PSO Electric Rates and Large-Load (Data Center) Cost Allocation (Oklahoma, 2025 to 2026)

Oklahoma's Public Service Company (PSO) asked regulators for a large rate increase and preapproval of about $1.2 billion in new power projects while data centers sought service, and the record so far shows disputes over who pays but no final order or finding of cost shifting.

The record

Two dockets, two different questions

• PUD 2025-000064: PSO's request for Commission preapproval of new generation and storage. Reported by news outlets as about $1.255 billion, or about $1.2 billion; the Oklahoma Corporation Commission (OCC) filings were not opened. It was decided by a Commission vote on May 11, 2026.
• PUD 2025-000075: PSO's general rate case, which sets base rates for customers. It is pending before the Commission as of our last source (October 1, 2026).
• These are separate financial mechanisms. Do not add their amounts. The 2021 storm bonds (securitization) are a third, older matter. (OK Energy Today, May 2026; Oklahoma House release, June 2, 2026; both opened. We could not open the docket filings or orders themselves; see "What we could not open.")

Preapproval: PUD 2025-000064

• OK Energy Today (May 2026), reporting on a Commission meeting, says the package was eight resources: three wind, three battery storage and two natural gas, with a 450 MW self-build gas project, about 1,200 MW in total. The article cites the case as No. PUD2025-000064 and $1.255 billion. The Commission did not rule by the statutory deadline, which Chair Kim David said was May 10, and set a special meeting for 10 a.m. on May 11, 2026. (OK Energy Today; opened)
• KGOU reports that on May 11, 2026 the Commission approved two natural gas units, three battery systems and purchase power agreements, for a total cost of $1.2 billion, of which $715 million is battery storage. Commissioners Kim David and Todd Hiett voted yes. Commissioner Brian Bingman voted no, arguing the battery investment is expensive and risky because PSO would operate battery storage for the first time. All projects are expected online by 2029. Financing uses construction work in progress (CWIP), which PSO cannot collect until it receives rezoning approval in Rogers County for projects near Oologah. (KGOU, May 13, 2026; opened)
• The Commission is quoted as saying the order ensures "costs are paid primarily by the large-load customers," and the order requires annual rate adjustments as new demand joins the grid and conditions for data centers to keep connection costs off households and businesses. (KGOU; opened. This is KGOU's report of the Commission's statement, not the order text.)
• PSO position: the utility says it needs more energy for reliability and its spokesperson said the approval "supports PSO's responsibility to serve current customers." PSO told OK Energy Today it faces summer capacity shortfalls of 10 MW in 2027, 470 MW in 2028 and 1,766 MW in 2029 without more capacity. (KGOU; OK Energy Today; both opened)
• Representative Tom Gann (R-Inola) appealed the preapproval order to the Oklahoma Supreme Court (filed May 22, 2026; AARP and the Oklahoma Industrial Energy Consumers joined May 29, per his release). He argues the CWIP financing law (SB 998) is unconstitutional and that new large loads may be subsidized. His release is an advocate's statement; his claims are attributed and are not findings. (Oklahoma House release, June 2, 2026; opened)

State law: the Data Center Customer Ratepayer Protection Act (House Bill 2992)

• Governor Kevin Stitt signed the bill on a Monday reported as May 11, 2026. It took effect July 1, 2026. It requires electricity suppliers to set separate terms and conditions for large customers such as data centers and crypto mining, and requires large-load developers to notify the Commission, county commissioners and abutting owners within 60 days of a land purchase. PSO's spokesperson said PSO's large-load tariff aligns with the bill; OG&E's chief executive also supported it. Representative Brad Boles said "Oklahomans will not be forced to subsidize the infrastructure needs of massive data centers." (KGOU, May 13, 2026; opened)
• The OCC's page on the Act defines a "large load customer" as a new data center, cryptocurrency mining operation or AI computing facility that contracts for "seventy-five (75) megawatts or greater electric load," for loads added after July 1, 2026. The Act is cited as 17 O.S. sections 900 to 906. We did not open the statute text. (OCC, Data Center Customer Ratepayer Protection Act page; opened)

