The state attorney general came to the defense of Corporation Commissioner Todd Hiett and said in responding to Supreme Court challenges by Reps. Tom Gann and Kevin West that they made “baseless and inflammatory accusations against the Commission” and their challenges to rate hikes by PSO, OG&E and ONG should be thrown out of court.
The legislators challenged three annual Fuel Adjustment Clauses made by the three utilities, contending they were made in error because they lacked an official audit and involved the votes of Commissioner Todd Hiett, an official accused of public drunkenness and conflict of interest.
“Alleged misconduct by a commissioner, without allegations that the misconduct resulted in unfair tariffs and rates, does not arise to a due process violation. Appellants’ bare assertions of potential misconduct fail to show that Commissioner Hiett’s involvement in the case violated due process through confiscatory or fundamentally unfair rates—,” in the cases.
In a filing Tuesday with the Supreme Court, the attorney general’s office contended, “Although Appellants’ brief is replete with unsubstantiated attacks, they fail to challenge the validity of the FAC Final Orders themselves.”
The Republican legislators challenged the rate increases and votes on seven different grounds including that Hiett had a conflict, a violation of the Open Meetings Act and that the Commission failed to provide adequate notice to customers. The Representatives also contended the Commission improperly treated Gann’s filings as public comment.
Their challenges stem from 2024 reports that Hiett got drunk and groped an energy utility official at a conference held in Minneapolis.
“I take these allegations very seriously,” Hiett said. “I have publicly apologized for my actions and have taken immediate steps to address the issue by seeking treatment. I respect the call from my fellow commissioners for accountability. I have always supported accountability and transparency as a public servant. I will cooperate fully with any personnel investigation being conducted by the appropriate body.”
The Attorney General claimed the arguments were “meritless” and that the legislators “do not have standing to bring out-of-scope challenges” to the court. The filing answered each of the seven claims made by Reps. Gann and West.
“Appellants’ first contention-that Commissioner Hiett’s involvement in the rate case below violated due process-fails because FAC cases are legislative in nature and do not afford due
process protections absent a showing that the FAC inaccurately calculated fuel charges or failed to conduct a prudence review of the fuel contracts,” declared the filing.
“Even if the Record on Appeal supported Appellants’ conclusory and baseless allegations against Commissioner Hiett-and it does not-FAC cases are legislative proceedings that are not subject to due process protections and Commissioner Hiett’s disqualification or recusal would not be required,” stated the response. “Commissioner Hiett’s involvement in the Commission proceeding violated neither Appellants’ nor any other utility customer’s due process rights. As such, invalidation of the Final Orders on these grounds is improper.”
The filing continued in its defense of Hiett’s votes on the cases involving Oklahoma Gas and Electric, Public Service Company of Oklahoma and Oklahoma Natural Gas.
“More importantly, Appellants cannot transform this Court into a finder of fact to functionally serve as the Ethics Commission to find a contrary result. Speculative anecdotes of alleged personal
impropriety on behalf of a commissioner, without concrete allegations of any conduct resulting in unfair tariffs and rates, do not arise to a due process violation.”
Signed by Solicitor General Garry M. Gaskins, II and Deputy Attorney General Thomas Grossnicklaus, the reply to the Supreme Court explained the commissioners were acting in a legislative capacity and were “not require[d] to comply with the judicial standards of conduct.”
The filing also claimed the two state Representatives could not point to any conduct by Commissioner Hiett that deprived them of their due process rights.
According to the filing, the AG said the Commission had provided adequate and timely notice to the Attorney General and the Commission was correct in classifying Gann’s Complaint as a public comment.
” Fourth, the Commission did not violate the Open Meetings Act; and even if it did, that would not be grounds to invalidate the FAC Final Orders. Fifth, Appellants have not shown that the
Commission violated the Open Records Act.”
The Attorney General denied violating the Rules of Professional Conduct before the Commission and further stated the Commission’s annual Fuel Adjustment Clause reviews “comply with state law.”
The legislators also argued the one-page audit of the bond securitization costs totaling billions of dollars stemming from the 2021 Winter Storm Uri fuel costs did not meet the requirements of the Oklahoma Accountancy Act. The Attorney General called the claims “meritless” and said “it was clear that the legislature intended for PUD staff to complete the audit without requiring CPA involvement.”