XML 30 R21.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT
v3.5.0.2

Rate Matters and Regulation | 6 Months Ended
--- | ---
Jun. 30, 2015
Regulated Operations [Abstract] |
Rate Matters and Regulation | Rate Matters and Regulation Except as set forth below, the circumstances set forth in Note 15 to the Company's Consolidated Financial Statements included in the Company's 2015 Form 10-K appropriately represent, in all material respects, the current status of the Company's regulatory matters. Completed Regulatory Matters FERC Order No. 1000, Final Rule on Transmission Planning and Cost Allocation On July 21, 2011, the FERC issued Order No. 1000, which revised the FERC's existing regulations governing the process for planning enhancements and expansions of the electric transmission grid along with the corresponding process for allocating the costs of such expansions. Order No. 1000 requires individual regions to determine whether a previously-approved project is subject to reevaluation and is therefore governed by the new rule. Order No. 1000 directs public utility transmission providers to remove from the FERC-jurisdictional tariff and agreement provisions that establish any Federal "right of first refusal" for the incumbent transmission owner (such as OG&E) regarding transmission facilities selected in a regional transmission planning process, subject to certain limitations. However, Order No. 1000 is not intended to affect the right of an incumbent transmission owner (such as OG&E) to build, own and recover costs for upgrades to its own transmission facilities or to alter an incumbent transmission owner's use and control of existing rights of way. Order No. 1000 also clarifies that incumbent transmission owners may rely on regional transmission facilities to meet their reliability needs or service obligations. The SPP's pre-Order No. 1000 tariff included a "right of first refusal" for incumbent transmission owners and this provision has played a role in OG&E being selected by the SPP to build previous transmission projects in Oklahoma. On May 29, 2013, the Governor of Oklahoma signed House Bill 1932 into law which establishes a "right of first refusal" for Oklahoma incumbent transmission owners, including OG&E, to build new transmission projects with voltages under 300kV that interconnect to those incumbent owners' existing facilities. The SPP has submitted compliance filings implementing Order No. 1000's requirements. In response, the FERC issued an order on the SPP filings that required the SPP to remove certain "right of first refusal" language from the SPP Tariff and the SPP Membership Agreement. On December 15, 2014, OG&E filed an appeal in the Court challenging the FERC's order requiring the removal of the "right of first refusal" language from the SPP Membership Agreement. On July 1, 2016, the Court upheld the FERC's decision requiring removal of the rights of first refusal for incumbent transmission providers from the SPP Membership Agreement. The Court determined that the FERC had reasonably found the rights of first refusal in the SPP Membership Agreement to be anticompetitive. The Company does not believe the Court’s ruling will have any impact on existing transmission projects for which the Company has already received a notice to construct from the SPP. The Company intends to actively participate in the SPP planning process for competitive transmission projects that we believe apply to transmission voltage levels projects greater than 300kV. Fuel Adjustment Clause Review for Calendar Year 2014 On July 28, 2015, the OCC staff filed an application to review OG&E's fuel adjustment clause for calendar year 2014, including the prudence of OG&E's electric generation, purchased power and fuel procurement costs. On May 26, 2016, the OCC issued a final order, finding that for the calendar year 2014 OG&E's electric generation, purchased power and fuel procurement processes and costs were prudent. Pending Regulatory Matters Set forth below is a list of various proceedings pending before state or federal regulatory agencies. Unless stated otherwise, OG&E cannot predict when the regulatory agency will act or what action the regulatory agency will take. OG&E's financial results are dependent in part on timely and adequate decisions by the regulatory agencies that set OG&E's rates. Oklahoma Demand Program Rider Review - SmartHours Program In July 2012, OG&E filed an application with the OCC to recover certain costs associated with Demand Programs through the Demand Program Rider, including the lost revenues associated with the SmartHours program. The SmartHours program is designed to incentivize participating customers to reduce on-peak usage or shift usage to off-peak hours during the months of May through October, by offering lower rates to those customers in the off-peak hours of those months. Lost revenues are created by the difference in the standard rates and the lower incentivized rates. Non-SmartHours program customers benefit from the reduction of on-peak usage by SmartHours customers by the reduction of more costly on-peak generation and the delay in adding new on-peak generation. In December 2012, the OCC issued an order approving the recovery of costs associated with the Demand Programs, including the lost revenues associated with the SmartHours program, subject to the PUD Staff's review. In March 2014, the PUD Staff began their review of the Demand Program costs, including the lost revenues associated with the SmartHours program. In November 2014, OG&E believed that it had reached an agreement with the PUD Staff on the methodology to be used to calculate lost revenues