Title: Okla. Gas & Electric Co. v. State ex rel. Okla. Corp. Comm'n
Citation: 2023 OK 33
Docket Number: 
State: Oklahoma
Issuer: Oklahoma Supreme Court
Date: April 3, 2023

Okla. Gas & Electric Co. v. State ex rel. Okla. Corp. Comm'n Annotate this Case Justia Opinion Summary In 2018, ONEOK Arbuckle II Pipeline, LLC began construction of a natural gas liquid pipeline to transport Oklahoma production to the interstate market. The pipeline required electricity to operate a series of pump stations, including the Binger II Pump Station. The location for the proposed Binger II was in the certified territory of CKenergy Electric Cooperative, Inc., which has exclusive rights to provide electricity in the area pursuant to the Retail Electric Supplier Certified Territory Act. Relying on the large-load exception to the RESCTA, OG&E submitted a bid to provide service to the Binger II, which ONEOK accepted, and the parties contracted for service. CKenergy appealed this contract to the Oklahoma Corporation Commission asserting that it was a violation of its exclusive rights under the RESCTA. The Commission enjoined OG&E's service, concluding that the meaning of "extending its service" in section 158.25(E) limited the manner or mechanism which OG&E could use to provide service under the large-load exception. OG&E and ONEOK appealed, the Oklahoma Supreme Court retained both appeals, and consolidated the cases. The Supreme Court held that section 158.25(E) allowed OG&E to extend its service to large loads in the manner proposed. Therefore, the Commission's order enjoining OG&E was vacated and remanded for further proceedings. Read more Want to stay in the know about new opinions from the Oklahoma Supreme Court? Sign up for free summaries delivered directly to your inbox. Learn More › You already receive new opinion summaries from Oklahoma Supreme Court. Did you know we offer summary newsletters for even more practice areas and jurisdictions? Explore them here . OKLA. GAS AND ELECTRIC CO. v. STATE ex rel. OKLA. CORPORATION COMMISSION 2023 OK 33 Case Number: 117896 Decided: 04/03/2023 THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA NOTICE: THIS OPINION HAS NOT BEEN RELEASED FOR PUBLICATION. UNTIL RELEASED, IT IS SUBJECT TO REVISION OR WITHDRAWAL. OKLAHOMA GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY and ONEOK ARBUCKLE II PIPELINE, LLC, Appellants, v. STATE OF OKLAHOMA ex rel. OKLAHOMA CORPORATION COMMISSION, Appellee. APPEAL FROM OKLAHOMA CORPORATION COMMISSION CAUSE NO. PUD 201800075, ORDER NO. 692718 Dana L. Murphy, Chairman, and J. Todd Hiett, Vice Chairman. ¶0 In 2018, ONEOK Arbuckle II Pipeline, LLC began construction of a natural gas liquid pipeline to transport Oklahoma production to the interstate market. The pipeline required electricity to operate a series of pump stations, including the Binger II Pump Station. The location for the proposed Binger II was in the certified territory of CKenergy Electric Cooperative, Inc., which has exclusive rights to provide electricity in the area pursuant to the Retail Electric Supplier Certified Territory Act codified at 17 O.S. 2011, § 158.21 et seq. Relying on the large-load exception to the RESCTA, 17 O.S. 2011, § 158.25(E), OG&E submitted a bid to provide service to the Binger II, which ONEOK accepted, and the parties contracted for service. CKenergy appealed this contract to the Oklahoma Corporation Commission asserting that it was a violation of its exclusive rights under the RESCTA. The Commission subsequently enjoined OG&E's service, concluding that the meaning of "extending its service" in section 158.25(E) limits the manner or mechanism which OG&E may utilize to provide service under the large-load exception. OG&E and ONEOK appealed, we retained both appeals, and consolidated the cases. We hold that section 158.25(E) allows OG&E to extend its service to large loads in the manner proposed. Therefore, the Commission's order enjoining OG&E is vacated and remanded for proceedings consistent with this opinion. MATTER PREVIOUSLY RETAINED FOR DISPOSITION; ORDER OF THE OKLAHOMA CORPORATION COMMISSION ENJOINING OG&E IS VACATED; CAUSE REMANDED FOR PROCEEDINGS CONSISTENT WITH THIS OPINION Clyde A. Muchmore and Melanie Wilson Rughani, Crowe & Dunlevy, PC, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, for Appellant Oklahoma Gas and Electric Company. William L. Humes, Oklahoma Gas and Electric Company, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, for Appellant Oklahoma Gas and Electric Company. David E. Keglovits, ONEOK Arbuckle II Pipeline, LLC, Tulsa, Oklahoma, for Appellant ONEOK Arbuckle II Pipeline, LLC. W.A. Drew Edmondson, Riggs, Abney, Neal, Turpen, Orbison, Lewis, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, for