Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Artificial‑intelligence‑policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Panel backs requirement that humans make final emergency‑management and utility shutdown decisions over AI
Summary
Assembly Bill 325 would require emergency management plans adopted by state or local agencies to ensure a natural person, not an AI system, makes final decisions on emergency response, allocation of resources and utility service reductions; sponsors cited cybersecurity and real‑world examples such as utility shutoffs during high‑wind events.
The Senate Government Affairs Committee took testimony on Assembly Bill 325, a measure from the joint interim standing committee on government affairs that would require any state or local emergency‑management plan to reserve final decision‑making authority to a natural person when AI systems are used to assist in emergency response or utility service disruption decisions.
Assemblymember Slayton Torres Fawcett, co‑sponsor, said the bill defines artificial intelligence as ‘‘a machine‑based system that can, for a given set of human‑dependent objectives, make predictions, recommendations, or decisions, influencing real or virtual environments.’’ She and co‑sponsor Assemblymember Max Carter told the committee their primary concern is that AI tools be permitted to ‘‘facilitate’’ operations but not to assume final responsibility for decisions such as mass power shutdowns.
Carter used a local example to illustrate the point: he said that when an electric utility (referred to in testimony as MV Energy) considers shutting power in high‑wind conditions in areas such as Kyle Canyon, algorithms may be useful for analysis but the final call whether to reduce or discontinue service should be made by a human. The bill would also prohibit a utility from making a final call to reduce or shut service in response to a disaster solely by automated decision.
Senator Neal praised the bill’s caution and referenced cybersecurity and earlier incidents where vulnerabilities in smart‑city systems were exploited; he said the pandemic and smart‑city incidents showed how attackers could target emergency systems. Maurice Washington, legislative liaison for Americans for Prosperity, said his organization had filed written opposition but would testify neutral because an amendment directing final decisions to humans addressed its principal concern; Washington also warned that the bill should not unintentionally discourage AI innovation.
No committee action was recorded; sponsors said they will continue to refine the language in response to feedback and pursue work‑session consideration.
Ending: The hearing closed with general support for retaining human oversight over high‑stakes emergency and utility decisions while preserving space for AI to assist operationally; the committee requested continued technical refinement.