associated with the SmartHours program and the amount of lost revenue for 2013, which totaled $10.1 million. The agreement also included utilizing the same methodology for calculating lost revenues for 2014 and beyond. In January 2015, OG&E implemented rates that began recovering the 2013 lost revenues (approximately $10.0 million annually) in accordance with the agreement that it believed had been reached with the PUD Staff. In April 2015, the PUD Staff filed an application, seeking an order from the OCC, for determining the proper methodology for calculating lost revenues pursuant to OG&E’s Demand Program Rider, primarily affecting the SmartHours program lost revenues. In the application, the PUD Staff recommends the OCC approve the PUD Staff's methodology for calculating lost revenues associated with the SmartHours program, which differs from the methodology that OG&E believes it agreed upon and which would result in recovery of lost revenue for 2013 of $2.6 million, a reduction of $7.5 million from the amount recorded by OG&E for 2013. OG&E believes the methodology agreed to in November 2014 was consistent with the 2012 OCC order and that OG&E will recover $10.1 million of lost revenues associated with 2013, $11.6 million associated with 2014 and $14.9 million associated with 2015. Through June 30, 2016, OG&E had collected from its customers approximately $15.2 million of the $36.6 million of lost revenues for 2013, 2014 and 2015. A hearing on the PUD Staff’s application was heard by the ALJ on June 30, 2015 and July 1, 2015. On March 28, 2016, the ALJ issued her recommendation in the case. She found, among other things, that OG&E and the PUD Staff had not reached an agreement on all aspects of the calculation of lost revenues, that OG&E’s methodology for calculating lost revenues was not consistent with the provisions of OG&E’s tariff, and that the PUD Staff’s methodology for calculating lost revenues was proper. The ALJ recommended that the OCC order OG&E to adjust its calculation of SmartHours lost revenue for 2013 through 2015 consistent with the PUD Staff’s methodology, but that such adjustment should only be applied on a prospective basis following the issuance of an order by the OCC. The ALJ’s recommendation is not clear on whether the phrase “on a prospective basis” would allow OG&E to recover the remaining $21.4 million of 2013, 2014 and 2015 lost revenues that OG&E recorded pursuant to its methodology, or only the amounts that OG&E has collected at the time of an OCC order. The OCC can accept, modify or reject in whole or in part the ALJ’s recommendation. To the extent the OCC does not authorize OG&E to collect and retain the remaining lost revenue that it has recorded, OG&E will incur an impairment charge. OG&E is unable to predict what actions the OCC will take, or when the OCC will rule in this case. Environmental Compliance Plan On August 6, 2014, OG&E filed an application with the OCC for approval of its plan to comply with the EPA’s MATS and Regional Haze Rule FIP while serving the best long-term interests of customers in light of future environmental uncertainties. The application sought approval of the ECP and for a recovery mechanism for the associated costs. The ECP includes installing dry scrubbers at Sooner Units 1 and 2 and the conversion of Muskogee Units 4 and 5 to natural gas. The application also asks the OCC to predetermine the prudence of its Mustang Modernization Plan which calls for replacing OG&E's soon-to-be retired Mustang steam turbines in late 2017 with 400 MWs of new, efficient combustion turbines at the Mustang site in 2018 and 2019 and approval for a recovery mechanism for the associated costs. The OCC hearing on OG&E's application before an ALJ began on March 3, 2015, approximately seven months after OG&E filed its application, and concluded on April 8, 2015. Multiple parties advocating a variety of positions intervened in the proceeding. On June 8, 2015, the ALJ issued his report on OG&E's application. While the ALJ in his report agreed that the installation of dry scrubbers at Sooner Units 1 and 2 and the conversion of Muskogee Units 4 and 5 to natural gas pursuant to OG&E’s ECP is the best approach, the ALJ's report included several recommendations. OG&E filed exceptions to the ALJ's report and on July 21, 2015, Commissioner Bob Anthony issued his deliberation statement that was consistent with many parts of the ALJ's report, including the ALJ’s support of OG&E’s ECP, the ALJ’s recommendation to pre-approve certain estimated costs of the environmental recovery plan, and the ALJ’s recommendation to defer all other cost recovery issues until the next general rate case. On December 2, 2015, OG&E received an order from the OCC denying its plan to comply with the environmental mandates of the Federal Clean Air Act, Regional Haze Rule and MATS. The OCC also denied OG&E's request for pre-approval of its Mustang Modernization Plan, revised depreciation rates for both the retirement of the Mustang units and the replacement combustion turbines and pre-approval of early retirement and replacement of generating units at its Mustang site, including cost recovery through a rider. On December 11, 2015, OG&E filed a motion requesting modification of the OCC order for the purposes of approving only the ECP. OG&E did not seek modification to any other provisions of the OCC order, including cost recovery. OG&E also agreed that it would not implement a rider for recovery of the costs of the ECP until and unless authorized by the OCC in a subsequent proceeding. On December 23, 2015, the OCC rejected, by a two to one vote, a proposal by Commissioner Dana