Appellant ONEOK Arbuckle II Pipeline, LLC. Patricia L. Franz and Daniel P. Boyle, Oklahoma Corporation Commission, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, for Appellee Oklahoma Corporation Commission. Brian W. Hobbs, Pain Garland and Hobbs, LLP, Anadarko, Oklahoma, for CKenergy Electric Cooperative, Inc. Deborah R. Thompson, OK Energy Firm, PLLC, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, for Appellee CKenergy Electric Cooperative, Inc. Jana L. Knott, Bass Law, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, for Appellee CKenergy Electric Cooperative, Inc. Adam J. Singer and J. Eric Turner, Derryberry & Naifeh, LLP, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, for Oklahoma Association of Electric Cooperatives.1 Jon E. Brightmire and Tom Q. Ferguson, Doerner, Saunders, Daniel & Anderson, L.L.P., Tulsa, Oklahoma, for Amicus Curiae Public Service Company of Oklahoma. Jack P. Fite, White, Coffey & Fite, P.C., Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, for Amicus Curiae Public Service Company of Oklahoma. Joann S. Worthington, American Electric Power, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, for Amicus Curiae Public Service Company of Oklahoma. Ash Mayfield, Grand River Dam Authority, Tulsa, Oklahoma, for Amicus Curiae Grand River Dam Authority. Brendon S. Atkinson, Atkinson Law Firm, PLLC, Enid, Oklahoma, for Amicus Curiae Oklahoma Agricultural Cooperative Council. H. Duane Riffe, Riffe & Associates, Tulsa, Oklahoma, for Amicus Curiae Oklahoma Rural Water Association. Clinton D. Whitworth, Whitworth, Wilson & Evans, PLLC, Edmond, Oklahoma, for Amicus Curiae Oklahoma State Union of the Farmers Educational and Co-operative Union of America, Inc. Ericka McPherson, Oklahoma Farm Bureau, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, for Amicus Curiae Oklahoma Farm Bureau Legal Foundation. Gurich, J. ¶1 This retained appeal addresses the interpretation of the "large-load" or "one megawatt" exception to the Retail Electric Supplier Certified Territory Act (RESCTA). The RESCTA, codified at 17 O.S. 2011, § 158.21 et seq., divides Oklahoma's unincorporated areas into territories which are served by retail electric suppliers which maintain the "exclusive right to furnish retail electric service to all electric-consuming facilities located within its certified territory." 17 O.S. 2011, § 158.25(A). The RESCTA provides exceptions, however, that allow other retail electric suppliers to enter these certified territories in certain circumstances: The provisions of this act shall not preclude any retail electric supplier from extending its service after the effective date of this act (1) to its own property and facilities, in an unincorporated area, and (2) subject to Section 5 D, to an electric-consuming facility requiring electric service, in an unincorporated area, if the connected load for initial full operation of such electric-consuming facility is to be 1,000 kw or larger. 17 O.S. 2011, § 158.25(E). The latter exception is known as the "large-load" or "one megawatt" exception. The present matter concerns the meaning of "extending its service" as used in the large-load exception. Although undefined in the statute, "extending its service" does not specifically restrict a retail electric supplier from using open-access transmission lines to extend its service as Oklahoma Gas & Electric ("OG&E") proposes to do here. Facts & Procedural History ¶2 The underlying facts in this case are not in dispute. In 2018, ONEOK Arbuckle II Pipeline, LLC ("ONEOK") began building a 530-mile long pipeline to transport liquefied natural gas ("NGL") production from the South Central Oklahoma Oil Province and Sooner Trend Anadarko Canadian Kingfisher regions to Mont Belvieu, Texas. The purpose of the pipeline is to pump NGL through a series of electrically-powered pump stations, including the Binger II Pump Station ("Binger II") in Caddo County, Oklahoma. For purposes of the RESCTA, the Binger II is located in the certified territory of CKenergy Electric Cooperative, Inc. ("CKE").2 Generally, CKE has the exclusive right to furnish all retail electric service within its certified territory, unless an exception is applicable and allows other retail electric suppliers to service the load. 17 O.S.2011, § 158.25. ¶3 CKE is a rural electric cooperative and a retail electric supplier.3 CKE is not subject to the Commission's rate regulation, but is subject to the Commission for purposes of the RESCTA.4 OG&E is an investor owned electric public utility and a retail electric supplier.5 OG&E is wholly subject to the regulatory authority of the Commission.6 For the purpose of this case, ONEOK is a rural electric customer. The Binger II is an electric-consuming facility with a connected load greater than 1,000 kilowatts of electricity and meets the requirements for a large load as contemplated by 17 O.S.2011, § 158.25(E).7 Since the large load exception is applicable, the facility may be served by any retail supplier by extending its service. 