Another former legislator is one of three more challengers to the use of state-backed bonds to secure the February 2021 winter storm costs of $739 million by Oklahoma Gas and Electric.
Former Rep. Porter H. Davis of Oklahoma City filed his challenge on Monday, arguing the use of ratepayer-backed bonds was an amendment to the Oklahoma Constitution “without a vote of the people.”
In his protest, Davis stated the 2021Regulated Consumer Protection Act created by the Oklahoma legislature to allow state-backed bonds to help utilities stretch their storm costs over 20 to 30 years was an “illegitimate structure.” He argued part of the act to sell the bonds “demonstrate a reckless disregard or OG&E rights.”
“It is hereby expressly declared this entire act and this section (9081) are amendments to and alterations of…the Constitution of the State of Oklahoma,” stated Davis in his challenge.
(Click here to view the challenge of Davis: file:///C:/Users/User/Downloads/1051379094-20220118-093836-%20(1).pdf)
A protest was also filed by Thomas S. Austin who suggested OG&E was “asking the Court to cram down a Financing Order.”
He argued that the Oklahoma Development Finance Authority, the state agency that would sell securitization bonds has no certainty about the sale of the bonds.
“Repeatedly, OG&E has bypassed protections for the residential customer established by private contract and Commission order,” continued Austin, “while the Commission has repeatedly and retroactively changed the vested rights of customers—.”
He asked the Supreme Court to reverse and remand the Financing Order.
(Click here to view Austin’s challenge: file:///C:/Users/User/Downloads/1051379098-20220118-093908-%20(1).pdf)
A third challenge was also filed by James Pickel, a customer of OG&E. He argued the Financing Order changed without compensation and consent his vested private contractual rights under his OG&E service agreement.
He also claimed the state Attorney General failed to represent ratepayers in the case and had “not investigated whether the exorbitant charges were in fact “just and reasonable” as publicly promises.
Pickel also claimed that through retroactive ratemaking in the fuel adjustment clause, “OG&E has shifted us away from our right to know what we owe and into the realm of the unknown.”
In his 5-page protest, Pickel charged, “OG&E has bypassed protections for the residential customer established by private contract and OCC order.”
He also charged the “OCC has repeatedly and retroactively changed the vested rights of customers under the fuel adjustment clause in a slap-dash way,” adding the bond process “gives no assurance that it will work and imposes a long-term debt and interest obligation on residential customers who did not request it or consent to it.”
(Click here to view Pickel’s challenge: file:///C:/Users/User/Downloads/1051379102-20220118-093851-%20(1).pdf)
The original filing before the Supreme Court was made by the Oklahoma Development Finance Authority and the case is number: No. MA-120106.
A challenge was also filed last week by former Oklahoma City Rep. Mike Reynolds who argued the filing by the ODFA was not only unfair but unconstitutional.
“With its financing order, the OCC is attempting to have its cake and eat it too,” wrote Reynolds.
A Supreme Court referee has scheduled a hearing on the case to be held Jan. 26, 2022 at 10:30 a.m.