If approved, a request by Oklahoma Natural Gas Company to increase its base rates by more than $41 million could mean higher gas bills for the firm’s 924,000 customers. But before a decision is made, regulators and a judge had to decide about who could intervene and challenge the case.
The Oklahoma Corporation Commission will take up ONG’s request (PUD2025-000011) during a Tuesday meeting. The company is seeking a performance base rate increase of $41,504,750 for the 12-months ending Dec. 31, 2024, energy efficiency true-up and utility incentive adjustments for the Program year 2024 and changes to its tariffs. If commissioners go ahead with approval, it will mean $3.24 a month increase for the average residential service charge and $1.03 more a month for a residential low income customer.
However, as pointed out in testimony by Cory Slaughter, the Director of Rates and Regulatory at ONG, the customer service charge could also be offset by what are called Excess Deferred Income Tax (EDIT) credits. After considering the EDIT credits, the net monthly impact to the average residential customer could be an increase of $2.12 and 70 cents for a residential low income customer.
“As a percent of the total bill, this would be an impact of 2.99%
higher for average residential customers and 1.77% higher for an average low-income customer,” stated Slaughter in his testimony on file with the corporation commission.
He further explained that were it not for the adjustments, the PBRC revenue increase request in the case would have been $63.8 million or about 54% more than that is being requested. Slaughter also claimed that while there was “significant revenue from customer growth” of about $3 million, it was more than offset by lower revenues of $1.9 million from line extensions, $0.9 million from late payment fees and about $1 million of various other revenues.
ONG maintains it invested more than $272 million in capital additions since the 2024 PBR and about 91% was related to installing, replacing and rebuilding vintage and aging pipeline infrastructure. Other expenses were due to relocations of infrastructure for government projects, new meter, service, line installations for new customers and CNG fueling infrastructure.
The Tulsa-based utility said $26 million or 62% of the $41.5 million revenue requirement is related to capital investments, including the largest being the need for service to the Mustang area which is forecasted to see 10,000 homes built over a 10-year period. Other large projects include the enhancement of north Tulsa’s Greenhill area, the Pryor Industrial Park, north Oklahoma City residential growth, and to relieve capacity constraints in the El Reno area.
Among those who filed motions to intervene in the case was Attorney General Gentner Drummond whose office said it did so “to protect the interests of utility customers.”
Another was the Oklahoma Industrial Energy Consumers but ONG is opposed to its entry. The utility, in a filing, contended that OIEC only said “some of its members receive service from ONG” but did not state how many. ONG claims that under OCC rules, the OIEC must “specifically identify the names of its members that receive service from Oklahoma Natural.” Otherwise, it believes ONG would be “prejudiced in the proceeding.”
Administrative Law Judge Carly M. Ortel, in an oral ruling in late March sided in favor of OIEC to some extent. She still determined that while the OIEC could intervene in the case, it still had to provide customer class information of interested members as well as the number of members in each customer class to all parties.
OIEC attorney Thomas P. Schroedter of Tulsa took issue with the ruling and contended that such information “is not relevant or necessary” to the Commission’s determination of ONG’s application in the case. He further claimed there is “no basis in law or fact” to the requirement of such disclosures.
Schroedter also claimed the ALJ’s ruling could discourage interventions in such cases and “could chill organizations, such as OG&E Shareholders Association, the Petroleum Alliance of Oklahoma, AARP and other similar organizations.”
“If the commission is contemplating changing its practices and policies relating to interventions by placing terms and conditions
on intervenors, which OIEC opposes, it should do so in a rulemaking proceeding, with notice to utilities and other interested parties so that the voices of interested parties regarding this policy change may be heard,” he cited in his challenge.
ONG disagreed and in a filing made last week, argued, “The ALJ’s Oral Recommendation is reasonable and consistent with the Commission’s rules. The modest disclosure conditions and scope limitation imposed on OIEC’s intervention are fair, reasonable, and essential for ensuring that this proceeding remains focused and efficient.”
A hearing before the Corporation Commission was scheduled this week.
