Nearly 19 months after he filed suit against some natural gas suppliers in an attempt to collect billions of dollars in 2021 Winter Storm Uri costs, Oklahoma Attorney General Gentner Drummond’s case will see a day in court in early October.
However, it won’t be going to trial in the lawsuit against ET Gathering and Processing, LLC, Enable Midstream Partners, LP, Enable Oklahoma Intrastate Transmission, LLC, Enable Gas Transmission, LLC and Enable Energy Resources, LLC.
Instead, the defendants forced a hearing before Osage County District Judge Stuart Tate in a fight over the pretrial process known as discovery. Legally, it is a time for parties in a lawsuit to exchange information and evidence which allows them to understand the facts and witnesses. It also allows sides to investigate, gather crucial information and prepare for trial. In this case, the defending firms contend the Attorney General has “largely stonewalled, failing to answer nearly every discovery request.”
The firms explained to the court in a recent filiing that, “The State has made explosive allegations against Enable, an Oklahoma-based energy company that ensures Oklahomans have the natural gas they need to power and heat their homes and businesses. Enable served the State with discovery requests on April 1, 2025, asking it to identify the factual bases for its claim that Enable unlawfully manipulated gas available and prices during Winter Storm Uri.”
They filed a “Motion to Compel” and Judge Tate set a hearing for October 9 at 1:30 p.m. The motion further charged that when the state did respond to the discovery requests, “its responses were replete with improper objections, flat refusals to answer interrogatories, and unjustified failures to produce documents.”
The Enable subsidiaries and ET Gathering and Processing charged, “But the Attorney General cannot accuse Oklahomans of violating the law and then, when asked, refuse to elaborate on the factual bases for its allegations.” They also said only one of two things are true, either the state pled allegations without any evidentiary support, in violation of a pleading code, or it possessses, but refuses to provide evidence to support its allegations, also in violation of the Discovery Code.
During the winter storm, natural gas prices shot up from around $3 per MMBtu in the state to a national record high of more than $1,200 per MMBtu. It led to an investigation and Drummond’s vow to collect billions in “ill-gotten gains” and return them to ratepayers. He eventually filed suit in Osage County District Court on behalf of the Grand River Dam Authority, a state entity affected by the prices for natural gas.
He contends pipeline operators and natural gas marketers wrongly used their control over the pipeline network to drive up prices to historically high levels. Drummond alleged there was manipulation to drive up the costs totaling $4.5 billion in additional energy costs to customers. Through the use of securitization and bonds allowed under a hurriedly-passed law by the state legislature, the costs of the ratepayer-backed bonds will be borne by utility customers for up to 25 years in the future.
In January of 2025, the Attorney General sued 16 other firms. The new defendants are: Symmetry Energy Solutions, LLC; Constellation NewEnergy-Gas Division LLC; BP Energy Company; Chevron Ntural Gas Services Inc., Chevron U.S.A.Inc; ETC Marketing LTD; ETC Marketing Inc.; Macquarie Energy LLC; NextEra Energy Marketing, LLC; Sequent Energy Management; Spire Marketing, Inc.; Southwest Energy, L.P.; SWE Management, LLC; Southwest Energy Corporation; Tenaska Marketing Ventures; Tenaska Gas Storage, LC; and Tenaska, Inc.
“These Defendants lured many state agencies and political subdivisions into a payment or a payment plan for natural gas during Winter Storm Uri based on fraudulent representations regarding the supply and price of natural gas,” stated the lawsuit.
He charged the natural gas prices soared from $2.54 MMBtu to a national record of $1,230.65 MMBtu at the height of the alleged manipulation.
As for the October 9 hearing approved by the Judge, below is a list of the requests made by the defendants in the original lawsuit. There are 15 requests made by the defendants.
REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION
Admit that EOIT has been an integral part of the GRDA’s strategy to provide low cost, reliable power to the GRDA’s customers. Response to Admission No. 1: Objection as to relevance and not likely to lead to admissible evidence. Further, the predicate of the question is without definition or basis. Without waiving said objection, denied as stated. Admit to the extent, without prior knowledge of Defendants’ market manipulation, GRDA has a working relationship with Defendants.
Request for Admission No. 2:
Admit that EOIT has provided consistent and reliable service to the GRDA. Response to Admission No. 2: Objection, vague and ambiguous. Further, the predicate of the question is without definition or basis. Without waiving said objection, denied as stated. Admit to the extent, without prior knowledge of Defendants’ market manipulation, GRDA has a working relationship with Defendants.
Request for Admission No. 3:
Admit that, after Plaintiff filed the present lawsuit, GRDA and EOIT signed the Amended and Restated Service Agreement, expanding GRDA’s relationship with EOIT for the construction of the GREC Unit 4. Response to Admission No. 3: Objection as to relevance and not likely to lead to admissible evidence. An Amended and Restated Service Agreement has no relevance to Winter Storm Uri and Plaintiff’s allegations in this case. Further, the predicate of the question is without definition or basis. Without waiving said objection, denied as stated. Admit to the extent, without prior knowledge of Defendants’ market manipulation, GRDA has a working relationship with Defendants.
