State Rep. Tom Gann, the Republican legislator who has led constitutional challenges of the Oklahoma Corporation Commission’s approval of utility rate cases, has filed his ninth such appeal with the State Supreme Court. It was a challenge of a Public Service Company of Oklahoma case.
In a March 26 filing, Gann challenged the recent approval of a utility fuel adjustment clause and prudence review case for Public Service Company of Oklahoma. It involved $597,417,249 of fuel and purchase power expense in 2024 billed to customers through the utility’s Fuel Adjustment Clause.
Like many of his previous filings, some of which included Reps. Kevin West and Rick West, this challenge was based on a lack of an audit that met the state’s Accountancy Act. He also raised alleged violations of ethics involving Commissioner Todd Hiett.
Rep. Gann contends regulators ignored a number of challenges of how the fuel cost issue was handled. He continued his attack on votes taken by Commissioner Hiett after public claims were made against him about public drunkenness and an alleged sexual groping of an attorney who worked for a major utility in the state.
Gann also raised the incident involving attorneys Deborah Thompson and Ken Tillotson who held a reception for the opening of their law offices in Oklahoma City where Hiett attended and was reported to be drunk, yet drove himself home.
“Attorneys Deborah Thompson and KenTillotson did not file an Entry of Appearance on behalf of PSO in this case but simultaneously represented PSO in other OCC cases. In an August 7, 2024 Oklahoman article, two female OCСС employees alleged they witnessed/experienced criminal conduct by OCC Commissioner Todd Hiett on June 21, 2023 in the presence of “a man who works for a utility company.” Thompson Tillotson, PLLC hosted the event. Hiett did not deny any of the allegations against him, including drunk driving and indecent exposure; Thompson and Tillotson refused to answer when asked on Deс. 5, 2024 if they had direct knowledge of Hiett’s alleged criminal conduct. Appellant’s filed complaint pursuant to OAC § 165:50-5-3 was (mis)treated as “public comment” and no hearing on it was set.”
The state representative from Inola pointed to another contention raised about the qualifications of two witnesses for the Commission’s Public Utilities Division who testified in PSO’s CY2023 fuel case order (CU-122991).They testified again in December 2025 and “filed inadmissible testimony about their so-called “audit” and “prudence review” activities regarding PSO’s CY2024 fuel costs that did not comply with state law. A complaint showing one witness falsified his academic credentials was filed.
The witness did not correct the record at the Hearing on the Merits; the ALJ admitted his testimony and treated the complaint as “public comment.”
Gann’s challenge asked the Supreme Court to decide at least four issues regarding the Fuel Adjustment Clause approved for PSO.
1. Whether the Oklahoma Corporation Commission erred by admitting and relying upon OCC Public Utility Division testimony that violated 17 O.S. § 13 and/or 12 O.S. § 2702.
2. Whether the Oklahoma Corporation Commission erred by not complying with the Oklahoma Accountancy Act (59 O.S. § 15.1 et seq.) in its use of the word “audit” in sworn testimony and the OCC’s appealed final order in this case.
3. Whether the Oklahoma Corporation Commission is subject to the Code of Judicial Conduct, as stated in its own OCC Personnel and Administrative Policy Manual;¹ and additionally, whether OCC Commissioners are individually bound by sections of the Code of Judicial Conduct when serving in their quasi-judicial capacity (especially in judicial utility fuel adjustment clause and prudence review cases such as this PSO fuel case).
4. Whether Commissioner Hiett erred by unlawfully participating in a matter from which he should rightly have disqualified himself according to both Code of Judicial Conduct Rule 2.11 and State Ethics Rule 4.7 after he allegedly committed criminal acts at/after an event hosted by two PSO attorneys about which those same attorneys refused to answer when asked on the record if they had direct knowledge; and consequently, whether the Oklahoma Corporation Commission violated the constitutionally protected due process rights³ of PSO’s captive customers by issuing orders as to which Commissioner Hiett should not have participated,
including Hiett’s vote on the appealed final order.