17 O.S.2011, § 158.25(E). ¶4 Because the large load exception was applicable to the Binger II, ONEOK solicited bids from CKE and OG&E to furnish power to the Binger II. OG&E submitted a bid that was at least $5 million dollars below CKE's,8 so ONEOK awarded OG&E the contract for service on June 13, 2018. In order to fulfill the contract, OG&E proposed to use a third-party's transmission lines to provide service to the Binger II. OG&E planned to run a high-voltage line from Western Farmers Electric Cooperative's ("WFEC") transmission lines to a new substation--which OG&E would construct--and then run low-voltage distribution lines to the Binger II.9 OG&E intended to use this method because its own distribution lines were at least nine miles from the Binger II,10 whereas WFEC's transmission lines ran near the Binger II. On July 3, 2018, CKE petitioned the Oklahoma Corporation Commission ("Commission") for temporary and permanent injunctive relief to enjoin OG&E from utilizing WFEC's transmission lines to provide service to the Binger II. CKE also asked for a declaratory ruling determining that 17 O.S.2011, § 158.25(E) does not allow a retail electric supplier to extend its service into another supplier's certified territory directly from its own, or third-party, transmission facilities. ¶5 As CKE's request for relief adversely affected its operations, ONEOK intervened in the case on July 17, 2018. On August 22, 2018, OG&E moved the Commission to dismiss the case. While OG&E's motion to dismiss was pending, the Commission denied CKE's motion for temporary injunctive relief on September 18, 2018. Despite an administrative law judge's recommendation to grant the dismissal, the Commission ultimately denied OG&E's motion to dismiss on November 7, 2018. The Commission held a hearing on the merits of the case on November 14, 2018. On March 12, 2019, the two-member panel of the Commission issued its order, stating the following in part: IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that OG&E is enjoined from serving or furnishing retail electric service to the Pump Station directly from third-party transmission facilities in violation of the RESCTA. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Commission declines the request to issue a declaratory ruling as requested by CKenergy.11 The Commission also made specific findings that though section 158.25(E) allows an electric retail supplier to "extend" its retail distribution systems, there is a limitation on the manner in which such extension of its services may occur.12 The Commission interpreted the phrase "extending its service" to mean the lengthening of a retail electric supplier's own retail distribution system.13 ¶6 In accordance with Article IX, Section 21 of the Oklahoma Constitution, the Commission granted a stay of the March 12, 2019, order until final disposition on appeal and set an appeal bond. ONEOK and OG&E both appealed the Commission's injunction to this Court, and we consolidated the appeals.14 Standard of Review ¶7 This Court is asked to review the Commission's order enjoining OG&E from the use of third-party transmission lines. The consolidated appeals of the Commission's decision involves the statutory interpretation of 17 O.S.2011, § 158.25(E) concerning the manner or mechanism in which OG&E proposes to service the Binger II. In order to review a decision of the Commission, we must be mindful of Article IX, § 20 of the Oklahoma Constitution: The Supreme Court's review of appealable orders of the Corporation Commission shall be judicial only, and in all appeals involving an asserted violation of any right of the parties under the Constitution of the United States or the Constitution of the State of Oklahoma, the Court shall exercise its own independent judgment as to both the law and the facts. In all other appeals from orders of the Corporation Commission the review by the Supreme Court shall not extend further than to determine whether the Commission has regularly pursued its authority, and whether the findings and conclusions of the Commission are sustained by the law and substantial evidence. Upon review, the Supreme Court shall enter judgment, either affirming or reversing the order of the Commission appealed from. Okla. Const. art. IX, § 20. "The trial court's conclusions on issues of law pertaining to the injunctive relief receive a non-deferential de novo appellate