Exhibit 99.01

ARKANSAS PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION

ORDER

Procedural History

On July 28, 2006, pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. §23-4-402 and Section 9 of the Arkansas Public Service Commission’s (“APSC” or “Commission”) Rules of Practice and Procedure, Oklahoma Gas and Electric Company¹ (“OG&E”) filed its Application and initial supporting testimony, requesting Commission approval of a general rate increase. On August 15, 2006, the Commission issued Order No. 2, suspending OG&E’s proposed rates and tariffs and establishing the procedural schedule for consideration of OG&E’s Application.

On August 1, 2006, the Attorney General of Arkansas (the “AG”) filed his notice of intent to participate as a party in this docket. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc, (“Wal-Mart”) was granted intervenor party status by Order No. 3 issued on August 21, 2006. The only other parties to this docket are OG&E and the General Staff of the Commission (“Staff”).

Pursuant to the procedural schedule established by Order No. 2, the Staff and the AG flied Direct Testimony and Exhibits on October 19, 2006, in response to OG&E’s Application

_________________________

¹ OG&E is an investor owned public utility, organized under the laws of the state of Oklahoma, operating in both Oklahoma and Arkansas, with approximately 724,000 total customers, of which approximately 61,500 are located in Arkansas.

Docket No. 06-070-U

Order No. 9

Page 2 of 16

and initial testimony. On November 9, 2006, OG&E filed its Rebuttal Testimony and Exhibits followed by its filing, on November 13, 2006, of an amended Rebuttal Schedule G-1 which provided its proposed Revenue Requirement, Revenue Deficiency, and rate impact by customer class consistent with its Rebuttal Testimony.

On November 29, 2006, OG&E, the Staff, the AG and Wal-Mart (the “Parties”), filed a Motion To Approve Settlement Agreement requesting that the Commission approve their Settlement Agreement which would resolve all outstanding issues in this matter. In addition to and in support of their Settlement Agreement, the Parties filed the testimonies of OG&E Witness Donald R. Rowlett, AG Witness M. Shawn McMurray, and Staff Witnesses Alice D. Wright and Jeff Hilton². (The Settlement Agreement is attached hereto as Exhibit 1.)

By Order No. 4 issued on September 1, 2006, the Commission set a public comment hearing on OG&E’s Application to be held on November 30, 2006, at the offices of the Arkansas Oil and Gas Commission in Fort Smith, Arkansas. The public comment hearing was subsequently rescheduled and conducted by the Commission on December 14, 2006.³ No public comments regarding OG&E’s Application or the proposed Settlement Agreement were offered at said public comment hearing. A public evidentiary hearing on the proposed Settlement Agreement was conducted by the Commission at its offices on December 19, 2006. No public comments were offered at said public evidentiary hearing.⁴

_________________________

²  Wal-Mart filed no testimony in the docket.

³  The Commission issued Order No. 7 on November 29, 2006, canceling the November 30, 2006, hearing because of expected inclement weather and reset the date of the hearing by its Order No.8.

⁴  Written comments, e-mail comments and telephoned comments in opposition to OG&E’s proposed Application rate increase were received from approximately fifty-nine (59) customers of OG&E. No customer comments in opposition to the proposed Settlement Agreement were received by the Commission.

Docket No. 06-070-U

Order No. 9

Page 3 of 16

OG&E’s Litigation Position

OG&E’s Application, as amended⁵, is based upon a historical test year ending December 31, 2005, as adjusted through the pro forma year ending December 31, 2006. OG&E initially requested a non-fuel Arkansas revenue requirement of $75,110,856, reflecting a rate schedule revenue deficiency and requested rate increase of $13,517,699 representing a 7.56% increase in its total revenues. OG&E’s Application proposes the following rate revenue percentage increase for each customer class:

OG&E’s books and records, reflecting operations in both Oklahoma and Arkansas, are kept on a total company basis. OG&E’s Application subsequently reflected per book balances and adjustments on a total company basis for rate base, revenues, and operating expenses, the adjusted balances of which are then either assigned or allocated to the Arkansas jurisdiction. OG&E argued that a rate increase was needed primarily because of significant current and future plant investment, including two new generating units⁶, required to meet increased load and to replace an aging system. In addition, “OG&E has experienced commensurate increases in

_________________________

⁵  OG&E supplemented or filed amended Schedules to its Application on August 3, 4, and 18 and November 13, 2006.

