Representative Kevin West

R

District 54

Hi, I'm Kevin West and I represent the people of Oklahoma's 54th District.


representative

Leadership

Oversight Committee Chair

60th Legislature

Assistant Majority Floor Leader

59th Legislature

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

May 6, 2026
Recent Posts

Birth Certificate Accuracy Bill Sent to Governor

OKLAHOMA CITY – Rep. Kevin West, R-Moore, today commented on a bill being sent to the governor that would require every Oklahoma birth certificate to contain an accurate biological sex designation of either male or female as identified at the time of birth. House Bill 1225 clarifies that the biological sex listed on birth certificates at the time of birth is not to be amended to display gender identity or a nonbinary designation. "The compelling interest for this legislation is to ensure the state has integrity and accuracy on the vital records it maintains," West said. "Birth certificates are used for many different purposes, including accurate identification of a person. It's important these documents reflect biological reality that cannot be changed regardless of how a person might wish to be identified otherwise." Sen. Michael Bergstrom, R-Big Cabin, is the Senate author of HB1225 and the principal author of Senate Bill 1100 , signed into law in 2022, which limited the biological sex designation on birth certificates to male or female. "Oklahoma statutes have always held that on vital statistics documents there are two options for sex, male and female," Bergstrom said. "This legislation clarifies that position, clarifies that's the position always held by Oklahoma's Legislature, so moving forward no one can unintentionally or intentionally confuse this matter." West said HB1225 is closely tied to House Joint Resolution 1032 , which was approved by the governor in March. The resolution removed rules relating to driver's license and identification card renewal that were inherited by Service Oklahoma. The rules were implemented prior to the agency's existence. "These rules did not have statutory authority to exist," West said. He said the clarification in statute is needed after a previous bill signed into law in 2024 has been wrongly interpreted by some. "The combination of these two measures close a perceived loophole that lawyers have used to argue that people can change their sex marker on their driver's license," West said. "This will ensure the accuracy of state records going forward." 

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-