Representative Tom Gann

R

District 8

Hi, I'm Tom Gann and I represent the people of Oklahoma's 8th District.


representative

News & Announcements

Apr 28, 2026
Recent Posts

Another $9B ONG, OG&E Fuel Charges, Court’s first PSO ruling, Challenged at OK Supreme Court

OKLAHOMA CITY – Reps. Tom Gann, R-Inola, Kevin West, R-Moore, and Rick West, R-Heavener, have filed two more appeal briefs and a motion to reconsider at the Oklahoma Supreme Court. The briefs seek to overturn orders by the Oklahoma Corporation Commission approving more than $4 billion and $5 billion of fuel charges collected by Oklahoma Natural Gas Company (ONG) and Oklahoma Gas and Electric Company (OG&E) on their customers’ monthly bills since 2021.  The motion to reconsider says that in the court’s April 21, 2026, decision denying Gann’s first appeal of a Public Service Company of Oklahoma (PSO) rate case order, the court “overlooked important facts, and based thereon, reached erroneous conclusions resulting in a Decision that radically departs from past court rulings without explaining its rationale for doing so.” It asks the court to reconsider that decision. The court's opinion has not been released for publication. Until released, it is subject to revision or withdrawal. To date, Gann, West and West have filed nine appeals of OCC utility rate and fuel orders for ONG, OG&E and PSO worth billions, arguing all were tainted by the OCC’s failure to perform lawful audits and by votes unlawfully cast by embattled OCC Commissioner Todd Hiett. Their briefs argue their belief that OCC audits are required to be performed by independent, licensed CPAs, according to the Oklahoma Accountancy Act. They also say Hiett should have recused himself from these cases because of his alleged criminal conduct – including sexual assault, drunk driving, and sexual harassment – about which the utilities’ attorneys are alleged to have direct knowledge. They say 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 latest briefs ask the State Supreme Court to review the Ethics Commission’s legal determinations. They argue 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. The lawmakers argue the Rule of Necessity only applies to biased or conflicted judges. The first appeal, challenging $250 million in rate increases and $700 million in 2021 Winter Storm ratepayer-backed bonds for PSO, was filed in February 2025. In its April 21 decision, the Supreme Court found that utility customers do have standing to bring such appeals under Article 9, Section 20 of the Oklahoma Constitution. So, the Supreme Court’s decision to deny the appeal on technical grounds was a “setback in our pursuit of justice on behalf of PSO ratepayers,” Gann said. “The court has used a procedural point (making a critical factual error in doing so) to avoid answering two very important questions: whether the law requires audits to be performed by licensed CPAs and whether corporation commissioners are required by state ethics rules to be impartial decision-makers. By not deciding those issues, the court has left the door open to future legal challenges, especially because it  did  affirm an individual ratepayer’s standing under the Oklahoma Constitution to bring such appeals,” Gann said. In its decision, the court said it was denying the appeal and not deciding most of the issues raised, because those issues “were not presented to and decided by the [Corporation] Commission” first. In his motion to reconsider, Gann points out that he was prevented from intervening in the PSO rate case at the OCC by a rule imposing a 90-day deadline to intervene. PSO’s customers were not even notified about the case until after that deadline had passed, he said.  “Clairvoyance would have been required for [Gann] to have anticipated the OCC’s errors of law in time to meet the OCC’s 90-day intervention deadline in the appealed case,” the motion says. It goes on: “Nor did [Gann] yet have reason to believe that the attorney general would fail in his statutory duty ‘to represent and protect the collective interests of all utility consumers’ and fail to” request Hiett’s recusal or object to false, inadmissible audit testimony at the OCC. Gann’s motion also argues that the issues he has raised – like a biased judge, the OCC’s lack of jurisdiction to issue orders without first performing lawful audits, and the voidness of prior orders – are constitutional issues that are not required to be raised at the OCC first. He said the court has made new law and contradicted more than a century of legal precedent by not considering the constitutionality of his issues in its ruling. “If this court intends to set a new precedent, … it should say so explicitly,” Gann’s motion argues. In response, the court could modify or clarify its decision, or leave it as is, or withdraw it altogether. There is no specific deadline by which it must decide, but it must rule on the motion. “Last week’s decision came in the first of nine appeals we have brought on behalf of PSO, OG&E and ONG customers.” Gann, West and West said. “Some of the circumstances surrounding the others – especially the $12 billion worth of appealed fuel cases – are different.” “We will see what the Court has to say about the Motion to Reconsider before we decide our next steps. The fact that we filed another brief (appealing OG&E’s 2024 fuel case) less than a week after the ruling shows we have not given up this fight. We will continue to stand up for the law and the Constitution where the OCC and attorney general have failed. It is just a question of where, how and when.” Gann’s Motion to Reconsider filed at the Supreme Court can be read online here: https://www.oscn.net/dockets/GetDocument.aspx?ct=appellate&bc=1065410428&cn=CU-122861&fmt=pdf The new Brief in Chief for the CY2024 ONG fuel case appeal can be read online here: https://oscn.net/dockets/GetDocument.aspx?ct=appellate&bc=1064723240&cn=CU-123588&fmt=pdf The new Brief in Chief for the CY2024 OG&E fuel case appeal can be read online here: https://oscn.net/dockets/GetDocument.aspx?ct=appellate&bc=1064720156&cn=CU-123608&fmt=pdf ONG, OG&E, the OCC and the Attorney General’s Office have 40 days to respond to the briefs. The progress of all the appeals can be followed on the Oklahoma Supreme Court website. PSO rate case ($250m rate increases; $700m bonds; initial decision 4/21/2026):    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; first briefs filed; last due late May):    https://oscn.net/dockets/GetCaseInformation.aspx?db=appellate&number=123348 ONG 2024 fuel case ($390 million + $888m for 2021/2022; first brief filed):    https://oscn.net/dockets/GetCaseInformation.aspx?db=appellate&number=123588 OG&E 2024 fuel case ($925 million + $1.9 billion for 2021/2022; first brief filed):    https://oscn.net/dockets/GetCaseInformation.aspx?db=appellate&number=123608 PSO 2024 fuel case ($600 million + $2.8 billion for 2021/2022; briefs this summer):    https://oscn.net/dockets/GetCaseInformation.aspx?db=appellate&number=123905 -END-

