This article was produced in partnership with ProPublica’s Local Reporting Network. Sign up for Dispatches to get ProPublica stories in your inbox every week.
Two very different candidates are running for the open seat on Oklahoma’s commission that oversees utilities and the state’s mighty oil and gas industry.
The Frontier and ProPublica’s reporting has uncovered how Oklahoma regulators have known about widespread oilfield pollution from toxic wastewater for years. The Oklahoma Corporation Commission has at times failed to enforce its own rules or make oil and gas companies clean up pollution, our investigation found. Agency leaders in some cases decided not to act despite recommendations by their own staff to create stricter rules or punish polluters. The Frontier has also covered rising electricity costs as utilities build new capacity to keep pace with a boom in data center construction and increased demand from other large power users.
Three elected commissioners oversee the Oklahoma Corporation Commission and have the power to develop and enforce rules for the oil and gas industry, public utilities, railroads and trucking companies, and other key industries in the state. The commissioners, who serve six-year terms, also decide whether to fine companies that violate state pollution laws. For nearly two decades, the Oklahoma Corporation Commission has been run exclusively by Republicans, often heavily supported by donations from the industries they regulate. The last Democrat to hold a seat on the commission left office in 2009.
We asked the candidates how they would address utility costs, the state’s crisis of abandoned wells and the growing number of pollution incidents caused by oilfield wastewater erupting from the ground, known as purges.
Meet the candidates
Brad Boles
Republican nominee Brad Boles is the chairman of the Energy and Natural Resources Oversight Committee in the Oklahoma House of Representatives. His 2025 bill, which became law, increased the amount of money oil companies must set aside to ensure that cleanup occurs if wells become abandoned. Boles previously served as the mayor of Marlow, a 4,400-person town in southwest Oklahoma. He also ran his family’s business, which manufactures equipment for the oilfield industry, until he sold it to the Fortune 500 company, NOV Inc., in 2018. He said he hasn’t been involved with the company since 2020 and doesn’t hold any stock in NOV. Boles is running as a pro-business conservative who promises to bolster Oklahoma’s energy industry while protecting the environment.
Rhonda Eastman
Democratic nominee Rhonda Eastman worked for the Oklahoma Employment Security Commission for 16 years, most recently making decisions on unemployment insurance claims before turning her full-time focus to her political campaign. She was born in Tulsa and grew up in LeFlore County, Oklahoma, where she spent time on her grandparents’ farms tending to chickens and cattle. Eastman worked her way through college with jobs in trucking, utilities, and construction. Eastman has never held public office. She said she is campaigning to break Republicans’ decades-long control of the Corporation Commission and, if elected, wants to be an advocate for people over industry.
Where they stand
Explore the candidates’ answers on energy regulation, oilfield pollution, utility costs and more.
How should the Corporation Commission balance its duties as a regulator to prevent and clean up pollution while still ensuring responsible oil and gas development?
I proudly support Oklahoma’s oil and natural gas industry. I also believe that responsible energy development and protecting our land and water go hand in hand. The Corporation Commission should provide clear, predictable rules, timely permitting, and consistent enforcement based on sound science. We should work with operators to prevent spills and pollution, require prompt reporting and response when problems occur, and hold responsible parties accountable for cleanup. My approach is straightforward: support responsible energy production, enforce the rules fairly, and make sure cleanup obligations are met, which protects our natural resources while keeping Oklahoma a national leader in energy production.
I believe the role of a regulator should be to advocate for the people and the environment. Oil and gas companies have fleets of attorneys to advocate for their position. I am not unrealistic. As a nation, we are dependent on fossil fuels, and my role would be to ensure that is done safely.
How would you characterize the Corporation Commission’s response to the growing number of saltwater purges in the state? Is there anything you would do differently?
The Commission has taken steps to investigate saltwater purges, contain releases, and shut down wells where necessary for public safety or environmental reasons. My approach would be targeted and based on sound science, recognizing that different formations and locations present different risks. Operators deserve clear requirements and fair treatment, and landowners deserve protection for their property and water.
Companies will always do the cheapest, easiest thing, even if it has potential to cause harm. It’s why regulation is so important. Honest, true regulation does not stifle jobs; it actually creates more. I do not like injection wells at all. A single purge is too many. There are companies in Oklahoma that can treat the wastewater, and it can be used for industrial purposes.
Do you think the Corporation Commission needs stronger regulations for oilfield wastewater injection to prevent purges and protect groundwater from oil and gas pollution? If so, what would they look like? If not, why not?
I would start by making sure existing rules are consistently enforced, then address any shortcomings with targeted, practical changes based on sound science. When a purge occurs, we need prompt investigation, communication with landowners, and enforceable cleanup obligations for responsible parties.
Yes. Injection wells are a cost-saving convenience for oil and gas producers. There are alternatives. There are many thirsty industrial businesses, including oil and gas production, that could benefit from treated industrial water.
How should the Corporation Commission respond to Oklahoma’s orphan well crisis?