⁶  OG&E sought inclusion in rate base of its 77% ownership interest in a combined cycle, gas fired generation facility located in Oklahoma and previously owned by NRG McClain, LLC (“McClain Plant”) and a 120 MW wind energy facility located in Harper County, Oklahoma (“Centennial Project or Project”).

Docket No. 06-070-U

Order No. 9

Page 4 of 16

operations and maintenance expense because of the expansion” and “needs to attract, train and retain” a larger workforce to operate that system.

OG&E’s Application was based on the operating results for the year ended December 31, 2005, as adjusted to reflect nineteen (19) pro forma adjustments made to rate base and thirty-five (35) pro forma adjustments made to the operating income accounts. OG&E sought an overall return on its rate base of 6.29% which included a return on equity of 11.75% and a debt to equity ratio of 44% to 56% in its capital structure, with $893 million in combined long/short-term debt and $1.116 billion in equity.

OG&E filed a depreciation study (“Study”) to support a change in Arkansas depreciation rates applicable to its plant. OG&E also proposed that the Commission approve a 10% sharing by OG&E in the revenues derived from the sale of its SO₂ Allowances⁷ as an incentive for OG&E to both manage and increase those Allowances through further emissions reductions and to minimize customer costs. OG&E currently flows 100% of those revenues back to ratepayers through its Energy Cost Recovery Rider (“ECRR”). OG&E’s Cost of Service generally allocated its production plant and costs on the Average and Peak method⁸, allocated its transmission plant and costs to demand on the 12 month average of its Coincident Peak⁹ and classified the non-

_________________________

⁷  Under the Federal Environmental Protection Agency’s Acid Rain Program, generating units are assigned by the Agency a certain number of allowances, with each allowance authorizing the unit to emit one ton of SO₂ (“SO₂ Allowances”). To the extent that a unit reduces its emissions, any excess allowances may be sold. Purchases of allowances are made by units which exceed the units’ allowed emissions levels and are used to cover those excess emissions.

⁸  The average and peak method incorporates two measurements in the allocation of demand-related costs. The first measurement, the coincident peak demand, or CP, is the load of all customer classes at the time of the Company’s highest measured one-hour demand for the system in the test year. The second measurement, energy, is the total mega-watt hours used during the test year.

⁹  The 12 CP mehtod averages, for a 12 month period, the coincident peak at each month’s net system peak by customer class.

Docket No. 06-070-U

Order No. 9

Page 5 of 16

customer¹⁰ distribution plant and costs as demand and allocated these costs on its Non-Coincident annual peak¹¹. OG&E consequently designed its rates on equal rates of return.

In addition, OG&E proposed certain rate design changes to several of its current tariffs, including increases to customer charges, merging winter tail-blocks, inverted summer tail-blocks, and a phase-in of any customer class increase exceeding 10%. OG&E also introduced new tariffs for the Commission’s consideration, the redesign of its Residential and Municipal Pumping tariffs to provide more appropriate price signals and to encourage conservation,¹² the introduction of a new voluntary Guaranteed Flat Bill service (“GFB”) for Residential and General Service customers and a change in the ECRR to segregate customers by usage.¹³

OG&E, in its Rebuttal Testimonies and as reflected in Rebuttal Schedule G-1, proposed a non-fuel Revenue Requirement of $74.175 million with a requested revenue increase of $12.880 million resulting in a 7.20% increase in Rate Schedule Revenues. OG&E's rebuttal position reflected the following revised percentage rate revenue increases for each customer class:

_________________________

¹⁰  Customer costs are generally allocated on customer count.

¹¹  The noncoincident peak demand is the yearly maximum peak of each customer class.

¹²  OG&E’s design proposals include merging the second and third blocks of the winter rate and the use of an inverted block design for summer months.

¹³  OG&E asserted that its proposed change to the ECRR would more appropriately recognize energy losses and, thus, costs.

Docket No. 06-070-U

Order No. 9

Page 6 of 16

In its Rebuttal Testimony, OG&E objected to various proposed adjustments and positions of both the Staff and the AG. OG&E differed with Staff and/or the AG regarding Insurance Expense, Payroll Expense, the Southwest Power Pool Assessment, McClain O&M Expense, Lobbying Expense, Other Expenses, certain Zero Cost Capital Structure Items, the Debt to Equity ratio in the Capital Structure, the Cost of Common Equity, the Cost of Service allocations, and the Rate Design and New Tariff Issues.