Mar 19, 2026
Recent Posts

$1.5B ONG, OG&E, PSO Charges Already Collected Challenged at OK Supreme Court

OKLAHOMA CITY – Reps. Tom Gann, R-Inola, Kevin West, R-Moore, and Rick West, R-Heavener, filed their seventh appeal brief at the Oklahoma Supreme Court on Thursday. It asks the court to overturn Oklahoma Corporation Commission (OCC) orders approving some $1.5 billion of 2023 fuel and purchased power costs incurred by monopoly public utilities, including $530 million for ONG, $550 million for PSO, and $763 million for OG&E. This brings the total utility customer payments these state representatives have officially challenged to $475 million in rate increases, $3.2 billion in 2021 winter storm bonds, and $1.5 billion in fuel charges. They say there is more to come. This brief accuses the OCC of violating state laws about audits and prudence reviews, and of violating ratepayers’ due process rights by failing to give customers notice about these cases and by permitting OCC Commissioner Todd Hiett to participate. ONG, OG&E and PSO were represented in these cases by attorneys who hosted a 2023 party where Hiett allegedly sexually harassed two female OCC employees and drove home drunk. ONG also was represented by an attorney whom the brief describes as “an outcry witness” to Hiett’s alleged sexual assault of a ONE Gas employee at a June 2024 conference in Minnesota. The Representatives argue that State Ethics Rules and the Code of Judicial Conduct prohibit Hiett from participating in OCC cases involving victims/witnesses of his alleged criminal conduct. Charges were never filed, and the Ethics Commission dismissed a complaint against Hiett in May 2025. Thursday’s brief asks the Supreme Court to review the Ethics Commission’s legal determinations in that case. A November 2024 Attorney General Opinion (2024 OK AG 17) prevented the Council on Judicial Complaints from investigating Hiett for the alleged Code of Judicial Conduct violations. The state representatives have challenged that too, citing specific “evidence of bias” in the proceedings leading to the appealed orders. “Fuel adjustment clause charges are passed through directly onto customers’ bills, so the utilities have already collected this money from us,” said Gann, who is a customer of ONG, OG&E and PSO. “State law requires audits of the utilities’ fuel charges every year. It also requires the OCC to make sure those costs were fair, just, reasonable and prudent before approving them. These laws exist to protect ratepayers, but the OCC doesn’t seem to care whether the people conducting these audits and prudence reviews are qualified or not.  A December 2025 brief alleged the OCC had allowed a Public Utility Division (PUD) employee, believed to have dropped out of college as a sophomore, to perform required audits of utility companies collectively worth more than a billion dollars. The employee also testified that all the utility charges were “prudently incurred” and should be approved by the OCC. The lawmakers say, sadly, they were.  In an answer brief filed in January, the state attorney general, who represents ratepayers in utility cases at the commission but has instead defended all the challenged OCC orders, also defended the PUD employee. The AG’s brief argued that, “Neither the Commission rules nor Oklahoma statutes [specify] who PUD must employ as part of their Staff.” The attorney general also did not object when the alleged “college dropout” testified again in February 2026 about the prudence of another $600 million of PSO’s 2024 fuel charges he claimed to have audited.   “Not everyone has to graduate from college,” Rick West said. “But state employees being paid with taxpayer dollars have to be qualified for the jobs they’re hired for. This situation is not only an assault on the household budgets of utility customers; it is an insult to thousands of qualified public servants who are legitimately earning their paychecks.” This latest brief asks the Court to overturn the OCC’s approval orders and require new, lawful fuel audits and prudence reviews by outside, independent auditors and experts, instead of the OCC’s Public Utility Division (PUD) staff. “There are serious concerns about how the Corporation Commission is operating,” Kevin West said.  Thursday’s brief also asserts that a Supreme Court opinion cited by the utilities to argue that OCC decisions are entitled to a “presumption of correctness” from the court is actually based on language in the Oklahoma Constitution that was removed by amendment in 1941. The representatives have already accused Hiett’s defenders of relying on old Supreme Court opinions issued before Ethics Rule 4.7 (prohibiting conflicts of interest by state officers) was approved in 2014. “This could be another example of the Court’s need to explicitly recognize that the law upon which previous Court decisions were based has changed,” the brief says. Thursday’s brief is the last in the 2023 fuel cases appeal, meaning a decision by the court could come at any time. The representatives say they also plan to challenge the OCC’s fuel approval orders for 2021 and 2022 in their appeals of the agency’s 2024 fuel approval orders, two of which were filed the first week in December. The next cases are worth another $6.5 billion, they say.  The full Reply Brief for the combined 2023 fuel cases appeal can be read online here: https://www.oscn.net/dockets/GetDocument.aspx?ct=appellate&bc=1064717532&cn=CU-122991&fmt=pdf The progress of all the appeals can be followed on the Oklahoma Supreme Court website. PSO rate case ($250m rate increases; $700m bonds; all briefs filed):    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; first brief filed; last due mid-June):    https://oscn.net/dockets/GetCaseInformation.aspx?db=appellate&number=123348 ONG 2024 fuel case ($390 million + $888m for 2021/2022; briefs this summer):    https://oscn.net/dockets/GetCaseInformation.aspx?db=appellate&number=123588 OG&E 2024 fuel case ($925 million + $1.9 billion for 2021/2022; briefs this summer):    https://oscn.net/dockets/GetCaseInformation.aspx?db=appellate&number=123608

