Oklahoma Corporation Commissioners to Hear Utility Cost Requests
Oklahoma Corporation Commissioners have been asked to decide two significant utility requests for costs associated with their expanded energy generation projects and in each case, it could have a direct impact on the electric bills of residential ratepayers.
They will join an administrative law judge in a special meeting on Thursday to hear arguments for and against large energy projects involving Public Service Company of Oklahoma and Oklahoma Gas and Electric Company.
Public Service Company of Oklahoma Request
The first involves Public Service Company of Oklahoma which filed a request last fall saying it needed to acquire more ability to generate more electricity and wanted preapproval of the costs of the projects.
“Due to load growth in the service territory of PSO, the additional capacity and energy from Green Country did not negate the need for PSO to procure additional capacity ‘to meet all normal demands for service and provide a reasonable reserve for emergencies’ as required by the Commission’s rule…”
The Tulsa-based utility contended that without acquiring additional Southwest Power Pool accredited capacity resources, PSO’s summer capacity position will be deficient 10 MW in 2027, 470 MW in 2028 and 1,766 MW in 2029.
PSO received bids for the projects and entered into seven agreements representing 849 MW of energy and capacity. It also asked for preapproval of one self-build natural gas resource project bringing the total for all projects to 1,299 MW. The eight generation resources consist of three wind resources, three battery energy storage system resources, and two natural gas resources.
Opposition From Oklahoma Sustainability Network
But PSO has run into serious opposition from the Oklahoma Sustainability Network, a nonprofit founded in 1999 which attempts to educate people about aspects of sustainability.
The organization contends, in a filing with the corporation commission, that PSO did not provide sufficient evidence that the proposed method of cost recovery:
“is appropriate to protect existing ratepayers from large capital expenditures driven by a small subset of potential large commercial customers.”
OSN stated it is concerned PSO’s filing:
“indicates an approach toward onboarding new large customers without sufficient protections in mind.”
The organization wants the commission to reject the Energy Security Rider as proposed by PSO because the utility failed to justify the cost allocation and:
“to put measures in place to ensure existing ratepayers don’t face unfair burdens.”
Residential Rate Impact Concerns
How much of a burden?
OSN testified residential customers are expected to see higher increases than their commercial counterparts.
“A residential customer is expected to see a rate impact of 6.92 percent or an increase of $10.34 on their monthly bill in 2029. Commercial customers receiving service at the transmission level will only see a rate impact of 6.25 percent.”
OSN also recommended that PSO should implement a new tariff specific to large load customers.
Public Comments Filed by Ratepayers
The PSO request also produced responses from residential customers who made their opposition known to regulators.
Michael Evans – No to another PSO bill increase, 11 in 13 years! Why do home owners need to help them pay to trim trees? We bought them a power plant in Jenks last year! They are taking us to the cleaners. If they are broke, tell them to sell to OGE or another power company. AEP stock is over 114 per share, they can afford to start paying their own way, they don’t need us making that pig fatter.
Gary Laughinghouse – There’s no way PSO needs a increase that large or at all My bill has gone way last few years why this much !! Don’t approve it.
Steven Jacoby – Do your job and represent the people of Oklahoma instead of the corporations. We do not want a rate increase! If you think otherwise, perform a public poll and/or let the people vote on the increase.
Mike Posey – We don’t need another increase while we need is the investors not to be so greedy and let us live instead of them getting filthy rich.
Mark Farquhar – PLEASE do not approve the PSO rate hike. They need to learn to save their profits for their improvements. You are making it too easy for them to get these hikes. Please take care of the citizens, we vote for you.
Julie Atkinson – Don’t increase our electric bill, we are seniors on a fixed budget and the electric is already too high!
Oklahoma Gas and Electric Request
Oklahoma Gas and Electric also has a request before the ALJ and commissioners, one that is opposed by the Oklahoma Petroleum Alliance and the State Attorney General.