review." Western Heights Indep. Sch. Dist. No. I-41 of Okla. County v. State ex rel. Okla. Dep't of Educ., 2022 OK 79, ¶ 24, 518 P.3d 531, 542. Statutory interpretation presents an issue of law, so the Court's de novo review is appropriate. Med. Park Tel. Co. v. Okla. Corp. Comm'n, 2019 OK 21, ¶ 17, 441 P.3d 113, 118; see also Dobson Tel. Co. v. Okla. Corp. Comm'n, 2019 OK 27, ¶ 17, 441 P.3d 147, 152. In conducting its review, the Court has plenary, independent, and non-deferential authority to determine whether the trial tribunal erred in its legal rulings. Id. See also American Airlines, Inc. v. State ex rel. Okla. Tax Comm'n, 2014 OK 95, ¶ 25, 341 P.3d 56, 62--63. ¶8 Though the Commission may be given deference in certain circumstances, it is not appropriate here. Deference to the Commission is appropriate when the Commission is: (1) acting in its area of expertise15 or (2) applying a longstanding administrative construction of a statute.16 Statutory interpretation does not require the Commission's special expertise, therefore no deference is owed to the Commission on that account. Dobson Tel. Co. v. State ex rel. Okla. Corp. Comm'n, 2017 OK CIV APP 16, ¶ 15, 392 P.3d 295, 303 (approved for publ'n by Okla. Sup. Ct.) (holding that construction of the statute at issue was not within the expertise of the Commission. Rather it was "simply a matter of determining what a statute means, and that is within the expertise of the courts.").17 Further, the Commission's construction and application of 17 O.S.2011, § 158.25(E) is not longstanding and has not been uniformly applied. The Commission's construction of Section 158.25(E) is seen in this case for the first time18 and conflicts with the Commission's previous practices.19 Therefore, de novo review is appropriate. Analysis ¶9 In this case, the Commission held that "extending its service" as used in the large-load exception means that OG&E must physically extend their own distribution lines and may not utilize open-access transmission lines to provide service to the Binger II in CKE's certified territory. OG&E20 argues that "extending its service" is synonymous with furnishing service and that it should be entitled to use transmission lines to service the Binger II, just as it would in an incorporated territory. The respective sides base their arguments upon the RESCTA. ¶10 In 1971, the RESCTA was enacted to respond to the need for statewide access to reasonably affordable electric service. At the time, for-profit retail electric suppliers were serving more populated, profitable areas while leaving rural areas without adequate access to service.21 In other areas, where multiple retail electric suppliers served in close proximity, facilities were constructed across the road from each other, leading to wasteful duplication of facilities and encumbrance of the Oklahoma landscape.22 The RESCTA sought to rectify these issues by dividing the state into exclusive territories, granting a retail electric supplier exclusive rights to new electric service in those territories, and thus an incentive to provide service in those areas while limiting duplicative retail service facilities.23 The exclusive rights granted to the retail electric supplier by section 158.25 of the RESCTA is qualified, however, by exceptions enumerated in the statute including the "large-load" exception at issue here. ¶11 The Legislature enacted the RESCTA to achieve very specific goals, enumerating them succinctly as follows: It is hereby declared to be in the public interest that, in order to encourage the orderly development of coordinated statewide retail electric service, to avoid wasteful duplication of distribution facilities, to avoid unnecessary encumbering of the landscape of the State of Oklahoma, to prevent the waste of materials and natural resources, for the public convenience and necessity and to minimize disputes between retail electric suppliers which may result in inconvenience, diminished efficiency and higher costs in serving the consumer, the state be divided into geographical areas, establishing the unincorporated areas within which each retail electric supplier is to provide the retail electric service as provided in this act. 17 O.S. 2011, § 158.23. To effect this policy, the RESCTA created certified territories, stating: Except as otherwise provided herein, each retail electric supplier shall have the exclusive right to furnish retail electric service to all electric-consuming facilities located within its certified territory, and shall not furnish, make available, render or extend its retail electric service to a consumer for use in electric-consuming facilities located within the certified territory of another retail electric supplier; provided that any retail electric supplier may extend its facilities through the certified territory of another retail electric supplier, if such extension is necessary for such supplier to connect any of its facilities or to serve its consumers within its own certified territory. 