ProEthica Case 73 Ontology
type: Ontology
created: 2026-02-25T23:54:19.968089
imports: cases
imports: intermediate

Accept No-Storage Capital Constraint
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Action
generated at time: 2026-02-25T23:54:19.989658
was generated by: ProEthica Case 73 Extraction

Accept No-Storage Capital Constraint → Storage Gap Identified
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T23:54:19.990199
was generated by: ProEthica Case 73 Extraction

Agent-Trustee-Distinction-Framework
type: Agent-TrusteeDistinctionFramework
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.92
createdby: NSPE professional ethics tradition
discoveredincase: 73
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
documenttitle: Agent-Trustee Distinction Framework for Engineer-Client Obligations
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T22:28:36.405231+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 73
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T22:28:36.405231+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: Agent-Trustee Distinction Framework
sourcetext: This discussion has so far not addressed the obligation of Engineer A in this case to act as a faithful agent or trustee for the employer.
textreferences: At first glance, this finding in conjunction with the earlier conclusion that system reliability data be included in the report to board may seem to satisfy Engineer A's obligations.
textreferences: This discussion has so far not addressed the obligation of Engineer A in this case to act as a faithful agent or trustee for the employer.
usedby: BER in analyzing Engineer A's obligations to employer versus public
usedincontext: Explicitly invoked to frame Engineer A's dual obligation: as a faithful agent/trustee to the employer while also holding public health and safety paramount; used to analyze whether recommending solar-without-storage satisfies both dimensions of professional duty
wasattributedto: Case 73 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T22:54:37.515953
was generated by: ProEthica Case 73 Extraction

Autonomous Vehicle Development Engineer BER 16-5
type: AutonomousVehicleSafetyEngineer
type: NamedIndividual
attributes: {'license': 'Professional Engineer', 'specialty': 'Autonomous vehicle operating systems', 'case_reference': 'BER Case 16-5'}
caseinvolvement: An engineer on a team developing a driverless/autonomous vehicle operating system, tasked with considering crash outcome algorithms; the BER found obligations to fully participate in risk management, express safety concerns clearly, and recommend further study before deployment.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.97
discoveredincase: 73
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T22:28:40.748926+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 73
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T22:28:40.748926+00:00
importance: medium
relationships: {'type': 'member_of', 'target': 'Engineering risk management team'}
rolecategory: public_responsibility
roleclass: Autonomous Vehicle Safety Engineer
sourcetext: an engineer working on a team developing a driverless/autonomous vehicle operating system
textreferences: an engineer working on a team developing a driverless/autonomous vehicle operating system
textreferences: the engineer fully and actively participate as a member of the engineering risk management team and express clearly and unambiguously concerns regarding safety of the operating system
wasattributedto: Case 73 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T22:54:37.517934
was generated by: ProEthica Case 73 Extraction

Autonomous Vehicle Development Engineer Further Study Recommendation BER 16-5
type: FurtherStudyRecommendationBeforeUnreliableEnergySystemDeploymentCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Further Study Recommendation Before Unreliable Energy System Deployment Capability
capabilitystatement: The autonomous vehicle development engineer demonstrated the capability to recommend further study before the operating system is deployed when safety concerns about harm minimization outcomes remain unresolved
casecontext: BER 16-5: Engineer on autonomous vehicle development team tasked with considering crash outcome algorithms
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.85
demonstratedthrough: BER 16-5 finding that the engineer should recommend further study before the autonomous vehicle operating system is utilized when safety concerns remain unresolved
discoveredincase: 73
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T22:48:49.553722+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 73
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T22:48:49.553722+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Autonomous Vehicle Development Engineer BER 16-5
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: The BER also suggested that, if necessary, the engineer recommend further study before the operating system is utilized.
textreferences: The BER also suggested that, if necessary, the engineer recommend further study before the operating system is utilized.
textreferences: The conclusions in Case 16-5 suggest the engineer fully and actively participate as a member of the engineering risk management team and express clearly and unambiguously concerns regarding safety of the operating system.
wasattributedto: Case 73 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T22:54:37.533045
was generated by: ProEthica Case 73 Extraction

Autonomous Vehicle Development Team Engineer BER 16-5
type: AutonomousVehicleSafetyEngineer
type: NamedIndividual
attributes: {'license': 'Professional Engineer', 'specialty': 'Autonomous vehicle operating system development', 'obligation_context': 'BER Case 16-5 referenced as analogous precedent for competing public goods analysis'}
caseinvolvement: An engineer working on a team developing a driverless/autonomous vehicle operating system, tasked with considering harm-minimization outcomes in unavoidable crash scenarios, bearing obligations to fully and actively participate in risk management, express safety concerns clearly, and recommend further study before the operating system is utilized.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.85
discoveredincase: 73
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T23:33:20.103706+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 73
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T23:33:20.103706+00:00
importance: medium
relationships: {'type': 'member_of', 'target': 'Engineering Risk Management Team'}
rolecategory: public_responsibility
roleclass: Autonomous Vehicle Safety Engineer
sourcetext: BER Case 16-5 is also instructive; it deals with an engineer working on a team developing a driverless/autonomous vehicle operating system.
textreferences: BER Case 16-5 is also instructive; it deals with an engineer working on a team developing a driverless/autonomous vehicle operating system.
textreferences: The conclusions in Case 16-5 suggest the engineer fully and actively participate as a member of the engineering risk management team and express clearly and unambiguously concerns regarding safety of the operating system.
wasattributedto: Case 73 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T23:54:19.973056
was generated by: ProEthica Case 73 Extraction

Autonomous Vehicle Engineer Further Study Recommendation BER 16-5
type: AutonomousVehicleHarmMinimizationRiskManagementParticipationObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: BER 16-5: An engineer on a team developing a driverless/autonomous vehicle operating system was tasked with considering crash outcome algorithms; the BER found the engineer should participate fully in risk management and recommend further study if safety concerns remained unresolved
compliancestatus: unclear
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.9
discoveredincase: 73
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T22:46:47.115804+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 73
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T22:46:47.115804+00:00
importance: medium
obligatedparty: Autonomous Vehicle Development Engineer (BER 16-5)
obligationclass: Autonomous Vehicle Harm Minimization Risk Management Participation Obligation
obligationstatement: The engineer in BER 16-5 developing the autonomous vehicle operating system was obligated to fully and actively participate in the engineering risk management team, express clearly and unambiguously any concerns regarding the safety of the operating system's harm-minimization logic, and if necessary recommend further study before the operating system was deployed for public use.
sourcetext: The conclusions in Case 16-5 suggest the engineer fully and actively participate as a member of the engineering risk management team and express clearly and unambiguously concerns regarding safety of the operating system.
temporalscope: During development of the autonomous vehicle operating system, prior to deployment
textreferences: BER Case 16-5 is also instructive; it deals with an engineer working on a team developing a driverless/autonomous vehicle operating system.
textreferences: The BER also suggested that, if necessary, the engineer recommend further study before the operating system is utilized.
textreferences: The conclusions in Case 16-5 suggest the engineer fully and actively participate as a member of the engineering risk management team and express clearly and unambiguously concerns regarding safety of the operating system.
wasattributedto: Case 73 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T22:54:37.532210
was generated by: ProEthica Case 73 Extraction

Autonomous Vehicle Risk Management Active Participation BER 16-5 Engineer
type: AutonomousVehicleRiskManagementActiveParticipationConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: BER Case 16-5 cited as instructive precedent for Engineer A's situation regarding active safety participation and further study recommendations.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.95
constrainedentity: Engineer (BER 16-5 autonomous vehicle case)
constraintclass: Autonomous Vehicle Risk Management Active Participation Constraint
constraintstatement: The engineer developing the autonomous vehicle operating system is constrained to fully and actively participate in the engineering risk management team, express safety concerns clearly and unambiguously, and recommend further study before the operating system is utilized if safety concerns remain unresolved.
discoveredincase: 73
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T22:49:20.614459+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 73
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T22:49:20.614459+00:00
importance: high
severity: critical
source: BER Case 16-5; NSPE Code of Ethics
sourcetext: The conclusions in Case 16-5 suggest the engineer fully and actively participate as a member of the engineering risk management team and express clearly and unambiguously concerns regarding safety of the operating system
temporalscope: Throughout the development and pre-deployment phases of the autonomous vehicle operating system
textreferences: The BER also suggested that, if necessary, the engineer recommend further study before the operating system is utilized
textreferences: The conclusions in Case 16-5 suggest the engineer fully and actively participate as a member of the engineering risk management team and express clearly and unambiguously concerns regarding safety of the operating system
wasattributedto: Case 73 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T22:54:37.535201
was generated by: ProEthica Case 73 Extraction

BER Case 16-5
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-26T00:07:28.426461
was generated by: ProEthica Case 73 Extraction

BER Case 16-5 (autonomous vehicle scenario) before current Engineer A case
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T23:54:19.990741
was generated by: ProEthica Case 73 Extraction

BER Case 20-4
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-26T00:07:28.426429
was generated by: ProEthica Case 73 Extraction

BER Case 20-4 (water commission scenario) before current Engineer A case
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T23:54:19.990773
was generated by: ProEthica Case 73 Extraction

BER Case 98-5
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-26T00:07:28.426397
was generated by: ProEthica Case 73 Extraction

BER Case 98-5 (building code scenario) before current Engineer A case
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T23:54:19.990709
was generated by: ProEthica Case 73 Extraction

Battery Storage Alternative Education Engineer A Board Report
type: BatteryStorageAlternativeClientEducationObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Capital constraints prevent battery storage installation at present, but the cost of solar panels equals the cost of rebuilding the generator; the board should be informed of the battery storage option as a future or phased alternative.
compliancestatus: unclear
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.88
discoveredincase: 73
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T22:39:03.522019+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 73
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T22:39:03.522019+00:00
importance: medium
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationclass: Battery Storage Alternative Client Education Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A is obligated to educate the board about the battery storage option as a third path that could achieve both carbon footprint reduction and adequate reliability, even though capital constraints currently preclude it, so the board can make a fully informed decision that considers all technically viable options.
sourcetext: Capital constraints prevent the organization from installing a system of batteries to store energy for use at night or in bad weather, but the cost of installing the solar panels is essentially the same as the cost to rebuild the generator.
temporalscope: In the board report when presenting the energy system replacement options
textreferences: Capital constraints prevent the organization from installing a system of batteries to store energy for use at night or in bad weather, but the cost of installing the solar panels is essentially the same as the cost to rebuild the generator.
wasattributedto: Case 73 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T22:54:37.523951
was generated by: ProEthica Case 73 Extraction

Board Decision Point Reached
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Event
generated at time: 2026-02-25T23:54:19.990101
was generated by: ProEthica Case 73 Extraction

California and Texas extreme weather events before current case analysis
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T23:54:19.990677
was generated by: ProEthica Case 73 Extraction

Capital-Constrained Battery Storage Resilience Gap
type: Capital-ConstrainedResilienceGapState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From the time capital constraints were identified as preventing battery storage installation through the board's decision on the solar project
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: Local utility
affectedparties: Organization board
affectedparties: Stakeholders
affectedparties: Third-party utility customers
concept category: State
confidence: 0.88
discoveredincase: 73
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T23:32:16.024444+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 73
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T23:32:16.024444+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: Capital constraints prevent the organization from installing a system of batteries to store energy for use at night or in bad weather
stateclass: Capital-Constrained Resilience Gap State
subject: The absence of battery storage in the proposed solar system due to capital constraints, creating a foreseeable vulnerability under non-normal operating conditions
terminatedby: Capital constraints resolved and storage added, or board accepts risk with full disclosure, or alternative resilience measure identified
textreferences: Capital constraints prevent the organization from installing a system of batteries to store energy for use at night or in bad weather
textreferences: during extreme weather events, they may be forced to institute rolling outages
textreferences: under normal conditions, the system of solar panels can supply electric energy equivalent to that provided by the existing generator
triggeringevent: Engineer A's analysis revealed that capital constraints prevent installation of battery storage, leaving the solar system without resilience for nighttime or bad weather conditions, coinciding with utility disclosure of grid stress risk during extreme weather
urgencylevel: high
wasattributedto: Case 73 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T23:54:19.971130
was generated by: ProEthica Case 73 Extraction

Capital Constraint Preventing Battery Storage Installation
type: Capital-ConstrainedResilienceGapState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From the point of feasibility analysis through the board decision; persists as a design constraint if solar is adopted
affectedparties: Board of directors
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: Facility operations staff
affectedparties: Organization
concept category: State
confidence: 0.98
discoveredincase: 73
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T22:27:43.324490+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 73
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T22:27:43.324490+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: Capital constraints prevent the organization from installing a system of batteries to store energy for use at night or in bad weather
stateclass: Capital-Constrained Resilience Gap State
subject: Organization's proposed solar energy system
terminatedby: Acquisition of capital for battery storage, or abandonment of solar project
textreferences: Capital constraints prevent the organization from installing a system of batteries to store energy for use at night or in bad weather
textreferences: the cost of installing the solar panels is essentially the same as the cost to rebuild the generator
triggeringevent: Capital constraints identified that prevent installation of battery storage for night or bad-weather energy needs
urgencylevel: high
wasattributedto: Case 73 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T22:54:37.513590
was generated by: ProEthica Case 73 Extraction

Capital Constraint Resilience Gap Disclosure Constraint Engineer A Battery Storage Omission
type: CapitalConstraintResilienceGapDisclosureConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Capital constraints prevent the organization from installing battery storage, meaning the solar system can only supply energy equivalent to the generator under normal conditions. This resilience gap must be disclosed in the board report so the board can make an informed decision about the capital-equivalent but functionally non-equivalent replacement.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.9
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Capital Constraint Resilience Gap Disclosure Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A is constrained from presenting the solar-without-storage system as fully equivalent to the existing generator without disclosing the resilience gap created by the absence of battery storage — specifically the system's inability to supply energy at night or during bad weather — which is a direct consequence of the organization's capital constraints.
discoveredincase: 73
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T23:38:28.511212+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 73
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T23:38:28.511212+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics Section II.3.a and the principle that engineers must provide complete and accurate information to enable informed client decision-making
sourcetext: Capital constraints prevent the organization from installing a system of batteries to store energy for use at night or in bad weather
temporalscope: During preparation and submission of the board report on the solar project
textreferences: Capital constraints prevent the organization from installing a system of batteries to store energy for use at night or in bad weather
textreferences: Engineer A is satisfied that under normal conditions, the system of solar panels can supply electric energy equivalent to that provided by the existing generator.
wasattributedto: Case 73 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T23:54:19.978610
was generated by: ProEthica Case 73 Extraction

Capital Constraint Resilience Gap Disclosure Engineer A Battery Storage Gap
type: CapitalConstraintResilienceGapDisclosureConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Capital constraints prevent battery storage installation, creating a material reliability gap in the proposed solar system that Engineer A must disclose to the board.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.95
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Capital Constraint Resilience Gap Disclosure Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A must disclose in the board report that capital constraints prevent installation of battery storage, and must explain the operational consequence — inability to supply energy at night or in bad weather — prohibiting presentation of the solar system as equivalent to the generator without this qualification.
discoveredincase: 73
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T22:40:57.194915+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 73
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T22:40:57.194915+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics — completeness and objectivity provisions; Professional Report Integrity Standard
sourcetext: Capital constraints prevent the organization from installing a system of batteries to store energy for use at night or in bad weather, but the cost of installing the solar panels is essentially the same as the cost to rebuild the generator.
temporalscope: At the time of board report preparation and submission
textreferences: Capital constraints prevent the organization from installing a system of batteries to store energy for use at night or in bad weather, but the cost of installing the solar panels is essentially the same as the cost to rebuild the generator.
wasattributedto: Case 73 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T22:54:37.524440
was generated by: ProEthica Case 73 Extraction

Carbon Footprint Reduction Stakeholders Organization
type: CarbonFootprintReductionStakeholder
type: NamedIndividual
attributes: {'entity_type': 'Organizational stakeholder group', 'advocacy_position': 'Solar generation without storage to reduce carbon footprint'}
caseinvolvement: Organizational stakeholders advocating for the solar generation without storage option as a means of reducing the organization's carbon footprint and supporting environmentally friendly energy production, whose preferences Engineer A must faithfully represent while also disclosing countervailing reliability and grid stability risks.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.88
discoveredincase: 73
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T23:33:20.103706+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 73
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T23:33:20.103706+00:00
importance: medium
relationships: {'type': 'influences', 'target': 'Organizational Board Energy Decision Authority'}
rolecategory: public_responsibility
roleclass: Carbon Footprint Reduction Stakeholder
sourcetext: If the solar production without storage option moves forward, the organization will increase its green footprint and will support a laudable goal of increasing environmentally friendly energy production.
textreferences: If the solar production without storage option moves forward, the organization will increase its green footprint and will support a laudable goal of increasing environmentally friendly energy production.
textreferences: Some may argue that continuing to operate a fossil-fueled generator is inconsistent with public health, safety, and welfare
wasattributedto: Case 73 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T23:54:19.973193
was generated by: ProEthica Case 73 Extraction

Carbon Footprint Sustainability Advocates
type: CarbonFootprintReductionStakeholder
type: NamedIndividual
attributes: {'type': 'Organizational stakeholders', 'preference': 'Solar production without storage to reduce carbon footprint'}
caseinvolvement: Stakeholders within or affiliated with the organization who advocate for the solar-without-storage option to reduce the carbon footprint and support environmentally friendly energy production goals.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.88
discoveredincase: 73
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T22:28:40.748926+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 73
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T22:28:40.748926+00:00
importance: medium
relationships: {'type': 'preference_context_for', 'target': 'Engineer A Energy Systems Reporting Engineer'}
rolecategory: participant
roleclass: Carbon Footprint Reduction Stakeholder
sourcetext: If the solar production without storage option moves forward, the organization will increase its green footprint and will support a laudable goal of increasing environmentally friendly energy production.
textreferences: If the solar production without storage option moves forward, the organization will increase its green footprint and will support a laudable goal of increasing environmentally friendly energy production.
textreferences: Some may argue that continuing to operate a fossil-fueled generator is inconsistent with public health, safety, and welfare.
wasattributedto: Case 73 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T22:54:37.516675
was generated by: ProEthica Case 73 Extraction

Carbon Reduction vs Grid Reliability Public Goods Tension
type: CompetingPublicGoodsTensionState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From the point Engineer A recognizes both the carbon reduction benefit and the grid reliability risk through the board decision
affectedparties: Board of directors
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: General public
affectedparties: Local utility
affectedparties: Organization stakeholders
affectedparties: Third-party electricity consumers
concept category: State
confidence: 0.96
discoveredincase: 73
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T22:27:43.324490+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 73
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T22:27:43.324490+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: will satisfy those stakeholders interested in reducing the organization's carbon footprint
stateclass: Competing Public Goods Tension State
subject: Engineer A's professional assessment and board report
terminatedby: Board decision informed by a complete and transparent presentation of both public goods and their tradeoffs
textreferences: a move to solar production without storage may stress the local utility generation mix even more, increasing the likelihood of rolling blackouts
textreferences: will satisfy those stakeholders interested in reducing the organization's carbon footprint
triggeringevent: Engineer A's realization that the solar transition satisfies stakeholder sustainability goals but increases the probability of rolling blackouts affecting third parties
urgencylevel: high
wasattributedto: Case 73 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T22:54:37.514125
was generated by: ProEthica Case 73 Extraction

Case 73 Timeline
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T23:54:19.990866
was generated by: ProEthica Case 73 Extraction

CausalLink_Accept No-Storage Capital Cons
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-26T00:07:28.428903
was generated by: ProEthica Case 73 Extraction

CausalLink_Conclude Solar Energy Equivale
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-26T00:07:28.426624
was generated by: ProEthica Case 73 Extraction

CausalLink_Conduct Solar Feasibility Stud
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-26T23:09:08.460770
was generated by: ProEthica Case 73 Extraction

CausalLink_Consult Utility on Grid Reliab
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-26T00:07:28.428934
was generated by: ProEthica Case 73 Extraction

CausalLink_Continue Fossil Facility Opera
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-26T00:07:28.426562
was generated by: ProEthica Case 73 Extraction

CausalLink_Decide Board Report Content
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-26T00:07:28.428964
was generated by: ProEthica Case 73 Extraction

CausalLink_Decide Report Content Scope
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-26T23:09:08.461317
was generated by: ProEthica Case 73 Extraction

CausalLink_Frame Solar vs. Rebuild Recomm
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-26T00:07:28.428994
was generated by: ProEthica Case 73 Extraction

CausalLink_Initiate Solar Replacement Stu
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-26T00:07:28.426594
was generated by: ProEthica Case 73 Extraction