Staff’s Litigation Position

Staff proposed a non-fuel Rate Schedule Revenue Requirement of $67,035,668, reflecting a Revenue Deficiency of $5,740,627 and an overall increase in OG&E current rate revenues of 3.21%. Staff’s proposed revenue deficiency was $7,777,072 less than that filed by OG&E. Staff's recommendation resulted in the following rate revenue percentage increase/decrease for each customer class:

Staff recommended a rate base of $294,871,382 which was approximately $10.758 million less than that proposed by OG&E, due to differences in Accumulated Depreciation, Plant Held for Future Use, and Working Capital Assets. Staff recommended inclusion in rate base of the McClain Plant and, subject to certain conditions, the Centennial Wind Project (the “Centennial Project”). Those conditions are: that OG&E be ordered to monitor the performance of the Centennial Project and to annually report its findings to the Commission; that OG&E be

Docket No. 06-070-U

Order No. 9

Page 7 of 16

ordered to refund through the ECRR any payments for damages or refunds under the Centennial Project warranty; that OG&E be ordered to allocate to Arkansas, in the same proportion for which Arkansas is allocated costs, any value of “green credits” or products resulting from the Centennial Project’s environmental benefits; and, that the Commission reserve its right to review and order appropriate remedial measures, should OG&E’s purported savings not materialize.

Additionally, Staff generally agreed with and recommended inclusion in rate base of OG&E’s calculated working capital assets, with the exception of certain asset accounts found to be non-utility, interest bearing, non-recurring, or not jurisdictional to Arkansas. Staff also adjusted the Accumulated Depreciation balance to remove certain retired plant for which no adjustment had been made by OG&E. Using its own calculations as its basis, Staff recommended approval of the billing determinants, as calculated and adjusted by OG&E.

Staff recommended approximately $1.745 million less in Arkansas allocated expenses before income tax than did OG&E. The largest expense differences between Staff and OG&E related to depreciation, payroll and benefits costs, insurance expense, and Staff's disallowance of certain advertising, marketing, and lobbying expenses.

Staff determined that OG&E’s depreciation study was reasonable and recommended, with certain corrections, that the Commission approve the rates from that Study as well as the rates which OG&E proposed be applied to the Centennial Project. Staff further proposed that those new depreciation rates be applied prospectively, with the adjusted test year-end Accumulated Depreciation balance more appropriately reflecting the old rates rather than the new rates as filed by OG&E.

Docket No. 06-070-U

Order No. 9

Page 8 of 16

                Staff recommended an overall rate of return of 5.35%, an equity return of 10%, and a capital structure with a debt to equity ratio of 51% to 49%. Staff made other adjustments to the capital structure accounts, increasing the Accumulated Deferred Income Tax balance (“ADIT”) by $16.772 million and the Current, Accrued, and Other Liabilities balance (“CAOL”) by $38.973 million to reflect more current account activity, reversing certain OG&E eliminations of non-cash balances from CAOL, and including accrued interest and dividends payable in CAOL.

Staff determined that the results of OG&E’s proposed Cost of Service and allocation methods were reasonable and recommended approval with two exceptions: that general distribution facilities be classified and allocated as demand and not as “customer related”, noting the high population density of OG&E’s Arkansas service territory; and, that fixed charges, or interest, be allocated based on total allocated rate base, rather than plant-only as proposed by OG&E, asserting that, as interest expense is derived from interest rates applied to total rate base, appropriately resulting interest expense should be allocated on the same basis.

With regard to OG&E’s rate design and proposed new tariffs, Staff determined that OG&E’s proposals were generally consistent with Commission policy to eliminate interclass subsidies and recommended: (1) approval of OG&E’s proposed redesign of the Residential and MP tariffs; (2) approval of OG&E’s proposal to defer until year two any part of a rate schedule increase which may exceed 10%; (3) disapproval of OG&E’s shift of customer charges to energy charges for the MP class; (4) disapproval of OG&E’s proposed voluntary “Guaranteed Flat Bill” for Residential and General Service customers, which Staff contends provides no significant benefit over the currently approved levelized billing programs; and, (5) approval of OG&E’s proposed amendments to the ECRR.

