Rate Matters and Regulation	9 Months Ended
Sep. 30, 2011
Regulated Operations [Abstract]
Rate Matters and Regulation	Rate Matters and Regulation Except as set forth below, the circumstances set forth in Note 15 to the Company's Consolidated Financial Statements included in the Company's 2010 Form 10-K appropriately represent, in all material respects, the current status of any regulatory matters. Completed Regulatory Matters OG&E Wholesale Agreement On May 28, 2009, OG&E sent a termination notice to the Arkansas Valley Electric Cooperative that OG&E would terminate its wholesale power agreement to all points of delivery where OG&E sells or has sold power to the Arkansas Valley Electric Cooperative, effective November 30, 2011. In December 2010, OG&E and the Arkansas Valley Electric Cooperative entered into a new wholesale power agreement whereby OG&E will supply wholesale power to the Arkansas Valley Electric Cooperative through June 2015. On January 3, 2011, OG&E submitted this agreement to the FERC for approval. The FERC approved the new wholesale power agreement on March 2, 2011 and the new contract was effective May 1, 2011. The Arkansas Valley Electric Cooperative contract contributed $17.4 million, or 1.5 percent, to OG&E's gross margin for the year ended December 31, 2010. OG&E Long-Term Gas Supply Agreements In May 2010, the OCC approved OG&E's request for a waiver of the competitive bid rules to allow OG&E to negotiate desired long-term gas purchase agreements. On June 29, 2010, OG&E filed a separate application with the OCC seeking approval of four long-term gas purchase agreements, which would provide a 12-year supply of natural gas to OG&E and account for 25 percent of its currently projected natural gas fuel supply needs over the same time period. On September 26, 2010, OG&E filed a motion with the OCC to dismiss this case. On July 5, 2011, OG&E received an order from the OCC dismissing the case without prejudice. OG&E Crossroads Wind Project As previously disclosed, on July 29, 2010, OG&E received an order from the OCC authorizing OG&E to recover from Oklahoma customers the cost to construct Crossroads, with the rider being implemented as the individual turbines are placed in service. The wind turbines started being placed in service in September 2011. As part of this project, on June 16, 2011, OG&E entered into an interconnection agreement with the SPP for Crossroads which will allow Crossroads to interconnect at the anticipated 227.5 megawatts. OG&E 2010 Arkansas Rate Case Filing On September 28, 2010, OG&E filed a rate case with the APSC requesting a rate increase of $17.7 million, to recover the cost of significant electric system expansions and upgrades, including high-voltage transmission lines, that have been completed since the last rate filing in August 2008, as well as increased operating costs. OG&E also sought recovery, through a rider, of the Arkansas jurisdictional portion of (i) costs associated with transmission upgrades and facilities that have been approved by the SPP in its regional planning processes and constructed by other non-OG&E transmission owners throughout the SPP that have been allocated to OG&E through the FERC-approved transmission rates and (ii) SPP administrative fees. On June 17, 2011, the APSC approved a settlement agreement among all parties to the case and OG&E implemented new electric rates effective June 20, 2011. Key items of the APSC order include: (i) the recovery of and a return on significant electric system expansions and upgrades, including high-voltage transmission lines, as well as increased operating costs, totaling $8.8 million annually; (ii) authorization for OG&E to recover the actual cost of third-party transmission charges and SPP administrative fees through a rider mechanism which will remain in effect until new rates are implemented after OG&E's next general rate case (the Arkansas jurisdictional portion of the combined costs is expected to be $1.0 million in 2011); and (iii) the deferral of certain expenses associated with a customer education program in an amount not to exceed $0.3 million per year for a maximum of two years. OG&E SPP Cost Tracker On October 7, 2010, OG&E filed an application with the OCC seeking recovery of the Oklahoma jurisdictional portion of (i) costs associated with transmission upgrades and facilities that have been approved by the SPP in its regional planning processes and constructed by other non-OG&E transmission owners throughout the SPP that have been allocated to OG&E through the FERC-approved transmission rates and (ii) SPP administrative fees. OG&E requested authorization to implement a cost tracker in order to recover from its retail customers the third-party project costs discussed above and to collect its administrative SPP cost assessment levied under Schedule 1A of the SPP open access transmission tariff, which is currently recovered in base rates. OG&E also requested authorization to establish a regulatory asset effective January 1, 2011 in order to give OG&E the opportunity to recover such costs that will be paid but not recovered until the cost tracker is made effective. On February 8, 2011, all parties signed a settlement agreement in this matter which would allow OG&E to recover the costs discussed in (i) above through a recovery rider effective January 1, 2011. OG&E anticipates recovering $1.8 million of incremental revenues in 2011 through the rider. Rather than including the costs of the SPP administrative fee assessment in the recovery rider, the stipulating parties agreed to allow OG&E to include the projected 2012 level of the SPP administrative fee assessment in its next Oklahoma rate case which was filed in July 2011. The settlement agreement also stated that in OG&E's 2011 Oklahoma general rate case filing, OG&E would propose that recovery in base rates for the costs of transmission projects it constructs and owns and that are authorized by the SPP in its regional planning processes should be limited to the Oklahoma retail jurisdictional share of the costs for such projects allocated to OG&E by the SPP. On March 28, 2011, the OCC issued an order in this matter approving the settlement agreement. Review of OG&E's Fuel Adjustment Clause for