City Council Chairman Political Authority
type: CityCouncilPoliticalAuthority
type: NamedIndividual
attributes: {'entity_type': 'Elected political official', 'authority_scope': 'Municipal legislative authority over ordinances and resource allocation'}
caseinvolvement: Holds authority over municipal resource allocation and ordinance-making, expresses sympathy for Engineer Adam's staffing concerns and offers to authorize additional code official hiring, but simultaneously seeks Engineer Adam's concurrence on a grandfathering ordinance that would exempt certain buildings from newer more rigorous code requirements, constituting a politically-motivated Faustian bargain.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.88
discoveredincase: 73
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T23:33:20.103706+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 73
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T23:33:20.103706+00:00
importance: medium
relationships: {'type': 'negotiates_with', 'target': 'Engineer Adam Building Inspection Program PE'}
rolecategory: public_responsibility
roleclass: City Council Political Authority
sourcetext: Engineer Adam meets with the chairman of the local city council to discuss his concerns.
textreferences: Engineer Adam meets with the chairman of the local city council to discuss his concerns.
textreferences: The chairman indicates that he is quite sympathetic to Engineer Adam's concerns and would be willing to issue an order to permit the hiring of additional code officials for the building department.
textreferences: the chairman seeks Engineer Adam's concurrence on a city ordinance that would permit certain specified buildings under construction to be 'grandfathered' under the older existing enforcement requirements
wasattributedto: Case 73 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T23:54:19.972760
was generated by: ProEthica Case 73 Extraction

Client Education Through Sustainable Option Presentation Invoked by Engineer A Battery Storage Alternative
type: ClientEducationThroughSustainableOptionPresentation
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Battery storage as a sustainable option
appliedto: Capital investment decision
appliedto: Organizational Board Decision Authority
balancingwith: Faithful Agent Obligation Within Ethical Limits
balancingwith: Trustee Discretion and Deference Obligation
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer A's trustee role includes an obligation to educate the board about the battery storage option as a means of achieving both carbon footprint reduction and grid reliability — even though capital constraints currently preclude it — so that the board understands what additional investment would be required to achieve a fully reliable sustainable solution, rather than presenting only the binary choice between solar-without-storage and generator rebuild.
confidence: 0.85
discoveredincase: 73
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T22:36:47.519403+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 73
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T22:36:47.519403+00:00
importance: medium
interpretation: Presenting the battery storage option as a future pathway, even if currently unaffordable, fulfills the client education obligation and may open avenues (phased investment, financing, grants) the board would not otherwise consider.
invokedby: Engineer A
principleclass: Client Education Through Sustainable Option Presentation
sourcetext: Capital constraints prevent the organization from installing a system of batteries to store energy for use at night or in bad weather.
tensionresolution: Client education does not require recommending the unaffordable option; it requires ensuring the board knows it exists and understands its implications for the reliability gap.
textreferences: Capital constraints prevent the organization from installing a system of batteries to store energy for use at night or in bad weather, but the cost of installing the solar panels is essentially the same as the cost to rebuild the generator.
textreferences: Recently, stakeholders have expressed interest in reducing the organization's carbon footprint.
wasattributedto: Case 73 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T22:54:37.521634
was generated by: ProEthica Case 73 Extraction

Client Loyalty Invoked By Engineer A Board Report Obligation
type: ClientLoyalty
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Board report on solar panel replacement decision
appliedto: Organizational Board Energy Decision Authority
balancingwith: Carbon Footprint Reduction Stakeholder preferences
balancingwith: Public Welfare Paramount
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer A's loyalty to the organization requires preparing a thorough and accurate board report that serves the organization's genuine interests — including awareness of grid reliability risks — rather than merely validating the preferred outcome of carbon footprint reduction stakeholders.
confidence: 0.88
discoveredincase: 73
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T23:35:16.556086+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 73
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T23:35:16.556086+00:00
importance: medium
interpretation: Genuine client loyalty requires serving the organization's actual interests, which include making an informed decision about the solar project with full knowledge of the rolling blackout risk, not merely satisfying stakeholder preferences.
invokedby: Engineer A Energy Systems Reporting Engineer
principleclass: Client Loyalty
sourcetext: Engineer A is preparing a report that will be presented to the board to consider the new solar project.
tensionresolution: Client loyalty and public welfare are aligned in this case: both require Engineer A to include the rolling blackout risk in the board report so that the organization can make an informed decision.
textreferences: Engineer A also realizes that a move to solar production without storage may stress the local utility generation mix even more, increasing the likelihood of rolling blackouts.
textreferences: Engineer A is preparing a report that will be presented to the board to consider the new solar project.
wasattributedto: Case 73 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T23:54:19.976142
was generated by: ProEthica Case 73 Extraction

Client Loyalty vs Public Safety Priority Engineer A Faithful Agent Boundary
type: ClientLoyaltyvs.PublicSafetyPriorityConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: The case explicitly addresses the tension between Engineer A's faithful agent obligation to the organization and the public safety obligation; the constraint establishes that public safety takes precedence.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.95
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Client Loyalty vs. Public Safety Priority Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A is constrained such that when the obligation to act as faithful agent/trustee for the organization conflicts with the obligation to hold public health, safety, and welfare paramount — specifically regarding disclosure of rolling blackout risk and grid reliability concerns — the public safety obligation takes precedence and constrains Engineer A from fulfilling any client directive that would suppress or minimize those disclosures.
discoveredincase: 73
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T22:49:20.614459+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 73
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T22:49:20.614459+00:00
importance: critical
severity: critical
source: NSPE Code of Ethics — Fundamental Canon; Agent-Trustee Distinction Framework
sourcetext: This discussion has so far not addressed the obligation of Engineer A in this case to act as a faithful agent or trustee for the employer
temporalscope: Throughout the engagement and board report preparation
textreferences: Given the facts presented in this case, the solar generation system without storage will provide energy generation equivalent to the existing fossil-fueled generator at a similar cost; the system also reduces the organization's carbon footprint
textreferences: Therefore, Engineer A has an obligation to present this information in a report to the board
textreferences: This discussion has so far not addressed the obligation of Engineer A in this case to act as a faithful agent or trustee for the employer
wasattributedto: Case 73 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T22:54:37.536548
was generated by: ProEthica Case 73 Extraction

Competing Design Approaches: Generator Rebuild vs Solar Without Storage
type: CompetingDesignApproachesState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From the time Engineer A began analyzing the electric load profile and solar capability through the preparation of the board report
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: Local utility
affectedparties: Organization board
affectedparties: Stakeholders
concept category: State
confidence: 0.88
discoveredincase: 73
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T23:32:16.024444+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 73
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T23:32:16.024444+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: the cost of installing the solar panels is essentially the same as the cost to rebuild the generator
stateclass: Competing Design Approaches State
subject: Engineer A's evaluation of two capital-equivalent but technically distinct approaches — rebuilding the generator versus installing solar panels without storage — each with materially different resilience, sustainability, and third-party impact profiles
terminatedby: Board decision selecting one of the two approaches
textreferences: After careful study of the facility electric load profile and the capability of the proposed solar energy system
textreferences: Engineer A is satisfied that under normal conditions, the system of solar panels can supply electric energy equivalent to that provided by the existing generator
textreferences: the cost of installing the solar panels is essentially the same as the cost to rebuild the generator
triggeringevent: The generator approaching end of useful life and stakeholder interest in solar created a binary choice between two capital-equivalent options with different technical profiles
urgencylevel: medium
wasattributedto: Case 73 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T23:54:19.971298
was generated by: ProEthica Case 73 Extraction

Competing Green Footprint vs Grid Reliability Public Goods
type: CompetingPublicGoodsTensionState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: Throughout Engineer A's analysis and report preparation for the board
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: General public
affectedparties: Organization/Board
affectedparties: Vulnerable populations
concept category: State
confidence: 0.97
discoveredincase: 73
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T22:28:50.636637+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 73
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T22:28:50.636637+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: What guidance can Engineer A rely upon to address a potential conflict between competing public goods?
stateclass: Competing Public Goods Tension State
subject: Engineer A's obligation to evaluate solar-without-storage option against both environmental and reliability public welfare goals
terminatedby: Engineer A's transparent presentation of tradeoffs to the board enabling informed decision
textreferences: If the solar production without storage option moves forward, the organization will increase its green footprint and will support a laudable goal of increasing environmentally friendly energy production. But this option may also increase the likelihood of future rolling blackouts.
textreferences: Some may argue that continuing to operate a fossil-fueled generator is inconsistent with public health, safety, and welfare, while others will point to the increased reliability of the fossil-fueled generator as a demonstration of greater concern for public welfare.
textreferences: The ethical objective is an informed policy and project decision-making process.
textreferences: What guidance can Engineer A rely upon to address a potential conflict between competing public goods?
triggeringevent: Organization's goal to increase green footprint conflicts with the public welfare obligation to maintain reliable power during extreme weather events
urgencylevel: high
wasattributedto: Case 73 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T22:54:37.518323
was generated by: ProEthica Case 73 Extraction

Competing Public Goods Balanced Advisory Engineer A Carbon vs Reliability
type: CompetingPublicGoodsBalancedAdvisoryDisclosureObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Stakeholders advocate for solar-without-storage to reduce carbon footprint; Engineer A recognizes this conflicts with grid reliability and public safety during extreme weather events.
compliancestatus: unclear
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.95
discoveredincase: 73
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T22:39:03.522019+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 73
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T22:39:03.522019+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationclass: Competing Public Goods Balanced Advisory Disclosure Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A is obligated to explicitly acknowledge and address in the board report the genuine conflict between the legitimate public good of carbon footprint reduction (favored by stakeholders) and the legitimate public good of grid reliability for vulnerable populations, presenting the tradeoffs completely and objectively.
sourcetext: stakeholders have expressed interest in reducing the organization's carbon footprint, and these stakeholders suggest that the facility eliminate the generator and replace it with solar panels.
temporalscope: In the board report prior to the board's capital investment decision
textreferences: Engineer A also realizes that a move to solar production without storage may stress the local utility generation mix even more, increasing the likelihood of rolling blackouts.
textreferences: Engineer A is convinced that the solar project, when considered in isolation, is viable and will satisfy those stakeholders interested in reducing the organization's carbon footprint.
textreferences: stakeholders have expressed interest in reducing the organization's carbon footprint, and these stakeholders suggest that the facility eliminate the generator and replace it with solar panels.
wasattributedto: Case 73 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T22:54:37.523345
was generated by: ProEthica Case 73 Extraction

Competing Public Goods Balancing Invoked By Engineer A Solar vs Reliability
type: CompetingPublicGoodsBalancinginEngineeringAdvisoryRoles
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Advisory report to organizational board on energy system replacement options
balancingwith: Environmental Stewardship in Engineering Practice
balancingwith: Objectivity
balancingwith: Public Welfare Paramount
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer A faces a genuine conflict between two legitimate public goods — environmental sustainability through carbon footprint reduction (favoring solar without storage) and grid reliability protecting public welfare including vulnerable populations (favoring fossil-fueled co-generation or solar with storage) — and must present both goods and their trade-offs fully to the board rather than resolving the conflict unilaterally
confidence: 0.88
discoveredincase: 73
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T23:41:15.494672+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 73
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T23:41:15.494672+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: The ethical resolution is not for Engineer A to choose between environmental stewardship and grid reliability, but to present both as legitimate public goods with their respective benefits and costs, enabling the board to make an informed policy decision about which values to prioritize
invokedby: Engineer A Energy Systems Reporting Engineer
principleclass: Competing Public Goods Balancing in Engineering Advisory Roles
sourcetext: What guidance can Engineer A rely upon to address a potential conflict between competing public goods?
tensionresolution: The tension is resolved procedurally rather than substantively: Engineer A discharges the ethical obligation by ensuring the board has complete information about both competing public goods, leaving the value judgment to the appropriate decision-making authority
textreferences: Some may argue that continuing to operate a fossil-fueled generator is inconsistent with public health, safety, and welfare, while others will point to the increased reliability of the fossil-fueled generator as a demonstration of greater concern for public welfare.
textreferences: The ethical objective is an informed policy and project decision-making process.
textreferences: What guidance can Engineer A rely upon to address a potential conflict between competing public goods?
wasattributedto: Case 73 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T23:54:19.983522
was generated by: ProEthica Case 73 Extraction

Competing Public Goods Balancing Invoked by Engineer A Carbon Footprint vs Grid Reliability
type: CompetingPublicGoodsBalancinginEngineeringAdvisoryRoles
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Board report on solar vs. co-generation replacement decision
appliedto: Carbon footprint reduction stakeholder interests
appliedto: Grid reliability for the broader community
balancingwith: Faithful Agent Obligation Within Ethical Limits
balancingwith: Sustainable Development Advocacy Obligation
balancingwith: Vulnerable Population Consideration in Grid Reliability Engineering
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer A faces a genuine conflict between two legitimate public goods — reducing the organization's carbon footprint (environmental sustainability) and maintaining grid reliability for the broader community (public safety) — and must present both goods and their trade-offs fully to the board rather than resolving the conflict unilaterally in favor of the stakeholder-preferred solar option.
confidence: 0.93
discoveredincase: 73
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T22:36:47.519403+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 73
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T22:36:47.519403+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: The engineer's role is not to champion one public good over another but to ensure the decision-making authority (the board) has complete information about both competing goods and can make an informed, accountable choice.
invokedby: Engineer A
principleclass: Competing Public Goods Balancing in Engineering Advisory Roles
sourcetext: Engineer A is convinced that the solar project, when considered in isolation, is viable and will satisfy those stakeholders interested in reducing the organization's carbon footprint.
tensionresolution: Engineer A must present the carbon footprint reduction benefit alongside the grid reliability risk, enabling the board to weigh the trade-off rather than receiving a report that presents only the sustainability upside.
textreferences: Engineer A also realizes that a move to solar production without storage may stress the local utility generation mix even more, increasing the likelihood of rolling blackouts.
textreferences: Engineer A is convinced that the solar project, when considered in isolation, is viable and will satisfy those stakeholders interested in reducing the organization's carbon footprint.
wasattributedto: Case 73 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T22:54:37.520291
was generated by: ProEthica Case 73 Extraction

Competing Public Goods Balancing Invoked in Carbon Footprint vs. Grid Reliability Tension
type: CompetingPublicGoodsBalancinginEngineeringAdvisoryRoles
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Broader community grid reliability impact
appliedto: Organizational board energy system decision
appliedto: Solar-without-storage environmental benefit vs. grid reliability trade-off
balancingwith: Environmental Stewardship in Engineering Practice
balancingwith: Faithful Agent Obligation Within Ethical Limits
balancingwith: Public Welfare Paramount
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer A's obligation to present both the environmental benefit (carbon footprint reduction, green energy support) and the public safety cost (increased rolling blackout risk, reduced grid reliability) of the solar-without-storage option to the board, rather than resolving the tension unilaterally in favor of either environmental advocacy or reliability conservatism
confidence: 0.94
discoveredincase: 73
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T22:44:21.888625+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 73
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T22:44:21.888625+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: Both environmental stewardship and grid reliability are legitimate public goods; the engineer's role is to surface the tension and present it completely, not to determine which public good prevails — that determination belongs to the board and ultimately to public policy
invokedby: Engineer A Energy Systems Reporting Engineer
principleclass: Competing Public Goods Balancing in Engineering Advisory Roles
sourcetext: What guidance can Engineer A rely upon to address a potential conflict between competing public goods?
tensionresolution: The principle is satisfied when the board receives a report that fully presents both the environmental benefits and the reliability costs, enabling an informed policy decision; the engineer does not resolve the competing goods conflict but ensures the decision-maker can
textreferences: If the solar production without storage option moves forward, the organization will increase its green footprint and will support a laudable goal of increasing environmentally friendly energy production. But this option may also increase the likelihood of future rolling blackouts.
textreferences: Some may argue that continuing to operate a fossil-fueled generator is inconsistent with public health, safety, and welfare, while others will point to the increased reliability of the fossil-fueled generator as a demonstration of greater concern for public welfare
textreferences: The ethical objective is an informed policy and project decision-making process
textreferences: What guidance can Engineer A rely upon to address a potential conflict between competing public goods?
wasattributedto: Case 73 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T22:54:37.529159
was generated by: ProEthica Case 73 Extraction

Competing Public Goods Non-Distortion Engineer A Carbon vs Grid Reliability
type: CompetingPublicGoodsNon-DistortionAdvisoryConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Stakeholders are pressing for carbon footprint reduction through solar transition; Engineer A must not allow this pressure to distort the board report's treatment of grid reliability risks.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.94
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Competing Public Goods Non-Distortion Advisory Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A must not distort, suppress, or selectively omit findings that favor grid reliability over carbon footprint reduction in the board report, and must present the genuine conflict between these two legitimate public goods completely and objectively.
discoveredincase: 73
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T22:40:57.194915+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 73
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T22:40:57.194915+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics — objectivity provisions; NSPE BER Case 98-5
sourcetext: stakeholders have expressed interest in reducing the organization's carbon footprint, and these stakeholders suggest that the facility eliminate the generator and replace it with solar panels.
temporalscope: At the time of board report preparation and submission
textreferences: Engineer A is convinced that the solar project, when considered in isolation, is viable and will satisfy those stakeholders interested in reducing the organization's carbon footprint.
textreferences: stakeholders have expressed interest in reducing the organization's carbon footprint, and these stakeholders suggest that the facility eliminate the generator and replace it with solar panels.
wasattributedto: Case 73 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T22:54:37.524741
was generated by: ProEthica Case 73 Extraction

Competing Public Goods Tension Constraint Engineer A Carbon Reduction vs Grid Reliability
type: ClientLoyaltyvs.PublicSafetyPriorityConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A faces a genuine tension between satisfying stakeholder carbon reduction interests — which favor presenting the solar project as viable — and the public safety obligation to disclose the rolling blackout risk. The priority constraint establishes that public safety disclosure takes precedence.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.91
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Client Loyalty vs. Public Safety Priority Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A is constrained by the priority hierarchy between stakeholder carbon reduction preferences and public safety obligations — when the two conflict, the public safety obligation to disclose the rolling blackout risk takes precedence over the obligation to satisfy stakeholder preferences for a favorable solar project recommendation.
discoveredincase: 73
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T23:38:28.511212+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 73
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T23:38:28.511212+00:00
importance: high
severity: critical
source: NSPE Code of Ethics Section I.1 establishing that public safety is paramount over client and stakeholder interests
sourcetext: Engineer A is convinced that the solar project, when considered in isolation, is viable and will satisfy those stakeholders interested in reducing the organization's carbon footprint.
temporalscope: Throughout the preparation and submission of the board report and any subsequent advisory activities
textreferences: Engineer A also realizes that a move to solar production without storage may stress the local utility generation mix even more, increasing the likelihood of rolling blackouts.
textreferences: Engineer A is convinced that the solar project, when considered in isolation, is viable and will satisfy those stakeholders interested in reducing the organization's carbon footprint.
wasattributedto: Case 73 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T23:54:19.979794
was generated by: ProEthica Case 73 Extraction

Complete Comparative Advisory Analysis Constraint Engineer A Generator vs Solar Options
type: CompleteComparativeAdvisoryAnalysisObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A is preparing a report for the board to consider the new solar project. The board faces a capital-equivalent choice between rebuilding the generator and installing solar panels without storage. A complete comparative analysis must address both options, including the resilience gap and grid stress externalities of the solar option.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.88
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Complete Comparative Advisory Analysis Obligation
constraintstatement: Engineer A is constrained from presenting the board with an incomplete comparative analysis that evaluates only the solar-without-storage option against stakeholder carbon reduction preferences, without providing a complete comparative analysis of all viable energy options — including the generator rebuild — with their respective advantages, disadvantages, costs, risks, and long-term performance characteristics.
discoveredincase: 73
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T23:38:28.511212+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 73
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T23:38:28.511212+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics Sections II.3.a and III.2.b and the principle that engineers must provide complete advisory analysis enabling informed client decision-making
sourcetext: Engineer A is preparing a report that will be presented to the board to consider the new solar project
temporalscope: During preparation and submission of the board report on the solar project
textreferences: Engineer A is preparing a report that will be presented to the board to consider the new solar project
textreferences: the cost of installing the solar panels is essentially the same as the cost to rebuild the generator.
wasattributedto: Case 73 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T23:54:19.979331
was generated by: ProEthica Case 73 Extraction

Complete Comparative Advisory Analysis Engineer A Solar vs Generator Options
type: CompleteComparativeAdvisoryAnalysisObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: The board faces a decision between rebuilding the generator and installing solar panels at essentially the same cost. Engineer A must present both options completely and objectively, including the rolling blackout risk associated with the solar option and the carbon footprint implications of the generator rebuild.
compliancestatus: unclear
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.86
discoveredincase: 73
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T23:36:47.063155+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 73
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T23:36:47.063155+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationclass: Complete Comparative Advisory Analysis Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A is obligated to present the board with a complete comparative analysis of all viable energy options — including the solar panel replacement, the generator rebuild, and potentially a hybrid approach — with all advantages, disadvantages, risks, and tradeoffs of each option, rather than presenting only the solar option in isolation as viable.
sourcetext: the cost of installing the solar panels is essentially the same as the cost to rebuild the generator.
temporalscope: In the board report prepared for the solar project decision
textreferences: Engineer A is convinced that the solar project, when considered in isolation, is viable
textreferences: Engineer A is preparing a report that will be presented to the board to consider the new solar project
textreferences: the cost of installing the solar panels is essentially the same as the cost to rebuild the generator.
wasattributedto: Case 73 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T23:54:19.977813
was generated by: ProEthica Case 73 Extraction