Docket No. 06-070-U

Order No. 9

Page 9 of 16

                Staff also recommended that the Commission reject, as one sided and providing no material benefit to ratepayers, OG&E’s proposal to retain a 10% share of all SO₂ Allowance revenues which flow through the ECRR. Staff notes that there has been no similar OG&E sharing of costs to reduce emissions, including those incurred by OG&E for burning higher grade, higher cost fuel, which flowed directly through the ECRR to ratepayers and which was the primary reason for emission reduction and the subsequent accumulation of SO₂ Allowances.

AG’s Litigation Position

The AG asserted that OG&E’s $13.5 million rate increase request was overstated by at least $7.15 million. The overstatement consists generally of the AG’s proposed expense disallowance and adjustments, the AG's recommended lower overall return of 5.31%, using both a hypothetical capital structure with a debt/equity ratio of 49.1% to 50.9% and an illustrative equity return of 9.5%, and differences between the AG and OG&E in certain Cost of Service allocations. The AG proposed an overall increase in Rate Schedule Revenues of 3.44%, with any individual class increase limited to 5% above the system average rate change. The AG recommended the following rate revenue percentage increase/decrease for each customer class:

The AG proposed disallowance of certain advertising expenses, Restricted Stock Awards, 50% of Director’s and Officer’s Insurance, and lobbying expense. The AG also recommended normalizing costs of the Centennial Project Maintenance Contract, noting the high cost in its

Docket No. 06-070-U

Order No. 9

Page 10 of 16

early years. In addition, the AG recommended that, should a revenue increase be allowed, the effective tax rate used to calculate the conversion factor for revenue requirement should be adjusted to encompass certain new tax credits¹⁴ which are effective in 2005 and 2006.

In setting OG&E’s return, the AG urged the Commission to adopt its recommended hypothetical capital structure which is based on the latest two quarters of information available for OG&E’s sample companies. The AG, while not recommending a specific equity return, also asked the Commission, when measuring the reasonableness of any proposed return, to give consideration both to pension fund yields expected by utilities for their own pension fund investments as well as to current stock market literature which indicates lower expected returns in the future.

Based on his review of OG&E’s Cost of Service, the AG generally agreed with OG&E's classification and allocation methods for generation and transmission, its inter-jurisdictional allocation of distribution plant, and its overall allocation of Working Capital and other assets. For distribution plant, the AG accepted some of OG&E’s classifications and allocations. However, for other distribution plant¹⁵ which OG&E classified as part demand and part customer, the AG proposed, based on prior Commission practice, that these plant accounts should be classified as demand related and allocated accordingly. In addition, the AG criticized OG&E’s use of dated studies and its use of the minimum system method to classify plant, which the AG asserts has been rejected for well over 20 years. For distribution expenses, the AG accepted OG&E’s

_________________________

¹⁴  The American Jobs Creation Act of 2004 allows credits or deductions of 3% for taxable income related to generation.

¹⁵  Specifically, the AG raises issue with the plant account allocation for poles, overhead wires, underground conduit, and underground wires.

Docket No. 06-070-U

Order No. 9

Page 11 of 16

methods for both inter-jurisdictional and inter-class purposes except for one allocation which had not been allocated on the same basis as that of related plant¹⁶. The AG determined the “broad based allocation factor” OG&E used to allocate its general plant, its Administrative and General expenses, and its payroll taxes to be reasonable, but recommended that uncollectible accounts expense should also be excluded from the costs used to calculate the factor. The AG also recommended certain changes to the allocation of deductible items used to calculate the income tax for each class. Finally, the AG recommended corrections and changes to OG&E’s allocation of Other Operating Revenues with the AG’s recommendations resulting in increased revenues for residential and commercial customers and reduced revenues for industrial customers.

The AG supported certain OG&E rate design proposals which promote conservation but opposed others, recommending instead flat or inverted summer rates, less reliance on the customer charge, elimination or narrowing of winter rate differentials, and making unavailable declining rates to new residential customers and, in the future, all residential customers. The AG generally accepted OG&E’s new fee schedules and ECRR changes, although the AG asked the Commission to consider the impact of the ECRR changes when setting base rates. Further, the AG, while accepting the ECRR design change, opposed any sharing of SO₂ Allowance revenues which flow through the ECRR and also opposed OG&E’s new Guaranteed Flat Bill.