Calendar Year 2009 On October 29, 2010, the OCC Staff filed an application for a public hearing to review and monitor OG&E's application of the 2009 fuel adjustment clause. On December 28, 2010, OG&E responded by filing the necessary information and documents to satisfy the OCC's minimum filing requirement rules. An intervenor representing a group of OG&E's industrial customers filed testimony on March 11, 2011 seeking a $15.5 million refund related to (i) a purported failure by OG&E to maximize the use of its coal-fired power plants and (ii) an inappropriate extension of the existing gas transportation and storage contract between OG&E and Enogex. OG&E filed rebuttal testimony on April 4, 2011 in opposition to the claims of the intervenor. On August 11, 2011, all parties to this case signed a settlement agreement in this matter, stating that (i) OG&E was prudent in its operations during 2009; (ii) a third party expert should be hired to evaluate OG&E's future gas transportation and storage needs and that OG&E should file a plan for meeting its future gas transportation and storage needs by mid-2012; and (iii) with respect to the existing gas transportation and storage contract with Enogex, OG&E will return $8.4 million to its customers in settlement for all periods under the contract through April 30, 2013. In August 2011, OG&E credited $4.9 million to its customers and will credit the remaining amount on a monthly basis through April 30, 2013. The OCC issued an order approving the settlement agreement on August 29, 2011. OG&E Smart Grid Project As previously reported in the Company's 2010 Form 10-K, on December 17, 2010, OG&E filed an application with the APSC requesting pre-approval for system-wide deployment of smart grid technology and a recovery rider, including a credit for the Smart Grid grant awarded by the U.S. Department of Energy under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. On June 22, 2011, OG&E reached a settlement agreement with all the parties in this matter. OG&E and the other parties in this matter agreed to ask the APSC to approve the settlement agreement including the following: (i) pre-approval of system-wide deployment of smart grid technology in Arkansas and authorization for OG&E to begin recovering the prudently incurred costs of the Arkansas system-wide deployment of smart grid technology through a rider mechanism that will become effective in accordance with the order approving the settlement agreement; (ii) cost recovery through the rider would commence when all of the smart meters to be deployed in Arkansas are in service; (iii) OG&E guarantees that customers will receive certain operations and maintenance cost reductions resulting from the smart grid deployment as a credit to the recovery rider; and (iv) the stranded costs associated with OG&E's existing meters which are being replaced by smart meters will be accumulated in a regulatory asset and recovered in base rates beginning after an order is issued in OG&E's next general rate case. OG&E currently expects to spend $14 million, net of funds from the U.S. Department of Energy grant, in capital expenditures to implement smart grid in Arkansas pursuant to the settlement agreement. On August 3, 2011, the APSC issued an order in this matter approving the settlement agreement. OG&E FERC Transmission Rate Incentive Filing On February 18, 2011, OG&E submitted to the FERC a request seeking limited transmission rate incentives for five transmission projects. This February 18, 2011 request is in addition to the October 12, 2010 request described in the Company's 2010 Form 10-K. OG&E requested recovery of 100 percent of all prudently incurred construction work in progress in rate base for five 345 kilovolt Extra High Voltage transmission projects to be constructed and owned by OG&E within the SPP's region. OG&E also requested to recover 100 percent of all prudently incurred development and construction costs if the transmission projects are abandoned or cancelled, in whole or in part, for reasons beyond OG&E's control. On April 19, 2011, the FERC granted these incentives for the Sooner-Rose Hill, Sunnyside-Hugo and Balanced Portfolio 3E transmission projects discussed in Note 15 of the Company's 2010 Form 10-K. OG&E Pension Tracker Modification Filing On February 22, 2011, OG&E filed an application with the OCC requesting that OG&E's pension tracker be modified to include the difference between the level of retiree medical costs authorized in OG&E's last rate case and the current level of these expenses as a regulatory liability, effective January 1, 2011. On June 23, 2011, a settlement agreement was filed by parties in the case stating that the pension tracker should be modified as proposed by OG&E and that the level of retiree medical costs included in base rates will be reviewed and determined in OG&E's next rate case. On September 27, 2011, the OCC issued an order in this matter approving the settlement agreement. OG&E Demand and Energy Efficiency Program Filing To build on the success of its earlier programs and further promote energy efficiency and conservation for each class of OG&E customers, on March 15, 2011, OG&E filed an application with the APSC seeking approval of several programs, ranging from residential weatherization to commercial lighting. In seeking approval of these programs, OG&E also sought recovery of the program and related costs through a rider that would be added to customers' electric bills. On June 30, 2011, the APSC issued an order approving OG&E's energy efficiency plan for 2011 and approving OG&E's energy efficiency cost recovery rider for 2011. In Arkansas, OG&E's program is expected to cost $7.0 million over a three-year period and is expected to increase the average residential electric bill by $1.47 per month. FERC Order No. 1000, Final Rule on Transmission Planning and Cost Allocation On July 21, 2011, the FERC issued Order No. 1000, which revised the FERC's existing regulations governing the process for planning enhancements and expansions of the electric transmission grid in a particular region, along with the corresponding process for allocating the costs of such expansions. The revised regulations apply only to "new transmission