17 O.S. 2011, § 158.25(A). There are exceptions to a provider's exclusive service in its certified territory. One such exception is commonly referred to as the "large load" or "one megawatt" exception. The large-load exception states: The provisions of this act shall not preclude any retail electric supplier from extending its service after the effective date of this act (1) to its own property and facilities, in an unincorporated area, and (2) subject to Section 5 D, to an electric-consuming facility requiring electric service, in an unincorporated area, if the connected load for initial full operation of such electric-consuming facility is to be 1,000 kw or larger. 17 O.S. 2011, § 158.25(E). ¶12 Since 1971, advances in technology, infrastructure, and federal regulation have provided widespread access to electric service and prompted a return to a competitive market.24 Established in 1977, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) is the independent agency that regulates the interstate electricity market.25 In 1996, the FERC, seeking to "remove impediments to competition" and "bring more efficient, lower cost power to the Nation's electricity consumers," issued Order No. 888, which required open-access trading in the wholesale transmission market.26 Prior to Order No. 888, it was common for retail electric suppliers to use third-party transmission lines, but it was done by specific agreement between the parties rather than by regulatory mandate.27 After Order No. 888, though, utility suppliers had to allow non-discriminatory access to transmission lines to unaffiliated utilities, enabling the utilities to use third-party transmission lines to transport electricity across the grid.28 ¶13 A year after the FERC issued Order No. 888, the Oklahoma Legislature enacted the Electric Restructuring Act of 1997. While the Restructuring Act recognized that "[m]onopoly utility regulation has been used as a substitute for competition in the supply of electricity," changes in the marketplace and technology as well as FERC Order No. 888 "have resulted in increased competition in the electric generation industry." 17 O.S. 2011, § 190.2. The Legislature launched a study and task force devoted to developing a framework for a restructured industry. 17 O.S. 2011, § 190.4; see also 17 O.S. 2011, § 190.21. Even though they launched this study, the Legislature did not adopt a restructuring plan, did not repeal the Restructuring Act, nor did it amend the language of the RESCTA to address the changes in the electric marketplace or technology. The Legislature stood silent as to the manner and method required for "extending its service" as utilized in 17 O.S. 2011, § 158.25(E). ¶14 The respective sides suggest competing interpretations of the phrase "extending its service" as used in the large-load exception. If a statute is subject to more than one interpretation, we look to the plain and ordinary meaning of words in a statute unless the Legislature defines the term. In the Matter of the Income Tax Protest of Hare, 2017 OK 60, ¶ 10, 398 P.3d 317, 320. We also look at the act as a whole, considering its general purpose to determine the legislative intent behind its enactment, and give the statute a reasonable and sensible construction that will avoid absurd consequences. McIntosh v. Watkins, 2019 OK 6, ¶ 4, 441 P.3d 1094, 1096. The plain meaning of "extending its service." ¶15 In construing the phrase "extending its service," we first look at the ordinary definition of the words used in the phrase. "Extend" has several meanings including: to spread or stretch forth; to proffer; to make available; or to advance. Merriam-Webster, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/extend (last visited Dec. 19, 2022). "Its" is defined as of or relating to it or itself. Merriam-Webster, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/its (last visited Dec. 19, 2022). "Service," in this context, means a facility supplying some public demand. Merriam-Webster, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/service (last visited Dec. 19, 2022). Extend is synonymous with furnish, make available, and render. ¶16 "A statute must be read to render every part operative and to avoid rendering parts thereof superfluous or useless." Am. Airlines, Inc. v. Okla. Tax Comm'n, 2014 OK 95, ¶ 41, 341 P.3d 56. Despite this rule limiting superfluous language, it is also common for a statute to utilize and string together