The Proposed Settlement Agreement

The Parties ask the Commission to approve their jointly proposed Settlement Agreement which would establish OG&E’s revenue requirement in total and the rate design for each rate class, and additionally provide certain other ratepayer protections and reporting requirements.

_________________________

¹⁶ OG&E generally allocated its expenses identified specific to certain plant on the same basis that it allocated that plant.

Docket No. 06-070-U

Order No. 9

Page 12 of 16

The Parties have agreed to settle all issues based on the positions taken by Staff in its October 19, 2006, Direct Testimony, with certain modifications. The Settlement Agreement calls for new rates, resulting from approval of the Settlement Agreement, to become effective for all bills rendered on or after February 1, 2007.

The Settlement Agreement, attached hereto as Exhibit 1, reflects a Rate Schedule Revenue Requirement of $66,673,173 and a Rate Schedule Revenue Deficiency of $5,378,132 resulting in an increase in overall rates of 3.01%. The Settlement Agreement proposes the following rate revenue percentage increase/decrease for each customer class:

The adjustments made to Staff’s Direct case were addressed by Staff witness Hilton. As noted in Mr. Hilton’s Stipulation Testimony, these Revenue Requirement elements have either been updated “based on additional information or clarification” or adjusted for “correction of errors or omissions”.

According to Mr. Hilton, rate base adjustments included those made to Plant-in-Service, the Centennial Project, and Accumulated Depreciation, which were updated to reflect more current information. Related Depreciation Expense was updated as well. Mr. Hilton testified further that, with regard to the Commission’s approval of the Centennial Project, the Settlement Agreement specifically incorporates Staff’s recommendation to condition any approval on future ratepayer savings and additionally adopts Staff’s recommended reporting requirements for the

Docket No. 06-070-U

Order No. 9

Page 13 of 16

Centennial Project. Mr. Hilton notes also that the Settlement Agreement adopts the Staff-accepted depreciation rates and incorporates Staff’s recommendations in that regard.

Mr. Hilton testified that adjustments made to Staff’s other expenses included correcting the McClain Plant’s Arkansas allocation, updating Insurance Expense and Payroll Expense to current levels, changing expenses to reflect interstate allocation corrections and, finally, correcting both Income Tax Expense and the related conversion factor by incorporating the new generation income tax deduction.¹⁷ In addition, Mr. Hilton notes that the overall return allowed in the Settlement Agreement reflects Staff’s recommendation adjusted for corrections made to two capital structure balances to update the plant-related ADIT balance and to eliminate a non-recurring CAOL item.

Staff witness Wright testified regarding the Settlement Agreement’s cost allocation and rate design, its SO² Allowance treatment, and the ECRR changes. Ms. Wright testified that the Cost of Service adopted in the Settlement Agreement reflects Staff’s recommendations, with two corrections. Ms. Wright testified that, as recommended by AG witness Marcus, changes were made to two allocation factors. One factor was corrected to eliminate an interstate over-allocation to Arkansas expense and another to more appropriately allocate expense based on underlying plant allocations.

According to Ms. Wright, the Settlement Agreement also generally adopts Staff’s proposed rate design and reflects Staff’s recommendation to move to cost-based rates. She notes, however, that the Residential and the Municipal Lighting Classes will relinquish some excess earnings to help reduce the significant increase to the Athletic Field Lighting Class (“AFL

_________________________

¹⁷  The American Jobs Creation Act of 2004 allows a 3% deduction against generation income.

Docket No. 06-070-U

Order No. 9

Page 14 of 16

Class”). All other classes will pay Cost of Service rates. Moreover, Ms. Wright testified that the AFL Class increase should, as recommended, be phased in over two years with OG&E absorbing any revenue shortfall for the first year.

Finally, Ms. Wright testified that, as recommended, the Settlement Agreement requires that 100% of SO² Allowance revenues will continue to flow to customers through the ECRR, that certain additional information will now be included in OG&E’s annual ECRR filings, and that the ECRR will be calculated by level of use.

