OKLAHOMA CITY – Less than two weeks after Rep. Tom Gann, R-Inola, said the Oklahoma Corporation Commission (OCC) quietly preapproved some $1.3 billion in new electricity generation and storage capacity for Public Service Company of Oklahoma (PSO), he has appealed the OCC’s order to the Oklahoma Supreme Court. Gann now has ten OCC utility appeals pending before the court, some of those filed with Reps. Kevin West, R-Moore, and Rick West, R-Heavener,

This latest appeal, filed May 22, brings the total amount of PSO, OG&E and ONG customer payments the representatives have challenged to $475 million in rate increases, $3.2 billion in 2021 Winter Storm bonds, $11 billion in fuel charges, and $1.3 billion in new capacity preapprovals.

Although not identified by name in the OCC’s order, Gann said PSO’s capacity expansion is intended to power several new “large-load” industrial customers, including multiple proposed data centers in eastern Oklahoma and the new $4 billion Emirates Global Aluminum smelter proposed for Gann’s hometown of Inola. 

On May 29, AARP and the Oklahoma Industrial Energy Consumers joined Gann’s appeal of the OCC’s $1.3 billion capacity preapproval order for PSO, arguing one of the financing methods the OCC approved was based on an unconstitutional law. Approved in May 2025, Senate Bill 998 mandated approval of Construction Work in Progress (CWIP) financing for certain utility projects.

In addition to the new appeal, Gann and more than 300 other PSO customers have filed Entries of Appearance in PSO’s latest rate case at the OCC in which the utility is seeking an additional $600 million rate increase. The Entries are being challenged by PSO. The customers say they are being filed to comply with a recent Oklahoma Supreme Court decision (2026 OK 24) that recognized individual utility customers’ constitutional right to appeal OCC utility orders, but said ratepayers need to intervene and raise their objections at the OCC first. The court’s decision is currently under reconsideration.

A Statement of Position Gann filed in the PSO rate case raises several issues related to the proposed aluminum smelter, including Gann’s opposition to existing customers being forced to subsidize its electricity.

“The Oklahoma Constitution prohibits the OCC from approving rates for PSO’s residential customers that are not ‘reasonable and just,’” Gann writes. “Rates that are not cost-of-service based and result in residential customers subsidizing the cost of extending service to the new load, the cost of infrastructure improvements necessary to serve the new load, or the cost of increased generating or purchased power capacity necessary to meet the demands of that new load, are unlawful and unconstitutional.”

Gann argues the OCC should create a new customer class for the smelter and data centers that takes into account the consumer protections afforded under recently enacted House Bill 2992. 

“I voted in favor of the Data Center Customer Ratepayer Protection Act of 2026, and there is no reason why the OCC cannot protect PSO’s existing residential customers from bearing the burden of similar costs and expenses caused by the smelter or other large industrial loads just because they are not data centers,” Gann tells the OCC.

Gann said on Monday, June 1, more than twenty PSO customers, including ten who drove two hours from Inola to the Capitol, gave in-person public comment imploring OCC Commissioners to deny the proposed rate increase and protect residential customers from unnecessarily higher bills. Some spoke specifically against socializing infrastructure costs to benefit private company shareholders, including both PSO and the new large-load customers it is courting.

In both the new Supreme Court appeal and in his filings at the OCC, Gann argues that PSO’s customers have not been adequately notified about these cases. He also argues OCC Commissioner Todd Hiett is required to recused himself from these PSO cases because of his alleged criminal conduct – including sexual assault, drunk driving, and sexual harassment – about which PSO’s attorneys are alleged to have direct knowledge. Gann argues that state ethics rules require public officials to disqualify themselves from matters in which their impartiality might reasonably be questioned.

Charges were never filed, and the Ethics Commission dismissed a complaint against Hiett in May 2025. But the appeal asks the Supreme Court to review the Ethics Commission’s legal determinations. Gann argues that when Hiett told the Ethics Commission that the common law Rule of Necessity allows him to continue to participate in OCC cases even if he is biased, that was itself an admission of bias. Gann said the Rule of Necessity only applies to biased or conflicted judges.

On Tuesday, June 2, Gann filed motions in the PSO rate case citing laws in other states and asking the OCC Commissioners themselves to weigh in on both issues. 

“It is time the Corporation Commission explicitly recognizes that Oklahoma’s utility customers are entitled to due process protections too, especially when the process is already explicitly required by Oklahoma law,” Gann wrote in his Motion for Determination of Utility Customers’ Due Process Rights. He filed a separate motion seeking to disqualify Commissioner Hiett.

In his Statement of Position, Gann told the OCC, “In my opinion, pursuing a case already infected with so many fundamental errors of law is a waste of taxpayer dollars. The OCC should dismiss this case and start over – beginning with adequate notice to PSO’s customers.”

The utility case appeals can be followed at the Oklahoma Supreme Court:

PSO rate case ($250m rate increases; $700m bonds; initial decision 4/21/2026; reconsideration pending): https://oscn.net/dockets/GetCaseInformation.aspx?db=appellate&number=122861

ONG, PSO & OG&E CY2023 fuel cases ($1.5 billion; all briefs filed): https://oscn.net/dockets/GetCaseInformation.aspx?db=appellate&number=122991

OG&E rate case ($127m rate increase; $760m bonds; all briefs filed): https://oscn.net/dockets/GetCaseInformation.aspx?db=appellate&number=123021

ONG rate case ($98m rate increases; $1.3 billion bonds; all briefs filed): https://oscn.net/dockets/GetCaseInformation.aspx?db=appellate&number=123348

ONG CY2024 fuel case ($390 million + $888m for 2021/2022; first brief filed): https://oscn.net/dockets/GetCaseInformation.aspx?db=appellate&number=123588

OG&E CY2024 fuel case ($925 million + $1.9 billion for 2021/2022; first brief filed): https://oscn.net/dockets/GetCaseInformation.aspx?db=appellate&number=123608

PSO CY2024 fuel case ($600 million + $2.8 billion for 2021/2022; briefs this fall): https://oscn.net/dockets/GetCaseInformation.aspx?db=appellate&number=123905

PSO Preapproval case ($1.255 billion; briefs this winter) https://oscn.net/dockets/GetCaseInformation.aspx?db=appellate&number=124090