A few weeks after the Oklahoma Supreme Court consolidated several of the legal challenges filed by three Republican Representatives against Corporation Commissioner Todd Hiett, another lawsuit has been added to the fray.
Reps. Tom Gann, Kevin West and Rick West revealed in a recent case filed with the Supreme Court they are not letting up in challenging Hiett’s votes over the past few months on utility rate cases they contend represent a conflict of interest and violation of state laws.
Their latest case involves a lawsuit against the Corporation Commission and Oklahoma Gas and Electric stemming from OG&E’s request for approval of its 2023 fuel adjustment clause and prudence review, totaling $127 million, which Commissioners Todd Hiett, Kim David and Brian Bingman approved April 22, 2025.
Their claim makes a number of contentions including that two OCC Public Utilities Division witnesses filed “inadmissible testimony” about PUD’s so-called “audit” of OG&E’s fuel costs on February 4, 2025.
The main contention refers to the claims of public drunkenness indecent exposure and sexual abuse by Commissioner Hiett in 2024. The legislators pointed out that Thompson Tillotson PLLC, now representing OG&E in the case, hosted a party where the drunk driving and indecent exposure allegedly occurred at the law firm’s opening reception at an Oklahoma City bar.
“Hiett has not denied any of the allegations against him, including drunk driving and indecent exposure; Thompson and Tilltson both refused to answer when asked on the record on Dec. 5, 2024 if they had direct knowledge of Hiett’s alleged criminal conduct,” continued the filing by the legislators. Gann filed a formal complaint in the case which he says “was (mis)treated by the OCC as “public comment” and no hearing on it was set.”
Gann, West and West repeated the claims made in previous challenges of utility cases, saying Hiett is “bound by” Oklahoma’s State Ethics Rules and Code of Judicial Conduct because as a commissioner, he is serving in a quasi-judicial capacity
The three legislators asked the Supreme Court to decide whether the Corporation Commission “erred” by issuing an Order Prescribing Notice that failed to give notice of the case and its proceedings to OG&E customers. They also want the Court to rule whether Gann’s filed complaint was wrongly classified as “public comment.” The Representatives also want an answer whether attorneys for the utility “erred by apparently ignoring Rule 8.3 of the Oklahoma Rules of Professional Conduct and failing to report knowedge of “violation of applicable rules of judicial conduct” by Commissioner Hiett.”
Attorneys for the Corporation Commission, including the OCC General Counsel and Administrative Law Judge as well as the Attorney General are accused of violating Rule 8.4 of the same Rules of Professional Conduct by “knowingly assisting” Hiett in conduct that is a violation of applicable rules of judicial conduct. In other words, the legislators say Hiett should have disqualified himself and the attorneys for the Commission and the Attorney General knew it and did nothing to stop him from voting.
Finally, the state Representatives claim the Corporation Commission held an unposted meeting on December 16, 2024 and conducted business including discussion of Commissioner Hiett’s alleged criminal conduct impacting the OG&E case “thereby violating the Open Meeting Act and ratepayers’ due process rights.”
A response by OG&E attorneys was filed Tuesday with the Supreme Court.
“The proceeding was initiated by the Commission’s Public Utility Division pursuant to 17 O.S. § 252 and OAC § 165:50-5-3, and its scope was limited to issues related to the fuel adjustment clause. Appellant Gann filed a number of public comments regarding Commissioner Hiett and other extraneous issues, but he did not intervene in the proceeding or otherwise address the substantive operation of the fuel adjustment clause.”
The utility also explained an Administrative Law Judge held a prehearing conference hearing on the merits on March 27, 2025 at which she took appearances from the parties and testimony from the witnesses and welcomed public comment.
“Appellants did not appear or offer any evidence;
and nor did they seek to raise the issues asserted in their prior public comments at the hearing.”
Gann and the two Wests also filed suit regarding rate cases involving Public Service Co. of Oklahoma and Oklahoma Natural Gas Co. In May, the Supreme court determined, “These cases (122861, 122991,123020 and 123021 (cons. w/123046, 123047) are hereby made compansion cases.”
The claims against PSO and ONG were similar to this latest suit against OGE.
Link to Supreme Court filing on OGE
file:///C:/Users/User/Downloads/1061868813-20250513-134002-.pdf
OG&E response
file:///C:/Users/User/Downloads/1061869519-20250610-132506-%20(1).pdf