OKLAHOMA CITY – Reps. Kevin West, R-Moore, and Tom Gann, R-Inola, today issued statements regarding Oklahoma Corporation Commissioner Todd Hiett, who has been accused of sexual molestation and public drunkenness. The two said they are considering filing a writ of prohibition against Hiett, asking the courts to intervene to protect the public interest.

"Corporation Commissioner Todd Hiett’s admission of public drunkenness, alleged sexual assault, alleged harassment and his alleged drunk driving should be enough for any decent individual to disqualify himself from cases at the OCC involving the victims or witnesses to his alleged crimes," the lawmakers said in a joint statement. "Multiple news articles report that these complaints include employees and representatives, including attorneys, of public utility companies the OCC regulates.

"Hiett should have removed himself from voting in the August 27 meeting, but instead he cast the deciding vote to approve a $31 million rate increase for Oklahoma Natural Gas customers," they continued. "The victim and witnesses to Hiett's June 9, 2024, sexual assault at a Minnesota conference are allegedly ONG employees. If that is not enough, ONG is being represented by the law firm that hosted a reception in Oklahoma City, where Hiett is alleged to have sexually harassed two female OCC employees and to have driven home drunk. Hiett has not publicly denied any allegations made against him."

West questioned Hiett's impartiality.

"Oklahomans deserve better," West said. "Corporation commissioners are considered quasi-judicial in some of their cases, like utility fuel cases that require a state officer to rule, and legislative in others, like utility rate cases. Under Ethics Rule 4.7, an officer must disqualify him/herself in any case, legislative or judicial, in which 'a reasonable person with knowledge of the relevant facts [would] question his or her impartiality.'"

Gann said, "I spent 15 years in internal auditing, and I can tell you this conflict goes beyond mere appearance—it's a clear conflict in fact as well. Hiett obviously used poor judgement by not disqualifying himself in ONG’s recent rate case as he should have."

There are four fuel cases worth over $1 billion for public utilities currently pending at OCC. They involve ONG (PUD2024-000047), Public Service Company of Oklahoma (PSO) (PUD2024-000040), Arkansas Oklahoma Gas Corporation (PUD2024-000046) and Summit Utilities of Oklahoma (PUD2024-000042). Fuel adjustment cases, also known as purchased gas adjustment cases, are judicial. The lawmakers assert that when cases are judicial, commissioners must behave like judges and follow the Code of Judicial Conduct.

"The OCC is supposed to examine the utility’s fuel purchases and determine whether they were fair, just, reasonable and prudent before allowing those costs to be passed on to customers," West said. "We need commissioners who can use sound judgement and are free from bias. How can Commissioner Hiett make such judgements when his actions allegedly involving people in these cases prove otherwise?"

Similar to State Ethics Rule 4.7, Title 5 O.S Section Rule 2.11 of the Code of Judicial Conduct requires Hiett to disqualify himself in judicial cases in which "the judge's impartiality might reasonably be questioned." Instead, Hiett voted on July 31 to approve three procedural orders in ONG’s judicial fuel case. On Aug. 27, Hiett voted to approve seven more orders in the judicial fuel cases for PSO, AOG and Summit.

"Like ONG, PSO is also represented in its $554 million fuel case by the same law firm that hosted the reception," the representatives said. "Both State Ethics Rules and the Code of Judicial Conduct are laws, and failure to follow them is a violation of state law."

OCC has hired outside counsel to perform a "confidential fact-finding" investigation into the commissioner's misconduct, but instead of handling "behavior of a criminal nature," like violations of state law, this firm instead promises to refer the latter to the state attorney general's office.

"This seems like a way to slow play the investigation, allowing Hiett to continue voting on these matters in which he cannot remain objective. How convenient," the representatives said. 

"Any party to an OCC case with direct knowledge of illegal conduct by Commissioner Hiett who has not yet officially reported it or filed a civil lawsuit against him has leverage over Hiett in their cases before him at the OCC," they said. "The threat always exists that if he doesn’t rule in their favor, the illegal conduct could be reported, or a civil lawsuit could be filed. His impartiality is unquestionably tainted."

West added, "The victims of this disgrace and bias in these judicial cases are not the utilities, but the millions of Oklahomans who are being unfairly disadvantaged in the votes in which Hiett has a perverse and legally prohibited incentive to give the utilities what they want. If Commissioner Hiett continues with this reckless behavior, it may become necessary for legislators to file a writ of prohibition requiring the courts to determine whether intervention is necessary to protect the public interest."