Completeness Non-Selectivity Advisory Opinion Invoked By Engineer A Board Report
type: CompletenessandNon-SelectivityinProfessionalAdvisoryOpinions
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Board report on solar panel replacement decision
appliedto: Organizational Board Energy Decision Authority
balancingwith: Carbon Footprint Reduction Stakeholder preferences
balancingwith: Client Loyalty
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer A must present the board with a complete technical picture that includes both the normal-condition viability of the solar project and the rolling blackout risk, rather than selectively presenting only the information that satisfies carbon footprint reduction stakeholders.
confidence: 0.95
discoveredincase: 73
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T23:35:16.556086+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 73
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T23:35:16.556086+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: The board is a non-engineer decision-making body that lacks independent capacity to evaluate the completeness of Engineer A's analysis; Engineer A must therefore ensure the report is complete and not filtered to favor the stakeholder-preferred outcome.
invokedby: Engineer A Energy Systems Reporting Engineer
principleclass: Completeness and Non-Selectivity in Professional Advisory Opinions
sourcetext: Engineer A is convinced that the solar project, when considered in isolation, is viable and will satisfy those stakeholders interested in reducing the organization's carbon footprint.
tensionresolution: Completeness obligation requires Engineer A to include the rolling blackout risk even though doing so may complicate the board's decision and disappoint carbon footprint reduction stakeholders.
textreferences: Engineer A also realizes that a move to solar production without storage may stress the local utility generation mix even more, increasing the likelihood of rolling blackouts.
textreferences: Engineer A is convinced that the solar project, when considered in isolation, is viable and will satisfy those stakeholders interested in reducing the organization's carbon footprint.
textreferences: Engineer A is preparing a report that will be presented to the board to consider the new solar project.
wasattributedto: Case 73 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T23:54:19.975007
was generated by: ProEthica Case 73 Extraction

Completeness and Non-Selectivity Invoked By Engineer A Board Report
type: CompletenessandNon-SelectivityinProfessionalAdvisoryOpinions
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Advisory report to organizational board on energy system replacement options
balancingwith: Carbon Footprint Reduction Stakeholder interests
balancingwith: Faithful Agent Obligation Within Ethical Limits
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer A must present the full picture of the solar without storage option — including reliability deficiencies and grid-level impacts — rather than presenting only the energy production equivalence and carbon footprint benefits that favor the stakeholder-preferred option
confidence: 0.96
discoveredincase: 73
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T23:41:15.494672+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 73
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T23:41:15.494672+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: The board, as a non-engineer decision-making body, cannot independently assess whether the engineer's report is complete; the engineer's obligation to enable informed decision-making requires presenting all material information including unfavorable reliability data
invokedby: Engineer A Energy Systems Reporting Engineer
principleclass: Completeness and Non-Selectivity in Professional Advisory Opinions
sourcetext: A report that does not contain information about the reliability of the utility source will not help them make an informed decision.
tensionresolution: The completeness obligation requires inclusion of reliability data even when stakeholders have expressed a preference for the solar option and even when that data may lead the board to choose the less environmentally friendly alternative
textreferences: A report that does not contain information about the reliability of the utility source will not help them make an informed decision.
textreferences: Note that 'equivalent' as used to this point in the discussion has not addressed reliability.
textreferences: The ethical objective is an informed policy and project decision-making process.
wasattributedto: Case 73 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T23:54:19.982402
was generated by: ProEthica Case 73 Extraction

Completeness and Non-Selectivity Invoked by Engineer A in Board Report Preparation
type: CompletenessandNon-SelectivityinProfessionalAdvisoryOpinions
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Board report on solar energy replacement project
appliedto: Organizational Board Decision Authority
balancingwith: Faithful Agent Obligation Within Ethical Limits
balancingwith: Trustee Discretion and Deference Obligation
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer A's board report must present all material information bearing on the solar replacement decision — including the grid stress risk, the reliability gap, and the battery storage constraint — rather than selectively presenting only the information favorable to the stakeholder-preferred solar option, even though Engineer A is personally convinced the solar project is viable when considered in isolation.
confidence: 0.94
discoveredincase: 73
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T22:36:47.519403+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 73
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T22:36:47.519403+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: The board, as a non-engineer decision-making body, cannot independently assess the completeness of the technical advisory report; Engineer A's professional duty requires presenting all material factors, not just those supporting the preferred outcome.
invokedby: Engineer A
principleclass: Completeness and Non-Selectivity in Professional Advisory Opinions
sourcetext: Engineer A is preparing a report that will be presented to the board to consider the new solar project.
tensionresolution: Completeness requires including the grid reliability risk and utility planner assessment even though this information may complicate or delay the board's decision on the carbon footprint reduction initiative.
textreferences: Engineer A also realizes that a move to solar production without storage may stress the local utility generation mix even more, increasing the likelihood of rolling blackouts.
textreferences: Engineer A is convinced that the solar project, when considered in isolation, is viable and will satisfy those stakeholders interested in reducing the organization's carbon footprint.
textreferences: Engineer A is preparing a report that will be presented to the board to consider the new solar project.
wasattributedto: Case 73 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T22:54:37.520680
was generated by: ProEthica Case 73 Extraction

Compound Risk State Created
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Event
generated at time: 2026-02-25T23:54:19.990062
was generated by: ProEthica Case 73 Extraction

Compound Risk State Created → Decide Board Report Content
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T23:54:19.990293
was generated by: ProEthica Case 73 Extraction

Conclude Solar Energy Equivalence
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Action
generated at time: 2026-02-25T23:54:19.989594
was generated by: ProEthica Case 73 Extraction

Conclusion_1
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 1
conclusion number: 1
conclusion text: Engineer A has an ethical obligation to include information about the utility generation mix and potential rolling blackouts in a report to the organization’s board.
conclusion type: board_explicit
extraction reasoning: Parsed from imported case text (no LLM)
generated at time: 2026-02-26T00:07:28.427817
was generated by: ProEthica Case 73 Extraction

Conclusion_101
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 101
answers question2: 203
answers question3: 402
cited provision1: II.3.a.
cited provision2: II.3.b.
cited provision3: I.1.
conclusion number: 101
conclusion text: Beyond the Board's finding that Engineer A must disclose the rolling blackout risk, the disclosure obligation extends to characterizing the evidentiary weight and reliability of the utility resource planner's warning. Because the warning was communicated informally in conversation rather than through a formal written assessment, Engineer A is not relieved of the duty to include it, but is obligated to present it with appropriate epistemic qualification — identifying it as a professional judgment from a knowledgeable source rather than a certified engineering finding. Omitting the warning entirely because it was informal would constitute selective suppression of material risk information. Presenting it without qualification would overstate its certainty. The ethically complete path is transparent sourcing: Engineer A should attribute the concern to the utility resource planner, describe the conditions under which it applies (extreme weather events), and note that it has not been independently verified through formal study. This approach satisfies the Completeness and Non-Selectivity principle while honoring the Fact-Based Disclosure Obligation, and it equips the board to weigh the risk proportionally rather than either dismissing it or treating it as established fact.
conclusion type: analytical_extension
generated at time: 2026-02-26T00:07:28.427919
was generated by: ProEthica Case 73 Extraction

Conclusion_102
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 102
answers question2: 305
cited provision1: II.3.a.
cited provision2: I.1.
cited provision3: III.1.b.
conclusion number: 102
conclusion text: The Board's conclusion that Engineer A must include rolling blackout information implicitly requires Engineer A to explain the causal mechanism linking the solar transition to increased grid stress — not merely to report the utility planner's concern as a free-standing warning. The solar-without-storage design removes a source of dispatchable on-site generation that previously buffered the organization's draw on the utility grid during peak or adverse conditions. When that buffer is eliminated and replaced with intermittent solar generation, the organization becomes a net load on the utility during nighttime hours and weather events, precisely the conditions under which the utility planner warned that rolling outages may be necessary. Engineer A's technical capability to perform grid interconnection impact assessment means this causal chain is within Engineer A's professional competence to explain. A board report that quotes the utility's concern without explaining why the proposed solar transition amplifies that concern fails the standard of objective and truthful professional reporting, because it presents a consequence without its cause and leaves the board unable to evaluate whether design modifications could reduce the risk.
conclusion type: analytical_extension
generated at time: 2026-02-26T00:07:28.428026
was generated by: ProEthica Case 73 Extraction

Conclusion_103
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 103
answers question2: 302
cited provision1: I.1.
cited provision2: I.6.
cited provision3: II.3.a.
cited provision4: II.4.
conclusion number: 103
conclusion text: The Board's conclusion that Engineer A must disclose rolling blackout risk carries a latent but important implication about third-party harm that the Board did not address explicitly: Engineer A's ethical responsibility does not terminate at the boundary of the organization's internal interests. The rolling blackout risk, if realized, would fall on the broader utility service territory — including vulnerable populations dependent on electricity for medical equipment, climate control, or other life-safety needs — not solely on the organization commissioning the solar project. Under the Public Welfare Paramount principle, Engineer A's duty to hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public encompasses these third parties even though they are not parties to the engineering engagement. This means the disclosure obligation in the board report is not merely a faithful agent duty owed to the organization; it is simultaneously a public welfare duty owed to the community. If the board, after receiving a complete report, proceeds with solar-without-storage and rolling blackouts subsequently harm third parties, Engineer A's ethical responsibility for that harm is substantially diminished by having fulfilled the disclosure obligation — but only if the report was genuinely complete, causally explanatory, and not merely a pro forma mention of risk. A superficial disclosure designed to create a paper record without genuinely informing the board would not satisfy the public welfare duty.
conclusion type: analytical_extension
generated at time: 2026-02-26T00:07:28.428121
was generated by: ProEthica Case 73 Extraction

Conclusion_104
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 2
answers question2: 304
cited provision1: II.4.
cited provision2: III.1.b.
cited provision3: II.3.a.
cited provision4: I.1.
conclusion number: 104
conclusion text: The Board's second question — whether Engineer A should include battery storage costs and consequences of omitting storage — is answered affirmatively by the faithful agent principle even when the organization has already determined it lacks the capital for storage. The capital constraint does not eliminate the board's need to understand what resilience capability is being foregone. A board that approves a solar-without-storage project knowing only that it costs the same as rebuilding the generator, but without knowing that storage would cost an additional amount X and would eliminate the rolling blackout risk contribution, has made a materially incomplete decision. Engineer A's obligation as a faithful agent is to ensure the board can make an informed policy decision, not to pre-filter options based on current capital availability. Capital constraints are dynamic — the organization may seek grants, phased financing, or future capital allocation — and the board's awareness of the storage cost and resilience gap preserves its ability to revisit the decision or pursue hybrid pathways. Omitting storage costs because the organization currently cannot afford them substitutes Engineer A's judgment about capital feasibility for the board's judgment about organizational priorities, which inverts the proper relationship between technical advisor and decision authority.
conclusion type: analytical_extension
generated at time: 2026-02-26T00:07:28.428209
was generated by: ProEthica Case 73 Extraction

Conclusion_105
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 104
answers question2: 404
cited provision1: I.1.
cited provision2: II.4.
cited provision3: I.6.
conclusion number: 105
conclusion text: Neither the Board's explicit conclusions nor the case framing addresses whether Engineer A has a residual obligation to escalate grid reliability concerns to an external authority — such as the local utility, a public utility commission, or a state regulatory body — if the board proceeds with solar-without-storage after receiving a complete report. Analogous Board of Ethical Review precedents involving public safety overrides of client or employer decisions suggest that when an engineer has fulfilled the internal disclosure obligation and the decision-making authority has nonetheless chosen a path that creates foreseeable public harm, the engineer's duty to hold paramount public safety may require external notification in extreme cases. However, the rolling blackout risk in this case is probabilistic, contingent on extreme weather, and systemic rather than site-specific — it is one contributing factor among many in a regional grid reliability problem, not a discrete engineering defect that Engineer A alone can remedy. This distinguishes the case from scenarios where escalation is clearly warranted. Engineer A's ethical obligation is therefore best characterized as fulfilled by complete board disclosure, with external escalation remaining a judgment-dependent option rather than a categorical duty — particularly if Engineer A has reason to believe the utility resource planners are already communicating the grid stress concern through their own regulatory channels.
conclusion type: analytical_extension
generated at time: 2026-02-26T00:07:28.428315
was generated by: ProEthica Case 73 Extraction

Conclusion_106
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 102
answers question2: 201
cited provision1: III.2.d.
cited provision2: II.3.a.
cited provision3: I.1.
cited provision4: III.1.b.
conclusion number: 106
conclusion text: The tension between Environmental Stewardship and Public Welfare Paramount in this case is not fully resolved by disclosure alone, and the Board's conclusions do not address whether Engineer A has an affirmative obligation to explore and present design alternatives that could partially reconcile the two competing public goods. A phased or hybrid implementation pathway — for example, a smaller battery storage system sized to cover critical loads during grid outages, financed over time — might reduce the grid stress externality while still advancing the carbon reduction goal within a constrained capital envelope. Engineer A's obligation under the principle of completeness is not limited to presenting the binary choice between solar-without-storage and generator rebuild; it extends to surfacing technically feasible intermediate options that the board may not have considered. Omitting hybrid alternatives from the board report when Engineer A possesses the technical capability to identify them constitutes a form of selective framing that narrows the board's decision space without the board's knowledge. The sustainable development provision of the Code, which encourages engineers to protect the environment while serving present needs, reinforces the obligation to seek solutions that advance both environmental and reliability goals rather than treating them as mutually exclusive.
conclusion type: analytical_extension
generated at time: 2026-02-26T00:07:28.428408
was generated by: ProEthica Case 73 Extraction

Conclusion_201
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 101
answers question2: 403
cited provision1: I.1.
cited provision2: II.4.
cited provision3: III.1.b.
conclusion number: 201
conclusion text: In response to Q101: If the board proceeds with solar-without-storage after receiving Engineer A's complete report, Engineer A likely has an obligation to consider escalation to the local utility or a relevant regulatory authority, analogous to the Water Commission engineers in BER 20-4. The parallel is instructive: in BER 20-4, engineers who had discharged their disclosure obligation to their client were nonetheless found to have further obligations when public safety remained at risk despite client awareness. Here, the rolling blackout risk is not confined to the organization — it extends to third-party electricity consumers served by the local utility grid. Because the harm is systemic and affects the broader public rather than only the organization's board, Engineer A's faithful agent obligation does not exhaust the ethical analysis. The Public Welfare Paramount principle operates as a floor beneath which client deference cannot descend. Accordingly, if the board proceeds with solar-without-storage knowing the grid reliability risk, Engineer A should evaluate whether the magnitude and probability of rolling blackout harm — particularly to vulnerable populations during extreme weather — warrants formal notification to the utility resource planner or a grid reliability regulator. This escalation obligation is not automatic upon board override; it is triggered by Engineer A's professional judgment that the residual public risk is material and that the utility or regulator is not already positioned to mitigate it independently.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-26T23:09:08.461883
was generated by: ProEthica Case 73 Extraction

Conclusion_202
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 102
cited provision1: II.3.a.
cited provision2: II.4.
cited provision3: III.1.b.
conclusion number: 202
conclusion text: In response to Q102: Engineer A's ethical obligation does not extend to directing the board to defer the solar transition decision, but it does extend to recommending further study as a professionally responsible option within the report. The distinction is critical: the Trustee Discretion and Deference principle preserves the board's ultimate decision-making authority, and Engineer A must not substitute engineering judgment for governance judgment on matters of organizational strategy. However, the Proactive Risk Disclosure principle and the analogy to BER 16-5 — in which an engineer working on autonomous vehicle development was found to have an obligation to recommend further study before deploying a system with unresolved safety risks — together support the conclusion that Engineer A should present a 'further study' option as a legitimate path. Specifically, Engineer A may appropriately recommend that the board commission a more detailed grid impact study in coordination with the local utility before committing to solar-without-storage, particularly given that the rolling blackout risk is probabilistic and its magnitude under various extreme weather scenarios has not been fully quantified. Presenting this option respects board authority while fulfilling Engineer A's obligation to enable genuinely informed decision-making. Recommending deferral as one option among several is categorically different from withholding the solar option or unilaterally delaying the project — the former is professional counsel, the latter would be an overreach of engineering authority.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-26T23:09:08.461976
was generated by: ProEthica Case 73 Extraction

Conclusion_203
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 103
cited provision1: I.1.
cited provision2: II.4.
cited provision3: III.2.d.
conclusion number: 203
conclusion text: In response to Q103: Engineer A's knowledge that the solar transition will stress the utility grid — thereby potentially harming third-party electricity consumers who are not Engineer A's client — materially expands Engineer A's ethical obligations beyond those owed solely to the organization. The NSPE Code's paramount canon places public safety above client loyalty, and this hierarchy is not contingent on whether the harmed parties are in a direct contractual relationship with the engineer. Third-party electricity consumers, particularly vulnerable populations dependent on continuous power during extreme weather events, are members of 'the public' whose welfare Engineer A is obligated to hold paramount. This means Engineer A's board report must not be framed solely as an organizational cost-benefit analysis; it must surface the systemic grid impact as a public welfare matter. Furthermore, if the organization's decision to adopt solar-without-storage would foreseeably increase the probability of rolling blackouts affecting these third parties, Engineer A has an obligation to communicate this risk not only to the board but potentially to the utility resource planner — who may not have modeled the specific load shift that the organization's transition would produce. The Systemic Grid Impact Disclosure Obligation thus operates on two axes: inward toward the board as a faithful agent duty, and outward toward the public and utility as a public welfare paramount duty. These obligations are complementary, not competing, at the disclosure stage.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-26T23:09:08.462063
was generated by: ProEthica Case 73 Extraction

Conclusion_204
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 104
cited provision1: II.3.a.
cited provision2: II.3.b.
cited provision3: II.4.
cited provision4: III.1.b.
conclusion number: 204
conclusion text: In response to Q104: Engineer A has an ethical obligation to present retention of the fossil-fueled co-generation facility — through generator rebuild — as a legitimate option in the board report, even though doing so may conflict with the expressed preferences of carbon-footprint-reduction stakeholders. The Completeness and Non-Selectivity principle requires that Engineer A's report not be structured to foreclose options that are technically and economically viable simply because they are politically inconvenient. The generator rebuild option is cost-equivalent to the solar installation, avoids the grid reliability risks introduced by solar-without-storage, and continues to supply thermal energy for process needs — a function the solar panels do not replicate. Omitting or minimizing this option in deference to stakeholder pressure would constitute a form of selective reporting that distorts the board's decision-making process. The Stakeholder Pressure Non-Distortion constraint is directly applicable: Engineer A must resist the organizational political pressure to present the solar option as the only viable path. This does not require Engineer A to advocate for the generator rebuild or to subordinate the organization's sustainability goals; it requires only that the board receive an honest comparative analysis that includes all material options. The board, not Engineer A, is the appropriate authority to weigh carbon reduction goals against reliability and cost considerations — but only if Engineer A provides the complete informational foundation for that weighing.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-26T23:09:08.462154
was generated by: ProEthica Case 73 Extraction

Conclusion_205
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 201
answers question2: 304
cited provision1: I.1.
cited provision2: II.4.
cited provision3: III.1.b.
conclusion number: 205
conclusion text: In response to Q201: The Faithful Agent Obligation and the Public Welfare Paramount principle do not irresolvably conflict in this case, but they operate at different levels of Engineer A's responsibilities and must be carefully sequenced. The faithful agent obligation requires Engineer A to serve the organization's interests honestly and completely — which itself demands full disclosure of the rolling blackout risk to the board. At the disclosure stage, the two principles are aligned: a faithful agent who withholds material safety information from the board is not serving the organization's genuine interests, because an uninformed board decision exposes the organization to reputational, legal, and operational risks it cannot anticipate. The tension between the two principles becomes acute only if the board, after full disclosure, chooses solar-without-storage anyway. At that point, the faithful agent obligation would counsel deference to the board's decision, while the Public Welfare Paramount principle may counsel further action to protect third-party consumers. The resolution is that Public Welfare Paramount operates as a lexical constraint on faithful agent deference: Engineer A may defer to the board on matters within the organization's legitimate authority, but cannot defer on matters that impose unreasonable public safety risks on parties outside the organization. The board's authority to accept organizational risk does not extend to authorizing Engineer A to remain silent about systemic public harm.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-26T23:09:08.462277
was generated by: ProEthica Case 73 Extraction