Rate case: PUD 2025-000075

• OK Energy Today (October 1, 2026): PSO "filed a rate request totaling $597 million last fall." PSO said the request could raise residential rates by 15%. (OK Energy Today, Oct. 1, 2026; opened)
• KRMG (September 9, 2026): the administrative law judge's report was filed August 21, 2026. The Commission was weighing evidence from more than 40 witnesses, had held a merits hearing at which a partial settlement (stipulation) was presented, and had held a separate hearing on contested issues. No final decision date was set. State law lets a utility put its requested rate into effect if the Commission does not act in 180 days, and PSO began charging interim rates on July 1, 2026. If the Commission orders lower rates, customers would get credits over time. The OCC said the final rate will be what it finds "supported by the evidence," and that the roughly $11 figure is the stipulation increase after offsets, not a new PSO proposal. (KRMG, Sept. 9, 2026; opened; a radio report relaying OCC statements)
• Tulsa Flyer (August 24, 2026): Administrative Law Judge Kenneth Behrens recommended approving an expanded and extended set of riders, disagreed with PSO's request to change how it charges customers for transmission (which the article says could raise an average residential bill by $9.64 to $12.09), and recommended approving a large-load tariff for customers over 75 megawatts, "which PSO did not sign." Commissioner Hiett said Behrens was "very thorough" and that he agrees with most findings. Customers were paying an extra $11 per month in interim rates. (Tulsa Flyer, Aug. 24, 2026; opened)
• OK Energy Today (October 1, 2026): the Commission's meeting agenda listed discussion of motions for oral argument and exceptions to the ALJ report. Exceptions were filed by PSO; OIEC, the U.S. Department of Defense and Federal Executive Agencies, and Walmart; Google LLC, the Public Utility Division and the Petroleum Alliance; the Public Utility Division, the Attorney General and AARP; and the Data Center Coalition. This shows what was before the Commission. It is not an order. (OK Energy Today; opened)

Attorney General settlement announcement

• On June 30, 2026 the Oklahoma Attorney General announced a settlement with PSO, with AARP, the Petroleum Alliance and the OCC's Public Utility Division also named as parties. It states that PSO had sought a residential increase of about 15% (more than $25 a month for the average customer) and that the settlement would be about 1% (about $2.45 a month). It says the agreement "is subject to approval by the Oklahoma Corporation Commission." Attorney General Gentner Drummond: "This is a major win for Oklahoma families, businesses and ratepayers." (Oklahoma Attorney General release, June 30, 2026; opened)
• Tulsa Flyer (July 1, 2026) says interim rates took effect July 1 and are expected to add about $11 a month for a typical residential customer using 1,100 kWh a month, and that PSO's spokesperson said the rate case "doesn't have anything to do with future customers" and is not tied to data centers or the proposed Inola aluminum project. (Tulsa Flyer, July 1, 2026; opened)

Figures that look different but measure different things

| Item | Figure | Source | Note | |---|---|---| | Rate request | $597 million | OK Energy Today, Oct. 1, 2026 | "Rate request totaling" | | Rate request | $475 million "in rate increases" | Gann release, June 2, 2026 | Challenged by legislators; may include other utilities | | Rate request | $250 million in rate increases in docket summary; $600 million additional sought | Gann release | His release's own summary; unreconciled | | Average residential effect, requested | More than $25 a month (about 15%) | Attorney General release; Tulsa Flyer | | | Average residential effect, settlement | About $2.45 a month (about 1%) | Attorney General release | Attorney General's figure | | Interim effect | About $11 a month at 1,100 kWh | Tulsa Flyer, July 1; KRMG | Interim, subject to refund | | Preapproval | $1.255 billion | OK Energy Today; Gann release (docket listing) | Docket figure | | Preapproval | About $1.2 billion; $715 million battery | KGOU | News rounding | | Preapproval | About $1.3 billion | Gann release | Advocate's rounded figure |

What this case shows

1. Most customers learn of a rate case after it is filed, and by then the clock is running. Interim rates started July 1, 2026 under a 180-day rule, before the Commission decided. The refund promise is in the record, but people paid first. (KRMG; Tulsa Flyer)
2. The public had a way in and the record shows it. The OCC accepts written public comments in the case, and said it gives no specific weight to any one comment. Several groups, including AARP, the Attorney General and industrial and data center interests, filed exceptions. Who is at the table is visible; who is not is the ordinary residential customer, who is represented by others. (KRMG; OK Energy Today)
3. Voters passed a rule after a big decision, not before it. HB 2992 was signed the same week the Commission approved the $1.2 billion package and took effect July 1, 2026. The order itself refers to its protections. Whether the law covers loads contracted earlier is not established in our sources. (KGOU)
4. A single dollar number hides several different claims. A request of $597 million, a $25 monthly increase, a $2.45 settled increase, and an $11 interim charge describe different things at different times. A voter needs the definitions, not the headline. (table above)
5. The costs and who pays are legally separate from the data center question. PSO says its general rate case concerns costs of serving existing customers in 2024 and 2025. Critics say preapproval of new capacity is tied to expected data center load. Both are attributed claims. The record we opened does not decide which is right. (Tulsa Flyer, July 1; Oklahoma House release)

The strongest objections, and our answers

Positions are shown separately and none is endorsed.