facilities," which are described as those subject to evaluation or reevaluation (under the applicable local or regional transmission planning process) subsequent to the effective date of the regulatory compliance filings required by the rule, which are expected to be filed during the third quarter of 2012. Order No. 1000 leaves to individual regions to determine whether a previously-approved project is subject to reevaluation and is therefore governed by the new rule. The new rule requires, among other things, public utility transmission providers, such as the SPP, to participate in a process that produces a regional transmission plan satisfying certain standards, and requires that each such regional process consider transmission needs driven by public policy requirements (such as state or Federal policies favoring increased use of renewable energy resources). Order No. 1000 also directs public utility transmission providers to coordinate with neighboring transmission planning regions. In addition, the final rule establishes specific regional cost allocation principles and directs public utility transmission providers to participate in regional and interregional transmission planning processes that satisfy these principles. On the issue of determining how entities are to be selected to develop and construct the specific transmission projects, Order No. 1000 directs public utility transmission providers to remove from the FERC-jurisdictional tariffs and agreements provisions that establish any federal "right of first refusal" for the incumbent transmission owner (such as OG&E) regarding transmission facilities selected in a regional transmission planning process, subject to certain limitations. However, the final rule is not intended to affect the right of an incumbent transmission owner (such as OG&E) to build, own and recover costs for upgrades to its own transmission facilities, and Order No. 1000 does not alter an incumbent transmission owner's use and control of existing rights of way. The final rule also clarifies that incumbent transmission owners may rely on regional transmission facilities to meet their reliability needs or service obligations. The SPP currently has a "right of first refusal" for incumbent transmission owners and this provision has played a role in OG&E being selected by the SPP to build various transmission projects in Oklahoma. The Company is continuing to evaluate Order No. 1000 and cannot at this time determine its precise impact on OG&E. Nevertheless, at the present time, the Company has no reason to believe that the implementation of Order No. 1000 will impact OG&E's transmission projects currently under development and construction for which OG&E has received a notice to proceed from the SPP. Enogex FERC Section 311 2007 Rate Case On October 1, 2007, Enogex made its required triennial rate filing at the FERC to update its Section 311 maximum interruptible transportation rates for Section 311 service in the East Zone and West Zone. Enogex's filing requested an increase in the maximum zonal rates and proposed to place such rates into effect on January 1, 2008. A number of parties intervened and some also filed protests. Enogex did not place the increased rates set forth in its October 2007 rate filing into effect but rather continued to provide interruptible Section 311 service under the maximum Section 311 rates for both zones approved by the FERC in the previous rate case. A final settlement was filed with the FERC on August 5, 2010. With the filing of Enogex's Section 311 2009 rate case discussed below, the rate period for the 2007 rate case became a limited locked-in period from January 2008 through May 2009. On October 13, 2011, the FERC issued an order in this matter approving the settlement agreement, providing that Enogex's rates from its previous rate case remain in effect and that rate treatment for the MEP lease agreement discussed below will be addressed in Enogex's Section 311 2009 rate case. On November 13, 2007, one of the protesting intervenors filed to consolidate the Enogex 2007 rate case with a separate Enogex application pending before the FERC allowing Enogex to lease firm capacity to MEP and with separate applications filed by MEP with the FERC for a certificate to construct and operate the MEP pipeline and to lease firm capacity from Enogex. Enogex and MEP separately opposed this intervenor's protests and assertions in its initial and subsequent pleadings. On July 25, 2008, the FERC issued an order (i) approving the MEP project including the approval of a limited jurisdiction certificate and (ii) authorizing the Enogex lease agreement with MEP. Accordingly, Enogex proceeded with the construction of facilities necessary to implement this service. On August 25, 2008, a protestor sought rehearing which the FERC denied. Enogex commenced service to MEP under the lease agreement on June 1, 2009. On July 16, 2009, the protestor filed, with the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, a petition for review of the FERC's orders approving the MEP construction and the MEP lease of capacity from Enogex requesting that such orders be modified or set aside on the grounds that they are arbitrary, capricious and contrary to law. On December 28, 2010, the Court of Appeals issued an opinion generally upholding the FERC's orders, but remanding the case for further explanation of one aspect of the FERC's reasoning. The Court of Appeals emphasized that it was not vacating the FERC's orders and that its approval of the Enogex lease agreement with MEP remains in effect and legally binding. On remand, the FERC must clarify that its decision was based on a finding that the lease does not adversely affect existing customers on Enogex's system. On January 21, 2011, Apache Corporation filed a motion asking the FERC to establish procedures on remand and to either condition the lease on Enogex's willingness to provide firm Section 311 transportation service to existing customers on all portions of its system or to establish an expedited briefing schedule. On February 7, 2011, Enogex, MEP and Chesapeake Energy Corporation filed a joint answer asking the FERC to find, among other things, that the reduction in the amount of interruptible