Conclusion_206
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 202
cited provision1: II.3.a.
cited provision2: III.2.d.
cited provision3: I.1.
conclusion number: 206
conclusion text: In response to Q202: The Sustainable Development Advocacy Obligation and the Reliability Equivalence Disclosure principle are in genuine tension in this case, and that tension cannot be dissolved by treating them as operating in separate domains. The NSPE Code encourages engineers to support sustainable development and environmental protection, which creates a professional disposition favorable to the solar transition. However, the Reliability Equivalence Disclosure principle requires Engineer A to qualify the finding that solar panels are 'equivalent' to the existing generator — because that equivalence holds only under normal conditions and breaks down during extreme weather events when battery storage is absent. Engineer A cannot ethically present the solar option as a straightforward sustainability win while suppressing the reliability qualification, because doing so would misrepresent the technical reality to the board. The resolution is not to abandon sustainable development advocacy but to practice it honestly: Engineer A should present the solar option as genuinely advancing carbon reduction goals while simultaneously disclosing that it does not achieve full reliability equivalence under all operating conditions. This honest framing respects both obligations — it neither suppresses the sustainability benefit nor conceals the reliability gap. The Isolated Technical Viability Insufficiency principle reinforces this conclusion: viability under normal conditions is a necessary but not sufficient basis for recommending a system that will operate in a grid environment subject to extreme weather stress.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-26T23:09:08.462365
was generated by: ProEthica Case 73 Extraction

Conclusion_207
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 301
cited provision1: II.3.a.
cited provision2: I.1.
cited provision3: I.6.
conclusion number: 207
conclusion text: In response to Q301 (deontological perspective on disclosure completeness): From a deontological standpoint, Engineer A did not fulfill the duty of complete and non-selective disclosure by initially treating the solar project as viable in isolation without proactively surfacing the rolling blackout risk. The Kantian duty of truthfulness in professional reporting is not satisfied by technically accurate but incomplete statements — a report that presents solar-as-equivalent without disclosing the reliability qualification under extreme weather conditions is misleading in its overall effect, even if no individual statement is false. The Code provision requiring engineers to be 'objective and truthful in professional reports' and to 'include all relevant and pertinent information' (II.3.a.) imposes a positive duty of completeness, not merely a negative duty to avoid false statements. Engineer A's initial framing — treating the solar project as viable when considered in isolation — satisfies the negative duty but violates the positive duty, because the board cannot make an informed decision about a system that will not operate in isolation but will interact with a stressed utility grid. The deontological analysis also implicates the duty of respect for persons: the board members are rational agents entitled to make decisions on the basis of complete information, and withholding the rolling blackout risk treats them as means to an end (advancing the solar project) rather than as autonomous decision-makers. Engineer A's subsequent recognition of this gap and decision to expand the report's scope represents the ethically required correction.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-26T23:09:08.462475
was generated by: ProEthica Case 73 Extraction

Conclusion_208
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 302
cited provision1: I.1.
cited provision2: III.2.d.
cited provision3: III.1.b.
conclusion number: 208
conclusion text: In response to Q302 (consequentialist perspective on aggregate harm): From a consequentialist standpoint, the aggregate public harm from potential rolling blackouts during extreme weather events plausibly outweighs the organizational and stakeholder benefit of carbon footprint reduction through solar-without-storage adoption, particularly when the analysis accounts for the full distribution of affected parties and the asymmetric vulnerability of those harmed. The organizational benefit — reduced carbon emissions and stakeholder satisfaction — accrues primarily to the organization and its sustainability-oriented stakeholders, and is incremental relative to the broader energy transition already underway. The harm from rolling blackouts, by contrast, falls on a much larger and more diffuse population of third-party electricity consumers, including medically vulnerable individuals dependent on powered medical equipment, elderly populations susceptible to heat and cold exposure, and low-income households without backup resources. The consequentialist calculus is further complicated by the probabilistic nature of the harm: rolling blackouts are not certain, but the utility resource planner has already identified the risk as real under extreme weather conditions, and the organization's solar transition would stress the generation mix further. A consequentialist analysis would support Engineer A disclosing the full risk profile to the board, presenting battery storage as a harm-reducing option even at higher cost, and recommending further study — because the expected value of these actions (reduced probability of catastrophic harm to vulnerable populations) likely exceeds the expected value of proceeding without them.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-26T23:09:08.462560
was generated by: ProEthica Case 73 Extraction

Conclusion_209
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 303
cited provision1: I.6.
cited provision2: II.3.a.
cited provision3: III.1.b.
conclusion number: 209
conclusion text: In response to Q303 (virtue ethics perspective on professional integrity under stakeholder pressure): From a virtue ethics perspective, Engineer A demonstrates professional integrity and courage precisely by expanding the scope of the board report to include systemic grid reliability risks that are inconvenient to the organization's sustainability narrative. The virtuous engineer is not one who tells clients what they want to hear, but one who tells them what they need to know — even when doing so creates friction with powerful stakeholders. The Stakeholder Pressure Resistance obligation captures this virtue: Engineer A must resist the organizational pull toward presenting the solar project as an unqualified success, because yielding to that pressure would constitute a form of professional sycophancy that undermines the engineer's value as an independent technical advisor. The virtue of practical wisdom (phronesis) is also implicated: Engineer A must judge not only what risks exist but how to communicate them in a way that is honest without being alarmist, complete without being paralyzing, and respectful of the board's authority without being deferential to the point of abdication. The fact that Engineer A 'realizes' the grid stress risk and chooses to include it in the report — rather than rationalizing its omission on the grounds that the solar project is viable in isolation — reflects the exercise of exactly this practical wisdom. A professionally virtuous engineer does not wait to be asked about inconvenient risks; they surface them proactively as a matter of professional character.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-26T23:09:08.462648
was generated by: ProEthica Case 73 Extraction

Conclusion_210
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 304
cited provision1: I.1.
cited provision2: II.4.
cited provision3: I.6.
conclusion number: 210
conclusion text: In response to Q304 (deontological conflict between faithful agent duty and public safety paramount duty): From a deontological perspective, when the faithful agent duty and the public safety paramount duty conflict — as they would if the board, fully informed, chose solar-without-storage — the public safety paramount duty takes lexical precedence. This priority is not merely a matter of weighing competing interests; it is a structural feature of the NSPE Code, which places the paramount canon (I.1.) above the faithful agent provision (II.4.) in the hierarchy of professional obligations. The practical implication is that Engineer A's obligations do not terminate upon delivering a complete report to the board. If the board proceeds with solar-without-storage and the rolling blackout risk remains unmitigated, Engineer A must assess whether further action is required to protect the public — including potential notification to the utility resource planner or a regulatory authority. This further obligation is not a betrayal of the faithful agent role; it is a recognition that the faithful agent role is bounded by the paramount duty. The deontological framework also generates a secondary obligation: Engineer A must document the disclosure, the board's decision, and Engineer A's professional assessment of the residual risk, so that the record reflects that Engineer A fulfilled the duty of complete disclosure and did not acquiesce silently in a decision that Engineer A believed posed unreasonable public risk.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-26T23:09:08.462732
was generated by: ProEthica Case 73 Extraction

Conclusion_211
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 305
cited provision1: II.3.a.
cited provision2: III.2.d.
cited provision3: I.1.
cited provision4: I.6.
conclusion number: 211
conclusion text: In response to Q305 (virtue ethics perspective on navigating sustainability and reliability obligations honestly): From a virtue ethics perspective, Engineer A's obligation to advocate for sustainable development does not create an irresolvable tension with the obligation to disclose grid reliability risks — but navigating the tension virtuously requires a specific communicative discipline. The professionally virtuous engineer does not subordinate one public good to another by omission or framing; instead, the virtuous engineer presents both goods honestly and allows the decision-maker to weigh them with full information. In practice, this means Engineer A's board report should affirmatively acknowledge the genuine environmental benefit of the solar transition — reduced carbon emissions, alignment with stakeholder values, cost parity with the generator rebuild — while simultaneously and with equal prominence disclosing the reliability gap, the grid stress risk, and the battery storage option that would resolve the tension at additional cost. The virtue of justice requires that neither the sustainability case nor the reliability case be presented in a way that structurally disadvantages the other through selective emphasis, ordering effects, or rhetorical framing. The virtue of honesty requires that Engineer A not use the sustainability advocacy provision of the Code as a license to minimize inconvenient reliability findings. And the virtue of practical wisdom requires Engineer A to recognize that the board's ability to make a genuinely good decision — one that serves both the organization and the public — depends entirely on receiving an honest, balanced, and complete technical assessment.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-26T23:09:08.462816
was generated by: ProEthica Case 73 Extraction

Conclusion_212
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 306
cited provision1: II.3.a.
cited provision2: III.1.b.
cited provision3: III.2.d.
cited provision4: II.4.
conclusion number: 212
conclusion text: In response to Q306 (consequentialist perspective on phased hybrid approach): From a consequentialist perspective, a phased hybrid approach — solar panels now with a planned battery storage addition — would likely produce better aggregate outcomes across environmental, financial, and public safety dimensions than either a binary solar-without-storage or generator-rebuild decision, and Engineer A has an obligation to model and present this option in the board report. The consequentialist case for the phased approach rests on several considerations: it captures the immediate carbon reduction benefit of solar deployment; it preserves a credible pathway to full grid independence through future battery storage; it avoids the grid stress risk associated with solar-without-storage by framing storage as a planned addition rather than a permanent omission; and it gives the organization time to accumulate capital for storage investment or to benefit from declining battery costs. Engineer A's obligation to present this option derives from the Client Education Through Sustainable Option Presentation principle and the Informed Decision-Making Enablement Obligation: the board cannot choose a phased approach if Engineer A does not surface it as a viable option. The Hybrid Design Exploration constraint directly supports this conclusion. Presenting only the binary choice between solar-without-storage and generator-rebuild artificially constrains the decision space in a way that may lead to a suboptimal outcome for both the organization and the public. A complete board report should include the phased hybrid option with its associated costs, timeline, and risk profile alongside the two primary alternatives.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-26T23:09:08.462911
was generated by: ProEthica Case 73 Extraction

Conclusion_213
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 401
cited provision1: II.3.a.
cited provision2: III.1.b.
cited provision3: I.1.
conclusion number: 213
conclusion text: In response to Q401 (counterfactual on knowledge acquisition and disclosure obligation): Even if Engineer A had not consulted the local utility resource planner and therefore never learned about the potential rolling blackouts, Engineer A would still have had an ethical obligation to investigate grid reliability risks before finalizing the board report — though the obligation to disclose would be conditioned on what a reasonable investigation would have revealed. The distinction between a duty to investigate and a duty to disclose is critical: the duty to disclose arises from knowledge actually acquired or knowledge that a competent engineer exercising reasonable diligence should have acquired. Engineer A's professional competence in energy systems includes awareness that transitioning from a co-generation facility with on-site generation capability to solar-without-storage will alter the organization's relationship with the utility grid in material ways. A competent energy systems engineer should proactively assess grid interconnection impacts as part of any solar feasibility study — not merely as a reactive response to information volunteered by a utility planner. The Proactive Risk Disclosure principle supports this conclusion: the obligation to surface systemic risks is not contingent on those risks being handed to the engineer by a third party. Accordingly, the ethical obligation to investigate was present regardless of the utility consultation; the consultation simply fulfilled that obligation and generated the specific knowledge that triggered the disclosure duty.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-26T23:09:08.462997
was generated by: ProEthica Case 73 Extraction

Conclusion_214
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 402
cited provision1: II.3.a.
cited provision2: III.1.b.
cited provision3: I.1.
conclusion number: 214
conclusion text: In response to Q402 (counterfactual on capital constraint removal): If the capital constraint had not existed and the organization could have afforded a full solar-plus-storage system, the ethical tension between carbon footprint reduction and grid reliability would have been substantially — but not entirely — resolved. A solar-plus-storage system would eliminate the organization's contribution to grid stress during extreme weather events, because stored energy would allow the organization to remain self-sufficient rather than drawing from a strained utility grid. However, Engineer A would still have had an obligation to disclose the utility's underlying grid vulnerability to the board, for two reasons. First, the utility's grid vulnerability exists independently of the organization's solar transition and affects the organization's own energy reliability — the board has a legitimate interest in knowing that the utility grid serving the facility is subject to rolling blackout risk regardless of the organization's energy choices. Second, even a solar-plus-storage system may not provide complete isolation from grid events if the system is designed for partial rather than full load coverage, or if extreme weather events exceed the storage system's capacity. The disclosure obligation regarding the utility's grid vulnerability is thus not entirely contingent on the organization's contribution to that vulnerability — it is also a matter of informing the board about the reliability environment in which the organization will operate.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-26T23:09:08.463134
was generated by: ProEthica Case 73 Extraction

Conclusion_301
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 202
answers question2: 301
cited provision1: II.4.
cited provision2: I.1.
cited provision3: III.1.b.
conclusion number: 301
conclusion text: The tension between Client Loyalty and Public Welfare Paramount was resolved in this case by recognizing that faithful agency does not authorize selective omission of material risks. Engineer A's obligation to act as a faithful agent to the organization does not permit withholding information about rolling blackout risk simply because that information complicates the stakeholder-preferred solar narrative or implies a more expensive path. The NSPE Code's hierarchy places public safety above client service, meaning that when the two principles conflict, Engineer A's duty to disclose grid stress externalities to the board is not merely permitted but required. Faithful agency, properly understood, demands that the board receive complete information precisely so it can make an informed decision — and a board that approves a solar transition without knowing it may worsen rolling blackout risk for vulnerable third parties has not been faithfully served. This case teaches that client loyalty is a procedural obligation (serve the client's decision-making process honestly) rather than a substantive one (serve the client's preferred outcome), and that the two must not be conflated.
conclusion type: principle_synthesis
generated at time: 2026-02-26T00:07:28.428492
was generated by: ProEthica Case 73 Extraction

Conclusion_302
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 201
answers question2: 302
cited provision1: I.1.
cited provision2: II.3.a.
cited provision3: III.2.d.
conclusion number: 302
conclusion text: The tension between Environmental Stewardship and Public Welfare Paramount was not fully resolved by the Board's conclusions but is navigable through a principle of non-exclusionary disclosure: both public goods can be honored simultaneously in the board report without requiring Engineer A to rank them. Engineer A need not choose between supporting the carbon footprint reduction goal and disclosing the rolling blackout risk — the report can affirm the solar project's in-isolation viability and its environmental benefit while also surfacing the grid stress externality as a material systemic risk. What the principles together prohibit is the selective presentation of only the environmental benefit while suppressing the reliability consequence. This case teaches that when two legitimate public goods conflict — decarbonization and grid reliability — the engineer's ethical obligation is not to adjudicate which public good is superior but to ensure the decision-making authority receives the full picture of both. The resolution of the tension belongs to the board, not to Engineer A's editorial judgment in preparing the report.
conclusion type: principle_synthesis
generated at time: 2026-02-26T00:07:28.428575
was generated by: ProEthica Case 73 Extraction

Conclusion_303
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 203
answers question2: 303
answers question3: 401
answers question4: 402
cited provision1: II.3.a.
cited provision2: II.3.b.
cited provision3: I.1.
cited provision4: III.1.b.
conclusion number: 303
conclusion text: The tension between Completeness and Non-Selectivity and Risk Threshold Calibration — specifically the question of whether an informal, probabilistic, and unverified utility planner warning clears the materiality bar for mandatory board disclosure — was resolved in favor of disclosure, and this resolution establishes an important principle prioritization rule: when the potential consequence of a risk is severe and affects third parties beyond the organization, the threshold for disclosure is lowered, not raised, by the informality or uncertainty of the source communication. The rolling blackout risk, even if probabilistic and contingent on extreme weather, involves potential harm to vulnerable populations dependent on electricity for medical or thermal needs. Under these conditions, the appropriate response to evidentiary uncertainty is not omission but qualified disclosure — Engineer A should include the utility planner's warning in the board report while accurately characterizing its evidentiary basis as an informal professional communication rather than a formal engineering assessment. This approach honors both Completeness and Non-Selectivity and Risk Threshold Calibration simultaneously: the risk is disclosed, and its reliability is accurately represented. This case teaches that low-probability, high-consequence risks with third-party harm potential are presumptively material regardless of source formality.
conclusion type: principle_synthesis
generated at time: 2026-02-26T00:07:28.428690
was generated by: ProEthica Case 73 Extraction

Conclusion_304
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 204
answers question2: 303
cited provision1: II.3.a.
cited provision2: II.3.b.
cited provision3: I.1.
conclusion number: 304
conclusion text: The tension between Objectivity and Reliability Equivalence Disclosure — the risk that Engineer A's genuine professional confidence in the solar project's in-isolation viability may unconsciously suppress the weight given to grid stress concerns in the board report — reveals a structural ethical hazard that the principle of Objectivity alone cannot fully neutralize. When an engineer has reached a technically defensible affirmative conclusion about a project, the psychological tendency to present that conclusion cleanly, without complicating qualifications, is a form of motivated reasoning that can masquerade as professional confidence. The Reliability Equivalence Disclosure principle addresses this hazard directly by requiring Engineer A to affirmatively qualify the solar project's viability finding with the caveat that equivalence holds only under normal conditions and does not account for the grid stress externality the solar transition introduces. This case teaches that Objectivity is not merely the absence of bias toward a preferred outcome — it also requires active resistance to the engineer's own professionally grounded optimism when that optimism risks producing an incomplete advisory. The board report must reflect not only what Engineer A believes to be true about the solar project but also what Engineer A knows to be uncertain or systemically consequential beyond the project boundary.
conclusion type: principle_synthesis
generated at time: 2026-02-26T00:07:28.428774
was generated by: ProEthica Case 73 Extraction

Conclusion_305
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 104
answers question2: 404
answers question3: 305
cited provision1: I.1.
cited provision2: II.4.
cited provision3: I.6.
conclusion number: 305
conclusion text: The question of whether Engineer A's ethical obligations terminate at board notification — or whether a residual escalation duty persists if the board proceeds with solar-without-storage despite full disclosure — reveals a principle tension between Faithful Agent Notification Obligation and Public Safety Escalation that this case does not fully resolve but does illuminate. The Board's explicit conclusion establishes that Engineer A must disclose the rolling blackout risk to the board, satisfying the faithful agent notification duty. However, the principle of Public Welfare Paramount, read alongside the escalation precedents in BER 20-4, suggests that if the board's decision creates a foreseeable, material risk of harm to third parties — particularly vulnerable populations — Engineer A's public safety duty does not automatically terminate upon board notification. The resolution of this tension depends on the severity and probability of the third-party harm: if rolling blackouts during extreme weather events pose life-safety risks to medically dependent populations, the case for escalation to a regulatory body or the local utility strengthens considerably. This case teaches that faithful agency defines the floor of Engineer A's obligation, not the ceiling, and that the public safety paramount principle may require Engineer A to act beyond the faithful agent role when board-level disclosure proves insufficient to prevent serious third-party harm.
conclusion type: principle_synthesis
generated at time: 2026-02-26T00:07:28.428859
was generated by: ProEthica Case 73 Extraction

Conduct Solar Feasibility Study
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Action
generated at time: 2026-02-26T22:54:37.536775
was generated by: ProEthica Case 73 Extraction

Conduct Solar Feasibility Study → Solar Cost-Output Parity Found
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-26T22:54:37.537207
was generated by: ProEthica Case 73 Extraction

Consult Utility on Grid Reliability
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Action
generated at time: 2026-02-25T23:54:19.989704
was generated by: ProEthica Case 73 Extraction

Consult Utility on Grid Reliability → Utility Blackout Warning Issued
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T23:54:19.990231
was generated by: ProEthica Case 73 Extraction

Consult Utility on Grid Reliability → Utility Issues Rolling Blackout Warning
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-26T22:54:37.537243
was generated by: ProEthica Case 73 Extraction

Continue Fossil Facility Operation
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Action
generated at time: 2026-02-25T23:54:19.989406
was generated by: ProEthica Case 73 Extraction

Creative Mitigation Obligation: Hybrid or Phased Storage Solution
type: CreativeMitigationObligationState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From the time Engineer A identified the binary framing and its limitations through the finalization of the board report
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: Local utility
affectedparties: Organization board
affectedparties: Stakeholders
concept category: State
confidence: 0.84
discoveredincase: 73
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T23:32:16.024444+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 73
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T23:32:16.024444+00:00
importance: medium
sourcetext: Capital constraints prevent the organization from installing a system of batteries
stateclass: Creative Mitigation Obligation State
subject: Engineer A's obligation to explore and present hybrid or phased solutions — such as partial storage, demand response programs, or phased solar-plus-storage — that could mitigate the resilience gap and grid stress externality beyond the binary choice of generator rebuild versus solar-only
terminatedby: Engineer A presents hybrid or phased alternatives to the board, or documents that no viable third path exists
textreferences: Capital constraints prevent the organization from installing a system of batteries
textreferences: a move to solar production without storage may stress the local utility generation mix even more
textreferences: the cost of installing the solar panels is essentially the same as the cost to rebuild the generator
triggeringevent: Engineer A recognized that both the generator rebuild and the solar-only options carry distinct tradeoffs, and that capital constraints create a resilience gap, triggering an obligation to explore creative third-path solutions
urgencylevel: medium
wasattributedto: Case 73 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T23:54:19.971961
was generated by: ProEthica Case 73 Extraction