The utility also wants the ability to have ratepayers fund its proposed expanded electric generation projects, citing a:
“need for additional capacity”
beginning in 2028 of 1,096 MWs and growing to 1,215 MW in 2030, 1,960 MWs in 2032, and 2,592 MWs in 2034.
OGE cites its five-year plan and pointed out it received approval of three of the projects in PUD 2025-000038 (Horseshoe Lake, Black Kettle Power agreement and Kiamichi power agreement).
The fourth project is its Frontier Energy Storage Project, a 302 MW Battery Energy Storage System proposed near Ponca City in Kay County. Estimated cost is $394 million. OGE plans for the Frontier energy storage system to reach commercial operation in late 2027.
OGE Testimony
Kimber Shoop, Director of Regulatory Affairs, testified that:
“after the approval of the Project in this Case, the Company still has a significant need of 394 MW in 2028, 661 MW in 2029, 555 MW in 2030 and 981 MW in 2031.”
He said it:
“will allow OG&E to ensure safe, adequate, and reliable service for Oklahoma customers while supporting prudent, forward-looking resource planning.”
Attorney General and Petroleum Alliance Opposition
But here’s where the Attorney General and the Petroleum Alliance contend the request for the BESS should be denied. They want commissioners to dismiss OGE’s request.
“The sole question before the Oklahoma Corporation Commission (“Commission”) in this Motion is whether battery storage is a new electric generating facility subject to the provision of 17 O.S. 286(C). The answer is clearly no,” they argued in a filing.
They contend there is no statute that allows pre-approval of battery energy storage and thus the commission:
“lacks subject-matter jurisdiction to grant pre-approval of ownership of the battery units.”
They further argued:
“There is no textual authority to support the reading that a ‘new electric generating facilities’ includes storage resources that has the ability to resell power with bidirectional capability, which is not consistent with other forms of generation facilities authorized for pre-approval by this Commission.”
Special Meeting Agenda
8:30 a.m. Thursday, February 05, 2026
Place: Concourse Theater, Suite C50, Will Rogers Memorial Office Building
2401 North Lincoln Boulevard, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73105
AGENDA
The ALJs may take up the above items of business in a different sequence than that listed or may combine certain items.
The meeting is open to the public.
Item Topic
I
A. Call to order
B. Announcement concerning public notice
C. Determination of quorum
II
Joint Motion for Partial Summary Judgement for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction, Motion for Limited Intervention, and Motion to Intervene, all filed and set for consideration before an ALJ in Case No. PUD2025-000064, Application of Public Service Company of Oklahoma (PSO) for an Order of the Commission Preapproving the Acquisition and Cost Recovery of Generation Facilities to Allow PSO to Meet its Obligations Pursuant to OAC 165:35-25-3(e)
III
Joint Motion of AG/Petroleum Alliance for Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction, Motion for Limited Intervention, and Motion to Intervene, all filed and set for consideration before an ALJ in Case No. PUD2025-000084, In the Matter of the Application of Oklahoma Gas and Electric Company for Commission Preapproval of New Generation Capacity Pursuant to 17 O.S. § 286(C) and Rider Cost Recovery
IV
Adjournment
Regular Commission Meeting
Corporation Commissioners will also hold a regular meeting Wednesday at 1:30 p.m.
AGENDA
Item Topic
I
A. Call to order
B. Announcement concerning public notice
C. Determination of quorum
II
Consideration of and possible vote(s) on proposed or potential orders in cases on the daily signing agenda docket.
III
Consideration of and possible vote(s) on proposed or potential orders in cases on attached 24-hour signing agenda docket.
IV
Public hearing in Case No. RM2026-000001, In the Matter of an Emergency Rulemaking of the Oklahoma Corporation Commission Amending OAC 165:10, Oil & Gas Conservation.
V
Discussion and possible vote(s) to establish and approve a modification to the organizational structure of the Oklahoma Corporation Commission.
VI
A. Transportation Division activity briefing
B. Agency financial activity review
C. Administrative issues briefing
D. Discussion and possible vote(s)
VII
New business
VIII
Adjournment