Staff witnesses Hilton and Wright, as well as OG&E witness Rowlett and AG witness McMurray, testified in support of and recommend approval of the Settlement Agreement¹⁸. Mr. Hilton testified that the proposed Settlement Agreement is “consistent with Staff policy based on Commission precedent” and Arkansas law and is “(b)ased on evidence provided in Staff's Direct case and the additional information Staff reviewed, as outlined in the Settlement Agreement and (in his) testimony....” Ms. Wright testified that the Settlement Agreement’s resulting rates generally reflect both Staff’s recommendations in this case and the Commission’s policy to move toward cost based rates and that the proposed rates are just and reasonable and will not have a significant adverse impact on customers. OG&E witness Rowlett testified that “OG&E supports the Agreement as a reasonable compromise, as being in the overall public interest, and is willing to abide by the terms and conditions addressed in the Agreement.” AG witness McMurray testified that the Attorney General recommends approval of the Settlement Agreement as in the public interest, noting that “(t)he Agreement addresses the concerns of the Attorney General in

_________________________

¹⁸ Wal-Mart did not file supporting testimony but is a party to the November 29, 2006, Motion To Approve Settlement Agreement seeking Commission approval of the Settlement Agreement.

Docket No. 06-070-U

Order No. 9

Page 15 of 16

this docket in a reasonable way...(and)...is far better for ratepayers than OG&E’s initial proposal.”

Conclusions

The Commission finds that all parties support adoption of the Settlement Agreement and the resulting rates and tariffs resulting therefrom are based on Staff’s Direct Testimony of October 19, 2006, as corrected or updated. The Commission notes the following Revenue Deficiency and rate revenue percentage increase/decrease comparisons, reflecting the results of the Settlement Agreement measured against OG&E’s original Application and Staff’s Direct case:

The Commission finds that the Settlement Agreement is fully supported by Staff’s Direct Testimony, as well as the Settlement Testimonies of all parties, and that the changes or corrections encompassed in the Settlement Agreement do not result in material differences from Staff’s case. The Commission finds that the provisions of the Settlement Agreement, having been premised on Staff’s Direct Testimony of October 19, 2006, with updates and corrections to that testimony addressed in the Settlement Agreement and in Staff’s Stipulation Testimony, is fully supported by the record.

Docket No. 06-070-U

Order No. 9

Page 16 of 16

                Therefore, The Commission finds that the Settlement Agreement is just and reasonable and in the public interest. Accordingly, the Settlement Agreement, as submitted by the Parties and as attached hereto, should be and hereby is approved. Further, the Settlement Agreement compliance tariffs filed by OG&E on December 18, 2006, should be and hereby are approved effective for all customer bills rendered on and after February 1, 2007.

Sandra L. Hochstetter, Chairman

Daryl E. Bassett, Commissioner

Randy Bynum, Commissioner

Diana K. Wilson

Secretary of the Commission

EXHIBIT 1

BEFORE THE ARKANSAS PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION

AGREEMENT

The General Staff of the Arkansas Public Service Commission (Staff), Oklahoma Gas & Electric Company (OG&E), Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., and the Attorney General of Arkansas (AG), agree to the following terms in settlement of all outstanding issues:

- 1 -

EXHIBIT 1

- 2 -

EXHIBIT 1

decrease), as AG witness William Marcus recommends in his Prepared Testimony; and,

*The weighted cost of debt is 2.08%.

In deriving the Arkansas jurisdictional Revenue Requirement, the aforementioned adjustments were made at the total company level and the

- 3 -

EXHIBIT 1

adjusted test year amounts were allocated to the Arkansas jurisdiction in the cost of service study.

The results of the agreed upon Cost of Service Study (Settlement COS study) are set forth in Attachment 1 to the Agreement.

- 4 -

EXHIBIT 1

Municipal Pumping customer classes shall each pay its cost of service as indicated by the Settlement COS Study. The rates for the Municipal Lighting Class shall remain at their current level and the $16,998 revenue excess attributable to this class will be used to reduce the base rate increase to the Athletic Field Lighting customer class. The rates for the Residential customer class shall be reduced by $1,159,664 less $12,000 which will be used to further reduce the increase to the Athletic Field Lighting customer class. The resulting non-fuel rate schedule revenue requirement for each customer class is as follows:

- 5 -

EXHIBIT 1

As set forth in Staff witness Freier’s October 19, 2006 Direct Testimony, OG&E is required for future rate applications to make an adjustment similar to the one in Application Schedule B-2.3d, as updated for 2006 by Staff adjustment RB-12, to accurately reflect net plant at Arkansas- approved depreciation rates. OG&E is likewise required to present its current and proposed

- 6 -

EXHIBIT 1

depreciation rates on an individual account-specific level in future rate applications, rather than calculating composite rates for schedule presentation.