DP1
type: DecisionPoint
type: NamedIndividual
decision point id: DP1
decision question: Should Engineer A include the utility resource planner's rolling blackout warning and the causal mechanism linking the solar transition to increased grid stress in the board report, and if so, how should that information be characterized?
focus: Engineer A must decide what rolling blackout and grid reliability information to include in the board report, given that the utility resource planner's warning was communicated informally and the solar project is technically viable in isolation.
option1: Include the utility resource planner's rolling blackout warning in the board report with explicit attribution, epistemic qualification as an informal professional communication, description of the triggering conditions (extreme weather), and a causal explanation of how eliminating on-site dispatchable generation increases the organization's net grid load
option2: Include a general statement in the board report that solar-without-storage systems are subject to grid reliability limitations during adverse weather, without attributing or detailing the utility planner's specific warning, on the grounds that the informal communication lacks sufficient evidentiary weight to be cited as a professional finding
option3: Seek written confirmation from the utility resource planner before the board report is finalized, and if confirmation cannot be obtained within the reporting timeline, omit the rolling blackout warning while noting that grid reliability during extreme weather events warrants further study prior to final board approval
role label: Engineer A Energy Systems Reporter
generated at time: 2026-02-26T00:07:28.426103
was generated by: ProEthica Case 73 Extraction

DP2
type: DecisionPoint
type: NamedIndividual
decision point id: DP2
decision question: Does Engineer A's faithful agent duty require disclosure of battery storage costs and the resilience gap created by their absence, even when the organization's capital constraint appears to have already foreclosed the storage option?
focus: Engineer A must decide whether to include battery storage costs and the resilience consequences of omitting storage in the board report, even though the organization has already determined it lacks the capital for storage.
option1: Include battery storage costs, the resilience gap created by their absence, and a description of what continuous-supply capability is being foregone, presenting this information as context for the board's decision regardless of the current capital constraint
option2: Acknowledge in the board report that battery storage would improve reliability but note that it falls outside the current capital envelope, without providing specific storage cost figures, on the grounds that presenting costs for an option the organization cannot afford may create unrealistic expectations or distract from the viable decision before the board
option3: Present battery storage as a separately scoped future phase with indicative cost ranges and a recommended timeline for revisiting the option, framing it as a resilience upgrade pathway rather than a current decision point, so the board receives the information without being asked to decide on an option it cannot currently fund
role label: Engineer A Energy Systems Reporter
generated at time: 2026-02-26T00:07:28.426202
was generated by: ProEthica Case 73 Extraction

DP3
type: DecisionPoint
type: NamedIndividual
decision point id: DP3
decision question: Is Engineer A obligated to explore and present hybrid or phased design alternatives in the board report, or does the organization's capital constraint legitimately bound the scope of Engineer A's advisory to the two options the organization has already identified?
focus: Engineer A must decide whether to present only the binary solar-versus-generator-rebuild choice or to affirmatively identify and present hybrid or phased design alternatives — such as partial battery storage or staged solar-plus-storage — even when the organization's stated capital constraints appear to foreclose full storage deployment.
option1: Identify and present at least one technically feasible hybrid or phased alternative — such as critical-load battery storage or a staged solar-plus-storage rollout — with indicative costs and reliability tradeoffs, so the board can evaluate options beyond the binary solar-versus-rebuild framing
option2: Present the solar-without-storage and generator-rebuild options as the two viable choices within the established capital envelope, note that hybrid configurations exist but require additional capital beyond current availability, and recommend that the board commission a separate feasibility study on phased storage if it wishes to explore that pathway
option3: Limit the board report to the two options within the contracted scope of the solar replacement study, on the grounds that presenting hybrid alternatives outside the assignment scope without adequate cost data would introduce speculative information that could mislead the board rather than inform it
role label: Engineer A Energy Systems Reporter
generated at time: 2026-02-26T00:07:28.426286
was generated by: ProEthica Case 73 Extraction

DP4
type: DecisionPoint
type: NamedIndividual
decision point id: DP4
decision question: Does Engineer A have an obligation to explicitly acknowledge and balance the competing public goods of environmental sustainability and grid reliability in the board report, or is it sufficient to present the technical findings and allow the board to draw its own policy conclusions?
focus: Engineer A must decide how to frame the competing public goods of carbon footprint reduction and grid reliability in the board report — specifically whether to present the solar project as straightforwardly viable given stakeholder pressure, or to explicitly surface and balance both public goods so the board can make an informed policy decision.
option1: Explicitly acknowledge in the board report the genuine tension between the carbon footprint reduction goal and grid reliability, present both the environmental benefit of the solar transition and the rolling blackout risk with equal prominence, and frame the tradeoff as a policy decision for the board rather than a technical conclusion for Engineer A
option2: Present the solar project's environmental and cost-equivalence benefits affirmatively as the primary findings, include the rolling blackout risk as a qualifying caveat in a separate risk section, and allow the board to weigh the tradeoff without Engineer A explicitly characterizing it as a conflict between competing public goods
option3: Present the technical findings neutrally without characterizing the normative tension between environmental and reliability goals, on the grounds that policy value judgments about competing public goods fall outside the engineer's professional advisory role and should be left entirely to the board's independent deliberation
role label: Engineer A Energy Systems Reporter
generated at time: 2026-02-26T00:07:28.426364
was generated by: ProEthica Case 73 Extraction

DP5
type: DecisionPoint
type: NamedIndividual
decision point id: DP5
decision question: If the board receives Engineer A's complete report and nonetheless proceeds with solar-without-storage, does Engineer A have a residual ethical obligation to escalate grid reliability concerns to a regulatory body, the local utility, or another external authority, or does the faithful agent obligation terminate upon complete board notification?
focus: Engineer A must decide whether, after delivering a complete board report that includes rolling blackout risks and battery storage costs, any residual obligation exists to escalate grid reliability concerns to an external authority if the board proceeds with solar-without-storage.
option1: Treat the complete board report as fulfilling the public safety obligation, and take no further escalation action on the grounds that the rolling blackout risk is probabilistic, systemic, and already known to utility resource planners who are better positioned to address it through regulatory channels
option2: Notify the local utility in writing of the organization's decision to proceed with solar-without-storage, referencing the grid stress concern the utility's own resource planners identified, so that the utility can factor the change in the organization's generation profile into its own reliability planning
option3: File a formal written communication with the state public utility commission or relevant regulatory body documenting the grid reliability concern and the board's decision to proceed without storage, invoking the public welfare paramount obligation to escalate when internal disclosure has not prevented a decision creating foreseeable third-party harm
role label: Engineer A Energy Systems Reporter
generated at time: 2026-02-26T00:07:28.430097
was generated by: ProEthica Case 73 Extraction

DP6
type: DecisionPoint
type: NamedIndividual
decision point id: DP6
decision question: Should Engineer A frame the rolling blackout risk explicitly as a harm to third-party electricity consumers and vulnerable populations — not merely as an organizational risk — in order to convey the full moral weight of the decision to the board?
focus: Engineer A must decide how to frame the rolling blackout risk in the board report — as an organizational operational risk, as a third-party public harm affecting vulnerable populations who bear the consequences of a decision they have no voice in, or both — given that the framing determines whether the board understands the full moral weight of the decision.
option1: Frame the rolling blackout risk in the board report explicitly as a risk to third-party electricity consumers and vulnerable populations — including elderly individuals, those with medical conditions, and low-income households — as well as an organizational operational risk, so that the board understands both dimensions of the decision's consequences
option2: Frame the rolling blackout risk primarily as an organizational operational and reputational risk — noting that the organization's transition may contribute to grid stress that affects the broader community — without explicitly characterizing the affected parties as a vulnerable population, on the grounds that population-level harm characterization exceeds the scope of an engineering feasibility report
option3: Present the rolling blackout risk as a technical grid reliability finding with quantified probability and severity data, and include a separate section referencing publicly available case studies of extreme weather blackout impacts on vulnerable populations — such as the California and Texas events — allowing the board to draw its own conclusions about the human consequences without Engineer A characterizing the affected parties directly
role label: Engineer A Energy Systems Reporting Engineer
generated at time: 2026-02-26T23:09:08.463378
was generated by: ProEthica Case 73 Extraction

Decide Board Report Content
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Action
generated at time: 2026-02-25T23:54:19.989746
was generated by: ProEthica Case 73 Extraction

Decide Board Report Content → Frame Solar vs. Rebuild Recommendation
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T23:54:19.990323
was generated by: ProEthica Case 73 Extraction

Decide Report Content Scope
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Action
generated at time: 2026-02-26T22:54:37.536959
was generated by: ProEthica Case 73 Extraction

Electric Load Profile Analysis – Facility Study
type: ReferenceMaterial
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.82
createdby: Engineer A
discoveredincase: 73
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
documenttitle: Facility Electric Load Profile and Solar Energy System Capability Analysis
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T22:27:33.123798+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 73
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T22:27:33.123798+00:00
importance: medium
resourceclass: Reference Material
sourcetext: After careful study of the facility electric load profile and the capability of the proposed solar energy system, Engineer A is satisfied that under normal conditions, the system of solar panels can supply electric energy equivalent to that provided by the existing generator.
textreferences: After careful study of the facility electric load profile and the capability of the proposed solar energy system, Engineer A is satisfied that under normal conditions, the system of solar panels can supply electric energy equivalent to that provided by the existing generator.
textreferences: When discussing the analysis of the electric load profile with a representative of the local electric utility
usedby: Engineer A in preparing the board report
usedincontext: Technical reference material documenting the comparison of the facility's electric load profile against the proposed solar panel system's capability, forming the evidentiary basis for Engineer A's conclusion that solar can substitute for the generator under normal conditions
version: Current (prepared by Engineer A)
wasattributedto: Case 73 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T22:54:37.513212
was generated by: ProEthica Case 73 Extraction

Electric Utility Grid Operator
type: ElectricUtilityGridResourcePlanner
type: NamedIndividual
attributes: {'type': 'Local electric utility / grid operator', 'concern': 'Grid reliability during extreme weather events'}
caseinvolvement: The local electric power system/utility whose grid reliability is affected by the organization's choice of energy generation; the solar-without-storage option would decrease reliability of the entire local electric power system and increase risk of rolling blackouts.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.87
discoveredincase: 73
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T22:28:40.748926+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 73
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T22:28:40.748926+00:00
importance: medium
relationships: {'type': 'affected_by', 'target': 'Organizational Board Decision Authority'}
rolecategory: participant
roleclass: Electric Utility Grid Resource Planner
sourcetext: a system without energy storage decreases the reliability of the entire local electric power system
textreferences: a system without energy storage decreases the reliability of the entire local electric power system
textreferences: the stress placed upon elderly or confined individuals as well as those with medical conditions if they are left without a comfortable environment during an extreme weather event such as California and Texas recently experienced - and which led to rolling blackouts
wasattributedto: Case 73 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T22:54:37.516975
was generated by: ProEthica Case 73 Extraction

Energy System Reliability Faithful Agent Report Engineer A
type: EnergySystemReliabilityFaithfulAgentBoardReportObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A has determined that solar panels can supply equivalent energy 'under normal conditions' but the co-generation facility provides self-sufficient generation not dependent on grid reliability; the board report must make this distinction clear.
compliancestatus: unclear
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.96
discoveredincase: 73
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T22:39:03.522019+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 73
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T22:39:03.522019+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationclass: Energy System Reliability Faithful Agent Board Report Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A is obligated as faithful agent to present prominently in the board report the reliability differential between the solar-without-storage system and the co-generation facility, including the fact that the solar system cannot guarantee supply during extreme weather or grid stress events.
sourcetext: Engineer A is satisfied that under normal conditions, the system of solar panels can supply electric energy equivalent to that provided by the existing generator.
temporalscope: In the board report prior to the board's capital investment decision
textreferences: Capital constraints prevent the organization from installing a system of batteries to store energy for use at night or in bad weather
textreferences: Engineer A is satisfied that under normal conditions, the system of solar panels can supply electric energy equivalent to that provided by the existing generator.
wasattributedto: Case 73 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T22:54:37.523015
was generated by: ProEthica Case 73 Extraction

Energy Transition Public Safety Risk Calibration Engineer A Rolling Blackout
type: EnergyTransitionPublicSafetyRiskCalibrationObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: The rolling blackout risk is not imminent but is a foreseeable consequence of the proposed energy transition; Engineer A must assess whether board-level disclosure is sufficient or whether regulatory escalation is warranted.
compliancestatus: unclear
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.92
discoveredincase: 73
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T22:39:03.522019+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 73
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T22:39:03.522019+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationclass: Energy Transition Public Safety Risk Calibration Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A is obligated to assess the nature, probability, and severity of the rolling blackout risk identified by utility resource planners and calibrate the appropriate level of disclosure and reporting response — including determining whether the risk warrants notification beyond the organizational board to regulatory or public authorities.
sourcetext: during extreme weather events, they may be forced to institute rolling outages to keep system generating facilities on-line
temporalscope: Prior to finalizing and presenting the board report
textreferences: Engineer A also realizes that a move to solar production without storage may stress the local utility generation mix even more, increasing the likelihood of rolling blackouts.
textreferences: during extreme weather events, they may be forced to institute rolling outages to keep system generating facilities on-line
wasattributedto: Case 73 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T22:54:37.523804
was generated by: ProEthica Case 73 Extraction

Energy Transition Risk Calibration Engineer A Rolling Blackout Assessment
type: EnergyTransitionPublicSafetyRiskCalibrationObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: The utility resource planners described rolling outages as a possibility during extreme weather events, not a certainty. Engineer A must assess whether this contingent risk triggers only the faithful agent board notification duty or also a broader public welfare escalation duty.
compliancestatus: unclear
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.87
discoveredincase: 73
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T23:36:47.063155+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 73
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T23:36:47.063155+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationclass: Energy Transition Public Safety Risk Calibration Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A is obligated to calibrate the public safety reporting obligation associated with the rolling blackout risk by assessing its probability, imminence, and severity — as communicated by the utility resource planners — and to determine whether the risk requires disclosure only in the board report or whether it rises to a level requiring notification to regulatory or public authorities beyond the organizational board.
sourcetext: Engineer A learns that the utility resource planners reviewed their current generation mix and believe that during extreme weather events, they may be forced to institute rolling outages to keep system generating facilities on-line.
temporalscope: Before finalizing and submitting the board report
textreferences: Engineer A also realizes that a move to solar production without storage may stress the local utility generation mix even more, increasing the likelihood of rolling blackouts.
textreferences: Engineer A learns that the utility resource planners reviewed their current generation mix and believe that during extreme weather events, they may be forced to institute rolling outages to keep system generating facilities on-line.
wasattributedto: Case 73 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T23:54:19.976930
was generated by: ProEthica Case 73 Extraction

Engineer A Battery Storage Alternative Client Education
type: SustainableDevelopmentClientEducationCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Sustainable Development Client Education Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A possesses advanced communication capability to proactively educate the board about the battery storage option as a third path that could achieve both carbon footprint reduction and grid reliability goals.
casecontext: Applied in the board advisory report to ensure the board is informed of the full range of alternatives, including the battery storage option that was excluded due to capital constraints.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.93
demonstratedthrough: Obligation to educate the board about battery storage as an alternative that harmonizes sustainability and reliability objectives, including the capital cost implications of adding storage to the solar system.
discoveredincase: 73
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T22:41:34.941854+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 73
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T22:41:34.941854+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: Capital constraints prevent the organization from installing a system of batteries to store energy for use at night or in bad weather, but the cost of installing the solar panels is essentially the same as the cost to rebuild the generator.
textreferences: Capital constraints prevent the organization from installing a system of batteries to store energy for use at night or in bad weather, but the cost of installing the solar panels is essentially the same as the cost to rebuild the generator.
wasattributedto: Case 73 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T22:54:37.527717
was generated by: ProEthica Case 73 Extraction

Engineer A Capital-Constrained Resilience Gap — No Storage in Solar Proposal
type: Capital-ConstrainedResilienceGapState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From identification of the no-storage design option through board decision on whether to include storage
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: Facility occupants
affectedparties: Local grid users
affectedparties: The organization
concept category: State
confidence: 0.91
discoveredincase: 73
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T23:33:22.110152+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 73
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T23:33:22.110152+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: Installing a system without storage may result in rolling blackouts and facility interruptions and thus not be a success.
stateclass: Capital-Constrained Resilience Gap State
subject: The proposed solar generation system's lack of energy storage creating a foreseeable resilience vulnerability
terminatedby: Board decision to include storage, or board decision to retain fossil-fueled generator, or board decision to proceed without storage with full knowledge of the resilience gap
textreferences: Installing a system without storage may result in rolling blackouts and facility interruptions and thus not be a success.
textreferences: The board may choose to rebuild/refurbish the fossil-fueled generator because it provides function and reliability at a lower cost than a solar production system with storage.
textreferences: the solar generation system without storage will provide energy generation equivalent to the existing fossil-fueled generator at a similar cost
triggeringevent: Organizational proposal to install solar production without storage, at a cost comparable to the existing fossil-fueled generator but without the dispatchability and storage resilience components
urgencylevel: medium
wasattributedto: Case 73 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T23:54:19.973904
was generated by: ProEthica Case 73 Extraction

Engineer A Capital Constrained Resilience Gap Disclosure No Battery Storage Solar
type: CapitalConstraintResilienceGapDisclosureConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: The organization's capital budget is insufficient to include battery storage in the solar project; the absence of storage creates a foreseeable resilience vulnerability under non-normal operating conditions including extreme weather events
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.9
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Capital Constraint Resilience Gap Disclosure Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A is constrained from presenting the capital-constrained solar-without-storage design as fully equivalent to the fossil-fueled generator without disclosing the resilience gap created by the absence of battery storage — specifically that the system will not provide on-demand generation capability and will be dependent on grid reliability during extreme weather events when the grid is most stressed.
discoveredincase: 73
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T23:45:36.327958+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 73
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T23:45:36.327958+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics completeness provisions; Capital Constraint Resilience Gap Disclosure Constraint (prior section extraction)
sourcetext: The proposed solar generation system without storage may produce the same energy that the existing fossil-fueled generator does, but it will not be as reliable.
temporalscope: During preparation and submission of the board report on the solar energy system replacement proposal
textreferences: A report that does not contain information about the reliability of the utility source will not help them make an informed decision.
textreferences: Further, a system without energy storage decreases the reliability of the entire local electric power system.
textreferences: The proposed solar generation system without storage may produce the same energy that the existing fossil-fueled generator does, but it will not be as reliable.
wasattributedto: Case 73 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T23:54:19.986540
was generated by: ProEthica Case 73 Extraction

Engineer A Carbon Footprint Advocacy Pressure Resistance
type: CarbonFootprintAdvocacyPressureResistanceinTechnicalReportingCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Carbon Footprint Advocacy Pressure Resistance in Technical Reporting Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A possesses advanced reasoning capability to recognize and resist the implicit pressure from carbon footprint reduction stakeholders to present the solar-without-storage option as unambiguously favorable in the board report.
casecontext: Applied when Engineer A must maintain technical objectivity in the board report despite stakeholder advocacy for the solar option.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.97
demonstratedthrough: Obligation to resist stakeholder pressure and ensure the board report includes complete disclosure of rolling blackout risks, reliability limitations, and systemic grid effects, even though such disclosure may undermine the stakeholders' preferred outcome.
discoveredincase: 73
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T22:41:34.941854+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 73
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T22:41:34.941854+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: Recently, stakeholders have expressed interest in reducing the organization's carbon footprint, and these stakeholders suggest that the facility eliminate the generator and replace it with solar panels.
textreferences: Engineer A is convinced that the solar project, when considered in isolation, is viable and will satisfy those stakeholders interested in reducing the organization's carbon footprint.
textreferences: Recently, stakeholders have expressed interest in reducing the organization's carbon footprint, and these stakeholders suggest that the facility eliminate the generator and replace it with solar panels.
wasattributedto: Case 73 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T22:54:37.527388
was generated by: ProEthica Case 73 Extraction

Engineer A Carbon Footprint Advocacy Pressure Resistance Solar Report
type: CarbonFootprintAdvocacyPressureResistanceinTechnicalReportingCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Carbon Footprint Advocacy Pressure Resistance in Technical Reporting Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A possessed the capability to resist implicit pressure from carbon footprint reduction stakeholders to present the solar without storage option as unambiguously favorable, ensuring that the board report included complete disclosure of rolling blackout risks and reliability limitations even though such disclosure might undermine the stakeholders' preferred outcome.
casecontext: Engineer A preparing board report under implicit stakeholder pressure to present solar option favorably
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.87
demonstratedthrough: Required to include in the board report the systemic grid reliability risks and rolling blackout probability despite the presence of organizational stakeholders advocating for the solar option as a carbon footprint reduction measure
discoveredincase: 73
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T23:45:47.534367+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 73
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T23:45:47.534367+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: If the solar production without storage option moves forward, the organization will increase its green footprint and will support a laudable goal of increasing environmentally friendly energy production.
textreferences: But this option may also increase the likelihood of future rolling blackouts.
textreferences: If the solar production without storage option moves forward, the organization will increase its green footprint and will support a laudable goal of increasing environmentally friendly energy production.
wasattributedto: Case 73 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T23:54:19.988006
was generated by: ProEthica Case 73 Extraction

