The Oklahoma Corporation Commission will meet Wednesday to consider two controversial topics—one concerning the bribed vote of a corporation commissioner in a 25-year-old-case and the other focusing on the issue of whether PSO customers will be allowed to opt out of the utility’s smart meters.
The bribe issue concerns the efforts of six ATT customers who last year attempted to get the commission to reconsider the case and force the telecommunications company to repay more than $16 billion to Oklahoma customers. The item on the agenda is a deliberations vote on a motion to be filed by Commissioner Bob Anthony determining that bribery constitutes “Repugnancy to the Constitution.” His motion is a move to force the Commission to uphold Article 9, Section 40 of the State Constitution and to abide by the commissioners’ Oath of Office in Article 15, Section 1. Two issues could be decided and one is that bribery of a corporation commissioner to influence the performance of any duty pertaining to his office constitutes “repugnancy to the Constitution.” The second issue would be a finding that any commissioner receiving money for the performance or non-performance of any duty pertaining to his office also constitutes “repugnancy to the Constitution.”
Such a vote would put the commission on record in relation to the federal conviction of the late Corporation Commissioner Bob Hopkins who was bribed 25 years ago in the ATT rate case known as PUD 260. In 2014, several ATT customers went to the State Supreme court but the justices ruled their courtroom was not the place for the controversial issue to be decided.
The customers of ATT went to the Corporation Commission in 2015, noting that “no judgment has ever been finding that the ‘bribed’ commission order No. 341630 entered in PUD 20 on Sept. 20, 1989 is unconstitutional for the reason that excluding the bribed vote of Commissioner Hopkins, the Order lacks the approval of a majority of the OCC commissioners as is required by the Oklahoma Constitution.”
Attorney General Scott Pruitt sided with ATT in fighting the question, both before the Supreme Court and the Corporation Commission. He claims the commission lacks jursdiction.
The second issue to possibly be decided by the Commission is the issue of PSO’s controversial smart meter “opt out” plan. Administrative Law Judge Ben Jackson urged the commission last year to punish those customers who chose not to have smart meters at their homes. Under PSO’s plan, the utility would charge at one-time feeof $183 and a $28 monthly fee to manually read the alternative meters. The judge also ruled the commission does not have the jurisdiction to create a moratorium on the installation of the mart meters for PSO customers. Attorney General Pruitt’s office argued in support of a $38 opt-out charge and no monthly fees.
Judge Jackson also ruled that the health concerns raised by PSO customers opposed to the smart meters should be addressed to the Federal Communications Commission.
At the time of the judge’s ruling, a spokeswoman for PSO said at least 1,675 customers wanted to opt-out of the smart meter plan.
.