Murphy to grant OG&E's December 11, 2015 motion. On February 12, 2016, OG&E filed an application requesting the OCC to issue an order approving its decision to install dry scrubbers at the Sooner facility on or before May 2, 2016. OG&E's application did not seek approval of the costs of the dry scrubber project. Instead, the reasonableness of the costs would be considered after the project is completed and OG&E seeks recovery in its rates. On April 28, 2016, the OCC approved the dry scrubber project and OG&E is proceeding with the project. Two parties to the proceeding have appealed the OCC's decision to the Oklahoma Supreme Court. OG&E anticipates the total cost of dry scrubbers will be $547.5 million. As of June 30, 2016, OG&E had incurred $116.8 million of construction work in progress on the dry scrubbers. OG&E anticipates the combustion turbines for the Mustang Modernization Plan will be $424.9 million. As of June 30, 2016, OG&E has incurred $103.6 million on the Mustang Modernization Plan. Mustang Modernization Plan-Arkansas On April 13, 2016, OG&E filed an application at the APSC seeking authority to construct combustion turbines at its existing Mustang generating facility. Arkansas law requires a public utility to seek approval from the APSC to construct a power-generating facility located outside the boundaries of the state of Arkansas. The application did not seek any cost recovery for the capital expenditures in the application, as cost recovery will be determined in future proceedings. On July 28, 2016, OG&E filed a motion to dismiss the APSC Mustang proceeding. OG&E intends to seek cost recovery of the Mustang combustion turbines at a later date after the Mustang facility is placed in service. Integrated Resource Plans In August 2015, OG&E initiated the process to update its IRP pursuant to the OCC rules. After engaging interested stakeholders in August and September, OG&E finalized the 2015 IRP and submitted it to the OCC on October 1, 2015. The 2015 IRP updated certain assumptions contained in the IRP submitted in 2014, but did not make any material changes to the ECP and other parts of the action plan contained in the IRP submitted in 2014. Oklahoma Rate Case Filing As previously reported in the Company's 2015 Form 10-K, on December 18, 2015, OG&E filed a general rate case with the OCC requesting a rate increase of $92.5 million and a 10.25 percent return on equity based on a common equity percentage of 53 percent. The rate case was based on a June 30, 2015 test year and included recovery of $1.6 billion of electric infrastructure additions since its last general rate case in Oklahoma, the impact of the expiration of OG&E's wholesale contracts, increased operating costs such as vegetation management and increased recovery of depreciation and plant dismantlement of approximately $8.0 million. Each 0.25 percent change in the requested return on equity affects the requested rate increase by approximately $9.0 million. In late March 2016, the PUD Staff and other intervenors filed testimony in the case. The PUD Staff recommended a $6.1 million annual rate increase based on a return on equity of 9.25 percent and a common equity percentage of 53.0 percent. Included in the PUD Staff's recommendation is a reduction of $33.0 million to OG&E’s requested increase for depreciation and plant dismantlement. The staff of the Oklahoma Attorney General made a recommendation to reduce rates $10.8 million based on a return on equity of 9.25 percent and a common equity percentage of 50 percent, as well as a recommendation to reduce rates $13.7 million based on a return on equity of 8.90 percent and a common equity percentage of 53 percent. Included in the Attorney General's recommendation is a reduction of $20.9 million to OG&E’s requested increase for depreciation and plant dismantlement. The Oklahoma Industrial Electric Consumers recommended a $47.9 million annual rate decrease based on a return on equity of 9.00 percent and a common equity percentage of 53 percent. Included in the Oklahoma Industrial Electric Consumers' recommendation is a reduction of $52.5 million to OG&E’s requested increase for depreciation and plant dismantlement. The hearings in this matter began on May 3, 2016. While there is no statutory deadline for the ALJ to make a recommendation or for the commission to issue a final order, OG&E is allowed to implement increased rates subject to refund, 180 days after the filing of its application on December 18, 2015. On July 1, 2016, OG&E implemented an annual interim rate increase of $69.5 million while simultaneously reducing fuel costs billed to customers. The interim rates are subject to refund of any amount recovered in excess of the rates ultimately approved by the OCC in the rate case. Arkansas Rate Case Filing OG&E intends to file a general rate case in Arkansas with the APSC during the third quarter of 2016.

X
- Definition Describes all of the specific events that have or may impact rates and amortization of regulatory assets and liabilities (for example, pending or recently concluded regulatory proceedings). Specifics may include quantifications related to rates, costs, and earnings. Events may relate to rate moratoriums or price tags. + References No definition available. + Details
Name: | oge_RateMattersAndRegulationTextBlock
Namespace Prefix: | oge_
Data Type: | nonnum:textBlockItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration

X
- References No definition available. + Details
Name: | us-gaap_RegulatedOperationsAbstract
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | xbrli:stringItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration