The Oklahoma Corporation Commission must deliver more than 7,000 pages of paper documents to the state Supreme Court as it considers the lawsuit filed by three legislators challenging 2021 winter storm rate hikes and votes by Commissioner Todd Hiett.
This confrontation now becomes one of the most highstakes energy legal battles since the winter storm.
Oklahoma consumers are paying – and will continue to pay for years to come – charges from bonds sold to “securitize” the extraordinary expenses that Oklahoma utilities paid to keep lights on and heaters operating during the brutal storm.
The abnormal weather event left ratepayers facing exceedingly high utility costs when the natural gas spot market price jumped from around $3 per thousand cubic feet to a record high of more than $1,200 per thousand cubic feet.
Officials said Oklahoma Natural Gas Co., Oklahoma Gas & Electric Co., Public Service Co. of Oklahoma, and Summit Utilities paid $4.5 billion for natural gas and supplemental electricity procured during a two-week period in February 2021.
The lawmakers believe the votes authorizing those abnormal prices should not have been allowed.
In a recent ruling handed down by Chief Justice Dustin Rowe, the court denied the commission’s request to deliver the records electronically. The commission stated the case involved “in excess of 7,000 pages” and would result in a “minimum of 28 bound volumes” that would need to be delivered in approximately two file boxes.
The Supreme Court’s refusal to allow electronic delivery means delay, time, manpower, and additional cost.The case already carries multibillion-dollar implications, and now logistical complications add additional stress to the timeline.
In its denial of the commission’s request, the court explained, “The Oklahoma Unified Case Management System has not been implemented in the appellate court, and the Oklahoma Corporation Commission is not part of the OUCMS system. The record shall be filed by conventional means.”
The demand for conventional delivery means the Corporation Commission must move forward under older procedural rules. This means the court sees this case not as ordinary litigation but as historic oversight of a regulatory structure that directly impacts almost every utility customer in the state.
State Reps. Tom Gann, R-Inola; Kevin West, R-Moore; and Rick West, R-Heavener, filed suit earlier in the year and argued that conflicts of interest should have prevented Commissioner Hiett from voting in support of winter storm rate hikes that totaled billions of dollars because of securitization bond costs that will continue for a generation. The commission’s decision stands as one of the most financially consequential regulatory votes in state history.
In an Oct. 29 filing, the legislators also objected to the commission’s Notice of Completion of the Record. “Same song: third verse!” they wrote in bold letters in their response.
They also complained they still do not have a copy of the Corporation Commission’s Record on Appeal even though the OCC twice certified that it was “complete” and “ready.” Gann told the court that he and his two colleagues are still waiting for a functional copy of the OG&E rate case Record on Appeal.
“These unlawful delays are likely costing utility customers millions of dollars in illegitimate charges on their utility bills every month. This Court should put an end to them once and for all.”
The Supreme Court now holds the leverage, the Corporation Commission holds the paperwork, and Oklahoma ratepayers hold the financial risk. The outcome of this single case could redefine how future storms, emergencies, price spikes and regulatory votes are handled moving forward.