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 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

May 7, 2026
Recent Posts

Gann Calls for an 'Elector Bill of Rights'

OKLAHOMA CITY – Rep. Tom Gann, R-Inola, is calling for an Elector Bill of Rights to affirm that every Oklahoma voter has the right to be fully represented by the elected official they sent to the Capitol. Gann said the proposal is aimed at House rules that restrict ordinary members from freely making motions, forcing accountability, advancing district concerns or seeking recorded votes without procedural permission from leadership.  “The people do not elect representatives to come to the Capitol and ask permission to represent them,” Gann said. “They elect us to speak, question, amend, move, object and demand accountability. When a House rule hinders a representative, it does not merely burden that member — it burdens the voters who sent that member here.” The Elector Bill of Rights is built on a simple principle: the right to vote includes the continuing right to be represented after the election is over. Gann said internal House rules should organize the legislative process, not suppress the voice of districts whose representatives are outside leadership or outside favored committees. “Every elector has the right to equal representation,” Gann said. “That means their representative should not be reduced to a passive observer, a silent voter or a member dependent on leadership permission to act.” The proposed Elector Bill of Rights declares that Oklahoma voters have the right to:  Have their representative treated as an equal member of the House; Expect their representative to speak, question, amend, object and seek votes; Know who supports, opposes, delays or blocks legislation; See important public questions debated and voted on in public; Have committee and floor decisions made with transparency and accountability; Be protected from internal rules that concentrate legislative power in the hands of a few. Gann said House Resolution 1002 , the current House rules package, has shifted too much power away from individual members and toward leadership-controlled gatekeeping. “When legislation can be stalled without a committee vote, without a floor vote and without a public explanation, the people lose accountability,” Gann said. “That is not just a procedural problem. It is a representation problem.” Gann said the Elector Bill of Rights reframes the debate over House rules. The issue is not merely whether a legislator has been inconvenienced, but whether the citizens of that district are receiving the full representation they voted for. “The elector’s right is not merely the right to cast a ballot every two years,” Gann said. “It is the right to be represented every day the House is in session.”  Gann said he will continue advocating for rules reform that restores member equality, protects open debate and ensures public accountability.  “A rule that silences a representative does not just silence one member,” Gann said. “It silences the district that sent that member here.”

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-