Representative Tom Gann

R

District 8

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


representative

News & Announcements

Dec 1, 2025
Recent Posts

More Rate Increases, $1.4B of OG&E, PSO 2021 Winter Storm Bonds Challenged at OK Supreme Court

OKLAHOMA CITY – Just before Thanksgiving, Reps. Tom Gann, R-Inola, Kevin West, R-Moore, and Rick West, R-Heavener, filed a new brief asking the Oklahoma Supreme Court to overturn a $127 million rate increase for OG&E as well as some $760 million of the utility’s ratepayer-backed bonds. Both were approved by the Oklahoma Corporation Commission (OCC) with votes by embattled Commissioner Todd Hiett.  The rate increase has been in effect since July 2024. Payments for the bonds, issued to cover costs incurred by OG&E during February 2021’s Winter Storm Uri, have been collected as “Winter Event Securitization (WES)” charges on customers’ bills since July 2022. If not overturned, the rate increase will continue in perpetuity; the monthly WES charges are scheduled to continue for another 25 years. Wednesday’s brief was the second such request to the court last month. On Nov. 10, Gann filed a similar brief asking the court to overturn $250 million in rate increases and some $700 million in ratepayer-backed bonds the OCC had approved for Public Service Company of Oklahoma (PSO). To date, this brings the totals officially challenged to $377 million in rate increases and more than $1.4 billion in bonds. The appeals ask the court to order everything wrongly collected to be refunded to OG&E and PSO customers. Both briefs tell the court that the OCC failed to provide a required audit of the bonds in OG&E and PSO’s most recent rate cases. They also argue the utilities’ original 2021 Uri costs that were securitized into the bonds were never lawfully audited either. The briefs assert the audit failures make the OCC’s orders void.  Oklahoma utilities OG&E, PSO, ONG and CenterPoint/Summit paid some of the highest natural gas prices in U.S. history during a two-week cold snap in February 2021, incurring some $2.8 billion in debt. Interest and other expenses added another $2 billion, bringing the total cost of the bonds being paid by Oklahoma utility customers close to $5 billion. The appeal briefs focus on a report by former Oklahoma Accountancy Board Chairman David Greenwell filed at the OCC in July 2024. In it, Greenwell said the OCC’s audit activities with respect to the winter storm costs and bonds “do not appear to comply with state law.” Former OCC Commissioner Bob Anthony also repeatedly criticized the one-page audits the OCC was putting forward to meet statutory requirements. “When Oklahoma law requires an audit, the Accountancy Act says it has to be done by independent, licensed CPAs following nationally recognized standards,” said Gann, who is a former internal auditor for Tulsa International Airport. “That did not happen.”  “Although all three of us voted against the securitization legislation in April 2021, we do not believe that our colleagues who voted for it meant for the utilities to audit themselves, or for the Corporation Commission to make up its own definition of the word ‘audit,’” Kevin West said. “The apparently fraudulent audits are inexcusable. The law requires real audits, and the Accountancy Act defines auditing standards for a reason.” Gann, Kevin West and Rick West argue the effect of the OCC’s audit failures “has been to cover up significant wrongdoing during and after the 2021 Winter Storm.” The brief in the OG&E appeal (p.3) says the utility “unduly (and possibly unlawfully) influenced” the hiring of the OCC’s financial advisor in the bond cases, Hilltop Securities. It also questions how OG&E and PSO’s lender, RBC