The Oklahoma Corporation Commission should address orphan wells with two clear goals: Reduce the existing backlog and prevent more wells from becoming the public’s responsibility. The OCC has limited funding to plug wells, which is not close to enough to get ahead of this issue. I wrote a bill to increase the plugging well fund. It didn’t make it through the budget process the past couple of years, but I will continue to advocate for this if elected as a commissioner. Operators should meet their plugging obligations, and well transfers should receive meaningful scrutiny to ensure the receiving operator can carry those responsibilities. We can support Oklahoma energy production while protecting landowners and reducing future cleanup burdens on taxpayers.
This is a complex problem. New wells get added to the list yearly. We can’t gain ground by closing these old wells if we keep adding to the list. I’d like to see an increase in the amount of money companies must set aside to ensure their wells get plugged, as we have some of the lowest requirements in the nation. The University of Oklahoma is researching the use of geothermal energy as an electricity source. Their idea of repurposing orphan wells as a cost-saving measure is interesting. This may be the answer to solving multiple problems. The labor force for geothermal would be oil field workers. I’ll be following this research to see if it is something realistic for Oklahoma.
How will you maintain your independence from the influence of corporations that do business in front of the commission?
My responsibility will be to the people of Oklahoma. Every company appearing before the Commission should receive a fair hearing, and every decision should be based on the law, the evidence, and the public interest. I’m openly pro-oil and gas and pro-business, but that does not mean any company is entitled to special treatment. My business experience combined with being a former mayor and state representative has taught me the importance of clear rules, accountability, and making decisions that you can defend. I will maintain that independence by complying with ethics and disclosure requirements, avoiding improper communications about pending cases, and recusing myself when a conflict requires it.
I have not nor will I receive corporate PAC money. I have not accepted large donations from executives or company insiders of those industries either. If a driller sends my campaign $25, that tells me he has seen the damage I am speaking about and supports my message. If either myself or my opponent were to receive thousands in donations from an industry, my belief is it would influence and create bias when deciding cases. My opinion is not for sale.
What are your thoughts on Senate Bill 998, recent legislation requiring the commission to approve requests by utility companies to make ratepayers pay for construction as it’s happening on new power plants?
I supported the construction-work-in-progress, or CWIP, because I believed its long-term benefits outweighed its drawbacks, although it was a difficult vote. It allows utilities to begin recovering costs during construction of qualifying natural gas power plants only. Paying financing costs as construction proceeds reduces the overall project costs that would otherwise accumulate and be added to customers’ bills after the plant opens. The tradeoff is that customers pay sooner, before receiving electricity from the new plant. I understand that concern, especially for seniors on fixed incomes who may receive limited future benefit. Ultimately, I supported the opportunity to lower long-term project costs for ratepayers and strengthen reliable natural gas generation, which is critical to our state’s economy.
SB 998, which my opponent voted yes to and went into effect in August 2026, needs to be repealed. It also opened the door for the high-capacity transmission projects to be added to ratepayers. Projects like the one in northeast Oklahoma from Miami to Washington County that residents are fighting back against. Everywhere in the state that these projects have been completed, data centers soon follow.
Do you think the Oklahoma Corporation Commission has done a good job keeping utility rates affordable for customers? Would you do anything differently?
Oklahoma’s electricity rates remain some of the lowest of any state and well below the national average, and I give the Commission credit for its role in maintaining competitive rates. But that alone does not tell us whether a family can afford its monthly bill. Utilities should demonstrate that proposed costs are necessary, reasonable, and provide value to customers. I would examine operating expenses, proposed returns, and infrastructure investments, including whether less costly alternatives could deliver the same reliability. Reliable service requires investment, and utilities should have a fair opportunity to earn a reasonable return. My responsibility would be to independently evaluate the evidence and ensure customers receive reliable service at a fair price. My goal is to preserve Oklahoma’s competitive energy costs while demanding efficiency, transparency, and accountability for every dollar customers are asked to pay.
Absolutely not. They have a history of giving big utilities whatever they ask for. I was pleasantly surprised to see them push back against SB 998, which my opponent voted YES to.
Oklahoma has one of the highest numbers of electricity disconnections for non-payment in the nation, according to federal data. What, if anything, do you think the Corporation Commission needs to do to address this issue?
I would start by examining what is driving Oklahoma’s numbers, including repeat disconnections, differences in utility practices, and whether customers can realistically access payment arrangements. We need reliable data to identify where changes would help most. I would emphasize clear advance notice, reasonable payment plans, and early referrals to existing assistance programs. We should also ensure that we have adequate protections for extreme weather and serious medical conditions are consistently followed, and review whether reconnection fees or deposit requirements create unnecessary barriers to restoring service. Customers remain responsible for their bills, and unpaid costs can ultimately affect other ratepayers. Practical arrangements that help families catch up can support both customer stability and responsible collections.
The role of OCC is to also be an advocate. We saw this when they pushed back against SB 998. This issue may have to be resolved within the Legislature, but the OCC can certainly be an advocate.
Nick Bowlin joined The Frontier in 2025 as part of ProPublica’s Local Reporting Network. He covers energy and the Oil & Gas industry. He can be reached at Nick@readfrontier.com