OKLAHOMA CITY – On Monday, the Oklahoma Supreme Court denied motions filed by the Oklahoma attorney general and Oklahoma Corporation Commission (OCC) seeking to dismiss an appeal of the OCC’s recent $120 million rate increase for Public Service Company of Oklahoma (PSO) brought by Rep. Tom Gann, R-Inola. 

“Accordingly, this appeal shall proceed,” Chief Justice Dustin Rowe wrote.

Monday’s order came despite a decision by the Oklahoma Ethics Commission last week dismissing Gann’s ethics complaint filed against Corporation Commissioner Todd Hiett. In a statement, the Ethics Commission said its determination was based in part on a December 2024 Supreme Court decision that declined to prohibit Hiett from hearing OCC cases that may be tainted by Hiett’s alleged misconduct.

However, a concurring opinion by Justice Douglas Combs suggested Gann and the other petitioners, Reps. Kevin West, R-Moore, and Rick West, R-Heavener, instead bring individual appeals of the cases allegedly tainted by Hiett. Four appeals worth some $2 billion to customers of OG&E, ONG and PSO are currently pending before the Court, including Gann’s appeal of the PSO rate case which the court has now decided will proceed.

In response to the Ethics Commission’s May 1 statement explaining its dismissal of Gann’s complaint filed against Hiett, Gann gave the following statement:

"It is baffling how the Ethics Commission could read Justice Kuehn’s concurring opinion in OSC 122513 saying that: 'The Ethics Commission has the power to investigate the complaint, gather evidence, hold hearings, and give Respondent an opportunity to be heard before resolving the ethics claim.'

"Yet they completely missed Justice Combs’ lengthy assessment in footnote 1 of his concurring opinion, concluding that: 'Thus, we now know that the rule of necessity need not be utilized to maintain a quorum of three in every case, and we can disregard Southwestern Bell's language to the contrary.'

"If the Ethics Commission has decided that the common law Rule of Necessity allows Commissioner Hiett to participate in cases tainted by his misconduct, despite Ethics Rule 4’s prohibition against conflicts of interest, that means the Ethics Commission determined that there is reason to question Hiett’s impartiality in these cases. Otherwise, the Rule of Necessity, which only applies to biased or conflicted decision-makers, could not apply.

"As made clear by Justice Kuehn, the Ethics Commission’s role was to be the trier of fact in the complaints against Hiett. Although the Commission did not disclose the details of its findings in that role, its mistaken legal conclusion indicates that the facts pointed to Hiett having a prohibited conflict of interest.

"I look forward to hearing what the proper trier of law, the Oklahoma Supreme Court, has to say about the correct interpretation of Ethics Rule 4’s prohibition against OCC Commissioners participating in cases about which a reasonable person would question their impartiality – especially the dozens of OCC cases worth billions of dollars to Oklahoma utility customers that have been tainted by Hiett’s misconduct. I continue to be encouraged by the Court’s decisions and opinions, including Monday’s decision to let the first appeal proceed."

The three legislators currently are appealing four utility cases worth more than $2 billion at the Oklahoma Supreme Court. They allege Hiett was legally required to disqualify himself from those cases, and that the Oklahoma Corporation Commission’s utility audits, including of the multi-billion dollar 2021 Winter Storm costs and bonds, did not comply with state law.