Mar 12, 2026
Recent Posts

$1.77B ONG Storm Bonds, $98M Rate Increases Challenged at OK Supreme Court

OKLAHOMA CITY – Reps. Tom Gann, R-Inola, and Kevin West, R-Moore, on Wednesday filed a brief asking the Oklahoma Supreme Court to overturn $98 million in rate increases for Oklahoma Natural Gas (ONG) well as $1.77 billion of the utility’s ratepayer-backed bonds. All were approved by the Oklahoma Corporation Commission (OCC) with votes by embattled OCC Commissioner Todd Hiett who was accused of groping an employee of the utility at a conference in Minnesota in June 2024.  Charges were never filed, and the Ethics Commission dismissed a complaint against Hiett in May 2025. Wednesday’s brief asks the Supreme Court to review the Ethics Commission’s legal determinations in that case. Payments for the bonds, issued to cover costs incurred by ONG during February 2021’s Winter Storm “Uri,” have been collected as “Winter Event Cost Recovery” charges on customers’ bills since 2022. The OCC has also approved an additional rate increase for ONG of between $20 million and $41 million every year since the bonds were issued. If not overturned, the rate increases will continue in perpetuity; the monthly bond charges are scheduled to continue for another 22 years.  Gann and West’s brief tells the Court that the OCC failed to perform lawful audits of ONG’s bonds in every rate case since the bonds were issued. They also argue ONG’s original 2021 “Uri” costs that were securitized into the ratepayer-backed bonds were never audited either. The representatives assert the audit failures are fatal in all four cases, making the OCC’s orders void.   Wednesday’s brief was the third such request to the Court. Gann filed a similar brief asking the Court to overturn $250 million in rate increases and some $700 million in ratepayer-backed bonds that the OCC had approved for Public Service Company of Oklahoma ( PSO ). In December, with Rep. Rick West, R-Heavener, Gann and Kevin West also asked the court to overturn a $127 million rate increase and $760 million in winter storm bonds for customers of Oklahoma Gas and Electric Company ( OG&E ). Those cases are already in the Court’s hands. To date, this brings the totals officially challenged to $475 million in rate increases and more than $3.2 billion in bonds. The appeals ask the court to order everything wrongly collected to be refunded to the utilities’ customers. Wednesday’s brief says “$140 million in illegitimate rate increases and $300 million in illegitimate bond charges” have already been collected from ONG’s customers.  Oklahoma utilities PSO, OG&E, ONG and CenterPoint/Summit paid some of the highest natural gas prices in U.S. history during two weeks in February 2021, incurring some $2.8 billion in debt. Interest and other expenses added another $2 billion, bringing the total cost of the bonds being paid by Oklahoma utility customers close to $5 billion. Gann, a former internal auditor for the Tulsa International Airport, said he believes that "When Oklahoma law requires an audit, the Accountancy Act says it has to be done by independent, licensed CPAs following nationally recognized standards, and that did not happen."  “Although all three of us voted against the securitization legislation in April 2021, we do not believe the intent was for the utilities to audit themselves, or for the Corporation Commission to make up its own definition of the word ‘audit.’” Kevin West said. “The apparently fraudulent audits are inexcusable. The law requires real audits, and the Accountancy Act defines auditing standards for a reason.”  In addition to the individual appeals of each utility’s rate case, the representatives filed a similar Supreme Court appeal against the OCC’s approval of $1.5 billion of ONG, OG&E and PSO’s 2023 fuel costs. That brief , filed on December 18, 2025, alleged the OCC had allowed an employee, believed to have dropped out of college as a sophomore, to perform required audits of utility companies collectively worth more than a billion dollars, including in the challenged OG&E and PSO rate cases. [ 12/9/2025 press release .] At the start of this year, the OCC terminated its top two administrators – the director of administration and the chief operating officer who was also the chief of communications – without explanation, but with “confidential” severance packages now revealed to exceed $200,000 and $100,000, respectively. The person believed to have dropped out of college also continues to testify about audits in OCC utility cases.  “Fundamentally, these appeals are about upholding the Constitution and the rule of law,” Rick West said. “We are saying audits must be done by CPAs, and State Ethics Rules say if a reasonable person would question Hiett’s impartiality in these cases, he must not participate. But Hiett continues to cast votes approving billions of dollars of increases for these utility companies without performing the required audits. We expect the Court to overturn these votes and to order Hiett and the OCC to follow the law.” The full Brief in Chief for the ONG rate case appeal can be read online here: https://oscn.net/dockets/GetDocument.aspx?ct=appellate&bc=1064718136&cn=CU-123348&fmt=pdf ONG, the OCC and the Attorney General’s Office have 40 days to respond. The progress of all the appeals can be followed on the Oklahoma Supreme Court website. PSO rate case ($250m rate increases; $700m bonds; all briefs filed):    https://oscn.net/dockets/GetCaseInformation.aspx?db=appellate&number=122861 ONG, PSO & OG&E CY2023 fuel cases ($1.5 billion; first brief filed; last due mid-March):    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; first brief filed; last due mid-June):    https://oscn.net/dockets/GetCaseInformation.aspx?db=appellate&number=123348 ONG 2024 fuel case ($390 million + $888m for 2021/2022; briefs this summer):    https://oscn.net/dockets/GetCaseInformation.aspx?db=appellate&number=123588 OG&E 2024 fuel case ($925 million + $1.9 billion for 2021/2022; briefs this summer):    https://oscn.net/dockets/GetCaseInformation.aspx?db=appellate&number=123608