synonyms to stave off arguments based on any perceived loopholes. United States v. Costello, 666 F.3d 1040, 1048 (7th Cir. 2012). ¶17 In its Order, the Commission based its definition of the word "extending" on the premise that if "extend" was interpreted to mean furnish or make available, other words in the RESCTA--"furnish," "make available," and "render"--would be superfluous.29 The Commission asserts that because each of these words is used in the statute, they must have differing meanings. Yet these words are synonymous with one another. This string of synonyms is used when prohibiting conduct, indicating an intent to avoid any omission. Whereas, only a single word is used when allowing conduct.30 As such, it would be inappropriate to imbue these synonymous words with distinct meaning and interpret the large-load exception in this manner. The definition of the phrase "extending its service" must be consistent with the intent of the RESCTA. ¶18 "Extending" requires consideration of the Legislative intent in enacting the RESCTA. In enacting the RESCTA, the Legislature specifically wanted to "avoid wasteful duplication of distribution facilities"; "avoid unnecessary encumbering of the landscape of the State of Oklahoma"; "prevent waste of materials and natural resources"; and "minimize disputes between retail electric suppliers which may result in inconvenience, diminished efficiency and higher costs in serving the consumer." 17 O.S. 2011, § 158.23. ¶19 OG&E proposed to utilize WFEC's transmission lines to provide retail electric service to the Binger II. It should be noted, CKE proposed to use the same WFEC transmission lines to provide retail electric service to the Binger II.31 The Commission's Administrative Law Judge stated in their Report and Recommendation that, even interconnecting with WFEC's transmission lines, Plainly, OG&E is offering its services to the Pump Station. Moreover, in constructing infrastructure to service ONEOK's Pump Station or otherwise availing itself of rights to open-access transmission specifically authorized by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission ("FERC"), OG&E is making its service available to ONEOK. Likewise, in constructing infrastructure to service ONEOK's Pump Station, OG&E is causing its service and not that of a third party to reach ONEOK's point of electricity consumption.32 The Commission held, however, that OG&E could not utilize a third-party's transmission facilities to serve the Binger II.33 ¶20 On appeal, ONEOK and OG&E assert that the ALJ's conclusion was correct. We agree. The Commission's interpretation runs counter to the RESCTA's policies of reducing wasteful duplication of distribution facilities, encumbering the Oklahoma landscape, and wasting materials. First, if OG&E were compelled to run distribution lines from its nearest distribution facility, it would require the encumbrance of at least nine miles of Oklahoma landscape.34 Running such distribution lines would also be wasteful of materials and natural resources because there are existing open-access transmission lines which OG&E may utilize near the Binger II.35 The additional lines would also require a higher cost for the customer, ONEOK, as the favorable pricing that OG&E offered due to its use of a third-party's transmission lines would be negated.36 ¶21 The Commission asserts that allowing OG&E to have an "island" in CKE's certified territory would be a wasteful duplication of distribution facilities and it therefore violates the RESCTA.37 This is so because OG&E would have to build infrastructure to use WFEC's transmission lines to service the Binger II, whereas CKE has a previously-built substation already in place in the vicinity of the Binger II.38 While the proposed OG&E substation may be a duplication of distribution facilities, it is a question of whether the duplicate distribution facility would be wasteful. In order to be wasteful, the duplicate facility would have to be "given to or characterized by useless consumption or expenditure." Dictionary.com, https://www.dictionary.com/browse/wasteful (last accessed Dec. 19, 2022). Both OG&E and PSO, an amici in this case, assert that interconnecting with transmission lines to provide retail electric service to a substation is generally the manner in which large loads are serviced.39 Even CKE, which would be utilizing WFEC's transmission lines, would have to upgrade their current facilities in order to properly service the large load.40 Therefore, a facility would not be useless, nor would the expenditure of costs or materials, as each would be necessary regardless of the company awarded the contract. While it may be a duplication of facilities, it is not a wasteful duplication, and