An administrative law judge with the Oklahoma Corporation Commission delivered a victory Thursday to State Rep. Tom Gann, one of three legislators who sued to prohibit Commissioner Todd Hiett from participating in a rate case for Oklahoma Natural Gas.
In winning the case to be heard as a customer of ONG, Gann also delivered a blistering attack on the Attorney General for fighting his opposition to allowing Hiett to vote on the case involving half a billion dollars in fuel costs to be borne by customer.
‘I am encouraged to see that the Administrative Law Judge is finally taking my formal complaint seriously. Todd Hiett’s ongoing participation in this case is unlawful, unethical and unacceptable. Postponing is the first step toward suspending the case which is the only solution as long as Hiett refuses to disqualify himself,” said Rep. Gann in a response to OK Energy Today after the ruling.
“The postponing is the first step toward suspending the case, which is the only solution as long as Hiett refuses to disqualify himself.”
Gann had argued since he is a customer of ONG he should have been notified of the fuel case and as a customer of the utility, he had a right to be heard. No customers received notification and none were reported to be aware of Thursday’s hearing on the merits, even though there was a public comment period, at which no one spoke. The Attorney General’s office had argued it was the entity responsible for representing the public, not Gann.
“The deputy attorney general is supposed to represent ONG’s customers in these matters. He apparently disapproves of my suggestion that he has a professional obligation to speak up about Commissioner Hiett’s taint on this case, but he has not expressed any disapproval of Hiett’s alleged sexual misconduct. His zeal seems misplaced.”
Gann referred to Deputy Attorney General Chase Snodgrass who told the judge he was “offended” by Gann’s complaint and opposed giving him status to intervene in the case beyond the public comment period. Gann’s request had also been opposed by the Corporation Commissioner’s legal counsel and was told to contact Snodgrass in October, which he did.
“As to your last question regarding whether our office intends to “represent you and the arguments made” in your filing, we cannot represent you in your individual capacity as a presumptive customer of ONG, PSO, and OGE, as our statutory duty is to represent the “collective interest” of ratepayers, not a singular individual,” wrote Snodgrass in response to Gann.
ONG attorney Deborah Thompson also opposed Gann’s case, telling the ALJ the legislator’s complaint did not follow the rules of the commission.
With Commissioner Hiett attending the hearing and sitting next to her, Judge Carly M. Ortel ruled in essence that Gann does have legal standing to file a complaint and be heard by the Commission and in so doing, delayed the fuel adjustment case for two weeks involving ONG. She ruled during a hearing on the merits, and at the same time, handed a setback to Attorney General Gentner Drummond who not only refused to represent Gann and Reps. Kevin West, R-Moore, and Rick West, R-Heavener in their recent Supreme Court challenge, but came out and opposed them Thursday in their case to be heard in the Fuel Adjustment Case. (FAC)
He and Reps. Kevin West and Rick West believe the sexual and drunkenness allegations made and revealed this past summer against Todd Hiett are grounds enough for him to be disqualified from voting in rate cases involving ONG, OG&E and PSO. It is believed the reported male victim of groping by Hiett at a public bar during a national convention in June is employed by a firm representing one of the three utilities.
In a complaint filed Nov. 19 by Rep. Gann, he said even Hiett’s attorney, Joe White, during the recent Supreme Court arguments, admitted and agreed that Hiett was “bound by” both State Ethics rules and “when serving in a quasi-judicial capacity as a Corporation Commissioner” the Code of Judicial Conduct.
Gann continued in this week’s filing that the admission before the Supreme Court Justices is a “change of circumstance” and makes the Commission’s monitoring and oversight of the application of the utility’s (ONG) FAC a matter which a “reasonable person with knowledge of the relevant facts would question Hiett’s impartiality and in which Hiett’s “impartiality might reasonable be questioned.”
