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-