transportation capacity available due to the MEP lease did not have an adverse affect on Apache Corporation and to acknowledge that Apache Corporation's request to condition the lease on the provision of West Zone 311 firm transportation service has been addressed as Enogex filed a rate case on January 28, 2011 proposing to implement such service effective March 1, 2011. On March 1, 2011, Apache Corporation filed an answer seeking to refute some of the arguments presented in the joint answer filed by Enogex, MEP and Chesapeake Energy Corporation. On March 3, 2011, the FERC issued an order on remand affirming the authorizations previously granted to Enogex and MEP and clarifying the legal standard applied in response to the court's directive. On April 4, 2011, Apache Corporation filed a request for rehearing of the FERC's order on remand. On September 29, 2011, the FERC issued an order denying Apache Corporation's motion for rehearing. Apache Corporation has until November 28, 2011 to appeal the FERC's March 3, 2011 order on remand and/or the September 29, 2011 order denying rehearing. In accordance with the settlement agreement discussed above, rate treatment for the MEP lease agreement will be addressed in Enogex's Section 311 2009 rate case. Pending Regulatory Matters OG&E 2011 Oklahoma Rate Case Filing As part of the Joint Stipulation and Settlement Agreement reached in OG&E's 2009 Oklahoma rate case filing, the parties agreed that OG&E would file a rate case on or before June 30, 2011. On May 27, 2011, OG&E requested an extension until the end of July 2011 for filing the Oklahoma rate case. On July 28, 2011, OG&E filed its application with the OCC requesting an annual rate increase of $73.3 million, or a 4.3 percent increase in its rates. OG&E is requesting a return on equity of 11.00 percent based on a common equity percentage of 53 percent. Each 0.10 percent change in the requested return on equity affects the requested rate increase by $3.0 million. In its application, OG&E seeks to recover increases in its operating costs and to begin earning on approximately $500 million of new capital investments made on behalf of its Oklahoma customers during the previous two and one-half years. A hearing in this matter is scheduled for December 13, 2011. OG&E expects to receive an order from the OCC in early 2012. Review of OG&E's Fuel Adjustment Clause for Calendar Year 2010 On August 19, 2011, the OCC Staff filed an application for a public hearing to review and monitor OG&E's application of the 2010 fuel adjustment clause. On October 18, 2011, OG&E responded by filing the necessary information and documents to satisfy the OCC's minimum filing requirement rules. A procedural schedule has not yet been established in this matter. Enogex FERC Section 311 2009 Rate Case On March 27, 2009, Enogex filed a petition for rate approval with the FERC to set the maximum rates for its new firm East Zone Section 311 transportation service and to revise the rates for its existing East and West Zone interruptible Section 311 transportation service. In anticipation of offering this new service, Enogex had filed with the FERC, as required by the FERC's regulations, a revised Statement of Operating Conditions Applicable to Transportation Services to describe the terms, conditions and operating arrangements for the new service. Enogex made the Statement of Operating Conditions filing on February 27, 2009. Enogex began offering firm East Zone Section 311 transportation service on April 1, 2009. The revised East and West Zone zonal rates for the Section 311 interruptible transportation service became effective June 1, 2009. The rates for the firm East Zone Section 311 transportation service and the increase in the rates for East and West Zone and interruptible Section 311 service are being collected, subject to refund, pending the FERC approval of the proposed rates. A number of parties intervened in both the rate case and the Statement of Operating Conditions filing and some additionally filed protests. On January 4, 2010, the FERC Staff submitted an offer proposing various adjustments to Enogex's filed cost of service. On April 27, 2010, Enogex submitted comments to the FERC Staff stating that it would agree to the offer, contingent upon all parties agreeing to support or not oppose. On October 4, 2011, Enogex filed a settlement agreement with the FERC. All parties have agreed to support or not oppose settlement of the rate case and the proposed revisions to the Statement of Operating Conditions. A FERC order is pending. Enogex FERC Section 311 2011 Rate Case On January 28, 2011, Enogex submitted a new rate filing to the FERC to set the maximum rate for a new firm Section 311 transportation service in the West Zone of its system and to revise the currently effective maximum rates for Section 311 interruptible transportation service in the East Zone and West Zone. Along with establishing the rate for a new firm service in the West Zone, Enogex's filing requested a decrease in the maximum interruptible zonal rates in the West Zone and to retain the currently effective rates for firm and interruptible services in the East Zone. Enogex reserved the right to implement the higher rates for firm and interruptible services in the East Zone supported by the cost of service to the extent an expeditious settlement agreement cannot be reached in the proceeding. Enogex proposed that the rates be placed into effect on March 1, 2011. At Enogex's request, the protest deadline was extended to November 28, 2011. The regulations provide that the FERC has 150 days to act on the filing but also permit the FERC to issue an order extending the time period for action. Enogex 2011 Fuel Filing On February 28, 2011, Enogex submitted its annual fuel filing to establish the fixed fuel percentages for its East Zone and West Zone for the upcoming fuel year (April 1, 2011 through March 31, 2012). Along with the revised fuel percentages, Enogex also requested authority to revise its Statement of Operating Conditions to permanently change the annual filing date to February 28. The deadline for interventions and protests on Enogex's filing was March 15, 2011, and no protests were filed. A FERC order is pending.