Capital, was hired to underwrite both bond deals, when RBC’s bid was 25% higher than JP Morgan’s. (Hilltop Securities advised the Oklahoma Development Finance Authority on the bond underwriters’ bidding process.) The OG&E brief (p.35) cites a January 2025 filing by then-Commissioner Anthony alleging that a representative of Hilltop was responsible for “fraudulent language surreptitiously inserted” into the OCC’s bond financing orders. Anthony said that fraudulent language made the bonds hundreds of millions of dollars more expensive for OG&E and PSO customers. The appeal brief says it also makes the OCC’s bond orders void. The state representatives also are challenging the rate increases based on OCC Commissioner Todd Hiett’s participation in the cases, saying he violated utility customers’ due process rights.  “Hiett cast the deciding vote to approve all the rate increases, even though we believe state ethics rules say he should not have participated,” Rick West said. Both OG&E and PSO were represented in the appealed cases by attorneys who hosted a 2023 party where Hiett was publicly accused of alleged sexual harassment and drunk driving. Even though no charges were filed, the state representatives’ brief says Hiett’s behavior has made him subject to improper influence and possible extortion by those attorneys and others.  In May 2025, the Ethics Commission dismissed a complaint against Hiett, citing the so-called “rule of necessity” and finding in this particular instance, state Ethics Rule 4.7’s prohibition against conflicts of interest was not an issue. The Ethics Commission stated at the time that their decision took into account the constitutional requirements for the Corporation Commission, the legislative nature of the rate hikes and Oklahoma case law, including the well-recognized Rule of Necessity. The appeal briefs argue the “rule of necessity” does not apply to conflicted OCC commissioners and asks the Supreme Court to say so. “Fundamentally, these appeals are about upholding the Constitution and the rule of law,” Rick West said. “State ethics rules say if a reasonable person would question Hiett’s impartiality in these cases, he must not participate. But Hiett continues to cast votes approving billions of dollars of increases for these utility companies without performing the required audits. We expect the court to overturn these votes and to order Hiett and the OCC to follow the law.” In addition to the cases against OG&E and PSO, a similar Supreme Court appeal was filed against ONG’s most recent rate increase by Reps. Gann and Kevin West in August. Their brief in that case is not due until April 2026. They also have filed appeals against four OCC orders approving annual fuel purchases for ONG, OG&E and PSO, the fourth filed just Monday.  All told, Gann, Kevin West and Rick West's filed and pending appeals challenge more than $10 billion in utility charges for ONG, OG&E and PSO. The full OG&E appeal Brief in Chief can be read online here: https://oscn.net/dockets/GetDocument.aspx?ct=appellate&bc=1063629594&cn=CU-123021&fmt=pdf OG&E, the OCC and the Attorney General’s Office have 40 days to respond. The progress of all the appeals can be followed on the Oklahoma Supreme Court website: PSO rate case: https://www.oscn.net/dockets/GetCaseInformation.aspx?db=appellate&number=122861 OG&E rate case: https://oscn.net/dockets/GetCaseInformation.aspx?db=appellate&number=123021 ONG, PSO & OG&E CY2023 fuel cases: https://oscn.net/dockets/GetCaseInformation.aspx?db=appellate&number=122991 ONG rate case: https://oscn.net/dockets/GetCaseInformation.aspx?db=appellate&number=123348 ONG CY2024 fuel case: https://www.oscn.net/dockets/GetCaseInformation.aspx?db=appellate&number=123588

