If State Rep. Trey Caldwell, R-Faxon and some lobbyists at the capitol aren’t feeling the heat, they should be after being blasted Tuesday by Corporation Commissioners who came out against two bills promoted by Caldwell and turned up the heat.
They took up SB998 and HB2747 and in pointed comments aimed at Caldwell and utility lobbists said they opposed both bills which are similar in nature and would encourage promotion of natural gas in electric generating projects. Both bills have been labeled by some as Right of First Refusal bills, something Caldwell has denied. Commissioners indicated both would dump project costs on consumers, not the utilities.
Caldwell’s recent attack on the Commission during a recent House committee hearing raised their ire, especially that of Commission Chair Kim David.
“There’s a plethora of lobbyists over there and we have Representative Caldwell who called this commission out quite aggressively which I thought extremely unfair and uneducated on his part,” said David.
“I really don’t appreciate whoever gave the Representative his talking points. I’m tired of being slandered in the building across the street when it’s not true,” she continued during the discussion raised by Commissioner Todd Hiett.
“I’m upset how the committee meeeting went the other day,” added David in reference to the House Energy and Natural Resources Oversight Committee hearing where Caldwell accused Commissioners of being a bureaucratic governmental agency that wasn’t working correctly.
Caldwell told the hearing during discussion of SB998 “it is the purview of this legislature that when we see things and bureacratic governmental agencies that are not working correctly, that we, it’s under our purview to help direct them to do the right thing.”
That statement especially angered Commissioner David, who is a former Senate leader. She read a report of Caldwell’s angry attack and told her fellow commissioners that everytime she turned around, “there was someone else working with one of the utility companies pushing” the bill.
“I thought about reaching out to the Representative and then I thought I will reach out to the utility companies that hired all the lobbyists over there to task you with ensuring that your lobbyist has the correct talking points.”
“My concern about this all along is the constitutionality of it……it isn’t out job to make sure the utility company can make a profit.”
Commissioner Todd Hiett was equally adamant about his opposition to Rep. Caldwell’s bills, contending the bills would shift costs immediately on consumers rather than the utility.
“It significantly erodes the commission’s constitutional authority to stand as a proxy for competition between monopolies and the consumers of electricity—so I have many problems with this,” he said, adding that the bill, if made into law, would “direct commissioners to violate their own oaths.”
Hiett said it’s not his responsiblity and authority nor that of Commissioners David and Brian Bingman “to extract dollars from consumers in order to subsidize a single entity or industry in our state.” He contended that consumers would have to start paying on projects during construction and it would be years before they see any benefits.
“That savings would only be realized 15 to 20 years down the road. An 80-year old consumer, do they want to roll the dice whether they are going to enjoy that savings 15 years from now?”
Later during the discussion, Hiett raised another red flag about the bills, pointing out that the state of Kansas adopted such a law in 2024 and immediately Evergy Energy filed requests for $3.4 billion in two natural-gas powered electric generating plants. The Department of Defense, Goodyear Tire and AARP are challenging the projects and seeking rulings from the Kansas Corporation Commission.
“But they have very limited ability to stop it because of the law—the statute overwrote the KCC.”
Hiett’s worried should SB998 or HB2747 become law in Oklahoma, the same situation could arise.
Commissioner Brian Bingman admitted Commissioners David and Hiett had more experience about the issue and took into consideration that legislators have hundreds of bills to review and read and don’t have the time and expertise to “understand what we do here.”
“I think the advantage we have coming to the Commission we have a plethora of eyes looking at every issue and we’re able to listen to both sides and come up with a reasonable decision. And I think with this piece of legislation, they don’t have that advantage,” he stated.
The Commission’s vote to oppose the two bills drew a response from former Corporation Commissioner Jeff Cloud who is now Executive Director of the Alliance for Secure Energy.
“The Alliance for Secure Energy supports SB 998 and HB 2747, both of which will allow our state to continue to provide some of the lowest electric rates in the nation, support energy reliability and benefit business development across Oklahoma. We need additional natural gas generation in Oklahoma in order to stay competitive with surrounding states. Opponents to this legislation are standing in the way of saving ratepayers millions, because the legislation will prevent unnecessary construction costs. This legislation does not change the Oklahoma Corporation Commission’s authority. The OCC will continue to oversee any cost increase to customers.
As a former corporation commissioner, I commend the legislature for bringing forward policy proposals that will benefit every electric customer in the state including all businesses, not just large industrial customers, by promoting natural gas generation and energy reliability. Oklahoma is an energy state, and good energy policy is key to progressing our energy goals, keeping rates low, and expanding economic opportunities statewide by attracting out-of-state investment.
We encourage Oklahomans to contact their legislators and share their support.”