Engineer A Climate Resilience Policy Alignment Solar Assessment
type: ClimateResiliencePolicyAlignmentCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Climate Resilience Policy Alignment Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A required climate resilience policy alignment capability to evaluate the solar panel replacement proposal against the organization's carbon footprint reduction objectives and sustainability commitments, while also assessing the proposal's resilience limitations arising from the absence of battery storage during extreme weather events.
casecontext: Applied when evaluating the solar project against both the organization's sustainability goals and its energy reliability requirements during extreme weather conditions
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.82
demonstratedthrough: Evaluation of the solar project's alignment with carbon footprint reduction objectives alongside assessment of its climate resilience limitations during extreme weather grid stress events
discoveredincase: 73
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T23:38:44.605760+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 73
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T23:38:44.605760+00:00
importance: medium
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: Recently, stakeholders have expressed interest in reducing the organization's carbon footprint, and these stakeholders suggest that the facility eliminate the generator and replace it with solar panels.
textreferences: Engineer A learns that the utility resource planners reviewed their current generation mix and believe that during extreme weather events, they may be forced to institute rolling outages.
textreferences: Recently, stakeholders have expressed interest in reducing the organization's carbon footprint, and these stakeholders suggest that the facility eliminate the generator and replace it with solar panels.
wasattributedto: Case 73 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T23:54:19.981829
was generated by: ProEthica Case 73 Extraction

Engineer A Co-generation Renewable Transition Technical Evaluation
type: Co-generationtoRenewableTransitionTechnicalEvaluationCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Co-generation to Renewable Transition Technical Evaluation Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A possessed co-generation to renewable transition technical evaluation capability, demonstrated by conducting a comprehensive technical evaluation of the proposed solar panel replacement for the fossil-fueled co-generation facility, including load profile analysis, capital cost comparison, and storage requirement assessment.
casecontext: Applied throughout the technical analysis phase of the energy system replacement evaluation, forming the technical foundation for the board report
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.89
demonstratedthrough: Comprehensive technical evaluation of the solar panel replacement proposal including load profile analysis, capital cost comparison between solar installation and generator rebuild, and assessment of storage requirements
discoveredincase: 73
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T23:38:44.605760+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 73
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T23:38:44.605760+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: expert
sourcetext: Engineer A works for an organization that for years has operated a fossil-fueled co-generation facility primarily to supply thermal energy for process needs.
textreferences: After careful study of the facility electric load profile and the capability of the proposed solar energy system, Engineer A is satisfied that under normal conditions, the system of solar panels can supply electric energy equivalent to that provided by the existing generator.
textreferences: Capital constraints prevent the organization from installing a system of batteries to store energy for use at night or in bad weather, but the cost of installing the solar panels is essentially the same as the cost to rebuild the generator.
textreferences: Engineer A works for an organization that for years has operated a fossil-fueled co-generation facility primarily to supply thermal energy for process needs.
textreferences: The generator is approaching the end of its useful life and will require a substantial investment to remain operational.
wasattributedto: Case 73 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T23:54:19.981102
was generated by: ProEthica Case 73 Extraction

Engineer A Co-generation to Renewable Transition Technical Evaluation
type: Co-generationtoRenewableTransitionTechnicalEvaluationCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Co-generation to Renewable Transition Technical Evaluation Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A possesses advanced technical capability to evaluate the engineering feasibility and operational implications of replacing the fossil-fueled co-generation facility with solar panels, including storage requirements and capital cost comparisons.
casecontext: Applied as the primary technical evaluation task underlying the board advisory report on the energy system replacement decision.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.97
demonstratedthrough: Evaluating the solar replacement option including capital cost equivalency, storage limitations, and grid dependency changes in preparation of the board report.
discoveredincase: 73
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T22:41:34.941854+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 73
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T22:41:34.941854+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: The generator is approaching the end of its useful life and will require a substantial investment to remain operational.
textreferences: Capital constraints prevent the organization from installing a system of batteries to store energy for use at night or in bad weather, but the cost of installing the solar panels is essentially the same as the cost to rebuild the generator.
textreferences: The generator is approaching the end of its useful life and will require a substantial investment to remain operational.
wasattributedto: Case 73 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T22:54:37.526597
was generated by: ProEthica Case 73 Extraction

Engineer A Competing Public Goods Balanced Advisory Disclosure Board Report
type: CompetingPublicGoodsBalancedAdvisoryDisclosureObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A is preparing a report to the organizational board on whether to replace the fossil-fueled co-generation facility with solar panels without storage, in a context where carbon footprint reduction stakeholders favor the solar option but utility resource planners have warned of increased rolling blackout risk.
compliancestatus: unclear
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.84
discoveredincase: 73
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T23:43:26.005222+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 73
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T23:43:26.005222+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationclass: Competing Public Goods Balanced Advisory Disclosure Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A was obligated to explicitly acknowledge and address in the board report the genuine conflict between the competing public goods of environmental sustainability (carbon footprint reduction through solar adoption) and grid reliability (protection of vulnerable populations from rolling blackouts), presenting the tradeoffs completely and objectively so the board could make an informed policy decision.
sourcetext: What guidance can Engineer A rely upon to address a potential conflict between competing public goods?
temporalscope: At the time of preparing and delivering the board report on the energy system replacement proposal
textreferences: Some may argue that continuing to operate a fossil-fueled generator is inconsistent with public health, safety, and welfare, while others will point to the increased reliability of the fossil-fueled generator as a demonstration of greater concern for public welfare.
textreferences: The ethical objective is an informed policy and project decision-making process.
textreferences: What guidance can Engineer A rely upon to address a potential conflict between competing public goods?
wasattributedto: Case 73 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T23:54:19.984312
was generated by: ProEthica Case 73 Extraction

Engineer A Competing Public Goods Conflict Recognition
type: CompetingPublicGoodsConflictRecognitionandAdvisoryCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Competing Public Goods Conflict Recognition and Advisory Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A possesses advanced reasoning capability to recognize and explicitly address in the board report the genuine conflict between the public good of carbon footprint reduction and the public good of grid reliability and rolling blackout prevention.
casecontext: Applied in preparing the board advisory report that must balance competing legitimate public goods rather than presenting a one-sided analysis favoring the stakeholder-preferred outcome.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.97
demonstratedthrough: Recognizing that the solar-without-storage option serves carbon reduction stakeholders but creates grid reliability risks, and that the board report must explicitly acknowledge and address this competing public goods conflict.
discoveredincase: 73
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T22:41:34.941854+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 73
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T22:41:34.941854+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: Engineer A is convinced that the solar project, when considered in isolation, is viable and will satisfy those stakeholders interested in reducing the organization's carbon footprint.
textreferences: Engineer A also realizes that a move to solar production without storage may stress the local utility generation mix even more, increasing the likelihood of rolling blackouts.
textreferences: Engineer A is convinced that the solar project, when considered in isolation, is viable and will satisfy those stakeholders interested in reducing the organization's carbon footprint.
wasattributedto: Case 73 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T22:54:37.527218
was generated by: ProEthica Case 73 Extraction

Engineer A Competing Public Goods Conflict Recognition Energy Advisory
type: CompetingPublicGoodsConflictRecognitionandAdvisoryCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Competing Public Goods Conflict Recognition and Advisory Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A must recognize and explicitly address in the board report the genuine conflict between carbon footprint reduction (environmental sustainability) and grid reliability (public safety), ensuring decision-makers understand the tradeoffs
casecontext: Engineer A preparing board report on solar-without-storage replacement, where sustainability and reliability represent competing public goods
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.92
demonstratedthrough: Obligation to explicitly acknowledge and address the conflict between the legitimate public good of carbon footprint reduction and the legitimate public good of grid reliability and rolling blackout prevention in the board report
discoveredincase: 73
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T22:48:49.553722+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 73
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T22:48:49.553722+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: What guidance can Engineer A rely upon to address a potential conflict between competing public goods?
textreferences: If the solar production without storage option moves forward, the organization will increase its green footprint and will support a laudable goal of increasing environmentally friendly energy production. But this option may also increase the likelihood of future rolling blackouts.
textreferences: What guidance can Engineer A rely upon to address a potential conflict between competing public goods?
wasattributedto: Case 73 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T22:54:37.533519
was generated by: ProEthica Case 73 Extraction

Engineer A Competing Public Goods Conflict Recognition Solar Advisory
type: CompetingPublicGoodsConflictRecognitionandAdvisoryCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Competing Public Goods Conflict Recognition and Advisory Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A possessed the capability to recognize and address in the board report the genuine conflict between the competing public goods of environmental sustainability (carbon footprint reduction through solar adoption) and public safety (grid reliability and rolling blackout prevention), and to present this conflict explicitly rather than presenting the solar option as unambiguously favorable.
casecontext: Engineer A preparing board report on solar energy system replacement for fossil-fueled co-generation facility
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.88
demonstratedthrough: Required to address in the board report the ethical corollary of the organization's decision — that the solar without storage option supports laudable environmental goals but may also increase the likelihood of future rolling blackouts affecting public welfare
discoveredincase: 73
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T23:45:47.534367+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 73
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T23:45:47.534367+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: What guidance can Engineer A rely upon to address a potential conflict between competing public goods?
textreferences: Some may argue that continuing to operate a fossil-fueled generator is inconsistent with public health, safety, and welfare, while others will point to the increased reliability of the fossil-fueled generator as a demonstration of greater concern for public welfare.
textreferences: The ethical objective is an informed policy and project decision-making process.
textreferences: What guidance can Engineer A rely upon to address a potential conflict between competing public goods?
wasattributedto: Case 73 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T23:54:19.987382
was generated by: ProEthica Case 73 Extraction

Engineer A Competing Public Goods Non-Distortion Solar vs Grid Reliability Board Report
type: StakeholderPreferenceNon-DistortionofTechnicalReportConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A is preparing a board report on replacing a fossil-fueled co-generation facility with solar panels without battery storage; carbon footprint reduction stakeholders favor the solar option; the solar option may increase rolling blackout likelihood affecting vulnerable populations
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.88
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Stakeholder Preference Non-Distortion of Technical Report Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A is constrained from structuring the board report to favor the carbon footprint reduction public good over the grid reliability public good — or vice versa — and must present the genuine conflict between these competing public goods honestly and completely, prohibiting selective emphasis of findings favorable to the stakeholder-preferred solar transition outcome while omitting or minimizing the rolling blackout risk findings.
discoveredincase: 73
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T23:45:36.327958+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 73
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T23:45:36.327958+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics objectivity and completeness provisions; BER Case 98-5 (competing public goods); case discussion on competing public goods conflict
sourcetext: What guidance can Engineer A rely upon to address a potential conflict between competing public goods?
temporalscope: During preparation and submission of the board report on the solar energy system replacement proposal
textreferences: Some may argue that continuing to operate a fossil-fueled generator is inconsistent with public health, safety, and welfare, while others will point to the increased reliability of the fossil-fueled generator as a demonstration of greater concern for public welfare.
textreferences: The ethical objective is an informed policy and project decision-making process.
textreferences: What guidance can Engineer A rely upon to address a potential conflict between competing public goods?
wasattributedto: Case 73 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T23:54:19.985877
was generated by: ProEthica Case 73 Extraction

Engineer A Competing Public Goods Tension — Solar vs. Grid Reliability
type: CompetingPublicGoodsTensionState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From Engineer A's identification of the grid reliability tradeoff through completion of the board report
affectedparties: Elderly and medically vulnerable individuals
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: General public
affectedparties: Local utility grid users
affectedparties: The organization's board
concept category: State
confidence: 0.9
discoveredincase: 73
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T23:33:22.110152+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 73
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T23:33:22.110152+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: What guidance can Engineer A rely upon to address a potential conflict between competing public goods?
stateclass: Competing Public Goods Tension State
subject: Engineer A's obligation to report on the solar-without-storage proposal to the board
terminatedby: Engineer A's submission of a complete report to the board that includes both the sustainability benefits and the reliability/grid-stress tradeoffs
textreferences: Some may argue that continuing to operate a fossil-fueled generator is inconsistent with public health, safety, and welfare, while others will point to the increased reliability of the fossil-fueled generator as a demonstration of greater concern for public welfare.
textreferences: The ethical objective is an informed policy and project decision-making process.
textreferences: What guidance can Engineer A rely upon to address a potential conflict between competing public goods?
textreferences: this option may also increase the likelihood of future rolling blackouts
triggeringevent: Recognition that the solar-without-storage option advances carbon reduction while potentially increasing rolling blackout risk for third parties including elderly and medically vulnerable individuals
urgencylevel: high
wasattributedto: Case 73 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T23:54:19.973367
was generated by: ProEthica Case 73 Extraction

Engineer A Complete Comparative Advisory Analysis Energy Options
type: ProjectDeliveryMethodComparativeAnalysisCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Project Delivery Method Comparative Analysis Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A required complete comparative advisory analysis capability to present the board with a complete comparative analysis of all viable energy options — including the solar panel replacement without storage, the generator rebuild, and potentially hybrid or phased approaches — against the organization's funding constraints, operational requirements, and grid reliability considerations.
casecontext: Applied when structuring the board report to ensure all viable energy options are presented with complete comparative information
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.82
demonstratedthrough: Obligation to present a complete comparative analysis of solar-without-storage versus generator rebuild options, including capital costs, operational risks, grid reliability implications, and carbon footprint impacts
discoveredincase: 73
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T23:38:44.605760+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 73
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T23:38:44.605760+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: Engineer A is preparing a report that will be presented to the board to consider the new solar project.
textreferences: Capital constraints prevent the organization from installing a system of batteries to store energy for use at night or in bad weather, but the cost of installing the solar panels is essentially the same as the cost to rebuild the generator.
textreferences: Engineer A is preparing a report that will be presented to the board to consider the new solar project.
wasattributedto: Case 73 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T23:54:19.982244
was generated by: ProEthica Case 73 Extraction

Engineer A Complete Comparative Advisory Analysis Solar vs Generator Options
type: ProjectDeliveryMethodComparativeAnalysisCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Project Delivery Method Comparative Analysis Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A possessed the capability to identify, analyze, and comparatively evaluate all viable energy options — including the solar panel replacement without storage, solar with storage, and rebuild/refurbish of the fossil-fueled generator — against the organization's specific reliability requirements, cost constraints, and carbon footprint objectives, presenting a complete and balanced comparative analysis to enable informed board decision-making.
casecontext: Engineer A preparing board report comparing solar without storage against other energy system options for fossil-fueled co-generation facility replacement
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.84
demonstratedthrough: Required to present the board with a complete comparative analysis of all viable energy options including the option to rebuild/refurbish the fossil-fueled generator, which provides function and reliability at a lower cost than solar with storage — not limiting the analysis to the solar without storage option preferred by carbon footprint stakeholders
discoveredincase: 73
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T23:45:47.534367+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 73
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T23:45:47.534367+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: The board may choose to rebuild/refurbish the fossil-fueled generator because it provides function and reliability at a lower cost than a solar production system with storage.
textreferences: Engineer A has an obligation to present this information in a report to the board.
textreferences: The board may choose to rebuild/refurbish the fossil-fueled generator because it provides function and reliability at a lower cost than a solar production system with storage.
wasattributedto: Case 73 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T23:54:19.989059
was generated by: ProEthica Case 73 Extraction

Engineer A Energy Advisory Systemic Risk Scope Expansion
type: EnergyAdvisorySystemicRiskScopeExpansionCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Energy Advisory Systemic Risk Scope Expansion Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A possessed energy advisory systemic risk scope expansion capability, demonstrated by recognizing that the board report must extend beyond the isolated viability of the solar project to include the systemic grid reliability implications of the organizational energy transition decision.
casecontext: Applied when preparing the board report after recognizing that the solar project's isolated viability did not capture the full risk picture relevant to the board's decision
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.87
demonstratedthrough: Recognition that isolated system viability analysis was insufficient and that systemic grid stress and rolling blackout risks must be included in the advisory report scope
discoveredincase: 73
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T23:38:44.605760+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 73
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T23:38:44.605760+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: Engineer A is convinced that the solar project, when considered in isolation, is viable and will satisfy those stakeholders interested in reducing the organization's carbon footprint.
textreferences: Engineer A also realizes that a move to solar production without storage may stress the local utility generation mix even more, increasing the likelihood of rolling blackouts.
textreferences: Engineer A is convinced that the solar project, when considered in isolation, is viable and will satisfy those stakeholders interested in reducing the organization's carbon footprint.
wasattributedto: Case 73 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T23:54:19.980343
was generated by: ProEthica Case 73 Extraction

Engineer A Energy Load Profile Analysis
type: EnergyLoadProfileAnalysisCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Energy Load Profile Analysis Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A possessed advanced energy load profile analysis capability, demonstrated by conducting a careful study of the facility's electric load profile and evaluating the proposed solar energy system's capacity to satisfy organizational demand under normal conditions.
casecontext: Applied during technical analysis of the proposed solar panel replacement for the fossil-fueled co-generation facility, forming the basis for the board report
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.9
demonstratedthrough: Careful study of the facility electric load profile and evaluation of the proposed solar energy system's capability to supply equivalent electric energy under normal conditions
discoveredincase: 73
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T23:38:44.605760+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 73
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T23:38:44.605760+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: After careful study of the facility electric load profile and the capability of the proposed solar energy system, Engineer A is satisfied that under normal conditions, the system of solar panels can supply electric energy equivalent to that provided by the existing generator.
textreferences: After careful study of the facility electric load profile and the capability of the proposed solar energy system, Engineer A is satisfied that under normal conditions, the system of solar panels can supply electric energy equivalent to that provided by the existing generator.
wasattributedto: Case 73 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T23:54:19.979931
was generated by: ProEthica Case 73 Extraction

Engineer A Energy System Reliability Faithful Agent Board Report Obligation
type: No-StorageSolarTransitionFaithfulAgentRiskNotificationObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A has determined that the solar without storage system produces equivalent energy at similar cost but is less reliable than the existing fossil-fueled co-generation facility and decreases the reliability of the broader electric grid. The board report must include this reliability information for the board to make an informed decision.
compliancestatus: unclear
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.92
discoveredincase: 73
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T23:43:26.005222+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 73
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T23:43:26.005222+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationclass: No-Storage Solar Transition Faithful Agent Risk Notification Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A was obligated, as a faithful agent of the organization, to present in the board report the finding that the solar without storage system will not be as reliable as the existing fossil-fueled co-generation facility, that it decreases the reliability of the entire local electric power system, and that installing a system without storage may result in rolling blackouts and facility interruptions — so that the board could make an informed decision about whether to proceed, invest in storage, or maintain the existing system.
sourcetext: Therefore, Engineer A has an obligation to present this information in a report to the board.
temporalscope: At the time of preparing and delivering the board report on the energy system replacement proposal
textreferences: A report that does not contain information about the reliability of the utility source will not help them make an informed decision.
textreferences: As a registered professional, Engineer A is obliged to include relevant and pertinent information in a report to the board.
textreferences: Further, a system without energy storage decreases the reliability of the entire local electric power system.
textreferences: Installing a system without storage may result in rolling blackouts and facility interruptions and thus not be a success.
textreferences: The proposed solar generation system without storage may produce the same energy that the existing fossil-fueled generator does, but it will not be as reliable.
textreferences: Therefore, Engineer A has an obligation to present this information in a report to the board.
wasattributedto: Case 73 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T23:54:19.985234
was generated by: ProEthica Case 73 Extraction

Engineer A Energy Systems Reporter
type: EnergySystemsReportingEngineer
type: NamedIndividual
attributes: {'license': 'Registered Professional Engineer', 'specialty': 'Energy systems analysis and reporting', 'obligation_context': 'Faithful agent to employer organization while bearing paramount public safety obligations regarding grid reliability'}
caseinvolvement: Conducts technical analysis of the organization's energy systems including evaluation of solar generation without storage versus fossil-fueled generator replacement, and prepares a report for the board of directors bearing obligations to include complete reliability and grid stability information including potential rolling blackout risks.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.95
discoveredincase: 73
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T23:33:20.103706+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 73
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T23:33:20.103706+00:00
importance: high
relationships: {'type': 'interacts_with', 'target': 'Electric Utility Grid Resource Planner'}
relationships: {'type': 'reports_to', 'target': 'Organizational Board Decision Authority'}
rolecategory: provider_client
roleclass: Energy Systems Reporting Engineer
sourcetext: As a registered professional, Engineer A is obliged to include relevant and pertinent information in a report to the board.
textreferences: A report that does not contain information about the reliability of the utility source will not help them make an informed decision.
textreferences: As a registered professional, Engineer A is obliged to include relevant and pertinent information in a report to the board.
textreferences: Therefore, Engineer A has an obligation to present this information in a report to the board.
textreferences: This discussion has so far not addressed the obligation of Engineer A in this case to act as a faithful agent or trustee for the employer.
wasattributedto: Case 73 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T23:54:19.972112
was generated by: ProEthica Case 73 Extraction