1. PSO's position. PSO says data centers "pay the full cost to connect to the grid," that contracts require upfront financial guarantees and long-term payment commitments, that shared costs spread over more customers can reduce pressure on everyone's bills, and that data centers do not raise other customers' bills. It also says rates may change because of fuel costs, grid upgrades and market factors. PSO's page gives no dollar or MW figures, and the claim is not independently audited. (PSO, Data centers page; opened) Mitigation: we report it as a company statement.
2. Attorney General's position. The Attorney General negotiated a settlement that cuts the requested residential increase to about 1% and calls it a win for ratepayers. Mitigation: the settlement is "subject to approval," and the Attorney General's release does not discuss data centers or large-load terms. Another party exception filing (with the Public Utility Division and AARP) shows the Attorney General also took positions after the ALJ report.
3. Customers and consumer groups. AARP, the Attorney General and the Public Utility Division joined in exceptions and motions. Customers told reporters about higher bills. One report cited a bill jump from about $200 to over $1,500 (KRMG). Mitigation: a single customer's bill is not representative and does not show a cause. We do not name or identify any customer. Bills also depend on usage, weather, fuel and riders, so a higher bill alone does not show a rate cause.
4. Legislators. Representative Gann says the preapproval relies on an unconstitutional financing law and that new large loads may be subsidized. Mitigation: his statement is an advocate's position and appeal, not a court ruling. We did not find a court decision on it.
5. Regulators. The Commission said its large-load order ensures costs "are paid primarily by the large-load customers." Commissioner Bingman dissented on the preapproval over battery cost and risk. The ALJ recommended a large-load tariff that PSO did not sign. Mitigation: these are regulators' stated findings or recommendations, and we did not read the order or the tariff sheets.
6. Objection: News and local reports are not the docket. Mitigation: Correct. We tried to reach the OCC filings (see Section 5) and could not. Every date and amount here is attributed to the report that gave it, and the three items needing docket confirmation are marked.
7. Objection: A "no finding" case is unsatisfying. Mitigation: A cross-subsidy finding needs class cost-of-service schedules, executed contracts and a final order. None has been read. We state what would change our minds in Section 5.

Open questions: what would change our minds

What we could not open. We could not reach the OCC electronic case filing system or any order or testimony in PUD 2025-000064 or PUD 2025-000075 in this pass. The Commission's order in the preapproval case, the stipulation, the ALJ report itself, and the tariff sheets were not read. All dates and amounts above come from the Attorney General, the Oklahoma House, the Commission's public page, PSO, or news reports as cited, and are labeled that way.

• Final order: None found as of October 25, 2026. A final order would show the rate, effective date, any changes to the ALJ report, and the large-load tariff terms.
• Stipulation details: The June 26, 2026 stipulation date and its terms (service options, minimum bill percentages, collateral, exit fees) appear only on an advocacy site. We did not publish them and list them as Unverified. News reports we opened confirm that a partial stipulation existed and that the Attorney General announced a settlement on June 30, 2026, but not the June 26 date or the option terms. The same site's description of the large-load stipulation as "joint" does not match Tulsa Flyer's report that PSO did not sign the large-load proposal.
• ALJ recommendation content: The August 21 date is confirmed by KRMG. We have Tulsa Flyer's description of the recommendation on riders, transmission and the large-load tariff, but not the report itself.
• Cost allocation: Class cost-of-service study, load forecasts and signed customer contracts were not read. Evidence that existing customers pay net costs caused by large loads would support a cross-subsidy finding. Evidence that large loads cover direct, shared and stranded-asset costs would support the opposite. We make no finding.
• Bill reconstruction: A fixed-kWh comparison across effective tariff dates (including fuel, securitization, riders, taxes) was not done.
• Earlier contracts: Whether HB 2992 protections reach contracts signed before July 1, 2026 is not established.
• Preapproval order text: The Commission's "primarily by large-load customers" language is as reported by KGOU.
• Appeal: No Oklahoma Supreme Court ruling on Gann's appeal was found.
• Social media and complaints: Public posts and complaints are leads only. We did not cite them as evidence and we did not collect any private bill identifiers or addresses.
• AEP filings: An outside lead described PSO's request in AEP's FERC Form 1 ($299 million requested, 10.5% return on equity). We did not open it, and the figure conflicts with the $597 million reported by OK Energy Today. Unverified.

Sources

Evidence status and correction history

Key claims

Correction history

Found an error or a better source? We keep every correction on the record with its date and reason. Nothing here is quietly rewritten.