Nov 10, 2025
Recent Posts

Legality of $1B+ PSO Bond Payments, Rate Increases Now in Hands of OK Supreme Court

OKLAHOMA CITY – In a brief filed Monday, State Rep. Tom Gann, R-Inola, reiterated his challenge to $250 million in recent rate increases and more than $1 billion of bond payments approved by the Oklahoma Corporation Commission (OCC) and currently being collected from customers of electric utility Public Service Company of Oklahoma (PSO). PSO primarily serves customers in Tulsa, McAlester, Lawton and surrounding areas. Gann’s appeal before the Oklahoma Supreme Court argues that the OCC failed to perform legally required audits related to February 2021’s Winter Storm “Uri,” making the OCC’s orders void and requiring refunds. He also argues the OCC violated PSO customers’ due process rights by allowing Corporation Commissioner Todd Hiett to participate in cases involving witnesses of Hiett’s alleged criminal conduct. Hiett has been publicly accused of alleged sexual harassment and drunk driving at a 2023 party hosted by PSO attorneys Thompson Tillotson PLLC. Gann says state ethics rules require Hiett to disqualify from cases in which a reasonable person might question his impartiality, including cases involving those attorneys. In October, Attorney General Gentner Drummond, the OCC, PSO and the Oklahoma Industrial Energy Consumers (OIEC) all filed briefs defending Hiett. “Parties to legislative rate cases are not entitled to due process,” the attorney general wrote.  In its brief, the OCC specifically asked the court to dismiss the appeal claims against Hiett. Gann has been joined by State Reps. Kevin West and Rick West in five similar appeals brought in cases for OG&E and ONG. On Oct. 17, the attorney general and OCC filed a joint motion asking the court to suspend the other the utility appeals. The court’s Oct. 29 response denying that request was unequivocal: “This appeal shall proceed.”  The AG, OCC and PSO also defended allowing the utility to internally audit its own $700 million of 2021 Winter Storm “Uri” costs, as well as the OCC’s subsequent one-page “audits” of the ratepayer-backed bonds issued to pay for them. Gann argues none of these audits were lawful because they were not performed by independent CPAs.  In their briefs, the AG, OCC and PSO all argued the audits were lawful because licensed CPAs were not required. Gann writes their reading of the law “would permit OCC janitors and AG security guards to give financial testimony in OCC cases.”   “To allow State Agencies to make up their own standardless definition of ‘audit’ is absurd,” Gann writes. He predicts that this misinterpretation of the law will lead to “financial chaos across state government if it is allowed to stand.” Oklahoma utilities PSO, OG&E, ONG and CenterPoint/Summit paid some of the highest natural gas prices in U.S. history during two weeks in February 2021, incurring some $2.8 billion in debt. Interest and other expenses added another $2 billion, bringing the total cost of the winter storm bonds being paid by Oklahoma utility customers close to $5 billion.   Payments for PSO’s bonds have been collected as “Winter Storm Cost Recovery Rider” charges on the monthly bills of its customers since the bonds were issued in September 2022. They are scheduled to continue for another 17 years. The securitization law required those bond charges to be audited as part of the utilities’ subsequent rate cases. Gann says that hasn’t happened. Unless it decides to request additional briefs from the parties, Gann’s appeal is now in the hands of the Oklahoma Supreme Court. Gann writes that he “has full confidence in this court’s ability to read and offer first-impression interpretations of the plain language of unambiguous laws, and to properly determine their applicability to the OCC.” Gann’s full Reply Brief can be read online here: https://www.oscn.net/dockets/GetDocument.aspx?ct=appellate&bc=1063629140&cn=CU-122861&fmt=pdf See also: Feb. 14, 2025: https://www.okhouse.gov/posts/News-20250214_1 August 21, 2025: https://www.okhouse.gov/posts/news-20250821_1 The progress of all the appeals can be followed on the Oklahoma Supreme Court website: PSO rate case: https://www.oscn.net/dockets/GetCaseInformation.aspx?db=appellate&number=122861 ONG, PSO & OG&E CY2023 fuel cases: (I'm showing this one does not list PSO) https://oscn.net/dockets/GetCaseInformation.aspx?db=appellate&number=122991 OG&E rate case: https://oscn.net/dockets/GetCaseInformation.aspx?db=appellate&number=123021 ONG rate case: https://oscn.net/dockets/GetCaseInformation.aspx?db=appellate&number=123348

Oct 28, 2025
Recent Posts

Property Owners Can Reclaim Seized Land After Nov. 1

After Nov. 1, the Oklahoma Transportation Commission will be required to notify previous property owners if the land they sold to the Commission is going to be offered for sale. The property owners would then have the right to repurchase at their original selling price. The change comes thanks to House Bill 1103 , passed this year by Rep. Tom Gann, R-Inola. The measure was requested by Myron Grabowski who lives in Gann's House district. "Mr. Grabowski witnessed the taking of another person's land by the Oklahoma Department of Transportation and then found out it was later sold without any notification to the property owner," Gann said. "This new law at least will give people in similar circumstances the ability to repurchase land that was taken from them by eminent domain." For his part, Grabowski said, “I just want what's right for the people of Oklahoma.” Sen. Ally Seifried, R-Claremore is the Senate author of the bill. “If land acquired by the Department of Transportation is later sold, the original owner deserves the first opportunity to buy it back at a fair price,” Seifried said. “This change in law is simply the right thing to do for Oklahoma property owners. I’m proud to see this bill become law after two years of work and grateful to have partnered with Representatives Gann and Lepak on this issue. Although a previous version of the bill passed the Senate, it didn’t receive a hearing in the House, so I’m glad to see this finally come to fruition.”  Gann explained this measure extends the window of time that previous landowners have to reclaim their land – from 30 to 90 days - and specifies notification requirements by the Commission. The measure also removes the five-year time period the Commission now has to notify previous owners of the sale of the property. Rep. Mark Lepak, R-Claremore, is a coauthor of the bill and the author of previous identical legislation.  "By removing the five-year requirement, we're disincentivizing the Commission from holding onto property so they can sell it at an increased price," Lepak said. "This will hopefully encourage the Commission to more quickly offer property back to the original owner, giving them the opportunity to reclaim their land."  Gann said the changes "add transparency to the process by requiring online publication of the land sale. This also clarifies eligibility and ensures fair offers to the original landowner rather than allowing the Department of Transportation to profit off of land they've taken." The notice is to contain an offer to sell the property back to the previous owner at no greater than the original price, provided the previous owner did not use federal funds to purchase the property. Notices must be sent by registered mail and posted on the Department of Transportation's website. The act becomes effective Nov. 1.