Opinion ID: 160953
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Remaining State Antitrust and Tort Claims

Text: 29 Next, we address Trigen's remaining state antitrust and tort claims. Because we construe all of Trigen's state law claims as collateral attacks on OG&E's filed rates, we hold that these claims are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the OCC. OG&E raises a narrower version of this argument on appeal, contending that only Trigen's state tort claims are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the OCC. 2 Aplt. Br. at 63-64. However, as we have an independent obligation to determine our own jurisdiction, we raise this issue sua sponte. FW/PBS, Inc. v. City of Dallas, 493 U.S. 215, 231 (1990); accord State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Narvaez, 149 F.3d 1269, 1270-71 (10th Cir. 1998). 30 Oklahoma law subjects all grievances with tariffs to the exclusive jurisdiction of the OCC. The OCC has the powers of a court of record, and must enforce compliance with any of its lawful orders or requirements. Okla. Const. art. IX, 19. The authority of the [OCC] . . . to prescribe rates . . . [and] charges, for transmission companies, shall be paramount. Okla. Const. art. IX, 18. An appeal from an order of the OCC affecting the rates, charges, services, practices, rules or regulations of public utilities . . . shall be to the Supreme Court [of Oklahoma] only. Okla. Const. art. IX, 20. Finally, plaintiffs who bring lawsuits or collateral proceedings against public utilities may not question the reasonableness, justness, or validity of any rate, charge, service, practice, rule, regulation or requirement . . . prescribed by the [OCC]. Okla. Const. art. IX, 24. 31 The Supreme Court of Oklahoma has made clear that it is willing to look behind the form in which an action is brought to determine whether the action is actually a collateral attack on rates. See Wilson v. Harlow, 860 P.2d 793, 800-01 (Okla. 1993) (holding that a petition styled as a negligence and intentional tort action was in reality a collateral attack on rates and, therefore, within the exclusive jurisdiction of the OCC). In this case, in each of the three competitive incidents of which Trigen complains, the heart of Trigen's complaint is that OG&E's rates are too low and that Trigen either had to lower its own rates in response or lose business. The only remedy Trigen seeks is lost profits as damages from OG&E. Therefore, we conclude that Trigen's state antitrust and tort claims are in fact collateral attacks on OG&E's filed rates, and that such attacks lie within the exclusive jurisdiction of the OCC. 32 We REVERSE the judgment and the case is remanded with directions to DISMISS the complaint. OG&E's motion to supplement the record is denied.