is therefore not a violation of the RESCTA. ¶22 An analogy may be of assistance here. OG&E is proposing to interconnect with open-access transmission lines that are federally regulated. From that interconnection, OG&E will then run its own distribution lines to a substation and the Binger II. We can liken this to a highway. If OG&E were building a road that led to the Binger II, we would not require them to build a new road if there is already a highway that was closer and more readily available. We would expect OG&E to use the existing highway and build an extension from there. The issue is no different here. The large-load exception must be given force and effect. ¶23 Cooperatives have exclusive rights in all other spaces, and must be available to service all loads in their territory, even undesirable or unprofitable loads.41 CKE and the amici argue that this requirement--providing service for all loads--is the public policy supporting a narrow construction of the large-load exception which would necessarily eliminate competition. By eliminating competition, rural cooperatives could recoup certain costs of doing business in the area by servicing these lucrative loads.42 Both the Commission and CKE seek to impose additional limitations on the large-load exception which is not found in the statute, arguing that it is only applicable at the "seams" or where another retail electric supplier is already in the area.43 ¶24 While the RESCTA established certified territories in order to service unincorporated areas, at the same time, the Legislature enacted the large-load exception. The large-load exception specifically states that the RESCTA does not preclude any retail electric supplier from extending its service to a large load. 17 O.S. 2011, § 158.25(E). The certified territories with the exception for large loads (which allows any retail electric supplier to service such loads) were part of the original Act in 1971 and has never been amended or revised. ¶25 On one hand, CKE contends that "the RESCTA was enacted specifically to ensure rural Oklahomans have access to affordable, reliable, and efficient electric service."44 On the other hand, CKE ignores the fact that ONEOK is a rural retail electric customer in this instance. CKE's bid was millions of dollars more than OG&E's. Interpreting the exception as CKE asserts would eliminate all competition, which arguably drives up costs for large customers in order to subsidize the cooperative's other electric consumers.45 ¶26 There is also nothing in the statute that supports the "seams" argument that CKE puts forward. The plain language of the statute provides that any retail electric supplier may provide service to large loads.46 Because the RESCTA grants exclusive rights to retail electric suppliers in unincorporated territories, it would be nearly impossible for another supplier to already be in the area. If this reading was enforced, it would render the large-load exception largely inoperable. Construing this language to mean only a retail electric supplier who operates at the "seams" of the territories or where a retail electric supplier is already in the area would be wholly contrary to the legislative intent and plain language of the exception. If the Legislature wanted to limit the manner and method of providing service under the large-load exception, they could have. ¶27 "We presume that the Legislature expressed its intent and intended what it expressed, and statutes are interpreted to attain that purpose and end, championing the broad public policy purposes underlying them." Estes v. ConocoPhillips Co., 2008 OK 21, ¶ 16, 184 P.3d 518 , 525. "It is not the function of the courts to add new provisions which the legislature chose to withhold." Pentagon Acad., Inc. v. Ind. Sch. Dist. No. 1 of Tulsa County, 2003 OK 98, ¶19, 82 P.3d 587 , 591. ¶28 The Commission and CKE rely on OG&E v. Kay Elec. Co-op, 1974 OK 24, 519 P.2d 905 , due to the Court's differentiation between distribution and transmission lines.47 Kay Electric was decided before the Commission had prepared maps showing each supplier's certified territory. OG&E filed an action with the Commission seeking to service a new facility because OG&E had an existing 24 kilovolt line that was in closer proximity to the facility than Kay Electric's nearest existing 7.2KV line. OG&E asserted that the 24KV line met the definition of an "existing distribution line" as contemplated by 17 O.S. 2011, § 158.25(B), so that OG&E could provide retail service in the area. Id. ¶ 1, 519 P.2d at 906. In a prior proceeding, the Commission determined that a 24 KV (or above) line was presumed to be a transmission line and lines of lesser voltage would be presumed to be distribution lines. In