It now appears two state agencies have come to the defense of Oklahoma Corporation Commissioner Todd Hiett, the state-wide elected official accused of sexual abuse and repeated public drunkenness over the past year.
As OK Energy Today reported earlier in the week, the Attorney General appeared to defend Hiett in asking the Supreme Court to throw out the lawsuit filed by Rep. Tom Gann (R-Inola) who contends Hiett should not be voting on rate cases, specifically PSO, because of a conflict of interest over the allegations.
A few days later, the Corporation Commission came to Hiett’s defense in also requesting the Supreme Court dismiss the legislator’s lawsuit. An April 1 filing by the commission’s General Counsel Patricia Franz, stated “The Commission adopts the description of the events in this matter as stated in that Motion to Dismiss and adopts and incorporates the arguments and authorities of the Attorney General as if fully stated herein.”
In response to the commission’s filing, Rep. Gann noted it was fled “on April Fools Day, April 1, 2025.”
Rep. Tom Gann, in a blunt and critical response to the State Attorney General’s bid to remove the legislator’s Supreme Court lawsuit against Corporation Commissioner and Public Service Company of Oklahoma says his suit should not be dismissed.
In a filing made late in the week after the Attorney General filed a March 24 motion to have the justices throw out Gann’s suit, the Republican Representative from Inola pointedly criticized the Attorney General for saying his office represented consumers at the start of the PSO case, yet was now representing Hiett and the commission.
“Thus, it appears not only has the Attorney General changed clients in this case, but he does not even offer the pretense of a “Chinese wall”–he literally has the same Deputy A.G. working two different sides of the case,” argued Gann.
“Consequently, it appears that history is repeating itself: once again, the ratepayers have been left without counsel in a case before this Court worth more than half-a-billion dollars.”
Rep. Gann suggested in his lengthy response that it appeared the Attorney General was defending Hiett, the corporation commissioner who was accused last summer of sexual abuse and public drunkenness. Recall, Hiett was accused of publicly groping a man at a hotel bar in Minneapolis, Minnesota where they were attending a national convention. The male victim never filed a police report over the incident yet it was witnessed by employees of the Kansas Corporation Commission. A publicly-drunken Hiett was even seen by two female OCC employees who watched him drive home from an Oklahoma City bar where a law firm held its opening celebration. The law firm now represents major utilities that come before the Corporation Commission, including Commissioner Hiett.
Commissioner Hiett has never admitted nor denied the incident at the hotel bar. He did admit to having a problem with alcohol and stated last year publicly he was being treated for it. He also refused to resign from the commission, despite being called by former Commissioner Bob Anthony and others to leave the office.
Rep. Gann also raised the issue of the 2-1 vote last year by the Commission in support of the PSO case. He said the two commissioners who knew of the “taint on this case,” failed to do their duty and disclose it to the other parties at the time of the case. Gann did not identify them by name, but the vote for the PSO case was Hiett and Commission Chair Kim David in support and then-Commissioner Bob Anthony opposed.
He further charged, “the same two Commissioners who themselves had prior knowledge and also eventually voted to approve the appealed order instead seemingly did all they could to shut down any mention of the impact of Commissioner Hiett’s criminal conduct on pending OCC cases, including this one.”
Gann’s original lawsuit filed last year along with two other legislators contended the PSO rate case should not have been approved because Hiett should have stepped aside in the vote.
“This PSO rate case was explicitly cited as a pending OCC case in which Hiett was continuing to participate and vote on orders in violation of State Ethics Rules.”
The legislator also filed complaints against Hiett with the Oklahoma Ethics Commission and the Council on Judicial Complaints. The Ethics Commission launched an investigation but the results have yet to be made public.
Gann disputed the Attorney General’s contention that his suit should be dismissed, claiming he is a ratepayer for PSO. He further told the Supreme Court that “the fact that Appellant is a customer of PSO means the Attorney General was statutorily required to represent Appellant’s interests that were consistent with the “collective interests of all utility consumers.””
Gann contended the Attorney General had a statutory duty to represent all utility customers and did not do it.
“The Attorney General failed to raise, let alone object to, Commissioner Hiett’s blatant violation of State Ethics Rule 4.7 that clearly disadvantaged ratepayers in this adversarial proceeding with the utility company.”
In concluding his response, the legislator stated, “In equity terms, the Attorney General, who by statute and profession, claimed to represent the collective interests of PSO’s customers (including Appellant) at the OCC, should not be allowed to poison his own well by failing to properly raise issues so obviously part of the “collective interests of all utility consumers” and then bring this Motion to Dismiss on the basis that the issues appealed were never properly raised! His Motion to Dismiss brought on that basis must be denied.”
Link is to OSCN and Rep. Tom Gann’s motion in response
file:///C:/Users/User/Downloads/1061309481-20250403-113827-.pdf