The $800 million ratepayer bond case involving 2021 winter storm costs for Oklahoma Gas & Electric took another turn this week—one brought on by the Oklahoma Supreme Court where the matter was challenged by some ratepayers and could now face more delays.
The high court on Wednesday filed a one-page order allowing for Oklahoma Attorney General John O’Connor to enter the case if he chose.
“The Attorney General for the State of Oklahoma may intervene in this proceeding by filing an entry of appearance showing an intent to intervene and be heard in this proceeding no later than March 1, 2022, or advise the Court why the Attorney General will not intervene in this matter by that same date,” wrote Chief Justice Richard Darby.
The order went on to state that if the Attorney General chooses to intervene and be heard in the case, he will have until April 1, 2022 to file a brief with the court.
“If such a brief is filed, the Oklahoma Development Finance Authority and Protestants may respond within 15 days from the date the Attorney General’s brief is filed,” added the order.
The Attorney General’s office did not sign the joint stipulation and settlement agreement filed with the Corporation Commission in October of 2021, an agreement that stated OGE’s extreme purchase costs were estimated at $748.9 million.
(see below)
https://imaging.occ.ok.gov/AP/CaseFiles/occ30428617.pdf
At the time of the filing, the attorney general’s office did not offer an explanation of why it chose not to take part in the settlement agreement.
However, in a filing made August 27, 2021 in the case before the Corporation Commission, the attorney general stated his support for the use of securitization bonds under the Regulated Utility Consumer Protection Act passed by the legislature in 2021.
“The lower interest rates of securitization bonds will save customers significant money over a likely term around 20 years,” wrote Jared B. Haines, Assistant Attorney General, Utility Regulation Unit. The eventual bond case ended up being a proposed 28 years.
But the Attorney General’s decision not to sign a settlement agreement a few months later was pointed out by former legislator Porter Davis, one of OG&E’s customers who challenged the nearly $800 million bond case filed by the Oklahoma Development Finance Authority.
Those who signed the settlement agreement included Walmart, Oklahoma Industrial Energy Consumers, OG&E Shareholders Association, Public Utility Division of the Corporation Commission and Oklahoma Gas and Electric Company.
The attorney who represented the Oklahoma Industrial Energy Consumers is Thomas P. Schroedter of the Tulsa law firm Hall Estill, the same firm where O’Connor was an attorney before being appointed by Gov. Stitt to be Attorney General replacing Mike Hunter.
In another challenge of the bond case, one filed by the organization VOICE, Voices Organized in Civic Engagement, state leaders, including the Attorney General were heavily criticized for not defending consumers.
“The Attorney General’s office at one point seemed interested in the challenge of protecting ratepayers by investigating ill-gotten gains but once leadership changed in midsummer, their interest subsequently waned,” stated VOICE in its protest. The group charged that the political ramifications are even more concerning, adding, “At every stage, our political leaders have failed to look out for the public interest.”
VOICE was critical of the legislature for slamming through the Securitization law in “record time with little discussion” and of Gov. Kevin Stitt who signed it into law but “committed few, if any, resources to enforcement of existing laws meant to protect consumers from the avarice of corporate profits.”
VOICE president Glendon Eric Jergensen also wrote in the protest, “To date, the legislative and executive branches as well as the Corporation Commission and Attorney General have used little of their power to try and find out what happened and determine how we might prevent it from happening again.”
He added, “This Court can make them do their jobs and ensure that the public good is protected.”
What the latest move by the Supreme Court could mean is a possible delay in a ruling in the case, should the Attorney General decide to intervene.
A delay is no doubt not preferred by the ODFA whose attorney Jered T. Davidson previously wrote the Supreme Court regarding one of the challenges, that each day the applications remain unresolved allows additional interest cost to be accrued on the utilities’ interim financings. He said it could lead to a “large sum of money for ratepayers across the various utilities.”
Davidson asked the court for a “speedy” decision and said other utilities will no doubt use the securitization act including Oklahoma Natural Gas, Public Service Company of Oklahoma and CenterPoint Energy
