Representative Rick West

R

District 3

Hi, I'm Rick West and I represent the people of Oklahoma's 3rd District.


representative

News & Announcements

Jul 7, 2026
Recent Posts

Gann Files 12th Appeal, New Request at OK Supreme Court in Continued Fight Against Utility Bill Increases

OKLAHOMA CITY – Two new filings at the Oklahoma Supreme Court by Rep. Tom Gann, R-Inola, continue his fight against billions of dollars of utility bill increases approved by the Oklahoma Corporation Commission (OCC) that the representative believes are unlawful. The June 30 and July 6 filings include a twelfth appeal and a request that the Court pause enforcement of a recent decision pending “further review at the federal level.” Gann has been joined in other filings by Reps. , Kevin West, R-Moore, and Rick West, R-Heavener. The newest appeal challenges a June 5, 2026, OCC ruling that denied the intervention of Gann and more than 300 customers trying to participate in the latest rate case for Public Service Company of Oklahoma (PSO). The utility is seeking a $600 million rate increase, or an additional $25 per month for the average residential customer. Gann is joined in this appeal by Michael Ritze, a former Republican state representative from Broken Arrow. The OCC, PSO and attorney general have 20 days to respond. Multiple settlement agreements have been announced since Gann’s appeal was filed, though none are unanimous, and the attorney general recently withdrew from one of them.  “For the OCC to proceed without jurisdiction is a waste of taxpayer dollars,” Gann wrote in a public comment recently filed in the PSO rate case. According to the motion, Gann “respectfully requests the Court suspend [its decision] until expiration of the time to file a petition for writ of certiorari or notice of final disposition by the United States Supreme Court,” or late September at the earliest. Many of the PSO customers trying to intervene in its rate case are members of the Stop the Inola Smelter citizens group opposed to existing customers being forced to subsidize electricity for the controversial proposed aluminum smelter. The rate case will determine terms and conditions for a new “large-load” rate class of PSO customers likely to include data centers, and possibly the smelter.  Gann and Kevin West appealed a similar OCC ruling that denied Gann’s intervention in the latest rate case for Oklahoma Natural Gas Company (ONG) on June 11. ONG is seeking a $29 million rate increase that, if approved, would mark the fourth rate hike the OCC has approved for ONG in the last four years, increasing customer bills by more than $128 million. In both rate cases, the OCC set a deadline to intervene, but the utilities’ customers were not even notified about the case until after that deadline had already passed. And when customers were notified, the appeals argue, they were only told how to give public comment, not that they have a right to participate as parties of record in the case, which permits seeing all the evidence, filing objections and cross-examining witnesses. “These cases were rigged from the start to keep utility customers out,” Kevin West said. “The federal courts have said utility customers have constitutional due process rights, including a right to timely and adequate notice about these cases. We are asking the Supreme Court to uphold customers’ rights and require the OCC to change its rules to respect them.” Unlike ONG’s rate case, which the OCC suspended pending the outcome of the Supreme Court appeal, the proceedings in PSO’s rate case have continued unabated without any discussion that the OCC may have lost jurisdiction of the case. With this latest appeal , Gann, West and West have now challenged some $500 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 hitting the utility bills of millions of ONG, PSO and OG&E customers. Seven of those appeals are now fully briefed and under consideration by the Supreme Court. In an April 21, 2026, decision , the Court denied the first appeal of an earlier PSO rate case challenging $250 million in rate increases and $700 million of 2021 Winter Storm bonds. The Court’s opinion said Gann should have intervened in the rate case at the OCC first. On June 29, the Court declined to consider Gann’s motion to reconsider that decision. It had informed the Court that Gann and other PSO customers did not even receive notice of the rate case until after the deadline to intervene. As a result of its two rulings on procedural technicalities, the Supreme Court has not actually decided any of Gann, West and West’s legal issues. These include what they say are unlawful OCC utility “audits,” the failure to give customers timely notice of utility cases, and Commissioner Todd Hiett casting the deciding vote despite allegations of criminal conduct involving PSO’s attorneys. Gann said these required Hiett to disqualify himself from such cases under State Ethics Rules. “We are not giving up this fight,” Rick West said. “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.” All filings in the utility case appeals are available on the Oklahoma Supreme Court website: PSO rate case ($250m rate increases; $700m bonds; decision 4/21/2026; rehearing denied 6/29/2026):     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; all briefs filed):     https://oscn.net/dockets/GetCaseInformation.aspx?db=appellate&number=123348 ONG 2024 fuel case ($390 million + $888m for 2021/2022; all briefs 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 fall):     https://oscn.net/dockets/GetCaseInformation.aspx?db=appellate&number=123905 PSO Pre-Approval case ($1.255 billion; briefs this winter)    https://oscn.net/dockets/GetCaseInformation.aspx?db=appellate&number=124090 ONG Intervention Denial ($29 million rate increase)    https://oscn.net/dockets/GetCaseInformation.aspx?db=appellate&number=124164 PSO Intervention Denial ($600 million rate increase)     https://oscn.net/dockets/GetCaseInformation.aspx?db=appellate&number=124187

May 14, 2026
Recent Posts

Rep. Rick West Comments on Historic Weapons' Law

OKLAHOMA CITY – A new state law prohibits law enforcement agencies from destroying weapons considered to have historic military value. The entities instead are to donate the weapons to local units of veterans' organizations that are incorporated by enactment of the Congress of the United States. Rep. Rick West, R-Heavener, is the author of House Bill 1185 . "These weapons tell an important part of our military history and those who've served our nation," West said. "Our veterans organizations use these weapons for honor guard salutes at veterans' funerals, at other memorial ceremonies and historic reenactments. At the very least, these weapons can be used for their parts as older weapons go out of service."   West said the bill was requested by Bob Nichelson, vice commander of the Leflore County Disabled American Veterans Chapter 63 in Poteau.  West said it was particularly appropriate to recognize this bill being signed into law as veterans and active members of the military were recognized in a Joint Session of the Legislature on May 14. Sen. Micheal Bergstrom, R-Adair, is the Senate author of the bill. “This new law ensures that historic, valuable military weapons are preserved and made available to veterans’ organizations rather than being destroyed,” Bergstrom said. “I look forward to seeing this bill become law to support our veterans’ groups and the important work they do on behalf of those who have served our nation.”  The act will become effective 90 days after this year's sine die adjournment of the Legislature. 

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-