Engineer A Energy Systems Reporting Engineer
type: EnergySystemsReportingEngineer
type: NamedIndividual
attributes: {'license': 'Professional Engineer (implied)', 'specialty': 'Energy systems analysis, co-generation, renewable energy', 'employer': 'Organization operating fossil-fueled co-generation facility', 'key_finding': 'Solar project viable in isolation but may stress utility grid and increase rolling blackout likelihood'}
caseinvolvement: Conducted technical analysis of the organization's energy load profile and evaluated the proposed solar panel replacement for the fossil-fueled co-generation facility; preparing a board report that must disclose both the viability of the solar project in isolation and the systemic risk of increased rolling blackouts due to grid stress from solar adoption without storage.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.92
discoveredincase: 73
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T23:31:46.147008+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 73
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T23:31:46.147008+00:00
importance: high
relationships: {'type': 'employee', 'target': 'Organization (Employer)'}
relationships: {'type': 'information_source', 'target': 'Electric Utility Resource Planner'}
relationships: {'type': 'obligation_to', 'target': 'Carbon Footprint Reduction Stakeholders'}
relationships: {'type': 'public_responsibility_to', 'target': 'General Public (grid reliability)'}
relationships: {'type': 'report_recipient', 'target': 'Board of Directors'}
rolecategory: public_responsibility
roleclass: Energy Systems Reporting Engineer
sourcetext: Engineer A works for an organization that for years has operated a fossil-fueled co-generation facility
textreferences: After careful study of the facility electric load profile and the capability of the proposed solar energy system, Engineer A is satisfied that under normal conditions, the system of solar panels can supply electric energy equivalent to that provided by the existing generator
textreferences: Engineer A also realizes that a move to solar production without storage may stress the local utility generation mix even more, increasing the likelihood of rolling blackouts
textreferences: Engineer A is convinced that the solar project, when considered in isolation, is viable and will satisfy those stakeholders interested in reducing the organization's carbon footprint
textreferences: Engineer A is preparing a report that will be presented to the board to consider the new solar project
textreferences: Engineer A works for an organization that for years has operated a fossil-fueled co-generation facility
wasattributedto: Case 73 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T23:54:19.968452
was generated by: ProEthica Case 73 Extraction

Engineer A Energy Transition Public Safety Risk Calibration Rolling Blackout
type: RiskThresholdCalibrationReportingObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Utility resource planners have communicated to Engineer A that the solar without storage transition may increase the likelihood of rolling blackouts during extreme weather events. Engineer A must assess whether this risk triggers only a faithful agent board report obligation or also a public welfare escalation obligation to regulatory authorities.
compliancestatus: unclear
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.86
discoveredincase: 73
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T23:43:26.005222+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 73
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T23:43:26.005222+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationclass: Risk Threshold Calibration Reporting Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A was obligated to calibrate the public safety reporting and disclosure obligations associated with the rolling blackout risk by assessing the nature, imminence, probability, and severity of that risk — as communicated by utility resource planners — and to determine whether the risk rises to the level requiring notification beyond the organizational board to regulatory or public authorities, or whether complete disclosure in the board report satisfies the applicable reporting obligation.
sourcetext: What guidance can Engineer A rely upon to address a potential conflict between competing public goods?
temporalscope: During the preparation of the board report and upon determining the appropriate scope of disclosure and reporting obligations
textreferences: But this option may also increase the likelihood of future rolling blackouts.
textreferences: It is not difficult to imagine, for example, the stress placed upon elderly or confined individuals as well as those with medical conditions if they are left without a comfortable environment during an extreme weather event such as California and Texas recently experienced - and which led to rolling blackouts.
textreferences: What guidance can Engineer A rely upon to address a potential conflict between competing public goods?
wasattributedto: Case 73 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T23:54:19.985686
was generated by: ProEthica Case 73 Extraction

Engineer A Extreme Weather Energy Reliability Risk Communication
type: ExtremeWeatherEnergyReliabilityRiskCommunicationCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Extreme Weather Energy Reliability Risk Communication Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A possessed extreme weather energy reliability risk communication capability, required to fulfill the obligation to communicate rolling blackout risks and solar-without-storage vulnerabilities to the organizational board in a manner enabling informed decision-making.
casecontext: Required for preparation of the board report on the solar project, specifically for communicating the rolling blackout risk and solar intermittency limitations during extreme weather events
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.86
demonstratedthrough: Obligation to prepare a board report that prominently and completely discloses the rolling blackout risk communicated by the local electric utility resource planners
discoveredincase: 73
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T23:38:44.605760+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 73
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T23:38:44.605760+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: Engineer A is preparing a report that will be presented to the board to consider the new solar project.
textreferences: Engineer A is preparing a report that will be presented to the board to consider the new solar project.
textreferences: Engineer A learns that the utility resource planners reviewed their current generation mix and believe that during extreme weather events, they may be forced to institute rolling outages to keep system generating facilities on-line.
wasattributedto: Case 73 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T23:54:19.980494
was generated by: ProEthica Case 73 Extraction

Engineer A Fact Based Technical Opinion Rolling Blackout
type: Fact-OpinionThresholdDiscriminationCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Fact-Opinion Threshold Discrimination Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A required fact-opinion threshold discrimination capability to correctly assess whether the rolling blackout risk communicated by utility resource planners constitutes an established technical fact requiring mandatory disclosure versus a preliminary concern or speculation, and to ground the board report's disclosure in the established facts communicated by the utility.
casecontext: Applied when determining how to characterize and disclose the rolling blackout risk in the board report based on information received from the local electric utility resource planners
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.84
demonstratedthrough: Assessment of whether the utility resource planners' communication about rolling blackout probability constitutes a fact-grounded technical finding sufficient to trigger mandatory disclosure in the board report
discoveredincase: 73
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T23:38:44.605760+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 73
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T23:38:44.605760+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: When discussing the analysis of the electric load profile with a representative of the local electric utility, Engineer A learns that the utility resource planners reviewed their current generation mix and believe that during extreme weather events, they may be forced to institute rolling outages to keep system generating facilities on-line.
textreferences: When discussing the analysis of the electric load profile with a representative of the local electric utility, Engineer A learns that the utility resource planners reviewed their current generation mix and believe that during extreme weather events, they may be forced to institute rolling outages to keep system generating facilities on-line.
wasattributedto: Case 73 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T23:54:19.982105
was generated by: ProEthica Case 73 Extraction

Engineer A Faithful Agent Board Report Energy System Reliability
type: TrusteeAdvisoryRoleFaithfulExecutionCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Trustee Advisory Role Faithful Execution Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A possessed the capability to correctly identify the board report engagement as requiring faithful trustee and objective advisor conduct — subordinating any preference for the carbon footprint reduction outcome to the organization's need for complete, objective, and unbiased professional advice about energy system reliability, including presenting information that might lead the board to choose the fossil-fueled generator option over the solar option.
casecontext: Engineer A serving as faithful agent and trustee for the organization in preparing the energy system replacement advisory report
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.87
demonstratedthrough: Required to act as a faithful agent or trustee for the employer by presenting complete reliability information in the board report, even though this information might lead the board to choose the fossil-fueled generator over the solar option preferred by carbon footprint stakeholders
discoveredincase: 73
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T23:45:47.534367+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 73
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T23:45:47.534367+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: This discussion has so far not addressed the obligation of Engineer A in this case to act as a faithful agent or trustee for the employer.
textreferences: Therefore, Engineer A has an obligation to present this information in a report to the board.
textreferences: This discussion has so far not addressed the obligation of Engineer A in this case to act as a faithful agent or trustee for the employer.
wasattributedto: Case 73 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T23:54:19.989199
was generated by: ProEthica Case 73 Extraction

Engineer A Faithful Agent Boundary — Post-Analysis Board Reporting Obligation
type: FaithfulAgentBoundaryState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From completion of the full tradeoff report through the board's decision on the energy system
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: The organization
affectedparties: The organization's board
concept category: State
confidence: 0.87
discoveredincase: 73
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T23:33:22.110152+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 73
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T23:33:22.110152+00:00
importance: medium
sourcetext: This discussion has so far not addressed the obligation of Engineer A in this case to act as a faithful agent or trustee for the employer.
stateclass: Faithful Agent Boundary State
subject: Engineer A's transition from technical analyst to faithful agent after completing the tradeoff analysis and presenting it to the board
terminatedby: Board's informed decision on the energy system option
textreferences: The board may choose to rebuild/refurbish the fossil-fueled generator because it provides function and reliability at a lower cost than a solar production system with storage.
textreferences: The ethical objective is an informed policy and project decision-making process.
textreferences: This discussion has so far not addressed the obligation of Engineer A in this case to act as a faithful agent or trustee for the employer.
triggeringevent: Engineer A's completion of a report that includes both the sustainability benefits and the reliability/grid-stress tradeoffs, after which the board holds decision authority
urgencylevel: medium
wasattributedto: Case 73 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T23:54:19.974471
was generated by: ProEthica Case 73 Extraction

Engineer A Faithful Agent Reliability Deficiency Board Notification Solar Without Storage
type: FaithfulAgentReliabilityDeficiencyBoardNotificationConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A has completed the technical analysis and is transitioning to the faithful agent reporting role; the solar-without-storage system is materially less reliable than the fossil-fueled generator; the board needs this information to make an informed decision
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.89
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Faithful Agent Reliability Deficiency Board Notification Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A is constrained, as a faithful agent of the organization, from omitting or minimizing the reliability deficiency of the solar-without-storage system in the board report, and must present prominently that the proposed system will not be as reliable as the fossil-fueled generator, may result in rolling blackouts and facility interruptions, and that the board may choose to rebuild the fossil-fueled generator as a reliability-preserving alternative.
discoveredincase: 73
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T23:45:36.327958+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 73
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T23:45:36.327958+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics faithful agent provisions; case discussion on faithful agent obligation and reliability deficiency
sourcetext: This discussion has so far not addressed the obligation of Engineer A in this case to act as a faithful agent or trustee for the employer.
temporalscope: During preparation and submission of the board report on the solar energy system replacement proposal
textreferences: Installing a system without storage may result in rolling blackouts and facility interruptions and thus not be a success.
textreferences: The board may choose to rebuild/refurbish the fossil-fueled generator because it provides function and reliability at a lower cost than a solar production system with storage.
textreferences: Therefore, Engineer A has an obligation to present this information in a report to the board.
textreferences: This discussion has so far not addressed the obligation of Engineer A in this case to act as a faithful agent or trustee for the employer.
wasattributedto: Case 73 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T23:54:19.986143
was generated by: ProEthica Case 73 Extraction

Engineer A Faithful Agent Risk Notification Solar Transition
type: FaithfulAgentWrittenRiskNotificationScopeCalibrationCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Faithful Agent Written Risk Notification Scope Calibration Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A required faithful agent written risk notification scope calibration capability to correctly calibrate the scope of the written notification obligation to the board — recognizing that the duty extends to advising the board in writing of the rolling blackout risk and solar-without-storage limitations, but does not extend beyond the advisory role into operational decision-making authority.
casecontext: Applied when determining the appropriate scope and content of the written board report regarding the solar project risks
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.84
demonstratedthrough: Obligation to advise the board in writing that the proposed solar system without battery storage creates rolling blackout vulnerability and grid stress risks, calibrated to the faithful agent advisory role
discoveredincase: 73
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T23:38:44.605760+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 73
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T23:38:44.605760+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: Engineer A is preparing a report that will be presented to the board to consider the new solar project.
textreferences: Capital constraints prevent the organization from installing a system of batteries to store energy for use at night or in bad weather.
textreferences: Engineer A is preparing a report that will be presented to the board to consider the new solar project.
wasattributedto: Case 73 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T23:54:19.981677
was generated by: ProEthica Case 73 Extraction

Engineer A Faithful Agent Sustainability Harmonization
type: FaithfulAgentSustainabilityHarmonizationCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Faithful Agent Sustainability Harmonization Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A possesses advanced reasoning capability to simultaneously fulfill faithful agent obligations to the board and sustainability advisory duties, identifying the path that best serves both rather than treating them as irreconcilable.
casecontext: Applied in structuring the board advisory report to fulfill both faithful agent and sustainability obligations simultaneously.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.92
demonstratedthrough: Recognizing that the board report must present complete technical information — including reliability risks — while also identifying the battery storage option as a path that could harmonize both carbon reduction and reliability goals.
discoveredincase: 73
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T22:41:34.941854+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 73
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T22:41:34.941854+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: Engineer A is preparing a report that will be presented to the board to consider the new solar project.
textreferences: Capital constraints prevent the organization from installing a system of batteries to store energy for use at night or in bad weather, but the cost of installing the solar panels is essentially the same as the cost to rebuild the generator.
textreferences: Engineer A is preparing a report that will be presented to the board to consider the new solar project.
wasattributedto: Case 73 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T22:54:37.527542
was generated by: ProEthica Case 73 Extraction

Engineer A Faithful Agent Sustainability Trustee Engineer
type: FaithfulAgentSustainabilityTrusteeEngineer
type: NamedIndividual
attributes: {'license': 'Registered Professional Engineer', 'specialty': 'Energy systems, sustainability trade-off analysis'}
caseinvolvement: Engineer A simultaneously acts as a faithful agent and trustee to the organization, obligated to present complete technical information including reliability trade-offs between fossil-fueled and solar options, while deferring to the board's informed decision.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.95
discoveredincase: 73
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T22:28:40.748926+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 73
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T22:28:40.748926+00:00
importance: high
relationships: {'type': 'discloses_to', 'target': 'Organizational Board Decision Authority'}
relationships: {'type': 'trustee_for', 'target': 'Organizational Board Decision Authority'}
rolecategory: provider_client
roleclass: Faithful Agent Sustainability Trustee Engineer
sourcetext: This discussion has so far not addressed the obligation of Engineer A in this case to act as a faithful agent or trustee for the employer.
textreferences: The board may choose to rebuild/refurbish the fossil-fueled generator because it provides function and reliability at a lower cost than a solar production system with storage.
textreferences: The ethical objective is an informed policy and project decision-making process.
textreferences: This discussion has so far not addressed the obligation of Engineer A in this case to act as a faithful agent or trustee for the employer.
wasattributedto: Case 73 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T22:54:37.516369
was generated by: ProEthica Case 73 Extraction

Engineer A Faustian Bargain Safety Non-Concurrence BER 98-5 Analogy
type: FaustianBargainSafetyNon-ConcurrenceCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Faustian Bargain Safety Non-Concurrence Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A must recognize, by analogy to BER 98-5, that any implicit or explicit bargain that trades safety reporting completeness for stakeholder approval or organizational benefit constitutes an impermissible Faustian bargain
casecontext: Engineer A facing implicit pressure from carbon footprint reduction stakeholders to present solar-without-storage option favorably without complete disclosure of reliability risks
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.88
demonstratedthrough: Application of BER 98-5 principle that engineers must hold public health and safety paramount and cannot concur with safety-compromising arrangements even when offered compensating benefits
discoveredincase: 73
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T22:48:49.553722+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 73
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T22:48:49.553722+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: BER Case 98-5 describes how Engineer Adam serves as director of a building department in a major city.
textreferences: BER Case 98-5 describes how Engineer Adam serves as director of a building department in a major city.
textreferences: righting a wrong with another wrong does grave damage to the public health and safety
textreferences: the BER affirmed that engineers 'must hold the public health and safety paramount.'
wasattributedto: Case 73 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T22:54:37.533670
was generated by: ProEthica Case 73 Extraction

Engineer A Fossil Fuel Reliability Retention Legitimate Option Presentation Board Report
type: FossilFuelReliabilityRetentionLegitimateOptionPresentationObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A's analysis shows the solar-without-storage system produces equivalent energy at similar cost but is less reliable; the board may legitimately choose to rebuild/refurbish the fossil-fueled generator; the case text explicitly acknowledges that fossil fuel reliability may itself be a public welfare consideration
compliancestatus: unclear
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.77
discoveredincase: 73
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T22:46:47.115804+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 73
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T22:46:47.115804+00:00
importance: medium
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationclass: Fossil Fuel Reliability Retention Legitimate Option Presentation Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A has an obligation to present the option of rebuilding or refurbishing the existing fossil-fueled co-generation facility as a legitimate and potentially welfare-consistent choice in the board report, given that the fossil-fueled system provides superior reliability at lower cost than solar-with-storage, and that this reliability differential has material public welfare implications for vulnerable populations.
sourcetext: The board may choose to rebuild/refurbish the fossil-fueled generator because it provides function and reliability at a lower cost than a solar production system with storage.
temporalscope: In the board report, as part of the complete presentation of viable alternatives
textreferences: Some may argue that continuing to operate a fossil-fueled generator is inconsistent with public health, safety, and welfare, while others will point to the increased reliability of the fossil-fueled generator as a demonstration of greater concern for public welfare.
textreferences: The board may choose to rebuild/refurbish the fossil-fueled generator because it provides function and reliability at a lower cost than a solar production system with storage.
textreferences: The ethical objective is an informed policy and project decision-making process.
wasattributedto: Case 73 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T22:54:37.531306
was generated by: ProEthica Case 73 Extraction

Engineer A Fossil Fuel Retention Legitimate Option Board Report
type: FossilFuelReliabilityRetentionLegitimateOptionPresentationCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Fossil Fuel Reliability Retention Legitimate Option Presentation Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A must possess the capability to present the option of rebuilding or refurbishing the existing fossil-fueled co-generation facility as a legitimate engineering alternative in the board report, including its reliability and cost advantages
casecontext: Engineer A preparing board report on energy system replacement, where the fossil fuel option provides reliability advantages that the solar-without-storage option does not
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.85
demonstratedthrough: Obligation to include the fossil fuel retention/refurbishment option as a legitimate alternative in the board report alongside the solar-without-storage and solar-with-storage options
discoveredincase: 73
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T22:48:49.553722+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 73
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T22:48:49.553722+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: intermediate
sourcetext: The board may choose to rebuild/refurbish the fossil-fueled generator because it provides function and reliability at a lower cost than a solar production system with storage.
textreferences: The board may choose to rebuild/refurbish the fossil-fueled generator because it provides function and reliability at a lower cost than a solar production system with storage.
textreferences: With the current co-generation facility and a like-in-kind replacement, a presumably large electric load served by the utility can either stand alone or be operated to greatly reduce the electric load on a power system that will be stressed during extreme weather events.
wasattributedto: Case 73 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T22:54:37.532690
was generated by: ProEthica Case 73 Extraction

Engineer A Further Study Recommendation Before Solar Deployment BER 16-5 Analogy
type: FurtherStudyRecommendationBeforeUnreliableEnergySystemDeploymentObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A is preparing a board report on the solar-without-storage proposal; BER 16-5 established that engineers with unresolved safety concerns about a system should recommend further study before deployment; the same logic applies to an energy system with unresolved grid reliability risks
compliancestatus: unclear
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.79
discoveredincase: 73
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T22:46:47.115804+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 73
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T22:46:47.115804+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationclass: Further Study Recommendation Before Unreliable Energy System Deployment Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A has an obligation, by analogy to the BER 16-5 autonomous vehicle case, to recommend further study before the solar-without-storage system is deployed if safety concerns about grid reliability and rolling blackout probability remain unresolved, expressing those concerns clearly and unambiguously in the board report.
sourcetext: The conclusions in Case 16-5 suggest the engineer fully and actively participate as a member of the engineering risk management team and express clearly and unambiguously concerns regarding safety of the operating system.
temporalscope: In the board report, prior to board decision on the solar-without-storage proposal
textreferences: BER Case 16-5 is also instructive; it deals with an engineer working on a team developing a driverless/autonomous vehicle operating system.
textreferences: The BER also suggested that, if necessary, the engineer recommend further study before the operating system is utilized.
textreferences: The conclusions in Case 16-5 suggest the engineer fully and actively participate as a member of the engineering risk management team and express clearly and unambiguously concerns regarding safety of the operating system.
wasattributedto: Case 73 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T22:54:37.530989
was generated by: ProEthica Case 73 Extraction

Engineer A Further Study Recommendation Solar Without Storage Deployment
type: FurtherStudyRecommendationBeforeUnreliableEnergySystemDeploymentCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Further Study Recommendation Before Unreliable Energy System Deployment Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A must possess the capability to recommend further study before the solar-without-storage system is deployed, given the unresolved public safety concerns about rolling blackout risk and grid reliability impacts, by analogy to the BER 16-5 autonomous vehicle precedent
casecontext: Engineer A preparing board report on solar-without-storage replacement, where rolling blackout risk and grid reliability concerns remain unresolved
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.83
demonstratedthrough: Obligation to recommend further study in the board report before the solar-without-storage system is deployed, consistent with the BER 16-5 principle that engineers should recommend further study when safety concerns remain unresolved
discoveredincase: 73
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T22:48:49.553722+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 73
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T22:48:49.553722+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: BER Case 16-5 is also instructive; it deals with an engineer working on a team developing a driverless/autonomous vehicle operating system.
textreferences: BER Case 16-5 is also instructive; it deals with an engineer working on a team developing a driverless/autonomous vehicle operating system.
textreferences: Installing a system without storage may result in rolling blackouts and facility interruptions and thus not be a success.
textreferences: The BER also suggested that, if necessary, the engineer recommend further study before the operating system is utilized.
wasattributedto: Case 73 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T22:54:37.532846
was generated by: ProEthica Case 73 Extraction