Rate Matters and Regulation

Except as set forth below, the circumstances set forth in Note 15 to the Company's Consolidated Financial Statements included in the Company's 2010 Form 10-K appropriately represent, in all material respects, the current status of any regulatory matters.

Completed Regulatory Matters

OG&E Wholesale Agreement

On May 28, 2009, OG&E sent a termination notice to the Arkansas Valley Electric Cooperative that OG&E would terminate its wholesale power agreement to all points of delivery where OG&E sells or has sold power to the Arkansas Valley Electric Cooperative, effective November 30, 2011. In December 2010, OG&E and the Arkansas Valley Electric Cooperative entered into a new wholesale power agreement whereby OG&E will supply wholesale power to the Arkansas Valley Electric Cooperative through June 2015. On January 3, 2011, OG&E submitted this agreement to the FERC for approval. The FERC approved the new wholesale power agreement on March 2, 2011 and the new contract was effective May 1, 2011. The Arkansas Valley Electric Cooperative contract contributed $17.4 million, or 1.5 percent, to OG&E's gross margin for the year ended December 31, 2010.

OG&E Long-Term Gas Supply Agreements

In May 2010, the OCC approved OG&E's request for a waiver of the competitive bid rules to allow OG&E to negotiate desired long-term gas purchase agreements. On June 29, 2010, OG&E filed a separate application with the OCC seeking approval of four long-term gas purchase agreements, which would provide a 12-year supply of natural gas to OG&E and account for 25 percent of its currently projected natural gas fuel supply needs over the same time period. On September 26, 2010, OG&E filed a motion with the OCC to dismiss this case. On July 5, 2011, OG&E received an order from the OCC dismissing the case without prejudice.

OG&E Crossroads Wind Project

As previously disclosed, on July 29, 2010, OG&E received an order from the OCC authorizing OG&E to recover from Oklahoma customers the cost to construct Crossroads, with the rider being implemented as the individual turbines are placed in service. The wind turbines started being placed in service in September 2011. As part of this project, on June 16, 2011, OG&E entered into an interconnection agreement with the SPP for Crossroads which will allow Crossroads to interconnect at the anticipated 227.5 megawatts.

OG&E 2010 Arkansas Rate Case Filing

On September 28, 2010, OG&E filed a rate case with the APSC requesting a rate increase of $17.7 million, to recover the cost of significant electric system expansions and upgrades, including high-voltage transmission lines, that have been completed since the last rate filing in August 2008, as well as increased operating costs. OG&E also sought recovery, through a rider, of the Arkansas jurisdictional portion of (i) costs associated with transmission upgrades and facilities that have been approved by the SPP in its regional planning processes and constructed by other non-OG&E transmission owners throughout the SPP that have been allocated to OG&E through the FERC-approved transmission rates and (ii) SPP administrative fees. On June 17, 2011, the APSC approved a settlement agreement among all parties to the case and OG&E implemented new electric rates effective June 20, 2011. Key items of the APSC order include: (i) the recovery of and a return on significant electric system expansions and upgrades, including high-voltage transmission lines, as well as increased operating costs, totaling $8.8 million annually; (ii) authorization for OG&E to recover the actual cost of third-party transmission charges and SPP administrative fees through a rider mechanism which will remain in effect until new rates are implemented after OG&E's next general rate case (the Arkansas jurisdictional portion of the combined costs is expected to be $1.0 million in 2011); and (iii) the deferral of certain expenses associated with a customer education program in an amount not to exceed $0.3 million per year for a maximum of two years.

OG&E SPP Cost Tracker

On October 7, 2010, OG&E filed an application with the OCC seeking recovery of the Oklahoma jurisdictional portion of (i) costs associated with transmission upgrades and facilities that have been approved by the SPP in its regional planning processes and constructed by other non-OG&E transmission owners throughout the SPP that have been allocated to OG&E through the FERC-approved transmission rates and (ii) SPP administrative fees. OG&E requested authorization to implement a cost tracker in order to recover from its retail customers the third-party project costs discussed above and to collect its administrative SPP cost assessment levied under Schedule 1A of the SPP open access transmission tariff, which is currently recovered in base rates. OG&E also requested authorization to establish a regulatory asset effective January 1, 2011 in order to give OG&E the opportunity to recover such costs that will be paid but not recovered until the cost tracker is made effective. On February 8, 2011, all parties signed a settlement agreement in this matter which would allow OG&E to recover the costs discussed in (i) above through a recovery rider effective January 1, 2011. OG&E anticipates recovering $1.8 million of incremental revenues in 2011 through the rider. Rather than including the costs of the SPP administrative fee assessment in the recovery rider, the stipulating parties agreed to allow OG&E to include the projected 2012 level of the SPP administrative fee assessment in its next Oklahoma rate case which was filed in July 2011. The settlement agreement also stated that in OG&E's 2011 Oklahoma general rate case filing, OG&E would propose that recovery in base rates for the costs of transmission projects it constructs and owns and that are authorized by the SPP in its regional planning processes should be limited to the Oklahoma retail jurisdictional share of the costs for such projects allocated to OG&E by the SPP. On March 28, 2011, the OCC issued an order in this matter approving the settlement agreement.

