Representative Tom Gann

R

District 8

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


representative

News & Announcements

Jun 19, 2026
Recent Posts

Gann, Kevin West ask OK Supreme Court to End ‘Muzzling’ of Utility Customers opposing $29M ONG Rate Increase

OKLAHOMA CITY – Just a day after winning reelection to his House seat, Rep. Tom Gann, R-Inola, filed an appeal of another ruling of the Oklahoma Corporation Commission (OCC) to the Oklahoma Supreme Court. He was joined by Rep. Kevin West, R-Moore. A June 11 OCC ruling denied the intervention of customers trying to participate in the latest rate case for Oklahoma Natural Gas Company (ONG). The utility is seeking a $29 million rate increase. If approved, it 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. Often joined by Rep. Rick West, R-Heavener, Gann, West and West now have eleven OCC utility appeals pending before the state’s highest court. This latest appeal , filed June 17, brings the total amount of ONG, OG&E and PSO customer payments the representatives have challenged to $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. Six of those appeals are now fully briefed and under consideration by the Supreme Court. “The feedback we’ve received from constituents has been great,” said Kevin West. “Oklahomans appreciate that we aren’t just talking about standing up for them and fighting against inflated utility bills, we’re actually doing it.” “The OCC has gone completely off the beam,” ONG customers Gann and Kevin West told the Supreme Court in their June 17 petition . They go on to describe how the OCC set a March 27 deadline to intervene in ONG’s rate case, but only set it after that deadline had already passed. ONG’s customers were not even notified about the case until late April.  “This case was rigged from the start to keep ONG ratepayers out,” said Gann. “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. ONG ratepayers should be allowed to exercise their right to participate without being muzzled.” At a June 11, 2026, OCC hearing, an attorney for ONG challenged Gann’s Entry of Appearance filed in the case, arguing he had missed the March 27 deadline to intervene. Gann responded by arguing that as an ONG customer entitled to personal notice in the case, his was an “intervention of right” under the law, not subject to that deadline anyway.  “Oklahoma Administrative Code 165:5-9-4(d)(2) expressly permits ‘a person entitled to personal notice in a case’ to ‘become a party of record by filing an entry of appearance or orally stating an entry of appearance at any proceeding regarding the case without needing to file a motion for intervention,’” Gann later wrote in exceptions he filed objecting to the ruling. The OCC administrative law judge who ruled against him made no mention of that law in her ruling or addressed the fact that the OCC set an intervention deadline that had already passed. Instead, she went on to dismiss Gann’s filed motions and objections as well. Immediately after formally preventing Gann from participating, the OCC conducted an eight-minute Hearing on the Merits with no witness testimony or cross-examination at which the utility, OCC Public Utility Division and the state's attorney general all agreed ONG’s latest $29 million rate increase should be approved exactly as requested by the utility. The commissioners are expected to make a final decision later this year. Gann and more than 300 Public Service Company of Oklahoma (PSO) customers have filed similar entries in PSO’s latest rate case at the OCC in which that utility is seeking an additional $600 million rate increase. With the OCC’s blessing, PSO also did not notify customers about its rate case until after the deadline to intervene had already passed. Those entries, many from residential customers opposed to subsidizing electricity for the proposed Emirates Global Aluminum smelter, are being challenged by PSO with a hearing in that case set for 1:30 p.m. June 25. ONG, the OCC and the attorney general have 30 days to respond to Gann and Kevin West’s latest ONG appeal. All the utility 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 ONG Intervention Denial case ($29 million rate increase) https://oscn.net/dockets/GetCaseInformation.aspx?db=appellate&number=124164

Jun 4, 2026
Recent Posts

Gann, Hundreds of PSO Customers 'Muzzled' in OCC Hearing to Determine their Rights

