Former Oklahoma legislator Mike Reynolds used his constitutional challenge of OGE’s $1 billion storm bond request with the Supreme Court to allege corruption on the part of Corporation Commissioners Dana Murphy and Todd Hiett who approved the utility’s securitization request.
In another protest filed over OGE’s request, Reynolds accused the two of illegally receiving contributions from attorneys and other interested parties in the case. And in doing so, the filing tore open the obvious political and personal differences the two commissioners have with Commissioner Bob Anthony who opposed the securitization approval.
(below is the filing with the Supreme Court)
https://www.oscn.net/dockets/GetDocument.aspx?ct=appellate&bc=1051912071&cn=MA-120106&fmt=pdf
Commissioner Murphy, who is chair of the 3-member Commission responded with a statement to OK Energy Today.
“Of significant concern is that these delay tactics using misinformation will result in increases to ratepayers as interest rates rise and time passes. I have always followed the law and the donations are publicly disclosed. My record over the past 14 years shows that my decisions are not influenced by donations. My votes are not for sale.”
The 120-page filing also accused Commissioner Hiett of illegally spending more than $80,000 of those and other campaign funds on personal expenses, including rent on a second home, travel, meals and illegal loan payments.
In response, Commissioner Hiett told OK Energy Today, “There’s nothing to it. It’s just a continuation of the Bob Anthony-Mike Reynolds witch hunt.”
“None of it has merit,” added Hiett, who declared, “Bob’s not a well man.”
He did not elaborate but repeated the claim again in the interview with OK Energy Today.
“It’s just frustrating,” continued Hiett. “But it is what it is.”
He said the allegation of a “mysterious” loan from SpiritBank, a bank on which he is a director was simply a mistaken filing by his CPA who reported the $200,000 campaign loan as fully paid but omitted the estimated $2,000 interest and continuing fee. Hiett said he knew he was about $2,000 out of balance and had the CPA do a full audit of his campaign expenses and an amended report was filed with the Oklahoma Ethics Commission.
Hiett also explained he and his CPA met with the Ethics Commission and agreed to change his campaign expense description of an Oklahoma City office and lodging to just lodging.
“I did a full vetting with the Ethics Commission.”
He also defended his acceptance of campaign contributions saying none were in violation of the state rules that prohibit a corporation commission candidate receiving campaign donations prior to a 120-day period before a primary election.
“I received some after the deadline and I returned it,” continued Hiett in reference to a prohibition of receiving campaign contributions after a 120-day period following a general election.
Reynolds repeated his claim that Hiett has an unconstitutional conflict of interest that makes his seat “vacant” and any vote he casts at the OCC illegitimate. Hiett owns stock in and serves on the board of a bank that could benefit from approval of these ratepayer-backed bonds, Reynolds pointed out.
Reynolds made the same claim in July 2021 in a filing with the Supreme Court. While the case was eventually dismissed, the Court never did make a ruling on the constitutionality of the claim.
He did not name commissioner Bob Anthony in his allegations filed with the Supreme Court.
Reynolds says the unlawful conduct of the two commissioners, who voted 2-1 to approve the OG&E Winter Storm bond deal in December, fatally taints the proposal and the Supreme Court should invalidate it. The lone vote in opposition was made by Commissioner Anthony.
In earlier filings, Reynolds and other protestors have argued that the winter storm costs were not properly investigated before being passed through. They have also argued that the proposed ratepayer-backed bonds are unconstitutional and will be more expensive for ratepayers than other, simpler alternatives.
https://www.oscn.net/dockets/GetCaseInformation.aspx?db=appellate&number=120106
A protest filed in the case last week called last year’s law allowing utilities to apply for these bonds “a license to steal from ratepayers.” It also noted that only Oklahoma’s investor-owned public utilities have taken advantage of the new law and applied for the ratepayer-backed bonds; Electric Coops and others who are not trying to profit from the winter storm have made better financing deals for their customers elsewhere.
https://www.oscn.net/dockets/GetDocument.aspx?ct=appellate&bc=1051911863&cn=MA-120106&fmt=pdf
There is no timeline for the Court’s decision, but three similar multi-billion-dollar bond proposals that would impact the ratepayers of ONG, PSO and Summit Utilities (formerly CenterPoint Energy) were also filed at the Court last week:
https://www.oscn.net/dockets/GetCaseInformation.aspx?db=appellate&number=120274
https://www.oscn.net/dockets/GetCaseInformation.aspx?db=appellate&number=120275
https://www.oscn.net/dockets/GetCaseInformation.aspx?db=appellate&number=120276
Hearings in those three cases are scheduled back-to-back at the Supreme Court starting at 10:00 am on Wednesday, April 13.
In a separate case, Reynolds has asked the Court to declare unconstitutional the so-called Securitization Law (SB 1049 and 1050), passed last spring by the legislature and signed by the governor, that allowed public utilities to apply for these ratepayer-backed bonds at the Corporation Commission. If that were to happen, it would invalidate all the pending 2021 Winter Storm ratepayer-backed bond deals.
https://www.oscn.net/dockets/GetCaseInformation.aspx?db=appellate&number=120157
In late February, the Court asked the Attorney General to intervene in both cases, but earlier this month the Attorney General declined.