Review of OG&E's Fuel Adjustment Clause for Calendar Year 2009

On October 29, 2010, the OCC Staff filed an application for a public hearing to review and monitor OG&E's application of the 2009 fuel adjustment clause. On December 28, 2010, OG&E responded by filing the necessary information and documents to satisfy the OCC's minimum filing requirement rules. An intervenor representing a group of OG&E's industrial customers filed testimony on March 11, 2011 seeking a $15.5 million refund related to (i) a purported failure by OG&E to maximize the use of its coal-fired power plants and (ii) an inappropriate extension of the existing gas transportation and storage contract between OG&E and Enogex. OG&E filed rebuttal testimony on April 4, 2011 in opposition to the claims of the intervenor. On August 11, 2011, all parties to this case signed a settlement agreement in this matter, stating that (i) OG&E was prudent in its operations during 2009; (ii) a third party expert should be hired to evaluate OG&E's future gas transportation and storage needs and that OG&E should file a plan for meeting its future gas transportation and storage needs by mid-2012; and (iii) with respect to the existing gas transportation and storage contract with Enogex, OG&E will return $8.4 million to its customers in settlement for all periods under the contract through April 30, 2013. In August 2011, OG&E credited $4.9 million to its customers and will credit the remaining amount on a monthly basis through April 30, 2013. The OCC issued an order approving the settlement agreement on August 29, 2011.

OG&E Smart Grid Project

As previously reported in the Company's 2010 Form 10-K, on December 17, 2010, OG&E filed an application with the APSC requesting pre-approval for system-wide deployment of smart grid technology and a recovery rider, including a credit for the Smart Grid grant awarded by the U.S. Department of Energy under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. On June 22, 2011, OG&E reached a settlement agreement with all the parties in this matter. OG&E and the other parties in this matter agreed to ask the APSC to approve the settlement agreement including the following: (i) pre-approval of system-wide deployment of smart grid technology in Arkansas and authorization for OG&E to begin recovering the prudently incurred costs of the Arkansas system-wide deployment of smart grid technology through a rider mechanism that will become effective in accordance with the order approving the settlement agreement; (ii) cost recovery through the rider would commence when all of the smart meters to be deployed in Arkansas are in service; (iii) OG&E guarantees that customers will receive certain operations and maintenance cost reductions resulting from the smart grid deployment as a credit to the recovery rider; and (iv) the stranded costs associated with OG&E's existing meters which are being replaced by smart meters will be accumulated in a regulatory asset and recovered in base rates beginning after an order is issued in OG&E's next general rate case. OG&E currently expects to spend $14 million, net of funds from the U.S. Department of Energy grant, in capital expenditures to implement smart grid in Arkansas pursuant to the settlement agreement. On August 3, 2011, the APSC issued an order in this matter approving the settlement agreement.

OG&E FERC Transmission Rate Incentive Filing

On February 18, 2011, OG&E submitted to the FERC a request seeking limited transmission rate incentives for five transmission projects. This February 18, 2011 request is in addition to the October 12, 2010 request described in the Company's 2010 Form 10-K. OG&E requested recovery of 100 percent of all prudently incurred construction work in progress in rate base for five 345 kilovolt Extra High Voltage transmission projects to be constructed and owned by OG&E within the SPP's region. OG&E also requested to recover 100 percent of all prudently incurred development and construction costs if the transmission projects are abandoned or cancelled, in whole or in part, for reasons beyond OG&E's control. On April 19, 2011, the FERC granted these incentives for the Sooner-Rose Hill, Sunnyside-Hugo and Balanced Portfolio 3E transmission projects discussed in Note 15 of the Company's 2010 Form 10-K.

OG&E Pension Tracker Modification Filing

On February 22, 2011, OG&E filed an application with the OCC requesting that OG&E's pension tracker be modified to include the difference between the level of retiree medical costs authorized in OG&E's last rate case and the current level of these expenses as a regulatory liability, effective January 1, 2011. On June 23, 2011, a settlement agreement was filed by parties in the case stating that the pension tracker should be modified as proposed by OG&E and that the level of retiree medical costs included in base rates will be reviewed and determined in OG&E's next rate case. On September 27, 2011, the OCC issued an order in this matter approving the settlement agreement.

OG&E Demand and Energy Efficiency Program Filing

To build on the success of its earlier programs and further promote energy efficiency and conservation for each class of OG&E customers, on March 15, 2011, OG&E filed an application with the APSC seeking approval of several programs, ranging from residential weatherization to commercial lighting. In seeking approval of these programs, OG&E also sought recovery of the program and related costs through a rider that would be added to customers' electric bills. On June 30, 2011, the APSC issued an order approving OG&E's energy efficiency plan for 2011 and approving OG&E's energy efficiency cost recovery rider for 2011. In Arkansas, OG&E's program is expected to cost $7.0 million over a three-year period and is expected to increase the average residential electric bill by $1.47 per month.

