A State Supreme Court Justice who recused herself from the more than $800 million OG&E storm cost bond case has done the same thing in a constitutional challenge of the act that allowed utilities to use bond securitization to cover their 2021 winter storm costs.
At the same time, the high court is offering an opportunity for Attorney General John O’Connor to intervene in the case. Supreme Court Chief Justice Richard Darby, in a filing in the case extended an offer to the attorney general to intervene should he want to do so. The court gave the AG until March 15 to “advise the Court why he will not intervene by that same date.” If he chooses to intervene, O’Connor will have until April 15 to file a brief with the court.
Supreme Court Justice Dana Kuehn on Monday filed her recusal in the constitutional challenge filed in January by former legislator Mike Reynolds.
She had done the same thing in the OG&E bond case but offered no explanation.
“I hereby recuse myself from consideration of the above styled and numbered cause.” Signed: Justice Dana Kuehn” stated the court filing in the OG&E case.
Financial Disclosure records with the Oklahoma Ethics Commission reveal she has an ownership interest in U.S. Payments, a Tulsa firm that is contracted by OG&E in its paperless payment program.
“I am a non-voting board member. I have an ownership interest. I also have a judicial ethics opinion agreeing that this appointment does not violate ethical rules,” stated the disclosure form by the Justice.
Kuehn, D 2021 Financial Disclosure Statement.pdf
It’s a move that could play into the request of the Oklahoma Development Finance Authority to consolidate the two separate legal challenges. Jered T. Davidson, an attorney for the ODFA, filed the consolidation request in early February.
Former state Rep. Mike Reynolds filed suit in mid-January claiming the 2021 Regulated Consumer Protection Act that was created to help utilities recover large winter storm costs was unconstitutional. His lawsuit contended the bonds to be issued by the ODFA were in essence a “debt” for the state and it was never voted on by the people of Oklahoma.
“Article 10, Section 25, Oklahoma Constitution, prohibits the legislature from approving debt laws without a vote of the people—“he argued in his legal challenge, adding, “The words of the Oklahoma Constitution have not changed.”
He also challenged the law by stating, “The Oklahoma prohibition is clear. The State cannot sell bonds (instruments of debt) without a vote of the people—.”
The lawsuit by Reynolds was filed nearly a month after the ODFA, as required by the Regulated Consumer Protection Act sought final approval of OG&E’s more than $800 million in ratepayer-backed bonds to cover its storm costs.
Protests were also filed against the ODFA motion for Supreme Court approval but the Reynolds lawsuit is a separate legal matter.
In a recent reply to the ODFA’s request to consolidate the cases, Reynolds argued that Justice Kuehn had not recused herself from his lawsuit “because she recognizes that these are entirely separate issues before the court.” It is unknown whether Kuehn took the step in response to the argument posed by Reynolds.