Request for Admission No. 4:
Admit that GRDA believes that its expanded relationship with EOIT for the construction of the GREC Unit 4 would provide significant savings for GRDA’s customers over any alternative. Response to Admission No. 4: Objection as to relevance and not likely to lead to admissible evidence. GREC Unit 4 has no relevance to Winter Storm Uri and Plaintiffs allegations in this case. Further, the predicate of the question is without definition or basis. Without waiving said objection, denied as stated. Admit to the extent, without prior knowledge of Defendants’ market manipulation, GRDA has a working relationship with Defendants.
Request for Admission No. 5:
Admit that GRDA’s operations personnel spoke well of GRDA’s working relationship with EOIT, particularly in crisis situations like Winter Storm Uri and other weather conditions Oklahoma experienced since 2017. Response to Admission No. 5: Objection as to relevance and not likely to lead to admissible evidence. Further, the predicate of the question is without definition or basis. Without waiving said objection, denied as stated. Admit to the extent, without prior knowledge of Defendants’ market manipulation, GRDA has a working relationship with Defendants.
Request for Admission No. 6:
Admit that Winter Storm Uri stressed the power infrastructure and energy supply-demand dynamics in Oklahoma. Response to Admission No. 6: Objection, the predicate of the question is without definition basis. Without waiving said objection, denied.
Request for Admission No. 7:
or Admit that ET Gathering & Processing LLC, successor by merger to Enable Midstream Partners, LP, is not a party to the Service Agreement. Response to Admission No. 7: Objection as to relevance and not likely to lead to admissible evidence. The referenced Service Agreement has no relevance to Winter Storm Uri and Plaintiff’ s allegations in this case. Further, the predicate of the question is without definition or basis. Without waiving said objection, denied. Defendants are interconnected to each other, and one Defendant’s actions affect all.
Request for Admission No. 8:
Admit that ET Gathering & Processing LLC, successor by merger to Enable Midstream Partners, LP, did not sign the Service Agreement. Response to Admission No. 8: Objection as to relevance and not likely to lead to admissible evidence. The referenced Service Agreement has no relevance to Winter Storm Uri and Plaintiff’s allegations in this case. Further, the predicate of the question is without definition or basis. Without waiving said objection, admitted.
Request for Admission No. 9:
Admit that Enable Gas Transmission, LLC is not a party to the Service Agreement. Response to Admission No. 9: Objection as to relevance and not likely to lead to admissible evidence. The referenced Service Agreement has no relevance to Winter Storm Uri and Plaintiff’ s allegations in this case. Further, the predicate of the question is without definition or basis. Without waiving said objection, denied. Defendants are interconnected to each other, and one Defendant’s actions affect all.
Request for Admission No. 10:
Admit that Enable Gas Transmission, LLC did not sign the Service Agreement. Response to Admission No. 10: Objection as to relevance and not likely to lead to admissible evidence. The referenced Service Agreement has no relevance to Winter Storm Uri and Plaintiff’ s allegations in this case. Further, the predicate of the question is without definition or basis. Without waiving said objection, admitted.
Request for Admission No. 11:
Admit that Enable Energy Resources, LLC is not a party to the Service Agreement. Response to Admission No. 11: Objection as to relevance and not likely to lead to admissible evidence. The referenced Service Agreement has no relevance to Winter Storm Uri and Plaintiff’ s allegations in this case. Further, the predicate of the question is without definition or basis. Without waiving said objection, Denied. Defendants are interconnected to each other, and one Defendant’s actions affect all.
Request for Admission No. 12:
Admit that Enable Energy Resources, LLC did not sign the Service Agreement. Response to Admission No. 12: Objection as to relevance and not likely to lead to admissible evidence. The referenced Service Agreement has no relevance to Winter Storm Uri and Plaintiffs allegations in this case. Further, the predicate of the question is without definition or basis. Without waiving said objection, admitted.
Request for Admission No. 13:
Admit that GRDA and EOIT negotiated the Service Agreement.
Response to Admission No. 13: Objection as to relevance and not likely to lead to admissible evidence. The referenced Service Agreement has no relevance to Winter Storm Uri and Plaintiff’s allegations in this case. Further, the predicate of the question is without definition or basis. Without waiving said objection, denied as stated. Admit to the extent, without prior knowledge of Defendants’ market manipulation, GRDA entered into a Service Agreement with Defendants.
Request for Admission No. 14:
Admit that the only parties to the Service Agreement are GRDA and EOIT. Response to Admission No. 14: Objection as to relevance and not likely to lead to admissible evidence. The referenced Service Agreement has no relevance to Winter Storm Uri and Plaintiff’s allegations in this case. Further, the predicate of the question is without definition or basis. Without waiving said objection, denied. Defendants are interconnected to each other, and one Defendant’s actions affect all.
Request for Admission No. 15:
Admit that only GRDA and EOIT signed the Service Agreement.
Response to Admission No. 15: Objection as to relevance and not likely to lead to admissible evidence. The referenced Service Agreement has no relevance to Winter Storm Uri and Plaintiffs allegations in this case. Further, the predicate of the question is without definition or basis. Without waiving said objection, admitted.