FERC Order No. 1000, Final Rule on Transmission Planning and Cost Allocation

On July 21, 2011, the FERC issued Order No. 1000, which revised the FERC's existing regulations governing the process for planning enhancements and expansions of the electric transmission grid in a particular region, along with the corresponding process for allocating the costs of such expansions. The revised regulations apply only to "new transmission facilities," which are described as those subject to evaluation or reevaluation (under the applicable local or regional transmission planning process) subsequent to the effective date of the regulatory compliance filings required by the rule, which are expected to be filed during the third quarter of 2012. Order No. 1000 leaves to individual regions to determine whether a previously-approved project is subject to reevaluation and is therefore governed by the new rule.

The new rule requires, among other things, public utility transmission providers, such as the SPP, to participate in a process that produces a regional transmission plan satisfying certain standards, and requires that each such regional process consider transmission needs driven by public policy requirements (such as state or Federal policies favoring increased use of renewable energy resources). Order No. 1000 also directs public utility transmission providers to coordinate with neighboring transmission planning regions. In addition, the final rule establishes specific regional cost allocation principles and directs public utility transmission providers to participate in regional and interregional transmission planning processes that satisfy these principles.

On the issue of determining how entities are to be selected to develop and construct the specific transmission projects, Order No. 1000 directs public utility transmission providers to remove from the FERC-jurisdictional tariffs and agreements provisions that establish any federal "right of first refusal" for the incumbent transmission owner (such as OG&E) regarding transmission facilities selected in a regional transmission planning process, subject to certain limitations. However, the final rule is not intended to affect the right of an incumbent transmission owner (such as OG&E) to build, own and recover costs for upgrades to its own transmission facilities, and Order No. 1000 does not alter an incumbent transmission owner's use and control of existing rights of way. The final rule also clarifies that incumbent transmission owners may rely on regional transmission facilities to meet their reliability needs or service obligations. The SPP currently has a "right of first refusal" for incumbent transmission owners and this provision has played a role in OG&E being selected by the SPP to build various transmission projects in Oklahoma.

The Company is continuing to evaluate Order No. 1000 and cannot at this time determine its precise impact on OG&E. Nevertheless, at the present time, the Company has no reason to believe that the implementation of Order No. 1000 will impact OG&E's transmission projects currently under development and construction for which OG&E has received a notice to proceed from the SPP.

Enogex FERC Section 311 2007 Rate Case

On October 1, 2007, Enogex made its required triennial rate filing at the FERC to update its Section 311 maximum interruptible transportation rates for Section 311 service in the East Zone and West Zone. Enogex's filing requested an increase in the maximum zonal rates and proposed to place such rates into effect on January 1, 2008. A number of parties intervened and some also filed protests. Enogex did not place the increased rates set forth in its October 2007 rate filing into effect but rather continued to provide interruptible Section 311 service under the maximum Section 311 rates for both zones approved by the FERC in the previous rate case. A final settlement was filed with the FERC on August 5, 2010. With the filing of Enogex's Section 311 2009 rate case discussed below, the rate period for the 2007 rate case became a limited locked-in period from January 2008 through May 2009. On October 13, 2011, the FERC issued an order in this matter approving the settlement agreement, providing that Enogex's rates from its previous rate case remain in effect and that rate treatment for the MEP lease agreement discussed below will be addressed in Enogex's Section 311 2009 rate case.

On November 13, 2007, one of the protesting intervenors filed to consolidate the Enogex 2007 rate case with a separate Enogex application pending before the FERC allowing Enogex to lease firm capacity to MEP and with separate applications filed by MEP with the FERC for a certificate to construct and operate the MEP pipeline and to lease firm capacity from Enogex. Enogex and MEP separately opposed this intervenor's protests and assertions in its initial and subsequent pleadings. On July 25, 2008, the FERC issued an order (i) approving the MEP project including the approval of a limited jurisdiction certificate and (ii) authorizing the Enogex lease agreement with MEP. Accordingly, Enogex proceeded with the construction of facilities necessary to implement this service. On August 25, 2008, a protestor sought rehearing which the FERC denied. Enogex commenced service to MEP under the lease agreement on June 1, 2009. On July 16, 2009, the protestor filed, with the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, a petition for review of the FERC's orders approving the MEP construction and the MEP lease of capacity from Enogex requesting that such orders be modified or set aside on the grounds that they are arbitrary, capricious and contrary to law. On December 28, 2010, the Court of Appeals issued an opinion generally upholding the FERC's orders, but remanding the case for further explanation of one aspect of the FERC's reasoning. The Court of Appeals emphasized that it was not vacating the FERC's orders and that its approval of the Enogex lease agreement with MEP remains in effect and legally binding. On remand, the FERC must clarify that its decision was based on a finding that the lease does not adversely affect existing customers on Enogex's system. On January 21, 2011, Apache Corporation filed a motion asking the FERC to establish procedures on remand and to either condition the lease on Enogex's willingness to provide firm Section 311 transportation service to existing customers on all portions of its system or to establish an expedited briefing schedule. On February 7, 2011, Enogex, MEP and Chesapeake Energy Corporation filed a joint answer asking the FERC to find, among other things, that the reduction in the amount of interruptible transportation capacity available due to the MEP lease did not have an adverse affect on Apache Corporation and to acknowledge that Apache Corporation's request to condition the lease on the provision of West Zone 311 firm transportation service has been addressed as Enogex filed a rate case on January 28, 2011 proposing to implement such service effective March 1, 2011. On March 1, 2011, Apache Corporation filed an answer seeking to refute some of the arguments presented in the joint answer filed by Enogex, MEP and Chesapeake Energy Corporation. On March 3, 2011, the FERC issued an order on remand affirming the authorizations previously granted to Enogex and MEP and clarifying the legal standard applied in response to the court's directive. On April 4, 2011, Apache Corporation filed a request for rehearing of the FERC's order on remand. On September 29, 2011, the FERC issued an order denying Apache Corporation's motion for rehearing. Apache Corporation has until November 28, 2011 to appeal the FERC's March 3, 2011 order on remand and/or the September 29, 2011 order denying rehearing. In accordance with the settlement agreement discussed above, rate treatment for the MEP lease agreement will be addressed in Enogex's Section 311 2009 rate case.