SO₂ Emissions Allowances

The parties agree that 100% of the Arkansas proceeds from the sale of excess Sulfur Dioxide (S02) Emissions Allowances will be distributed to ratepayers through the ECRR as recommended by Staff witness Butler.

ECRR Reporting Requirements

The parties agree that additional information will be reported with the annual ECRR filing to clearly identify each component of OG&E’s fuel costs. Staff and OG&E will work together to develop a format for reporting this additional information.

Transition Cost Credit

As reflected in OG&E’s final report of transition cost recovery in Docket No. 01-044-U, the Company overcollected $64,247.43 in transition costs. The parties agree with Staff witness Butler’s recommendation that a credit of this amount, increased by the calculation of carrying charges at the ECRR carrying charge rate in effect during the months between the 2006 ECRR implementation date and the 2007 implementation date, should be included in OG&E’s next ECRR filing.

Centennial Wind Facility

The parties agree that the Centennial Wind Facility will be beneficial to Arkansas consumers if the key assumptions in the Company’s analysis materialize. Therefore, consistent with the recommendations of Staff witness Ezra Hausman, the Centennial Wind Facility should

- 7 -

EXHIBIT 1

be included in OG&E’s Arkansas cost of service subject to the Commission’s right to initiate a proceeding to address measures necessary to protect Arkansas ratepayers, if there is a material variance from expected operations. Such measures could include, but would not be limited to, the disallowance of recovery in rates of some or all costs associated with Centennial. A disallowance of all or part of Centennial costs in the Oklahoma jurisdiction would automatically trigger a re-evaluation in Arkansas. Furthermore, OG&E agrees with the recommendations of Staff witness Ezra Hausman (as stated in his Direct Testimony) to:

(1) monitor the performance of Centennial and report to the Commission annually the fuel savings associated with the operation of this facility. The report should show, at a minimum, Centennial’s monthly generation, the resources displaced, and the resulting fuel savings.

(2) refund to ratepayers through the ECRR any delay damages, liquidated damages, or warranty or other payments made to OG&E under the Invenergy contract, equal to the portion of the resource serving Arkansas customers.

(3) refund to Arkansas ratepayers through the ECRR a share of the value of “green credits” or other products resulting from the monetized environmental benefits of wind generation at Centennial equal to the portion of the resource dedicated to serving Arkansas ratepayers.

- 8 -

EXHIBIT 1

constitute an admission of any claim, defense, rule or interpretation of law, allegation of fact, principle, or method of ratemaking or cost-of-service determination or rate design, or terms or conditions of service, or the application of any rule or interpretation of law, that may underlie, or be perceived to underlie, this Agreement.

- 9 -

EXHIBIT 1

writings, discussions, negotiations, or other communications of any type in any proceeding.

- 10 -

EXHIBIT 1

Respectfully submitted,

GENERAL STAFF OF THE ARKANSAS PUBLIC

SERVICE COMMISSION

Connie C. Griffin 501 682 5880

General Staff Attorneys

1000 Center Sweet

P.O. Box 400

Little Rock, AR 72203-0400

Fax 501 682 5864

Phone 501-372-5800

QUATTLEBAUM, GROOMS, TULL & BURROW PLLC

111 Center Street, Suite 1900

Little Rock, AR. 72201

501 379-1712

Fax 501 379-1701

Angela S. Beehler

Director, Energy Regulation

Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.

2001 Southeast 10th Street

Bentonville, AR 72716-0550

479 204-0437

Fax 479 273-6851

- 11 -

EXHIBIT 1

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

Shawn McMurray

Sr. Asst. Attorney General

Sarah Tacker

Asst. Attorney General

323 Center Street, Suite 200

Little Rock, AR 72201-2610

Phone: 501-682-2007

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I certify that a copy of the foregoing pleading has been delivered to all parties of record by hand delivery, facsimile, electronic transmission, or first-class mail, postage prepaid, this November 29, 2006.

- 12 -