order to fit the definition of a distribution line, OG&E relied on evidence that the 24KV line serviced 45 rural customers in addition to the non-rural retail customers. In the specific segment near the new facility, OG&E serviced three customers that took electricity directly from the 24 KV line. The Commission concluded that the disagreement as to the meaning of the term "substantial use" found in §158.22(3)(b) necessitated the establishment of standards to apply to seven specific situations.48 Applying the standards to this case, the Commission determined that part of the 24 KV line was a distribution line, whereas another part was a transmission line. Id. ¶ 11, 519 P.2d at 907. On appeal, OG&E argued that the Act makes no distinction between distribution and transmission lines but only between retail and wholesale electric service.49 However, our Court approved the standard applied and affirmed the Commission's determination in favor of Kay Electric. The Court cited a case from Minnesota, which described the difference between distribution and transmission lines.50 The Court concluded that when the Legislature utilized the term "distribution lines," "the legislature intended to recognize the common usage distinction between 'transmission' and 'distribution' lines" and approved the decision of the Commission which determined that one high voltage line could be used for both transmission and distribution, based on the purpose for which the line is used. Id. ¶ 19, 519 P.2d at 909. ¶29 Kay Electric is instructive because the Legislature, well versed on the distinction between transmission and distribution lines, chose not to make a distinction in the exception at issue as to the manner in which large loads may be serviced. Kay Electric also stands for the proposition that one line can be used for different purposes. ¶30 CKE asserts that OG&E's use of wholesale transmission lines excludes it from providing retail electric service.51 This assertion is incompatible with Kay Electric. Pursuant to Kay Electric, the type of line is determined based on the purpose for which the line is used. In this case, while the WFEC line is undisputedly an open-access transmission line delivering wholesale electric energy, there is no indication in the record that OG&E is purchasing electricity for wholesale to a third party. OG&E proposes to use the line only to deliver retail electric service to the Binger II.52 ¶31 The Commission also argues that the manner in which service may be extended is limited to use of the technology available at the time of the enactment of the RESCTA in 1971. To the extent technology existing at enactment could implicitly limit approved methods of extending service, the Legislature directed it should not: "This act shall be construed liberally. The enumeration of any object, purpose, power, manner, method or thing shall not be deemed to exclude like or similar objects, purposes, powers, manners, methods or things." 17 O.S. 2011, § 158.31. Open access to shared resources did not exist in 1971, so it would have been impossible for the enacting Legislature to bar its use in extending service under section 158.25(E). In 1997, however, the Legislature recognized the existence of open access resources,53 but still did not place any restrictions on the manner or method of providing service under the large load exception. Moreover, allowing access to shared resources furthers the common purposes of the RESCTA and the Electric Restructuring Act of 1997. Since 1997, the use of transmission lines and power-sharing markets have led to decreased duplication of facilities and lowered the cost of electric service to consumers.54 Retail electric suppliers have been utilizing transmission lines to provide service under the large load exception for years with the knowledge of the Commission.55 We therefore decline to impose such a restriction now. Conclusion ¶32 The Commission's interpretation of 17 O.S.2011, § 158.25(E) to prohibit OG&E from extending its retail electric service to the Binger II is in error. We hold that section 158.25(E) allows OG&E to extend its service to large loads in the manner proposed. The use of open-access transmission lines is not prohibited by the RESCTA. Therefore, we vacate the order of the Commission enjoining OG&E from serving or furnishing retail electric service to the Binger II directly from third-party transmission facilities. ORDER OF THE OKLAHOMA CORPORATION COMMISSION ENJOINING OG&E IS VACATED; CAUSE REMANDED FOR PROCEEDINGS CONSISTENT WITH THIS OPINION. Kauger, Winchester, Combs, Gurich and Kuehn, JJ., concur; Kane, C.J. (by separate writing), Rowe, V.C.J., Darby (by separate writing), J., dissent; Edmondson, J., disqualified. FOOT