Representative Tom Gann, one of the three legislators who took their fight to the Oklahoma Supreme Court against billions of dollars in 2021 Winter Storm rate hikes makes another appeal of a court reversal of his first attempt. And he doesn’t hold back in accusing the Court of punting on some easy questions of law.
A day after the Supreme Court denied his challenge of increased rates approved by Oklahoma Corporation Commissioners in 2024 for Public Service Company of Oklahoma, he filed an appeal asking the court to vacate, modify or clarify its denial of his challenge to PUD2023-00086. As OK Energy Today reported, Gann appealed a day later on the grounds that the Supreme Court was “unaware” of the Corporation Commission’s 90-day intervention deadline in general rate cases.
Rep. Gann, R-Inola, followed up still a day after his first appeal with some more clarifications of what he contends the high court was either unaware of or overlooked in its denial of his challenge. He re-emphasized that the court was unaware of the timeline in which he was originally given to respond to PSO’s rate hike request. But he was more blunt in what he felt was a wrongful decision by the justice which affected, he argued, the constitutional rights of millions of Oklahoma utility customers.
“If this Court has decided to punt, and not decide relatively easy questions of law like whether OCC Commissioners are subject to State Ethics Rule 4.7, or whether statutorily-required audits must comply with the Accountancy Act, then it should justify doing so based on existing law,” he wrote in his conclusion.
In its denial, the Court essentially ruled that Gann failed to take part in challenging the rate hikes and bond packages at the time of the hearings held by Corporation Commissioners. But Rep. Gann says the Court failed to rule on the very things he challenged, Commissioner Hiett’s vote participation and failure to follow the Oklahoma Ethics rules and also the state requirements of a proper audit. Instead, the Justices ruled that Gann failed to take part in the procedures at the time of the hearings and should not have waited to take his challenges to the Supreme Court.
“By instead overruling centuries of established legal jurisprudence, this Court not only fails to uphold ratepayers’ rights but actually enshrines their demise in multiple new conclusions of law, without addressing its rationale for doing so,” continued Gann in his appeal.
“Their right to be heard trampled, their right to “just and reasonable rates” cast aside, and their pockets picked, Oklahoma utility customers at least deserve some justification for this Decision’s radical departure from prior legal precedent. At a bare minimum, modification and clarification are in order.”
In his second appeal, Rep. Gann also attacked the Court’s decision saying it ignored its own recently-clarified procedure for applying who has the right to appeal a Corporation Commission order. He also charged, “If this Court intends to set a new precedent and determine “error preservation” and “issue exhaustion” before examining the constitutionality of the issues raised to determine the standard of review that should be applied, it should say so explicitly.”
Gann further stated his alleged errors of law, as ruled by the Court, are constitutional and the justices should have decided them.
“Nothing in Oklahoma jurisprudence except this Court’s new Decision (no authority cited) requires a collateral attack on a void order to be brought in the trial court first,” declared Gann.
He continued his criticism of the court.
“In short, by not examining the issues raised for constitutionality, this Court has not only set a new procedural precedent, it has apparently overturned more than 100 years of law establishing the above exceptions to the “Rule of Error Preservation,” without explanation.”
Gann challenged the PSO rate hike based on Commissioner Todd Hiett’s participation in the rate hike when he faced a possible conflict of interest following public accusations of public drunkenness and the alleged attempted groping of a utility attorney at a public bar.
Gann also challenged a one-page audit of billions of dollars, contending it was unlawful. He reasserted his contention, again in striking bold letters, “Appellant did not know the OCC would put forward false, inadmissible testimony about the jurisdictionally-prerequisite 9078 audit on or before May 1, 2024.”