Amid tax cut discussions and ongoing tensions with forestry services, the Oklahoma Legislature is grappling with contentious electricity policy questions that have disrupted its annual negotiations. Behind the scenes, a significant policy bubble is forming, fueled by competing interests and complex energy market dynamics. House Speaker Kyle Hilbert (R-Bristow) emphasized the interconnected nature of these discussions, stating, "It would be difficult to pass one of them without knowing what you’re going to do on the other end of things. You’ve kind of got to figure out the whole package — what you are or are not going to do."
The four primary topics at the heart of the debate include: whether industrial energy consumers should be allowed to operate generation facilities "behind the meter" of investor-owned utilities; the approval process and rate increases for electric utilities adding natural gas generation assets; wind turbine setback requirements; and a proposed $1.6 billion increase in bonding capacity for the Grand River Dam Authority (GRDA).
House Appropriations and Budget Committee Chairman Trey Caldwell (R-Lawton) believes that pushing through these policies will ultimately position Oklahoma favorably in the energy landscape. He remarked, "Everybody’s getting a little bit. Everybody’s giving a little bit. The net benefit for the state of Oklahoma in my opinion, is if we can get all this policy moved through this year — and it’s all kind of tied together — Oklahoma will be in a better position as a net."
On April 24, the Senate Energy Committee rejected HB 2751’s wind farm setback proposal, which called for a minimum distance of 0.5 miles from dwellings, by a 4-6 vote. In contrast, SB 2, which limits turbines to 0.25 miles from non-participating neighbors’ properties, advanced with a 9-6 vote from the House Energy and Natural Resources Oversight Committee the day before. Caldwell expressed concern over the differing preferences between the House and Senate regarding these contentious details.
Senate Energy Committee Chairman Grant Green (R-Wellston) noted the polarizing nature of energy legislation this session, stating, "I just feel like energy has been somewhat polarizing in this session, and I absolutely think it’s an opportunity for us to get just some parameters and structure around renewables." Green highlighted the "behind the meter" legislation, SB 480, as having the most momentum. This proposal allows industrial entities, such as data centers or manufacturers, to generate their own electricity on-site, thus reducing reliance on investor-owned utilities.
Elizabeth Van Holt, director of state government affairs for Intersect Power, voiced support for this initiative, indicating that it lays the groundwork for new energy infrastructure opportunities and economic benefits in underdeveloped regions of the state. "This collaborative effort centers on a behind-the-meter strategy, which supports a comprehensive ‘all-of-the-above’ energy approach," she explained.
In contrast, the Oklahoma Corporation Commission has voiced strong opposition to two bills, SB 998 and HB 2747, which propose a "construction work in progress" (CWIP) regulatory process. This would allow utilities to charge ratepayers for construction costs immediately, rather than waiting until construction is complete. Commissioner Todd Hiett criticized the bills, asserting that they would undermine the commission’s authority. "This significantly erodes the commission’s constitutional authority to stand as a proxy for competition between monopolies and the consumers of electricity," he stated.
Supporters of the CWIP process, including OG&E’s manager of corporate communications Aaron Cooper, argue that it would save ratepayers millions in compounded interest by allowing utilities to recover costs sooner. Cooper stated, "Demand for electricity is growing significantly as Oklahoma continues to attract new and expanding businesses, creating jobs and continuing migration into the state." However, opponents, including Tom Schroedter, executive director of the Oklahoma Industrial Energy Consumers, warned that the bills could ultimately raise electric rates for consumers.
On the topic of wind farm setbacks, Senate President Pro Tempore Lonnie Paxton (R-Tuttle) acknowledged the passionate debate surrounding the issue, noting the mixed sentiments among constituents in Grady County. He remarked, "I’ve got neighbors who really appreciate the wind turbines on their property because it helps make their mortgage payments on their farmland. I’ve got neighbors right next to them who are aggravated because they may have contracted with the wind company, but they didn’t get any turbines."
Mark Yates, executive director of the Oklahoma Power Alliance, criticized HB 2751 and similar proposals, claiming they create regulatory uncertainty and hinder growth. He stated, "Large manufacturers, data centers, population growth, artificial intelligence, and other changes to how we live our daily lives are driving the insatiable need for more electricity."
Meanwhile, residents like Saundra Traywick, a Lincoln County advocate, have raised concerns about the environmental impacts of wind turbines. She argued, "There are regulations for pig farms, there are regulations for chicken farms. There are regulations for milk, and you have to jump through more hoops to do basic farming operations than you do to sign a lease for a 750-foot-tall industrial machine that will hurt your neighbors."
Conversely, Craig County residents Monty and Tedde Hartley have expressed their support for wind energy, emphasizing its potential to revitalize rural economies. Monty Hartley warned, "This could kill everything. Both those counties, Craig and Nowata, are very poor counties."
The GRDA’s request for a $1.6 billion bonding capacity increase has also sparked debate. Governor Kevin Stitt has indicated support for the increase but insists that GRDA should provide a return to the taxpayers. "This is a state-owned asset. They need to be returning a return to the taxpayers," Stitt stated. However, GRDA executives have pushed back, arguing that any requirement to pay the state would necessitate passing costs onto customers, which they claim would constitute a tax.
As the Legislature approaches the end of the session, the fate of these contentious energy policies remains uncertain. With only a few weeks left, lawmakers must navigate the complex landscape of competing interests and stakeholder concerns. The outcome of these discussions will significantly impact Oklahoma's energy future and its economic landscape.