Pending Regulatory Matters

OG&E 2011 Oklahoma Rate Case Filing

As part of the Joint Stipulation and Settlement Agreement reached in OG&E's 2009 Oklahoma rate case filing, the parties agreed that OG&E would file a rate case on or before June 30, 2011. On May 27, 2011, OG&E requested an extension until the end of July 2011 for filing the Oklahoma rate case. On July 28, 2011, OG&E filed its application with the OCC requesting an annual rate increase of $73.3 million, or a 4.3 percent increase in its rates. OG&E is requesting a return on equity of 11.00 percent based on a common equity percentage of 53 percent. Each 0.10 percent change in the requested return on equity affects the requested rate increase by $3.0 million. In its application, OG&E seeks to recover increases in its operating costs and to begin earning on approximately $500 million of new capital investments made on behalf of its Oklahoma customers during the previous two and one-half years. A hearing in this matter is scheduled for December 13, 2011. OG&E expects to receive an order from the OCC in early 2012.

Review of OG&E's Fuel Adjustment Clause for Calendar Year 2010

On August 19, 2011, the OCC Staff filed an application for a public hearing to review and monitor OG&E's application of the 2010 fuel adjustment clause. On October 18, 2011, OG&E responded by filing the necessary information and documents to satisfy the OCC's minimum filing requirement rules. A procedural schedule has not yet been established in this matter.

Enogex FERC Section 311 2009 Rate Case

On March 27, 2009, Enogex filed a petition for rate approval with the FERC to set the maximum rates for its new firm East Zone Section 311 transportation service and to revise the rates for its existing East and West Zone interruptible Section 311 transportation service. In anticipation of offering this new service, Enogex had filed with the FERC, as required by the FERC's regulations, a revised Statement of Operating Conditions Applicable to Transportation Services to describe the terms, conditions and operating arrangements for the new service. Enogex made the Statement of Operating Conditions filing on February 27, 2009. Enogex began offering firm East Zone Section 311 transportation service on April 1, 2009. The revised East and West Zone zonal rates for the Section 311 interruptible transportation service became effective June 1, 2009. The rates for the firm East Zone Section 311 transportation service and the increase in the rates for East and West Zone and interruptible Section 311 service are being collected, subject to refund, pending the FERC approval of the proposed rates. A number of parties intervened in both the rate case and the Statement of Operating Conditions filing and some additionally filed protests. On January 4, 2010, the FERC Staff submitted an offer proposing various adjustments to Enogex's filed cost of service. On April 27, 2010, Enogex submitted comments to the FERC Staff stating that it would agree to the offer, contingent upon all parties agreeing to support or not oppose. On October 4, 2011, Enogex filed a settlement agreement with the FERC. All parties have agreed to support or not oppose settlement of the rate case and the proposed revisions to the Statement of Operating Conditions. A FERC order is pending.

Enogex FERC Section 311 2011 Rate Case

On January 28, 2011, Enogex submitted a new rate filing to the FERC to set the maximum rate for a new firm Section 311 transportation service in the West Zone of its system and to revise the currently effective maximum rates for Section 311 interruptible transportation service in the East Zone and West Zone. Along with establishing the rate for a new firm service in the West Zone, Enogex's filing requested a decrease in the maximum interruptible zonal rates in the West Zone and to retain the currently effective rates for firm and interruptible services in the East Zone. Enogex reserved the right to implement the higher rates for firm and interruptible services in the East Zone supported by the cost of service to the extent an expeditious settlement agreement cannot be reached in the proceeding. Enogex proposed that the rates be placed into effect on March 1, 2011. At Enogex's request, the protest deadline was extended to November 28, 2011. The regulations provide that the FERC has 150 days to act on the filing but also permit the FERC to issue an order extending the time period for action.

Enogex 2011 Fuel Filing

On February 28, 2011, Enogex submitted its annual fuel filing to establish the fixed fuel percentages for its East Zone and West Zone for the upcoming fuel year (April 1, 2011 through March 31, 2012). Along with the revised fuel percentages, Enogex also requested authority to revise its Statement of Operating Conditions to permanently change the annual filing date to February 28. The deadline for interventions and protests on Enogex's filing was March 15, 2011, and no protests were filed. A FERC order is pending.