer irreparable harm, damage, and injury unless the acts and conduct of Defendants above complained of are enjoined because further work and construction of the
transmission line cannot continue unless the location and description of the right-of-way easement across the Property owned by the Defendants can be determined.

State Rep. Kristin Phillips-Hill, R-York Township, said the project doesn't show that it will provide "long-term, significant benefits to our local Pennsylvania communities economically, nor preserve our tremendous agrarian heritage and scenic beauty."

She said, "York County is proud of its strong preservation heritage with nearly 42,000 acres and 282 farms."

Phillips-Hill said the question of why two existing high-voltage power transmission lines that run parallel to the proposed route and are not operating at full capacity aren't being utilized hasn't been satisfactorily answered.