Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Confidentiality Ai topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
PUC defers Black Hills protective‑order decision after heated debate over AI and confidentiality
Summary
A long dispute over whether intervenors may use AI or modern analytics on confidential utility filings led the Public Utilities Commission to defer a protective‑order ruling while directing parties and staff to try to craft agreed language.
The South Dakota Public Utilities Commission deferred a decision on a protective order in Black Hills Power’s rate proceeding after a lengthy, contested exchange over whether parties may use artificial‑intelligence and other analytical tools on confidential filings.
Intervener Mr. McKee asked the commission to adopt a protective order that explicitly allows modern analytical tools — including AI‑assisted drafting or review — for parties that lack large staffs. He said such tools are necessary for meaningful participation and that vendor or enterprise options can allow secure use.
Black Hills Power’s counsel, Douglas Law, urged caution, saying the company already uses enclosed, secure enterprise systems and that permitting open‑AI systems or public cloud models risks irreversible disclosure of confidential data. Law said Black Hills would accept closed systems that can be verified but opposed a blanket authorization for unspecified AI tools.
PUC staff (Amanda Reese) said the commission has precedent for protective orders but noted prior orders did not address AI. Staff recommended the commission include AI in any protective order with limits and offered to work with parties to craft language consistent with state guidance on secure AI uses.
Commissioners expressed competing concerns. Several said they sympathize with Mr. McKee’s lack of staff and interest in modern tools but also warned that confidential data sent to public AI services could expose consumer or company information. Multiple commissioners instructed staff and parties to negotiate specific language that would permit secure, closed‑loop AI use or other analytical tools while protecting confidential data; they deferred the motion to the next meeting to allow time for agreement.
Separately in the same docket, the commission approved a procedural schedule (staff motion) but did not adopt Mr. McKee’s proposed protective order or Black Hills’ confidentiality agreement before deferring further action. The commission also discussed the broader question of how modern data tools affect discovery and participation in large, multi‑party dockets.
