Gann v. State of Oklahoma

Summary

The Oklahoma Supreme Court affirmed an Oklahoma Corporation Commission order approving modified rates for Public Service Company of Oklahoma. The Court held that the appellant's arguments concerning an audit, commissioner participation, and collateral attacks on earlier orders were not raised and exhausted before the Commission, and that the collateral attack on the Winter Storm Cost charge was barred by statute.

Holdings

1. Gann had standing to appeal because, although he was not a party to the Corporation Commission proceeding, he was an aggrieved person whose pecuniary interest was directly and injuriously affected by the ratemaking order.
2. Issues involving Corporation Commission ratemaking must be presented to and decided by the Commission in the first instance; issues not raised and exhausted before the Commission will not be considered for the first time on appeal.
3. Gann could not challenge PSO's alleged failure to provide sufficient evidence of compliance with 74 O.S. § 9078 because the challenge was not raised and exhausted before the Corporation Commission.
4. Gann could not raise for the first time on appeal his contention that Commissioner Hiett should have been disqualified because no party moved to disqualify Hiett before the Commission.
5. Gann's collateral attack on prior Corporation Commission orders and the Winter Storm Cost charge failed because the issue was not raised and exhausted before the Commission, he did not show that the order on direct appeal relied on the prior orders, and 74 O.S. § 9079 bars a collateral attack on the validity of the approved bonds and pledged revenues.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Gann could obtain appellate review of his challenge to PSO's compliance with the audit requirement in 74 O.S. § 9078 when the issue was not raised and exhausted before the Corporation Commission.
2. Whether Gann could challenge Commissioner Hiett's participation in the ratemaking proceeding when no motion to disqualify Hiett was made before the Commission.
3. Whether Gann could collaterally attack prior Corporation Commission orders and the validity of the Winter Storm Cost charge after the underlying issues were not raised before the Commission and the bonds had been approved.
4. Whether Gann had standing to appeal the Corporation Commission's ratemaking order.

Disposition

affirmed