OKLAHOMA CITY – Rep. Tom Gann, R-Inola, and hundreds of Public Service Company of Oklahoma (PSO) customers were not allowed to participate in a hearing at the Oklahoma Corporation Commission (OCC) Thursday morning. The customers had officially filed pro se interventions in PSO’s rate case before the OCC. An Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) heard arguments on their right to intervene in the case. “My interpretation of rule is that’s a threshold determination that has to be made, whether or not they are parties. I’m not going to elicit any responses from the intervenors online,” the ALJ said, ignoring the raised hands of Gann and other intervenors seeking to be recognized. The OCC’s electronic filing system shows more than 380 pro se interventions were filed by PSO customers in the case. PSO is seeking a $600 million rate increase, approximately $25 per month more for its average residential customer. Challenging the interventions , PSO Attorney Jack Fite argued Thursday that Gann and the other PSO customers could not participate in the case because they had missed the April 1 intervention deadline. A written response filed earlier by Gann and intervenor Christine Roam, an organizer for Stop the Inola Smelter , argued that PSO’s customers did not even receive notice about the case until after that April 1 deadline.  Fite did not address the untimeliness of PSO’s notice in his remarks. In response to a question from the ALJ, PSO’s attorney argued customers did not even have a right to notice about Thursday’s hearing on the status of their intervention, let alone the case itself. “I have filed ten appeals at the Oklahoma Supreme Court arguing the Corporation Commission has violated the due process rights of utility customers in these billion-dollar cases for years,” Gann said. “Today’s hearing was just another example. For Oklahomans wondering why their utility bills keep going up, this is a big part of the answer. The officials charged with protecting ratepayers aren’t doing their job, and when others try to step up, we are muzzled and not allowed to speak.”  “The Supreme Court has said utility customers have a constitutional right to appeal the OCC’s decisions, but we have to raise our issues at the Commission first,” added Roam, referencing an April Supreme Court decision (2026 OK 24). “How can we do that if the OCC creates arbitrary deadlines and does not even notify customers about the case until after the deadline?” Fite said PSO’s customers should not rely on the Supreme Court’s recent opinion, which is under reconsideration and still subject to modification or withdrawal. Fite argued utility customers do not have a right to participate in the OCC’s utility cases. Pointing to a table of four lawyers from the attorney general’s Office, he said the AG was representing all utility customers in the case. But after Fite finished, when the ALJ asked if any other party wanted to speak, the AG’s table was silent. “I barely found the right web link in time for this morning’s hearing,” Roam said afterwards. “No one has responded to my requests to see the evidence or participate in the settlement conference. Even though no one has ruled against us yet, the utility is treating us like they already have. To say PSO’s customers are being deliberately excluded from this case is an understatement.” In addition to the requested $600 million rate increase, PSO’s rate case will determine whether a new large-load rate class will be created for data centers and the proposed Emirates Global Aluminum smelter in Gann and Roam’s hometown of Inola. In a Statement of Position filed earlier in the case, Gann raised several issues related to the proposed smelter, including his opposition to existing PSO customers being forced to subsidize its electricity.  On Tuesday, Attorney General Gentner Drummond filed a petition asking a Rogers County district judge for an injunction declaring the proposed aluminum smelter a public nuisance. Such an injunction would halt the project. At the end of the Thursday OCC hearing, the ALJ announced his intention to “take this matter under advisement” and issue a written recommendation and report by the end of the day Friday. Gann has already filed a motion citing laws in other states and asking the OCC Commissioners themselves to weigh in on the questions of timely notice and ratepayers’ due process rights.  “It is time the Corporation Commission explicitly recognized 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.  Regardless of the ALJ’s decision Friday, a hearing before the Commissioners themselves on Gann’s motion is set for June 25 . Public comment from PSO customers will be allowed that day. See also , Gann Appeals $1.3B OCC Preapproval of New PSO Capacity to Power Inola Smelter, Data Centers; Hundreds Enter Appearances in PSO Rate Case (June 2, 2026).

Jun 2, 2026
Recent Posts

Gann Appeals $1.3B OCC Preapproval of New PSO Capacity to Power Inola Smelter, Data Centers Hundreds Enter Appearances in PSO Rate Case

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