OF PARTIES TO ANY CASE BEFORE THE COMMISSION TO ELECT TO HAVE THEIR APPEAL HEARD IN OKLAHOMA CITY EVEN THOUGH THE CASE WAS FILED IN TULSA. SENATOR TAYLOR'S REQUEST WAS SIMILAR. AFTER REVIEWING MY LETTER A SECOND AND THIRD TIME IT WOULD CERTAINLY TAKE A STRAINED READING OF MY LETTER TO IMPLY THAT IT WOULD PREVENT THE CORPORATION COMMISSION FROM HAVING HEARINGS OTHER THAN IN OKLAHOMA CITY AND TULSA IF IT MEETS THE STATUTORY EXCEPTIONS CONTAINED IN 17 O.S. 40.1(B)(3) (1990).
I AM SENDING A COPY OF THIS CLARIFYING LETTER TO ALL THREE CORPORATION COMMISSIONERS AND SENATOR TAYLOR. I WOULD ALSO LIKE TO SUGGEST THAT FORMAL AND INFORMAL OPINION REQUESTS FROM THE CORPORATION COMMISSION SHOULD BE REFERRED TO THIS OFFICE AFTER THE FULL COMMISSION HAS VOTED TO REQUEST SUCH AN OPINION, IF THE QUESTION DEALS WITH THE POWER, JURISDICTION AND STATUTES AFFECTING THE COMMISSION AS A WHOLE. IT WOULD ALSO BE HELPFUL IF THOSE OPINION REQUESTS WERE ACCOMPANIED BY A MEMORANDUM FROM THE COMMISSION'S LEGAL STAFF SO THAT WE ARE SURE WE ARE NOT OVERLOOKING RULES AND OTHER RELEVANT AUTHORITY. IT IS CERTAINLY APPROPRIATE FOR INDIVIDUAL COMMISSIONERS TO ASK FOR INFORMAL AND FORMAL OPINIONS FROM THIS OFFICE WHEN THE QUESTIONS ASKED ARE PECULIAR TO THE INDIVIDUAL COMMISSIONER SUCH AS CONFLICT OF INTEREST QUESTIONS. I WOULD ALSO BE HAPPY TO MEET WITH ANY OF YOU INDIVIDUALLY OR COLLECTIVELY SHOULD YOU SO DESIRE. I HOPE THIS LETTER HAS HELPED CLARIFY MY PREVIOUS INFORMAL OPINION.
(THOMAS L. SPENCER)