In his continuing challenge of the constitutionality of the February 2021 Regulated Utility Consumer Protection Act, former legislator Mike Reynolds says the response of a state agency to his lawsuit should raise serious red flags before the Oklahoma Supreme Court.
He plans to file a request Tuesday to answer the response made of his lawsuit by the Oklahoma Development Finance Authority, the state agency that is asking the high court to allow nearly $1 billion in bonds for Oklahoma Gas & Electric.
Reynolds sought last week to reply to the ODFA attorney who responded to his constitutional challenge filed weeks ago, a challenge of the Act passed by the legislature in response to the massive winter storm costs accumulated by utilities during Winter Storm Uri.
In asking permission to file a second response to the ODFA, Reynolds wrote it should “send shivers down the spines of Oklahomans!” He contends the original response of the ODFA contained false and misleading statements and claims including one that said the ODFA is “not subject to” the Oklahoma Constitution.
He accused ODFA attorney Jered T. Davidson of falsely claiming in the January 27, 2022 hearing before a Supreme Court referee that OG&E customers would have to pay utility bills in the hundreds or thousands of dollars over the course of a single year.
“In point of fact, per the Corporation Commission’s own December 16, 2021 press release announcing its approval of the OG&E Financing Order, without securitization the “impact to the Average Residential Customer” would be a one time payment of $454.14,” wrote Reynolds in a copy of his filing he supplied to OK Energy Today.
He said the attorney for ODFA “shamefully continues to mislead this Court by repeating them here.”
Reynolds also claimed in his latest response that the Corporation Commission’s Public Utility Division did not follow the commission’s Rules for the Monitoring of Fuel Adjustment Clauses when it evaluated the prudency of the storm costs for OG&E. He also charges that proper notice was not given, a move that did not allow any one objecting to make a complaint.
The former Oklahoma City Representative takes the ODFA to task for claiming it is above the state constitution and not subject to its provisions.
“To brazenly assert “The Authority (ODFA)…is not subject to the provisions of Oklahoma Constitution, Article 10, Sections 23-25.” defies common sense,” wrote Reynolds.
He also contends the state legislature in 1988 passed a House Joint Resolution calling for a vote of the people on a proposal to allow the ODFA to issue $100 million in general obligation bonds. It was voted on by the people of Oklahoma and approved but Reynolds said there was nothing said about Revenue Bonds, Moral Obligation Bonds or Ratepayer-backed bonds.
“There is no mention of $4.5 billion worth of bonds for a winter storm,” he argued.
Reynolds also is asking the Supreme Court not to consolidate his constitutional challenge to the Act with the bonding request by the ODFA to the Supreme Court. He points to the recusal of one Supreme Court Justice to the ODFA request (a request that is required by the ACT) but no recusal to his lawsuit of constitutionality.
Click below to view Reynolds filing
file:///C:/Users/User/Downloads/Motion%20Package%20PDF%20(1).pdf