Another lawsuit has been filed with the Oklahoma Supreme Court by State Rep. Tom Gann in his bid to stop Corporation Commissioner Todd Hiett from voting in rate cases and fuel adjustment matters for utilities.
He was joined by Rep. Kevin West in a suit filed in the past several days regarding Hiett’s participation in a case involving Oklahoma Natural Gas Company. It is similar to the lawsuit Rep. Gann filed earlier in the year challenging Hiett’s participation in a rate case for Public Service Company of Oklahoma. The latest supreme court lawsuit by Gann and West stated they are challenging the commission’s approval of some $530 million in charges incurred under ONG’s purchased gas adjustment clause for calendar year 2023.
The two lawsuits stem from what the legislators call criminal actions by Commissioner Hiett involving public drunkenness and alleged groping of a man during a national convention at a Minneapolis, Minnesota hotel last year. Hiett later admitted he had a drinking problem and was undergoing treatment. But he refused to resign from the commission and to stop taking part in the rate cases for the utilities.
The legislators contend one of the drunken incidents occurred at an Oklahoma City law office’s opening event at a bar. The law firm has since become legal counsel for major utilities and its founders represent them before the Corporation Commission.
Reps. Gann and West stated in their ONG challenge (Case #122991) they have identified “at least seventeen other utility cases tainted by the alleged criminal conduct of Commissioner Todd Hiett.” They charged Hiett should not be participating “despite the fact that they are obviously matters in which Hiett’s impartiality might reasonable be questioned and thereby from which he is required to disqualify himself” according to the State Ethics Rule 4.7 and the Code of Judicial Conduct Rule 2.11.
“The cases are worth billions to both the monopoly public utility companies and their millions of captive customers in Oklahoma,” they charged.
Reps. Gann and West cited a dozen issues to be raised on appeal.
- Whether the OCC erred by admitting and relying upon inadmissible OCC Public Utility Division testimony that violated state law.
- Whether the OCC erred by not complying with the Oklahoma Accountancy Act.
- Whether the commission is subject to the Code of Judicial Conduct and whether commissioners are individually bound by sections of the Code.
- Whether Commissioner Hiett erred by “unlawfully participating” in a matter from which he should rightly have disqualified himself.”
- Whether “only” the State Ethics Commission has the power to interpret Ethics Rules as the Attorney General stated in a Sept. 18, 2024 letter to Rep. Gann and whether “the protection of utility ratepayers’ due process rights at the Oklahoma Corporation Commission is left in the hands of the State Ethics Commission and the Oklahoma Legislature.”
- Whether the OCC erred by issuing an Order Prescribing Notice that failed to give notice of this case and its proceedings to ONG’s customers.
- Whether the OCC erred by mistreating Gann’s formal complaint filed as “public comment” and by failing to set a hearing at which to determine if ONG’s fuel adjustment clause should be discontinued or suspended as long as Commissioner Hiett’s ongoing participation taints the FAC monitoring proceeding.
- Whether attorneys for the utility erred by ignoring Rule 8.3 of the Oklahoma Rules of Professional Conduct and failing to report knowledge of “violation of applicable rules of judicial conduct” by Commissioner Hiett and whether the Attorney General also erred by violating Rule 8.4 of the same rules “when they knowingly assisted a judge or judicial officer in conduct that is a violation of the applicable rules of judicial conduct or other law.”
- Whether the OCC erred by failing to conduct a “general public hearing” on ONG’s fuel adjustment clause “no less frequently than once every 12 months” thereby violating state law.
- Whether the Commission erred by refusing to produce the OCC Director of Administration’s July 14, 2024 email “about his investigation into Commissioner Hiett’s alleged sexual assault of a ONE Gas,Inc. employee impacting this case.”
- Whether the Commission erred by failing to follow Equal Employment Opportunity Commission guidelines in its internal handling of Commissioner Hiett’s alleged sexual assault “against a ONE Gas,Inc. employee impacting this case.” And whether the commission erred in hiring a lawfirm to conduct an investigation into the allegations with such a scope “so narrowly tailored as to exclude criminal conduct and result in a report that does not even mention the alleged sexual assault.”
- Whether the Corporation Commission erred by holding an unposted meeting of Commissioners on Dec. 16, 2024 at which Commission business, incuding Commissioner Hiett’s alleged criminal conduct impacting this case was discussed, thereby violating the Open Meeting Act and ratepayers’ due process rights.”
Below is the link to the Supreme Court filing.
4file:///C:/Users/User/Downloads/1061309712-20250403-130832-%20(1).pdf