Engineer A Grid Interconnection Impact Assessment
type: GridInterconnectionImpactAssessmentCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Grid Interconnection Impact Assessment Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A possessed grid interconnection impact assessment capability, demonstrated by recognizing that the transition from co-generation to solar-without-storage would stress the local utility generation mix and increase the likelihood of rolling blackouts.
casecontext: Applied after learning from the local electric utility resource planner that rolling outages were possible during extreme weather events, and connecting this to the organizational energy transition decision
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.91
demonstratedthrough: Recognition that solar-without-storage transition would increase stress on local utility generation mix and elevate rolling blackout probability, following discussion with utility resource planners
discoveredincase: 73
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T23:38:44.605760+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 73
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T23:38:44.605760+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: Engineer A also realizes that a move to solar production without storage may stress the local utility generation mix even more, increasing the likelihood of rolling blackouts.
textreferences: Engineer A also realizes that a move to solar production without storage may stress the local utility generation mix even more, increasing the likelihood of rolling blackouts.
textreferences: When discussing the analysis of the electric load profile with a representative of the local electric utility, Engineer A learns that the utility resource planners reviewed their current generation mix and believe that during extreme weather events, they may be forced to institute rolling outages to keep system generating facilities on-line.
wasattributedto: Case 73 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T23:54:19.980069
was generated by: ProEthica Case 73 Extraction

Engineer A Informed Decision Making Facilitation Solar Board
type: InformedDecision-MakingProcessFacilitationCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Informed Decision-Making Process Facilitation Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A required informed decision-making process facilitation capability to structure the board report in a manner that presents complete comparative information — including both the favorable isolated system analysis and the adverse rolling blackout and grid stress findings — enabling the board to make a genuinely informed decision about the energy system replacement.
casecontext: Required for preparation of the board report to ensure the board has all material information needed to make an informed decision between solar-without-storage and generator rebuild options
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.87
demonstratedthrough: Obligation to present the board with complete comparative analysis of all viable energy options including rolling blackout risks, grid stress implications, and storage limitations
discoveredincase: 73
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T23:38:44.605760+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 73
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T23:38:44.605760+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: Engineer A is preparing a report that will be presented to the board to consider the new solar project.
textreferences: Engineer A also realizes that a move to solar production without storage may stress the local utility generation mix even more, increasing the likelihood of rolling blackouts.
textreferences: Engineer A is preparing a report that will be presented to the board to consider the new solar project.
wasattributedto: Case 73 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T23:54:19.981381
was generated by: ProEthica Case 73 Extraction

Engineer A Informed Decision Making Facilitation Solar Board Report
type: InformedDecision-MakingProcessFacilitationCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Informed Decision-Making Process Facilitation Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A possessed the capability to structure and present the board report in a manner that facilitated a genuinely informed policy and project decision-making process — including presenting complete comparative information about all energy options, identifying non-obvious reliability consequences of the solar without storage option, and ensuring the board had all material information needed to make an informed choice.
casecontext: Engineer A preparing board report on solar energy system replacement for fossil-fueled co-generation facility
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.9
demonstratedthrough: Required to present the board with complete information including rolling blackout risk, reliability limitations of solar without storage, and the option to rebuild/refurbish the fossil-fueled generator — enabling the board to make an informed decision rather than a decision based on incomplete information
discoveredincase: 73
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T23:45:47.534367+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 73
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T23:45:47.534367+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: The ethical objective is an informed policy and project decision-making process.
textreferences: A report that does not contain information about the reliability of the utility source will not help them make an informed decision.
textreferences: The board may choose to rebuild/refurbish the fossil-fueled generator because it provides function and reliability at a lower cost than a solar production system with storage.
textreferences: The ethical objective is an informed policy and project decision-making process.
wasattributedto: Case 73 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T23:54:19.987840
was generated by: ProEthica Case 73 Extraction

Engineer A Informed Energy Policy Decision Process Enablement Board Report
type: InformedEnergyPolicyDecisionProcessEnablementObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A is preparing a report to the organizational board on whether to replace the fossil-fueled co-generation facility with solar-without-storage; the case text explicitly states that 'the ethical objective is an informed policy and project decision-making process'
compliancestatus: unclear
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.87
discoveredincase: 73
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T22:46:47.115804+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 73
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T22:46:47.115804+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationclass: Informed Energy Policy Decision Process Enablement Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A has an obligation to structure the board report so that the organizational board's decision-making process is genuinely informed — presenting all material technical findings including energy equivalence, cost, reliability differential, grid stress, rolling blackout risk, vulnerable population impact, and all viable alternatives — so that the board can make a policy and capital investment decision based on complete and accurate information, recognizing that the ethical objective is an informed policy and project decision-making process.
sourcetext: The ethical objective is an informed policy and project decision-making process.
temporalscope: In the preparation and submission of the board report, prior to board decision
textreferences: As a registered professional, Engineer A is obliged to include relevant and pertinent information in a report to the board. A report that does not contain information about the reliability of the utility source will not help them make an informed decision.
textreferences: At first glance, this finding in conjunction with the earlier conclusion that system reliability data be included in the report to board may seem to satisfy Engineer A's obligations.
textreferences: The ethical objective is an informed policy and project decision-making process.
wasattributedto: Case 73 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T22:54:37.531147
was generated by: ProEthica Case 73 Extraction

Engineer A Informed Energy Policy Decision Process Facilitation Board Report
type: InformedDecision-MakingProcessFacilitationCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Informed Decision-Making Process Facilitation Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A must structure the board report to facilitate a genuinely informed policy and project decision-making process, presenting complete comparative information about all alternatives including their reliability implications
casecontext: Engineer A preparing board report on energy system replacement decision involving solar-without-storage, solar-with-storage, and fossil fuel retention options
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.93
demonstratedthrough: Obligation to structure the board report so that the organizational board's decision-making process is genuinely informed — presenting all material technical findings, alternatives, and tradeoffs
discoveredincase: 73
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T22:48:49.553722+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 73
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T22:48:49.553722+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: The ethical objective is an informed policy and project decision-making process.
textreferences: A report that does not contain information about the reliability of the utility source will not help them make an informed decision.
textreferences: Engineer A has an obligation to present this information in a report to the board.
textreferences: The ethical objective is an informed policy and project decision-making process.
wasattributedto: Case 73 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T22:54:37.534011
was generated by: ProEthica Case 73 Extraction

Engineer A Informed Policy Decision Facilitation Solar Board Report
type: CompleteDesignAlternativePresentationConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A is preparing a board report that must facilitate an informed policy decision between competing energy system options with different reliability, cost, and public safety profiles
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.87
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Complete Design Alternative Presentation Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A is constrained from submitting a board report that, while technically accurate in individual findings, fails to provide the board with the complete information necessary to make an informed policy choice between the solar-without-storage option and the fossil-fueled generator rebuild option — including all material reliability, cost, public safety, and systemic externality findings.
discoveredincase: 73
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T23:45:36.327958+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 73
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T23:45:36.327958+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics objectivity and completeness provisions; case discussion on informed policy decision-making
sourcetext: The ethical objective is an informed policy and project decision-making process.
temporalscope: During preparation and submission of the board report on the solar energy system replacement proposal
textreferences: A report that does not contain information about the reliability of the utility source will not help them make an informed decision.
textreferences: As a registered professional, Engineer A is obliged to include relevant and pertinent information in a report to the board.
textreferences: The ethical objective is an informed policy and project decision-making process.
wasattributedto: Case 73 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T23:54:19.987235
was generated by: ProEthica Case 73 Extraction

Engineer A Infrastructure Lifecycle Risk Communication Energy
type: InfrastructureLifecycleRiskCommunicationCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Infrastructure Lifecycle Risk Communication Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A required infrastructure lifecycle risk communication capability to clearly communicate to the board the long-term lifecycle risks of the solar-without-storage option — including grid dependency risks, rolling blackout vulnerability, and the absence of dispatchable backup generation — compared to the generator rebuild option.
casecontext: Applied when preparing the comparative analysis section of the board report addressing long-term energy reliability and lifecycle risk tradeoffs
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.83
demonstratedthrough: Obligation to present the board with complete lifecycle risk information about both the solar-without-storage option and the generator rebuild option, enabling informed long-term decision-making
discoveredincase: 73
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T23:38:44.605760+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 73
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T23:38:44.605760+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: The generator is approaching the end of its useful life and will require a substantial investment to remain operational.
textreferences: Engineer A also realizes that a move to solar production without storage may stress the local utility generation mix even more, increasing the likelihood of rolling blackouts.
textreferences: The generator is approaching the end of its useful life and will require a substantial investment to remain operational.
wasattributedto: Case 73 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T23:54:19.981971
was generated by: ProEthica Case 73 Extraction

Engineer A Isolated Project Viability Masking Systemic Risk — Solar Without Storage
type: IsolatedProjectViabilityMaskingSystemicRiskState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From completion of the in-isolation equivalence analysis through submission of the complete board report
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: Local utility grid users
affectedparties: The organization's board
affectedparties: Third parties dependent on grid reliability
concept category: State
confidence: 0.93
discoveredincase: 73
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T23:33:22.110152+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 73
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T23:33:22.110152+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: Note that 'equivalent' as used to this point in the discussion has not addressed reliability.
stateclass: Isolated Project Viability Masking Systemic Risk State
subject: Engineer A's finding that the solar-without-storage system is viable in isolation but degrades broader grid reliability
terminatedby: Engineer A's inclusion of reliability and third-party grid impact data in the board report
textreferences: A report that does not contain information about the reliability of the utility source will not help them make an informed decision.
textreferences: Further, a system without energy storage decreases the reliability of the entire local electric power system.
textreferences: Note that 'equivalent' as used to this point in the discussion has not addressed reliability.
textreferences: The proposed solar generation system without storage may produce the same energy that the existing fossil-fueled generator does, but it will not be as reliable.
triggeringevent: Engineer A's determination that the solar system produces equivalent energy at similar cost — a finding that is accurate but incomplete because it omits reliability and grid-stress dimensions
urgencylevel: high
wasattributedto: Case 73 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T23:54:19.973533
was generated by: ProEthica Case 73 Extraction

Engineer A Long-Term Public Welfare Non-Subordination Energy Advisory
type: Long-TermPublicWelfareNon-SubordinationtoShort-TermSustainabilityGainCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Long-Term Public Welfare Non-Subordination to Short-Term Sustainability Gain Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A must possess the capability to recognize that the short-term sustainability gain of carbon footprint reduction through solar adoption cannot justify subordinating the long-term public welfare costs of reduced grid reliability and increased rolling blackout probability
casecontext: Engineer A preparing board report on solar-without-storage replacement for fossil-fueled co-generation facility, facing stakeholder pressure for carbon footprint reduction
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.82
demonstratedthrough: Obligation to ensure the board report does not present carbon footprint reduction as sufficient justification for accepting long-term grid reliability degradation and associated public safety risks
discoveredincase: 73
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T22:48:49.553722+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 73
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T22:48:49.553722+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: long-term public welfare (a valid building code enforcement process) cannot be undermined for short-term gain
textreferences: Some may argue that continuing to operate a fossil-fueled generator is inconsistent with public health, safety, and welfare, while others will point to the increased reliability of the fossil-fueled generator as a demonstration of greater concern for public welfare.
textreferences: long-term public welfare (a valid building code enforcement process) cannot be undermined for short-term gain
wasattributedto: Case 73 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T22:54:37.532365
was generated by: ProEthica Case 73 Extraction

Engineer A Long-Term Public Welfare Non-Subordination to Short-Term Sustainability Gain Board Report
type: Long-TermPublicWelfareNon-SubordinationtoShort-TermSustainabilityGainObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Carbon footprint reduction stakeholders advocate for the solar-without-storage option; Engineer A must resist framing the report in a way that prioritizes sustainability metrics over grid reliability and public welfare; BER 98-5 establishes that engineers must hold public health and safety paramount and cannot trade long-term welfare for short-term gains
compliancestatus: unclear
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.8
discoveredincase: 73
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T22:46:47.115804+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 73
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T22:46:47.115804+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationclass: Long-Term Public Welfare Non-Subordination to Short-Term Sustainability Gain Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A has an obligation to ensure that the board report does not subordinate long-term public welfare considerations — sustained grid reliability and protection of vulnerable populations from rolling blackouts — to short-term sustainability gains such as carbon footprint reduction, recognizing by analogy to BER 98-5 that long-term public welfare cannot be undermined for short-term gain, even when that gain is environmentally laudable.
sourcetext: The BER affirmed that engineers 'must hold the public health and safety paramount.' Engineer Adam 'had a responsibility to insist, however strongly and vociferously, that public officials and decision-makers take steps and corrective steps if necessary to see that this obligation is fulfilled.'
temporalscope: Throughout the preparation and submission of the board report
textreferences: If the solar production without storage option moves forward, the organization will increase its green footprint and will support a laudable goal of increasing environmentally friendly energy production. But this option may also increase the likelihood of future rolling blackouts.
textreferences: The BER affirmed that engineers 'must hold the public health and safety paramount.' Engineer Adam 'had a responsibility to insist, however strongly and vociferously, that public officials and decision-makers take steps and corrective steps if necessary to see that this obligation is fulfilled.'
textreferences: The BER further noted 'righting a wrong with another wrong' does grave damage to the public health and safety, and that long-term public welfare (a valid building code enforcement process) cannot be undermined for short-term gain.
wasattributedto: Case 73 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T22:54:37.531476
was generated by: ProEthica Case 73 Extraction

Engineer A Objective Complete Reporting Board Solar Project
type: ObjectiveandCompleteReportingObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A is preparing a report to the organizational board on the solar energy system replacement proposal, in a context where carbon footprint reduction stakeholders favor the solar option and may create implicit pressure to present the proposal favorably.
compliancestatus: unclear
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.91
discoveredincase: 73
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T23:43:26.005222+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 73
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T23:43:26.005222+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationclass: Objective and Complete Reporting Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A was obligated to be objective and truthful in the board report on the solar energy system replacement proposal, including all relevant and pertinent information — including the rolling blackout risk, the reliability differential between the solar without storage and fossil-fueled co-generation options, and the grid-level systemic impacts — so that the board's decision is based on complete and accurate engineering information.
sourcetext: As a registered professional, Engineer A is obliged to include relevant and pertinent information in a report to the board.
temporalscope: At the time of preparing and delivering the board report on the energy system replacement proposal
textreferences: A report that does not contain information about the reliability of the utility source will not help them make an informed decision.
textreferences: As a registered professional, Engineer A is obliged to include relevant and pertinent information in a report to the board.
textreferences: The ethical objective is an informed policy and project decision-making process.
wasattributedto: Case 73 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T23:54:19.985375
was generated by: ProEthica Case 73 Extraction

Engineer A Objective Complete Reporting Solar Board Report
type: ObjectiveAdvisoryReportIntegrityCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Objective Advisory Report Integrity Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A possessed the capability to maintain the integrity and objectivity of the board report by including all relevant and pertinent information — including rolling blackout risk, reliability limitations, and systemic grid impacts — rather than presenting only the favorable aspects of the solar without storage option, ensuring the report served as independent professional advice rather than advocacy for a preferred outcome.
casecontext: Engineer A preparing board report on solar energy system replacement under implicit stakeholder pressure to present solar option favorably
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.88
demonstratedthrough: Required to prepare an objective and complete board report that included all relevant and pertinent information including system reliability data, rolling blackout risk, and the option to rebuild/refurbish the fossil-fueled generator — not limited to information favorable to the solar option
discoveredincase: 73
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T23:45:47.534367+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 73
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T23:45:47.534367+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: As a registered professional, Engineer A is obliged to include relevant and pertinent information in a report to the board.
textreferences: A report that does not contain information about the reliability of the utility source will not help them make an informed decision.
textreferences: As a registered professional, Engineer A is obliged to include relevant and pertinent information in a report to the board.
textreferences: Therefore, Engineer A has an obligation to present this information in a report to the board.
wasattributedto: Case 73 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T23:54:19.988914
was generated by: ProEthica Case 73 Extraction

Engineer A Post-Board-Override Energy Grid Safety Regulatory Escalation
type: Post-Board-OverrideEnergyGridSafetyRegulatoryEscalationCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Post-Board-Override Energy Grid Safety Regulatory Escalation Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A must possess the capability to assess whether, if the organizational board proceeds with the solar-without-storage replacement despite formal communication of rolling blackout and grid reliability concerns, the gravity of the public safety risk requires escalation to a state regulatory agency, by analogy to BER 20-4
casecontext: Engineer A facing potential board override of recommendations regarding solar-without-storage energy system replacement and associated grid reliability risks
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.84
demonstratedthrough: Obligation to formally report grid reliability and public safety concerns to appropriate regulatory authorities if the board overrides Engineer A's recommendations, consistent with BER 20-4 precedent
discoveredincase: 73
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T22:48:49.553722+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 73
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T22:48:49.553722+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: The BER also found that given the gravity of the potential danger to public health and safety, the engineers have an obligation to formally report their concerns to the state regulatory agency.
textreferences: Recent BER Case 20-4 addressed a public board (a municipal water commission) choosing to change the source of their potable water system to reduce public expenditures despite the recommendations of two engineers that further study was needed to ensure public safety.
textreferences: The BER also found that given the gravity of the potential danger to public health and safety, the engineers have an obligation to formally report their concerns to the state regulatory agency.
wasattributedto: Case 73 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T22:54:37.533198
was generated by: ProEthica Case 73 Extraction

Engineer A Post-Board-Override Energy Grid Safety Regulatory Escalation BER 20-4 Analogy
type: Post-Board-OverrideEnergyGridSafetyRegulatoryEscalationObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A has evaluated the solar-without-storage proposal and identified that it will decrease grid reliability and increase rolling blackout probability; the BER 20-4 analogy establishes that when a board overrides safety recommendations, the engineer must escalate to state regulatory authorities
compliancestatus: unclear
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.8
discoveredincase: 73
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T22:46:47.115804+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 73
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T22:46:47.115804+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationclass: Post-Board-Override Energy Grid Safety Regulatory Escalation Obligation
obligationstatement: If the organizational board proceeds with the solar-without-storage replacement despite Engineer A's formal communication of rolling blackout and grid reliability risks, Engineer A has an obligation — by analogy to the BER 20-4 water commission case — to formally report those grid safety concerns to the applicable state regulatory agency, given the gravity of the potential danger to public health and safety.
sourcetext: The BER found that the engineers have an obligation to formally communicate their concerns to the water commission. The BER also found that given the gravity of the potential danger to public health and safety, the engineers have an obligation to formally report their concerns to the state regulatory agency.
temporalscope: Upon organizational board decision to proceed with solar-without-storage despite engineer's documented safety concerns
textreferences: Recent BER Case 20-4 addressed a public board (a municipal water commission) choosing to change the source of their potable water system to reduce public expenditures despite the recommendations of two engineers that further study was needed to ensure public safety.
textreferences: The BER found that the engineers have an obligation to formally communicate their concerns to the water commission. The BER also found that given the gravity of the potential danger to public health and safety, the engineers have an obligation to formally report their concerns to the state regulatory agency.
wasattributedto: Case 73 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T22:54:37.530826
was generated by: ProEthica Case 73 Extraction

Engineer A Precedent Based Ethical Reasoning BER Cases Energy Advisory
type: Precedent-BasedEthicalReasoningCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Precedent-Based Ethical Reasoning Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A possessed the capability to identify, retrieve, and apply relevant BER case precedents — specifically BER Cases 98-5, 20-4, and 16-5 — to analyze the professional ethics obligations arising from the competing public goods conflict in the solar energy advisory context, drawing analogical reasoning from established Board decisions to correctly calibrate disclosure, escalation, and faithful agent obligations.
casecontext: Engineer A applying BER precedent to navigate competing public goods conflict in energy advisory report preparation
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.88
demonstratedthrough: Required to draw on BER Cases 98-5 (Faustian bargain/competing public goods), 20-4 (post-override regulatory escalation), and 16-5 (risk management team participation) to identify and fulfill professional obligations in the solar energy advisory context
discoveredincase: 73
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T23:45:47.534367+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 73
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T23:45:47.534367+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: What guidance can Engineer A rely upon to address a potential conflict between competing public goods?
textreferences: BER Case 16-5 is also instructive...
textreferences: BER Case 98-5 describes how Engineer Adam serves as director of a building department...
textreferences: Recent BER Case 20-4 addressed a public board...
textreferences: What guidance can Engineer A rely upon to address a potential conflict between competing public goods?
wasattributedto: Case 73 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T23:54:19.989364
was generated by: ProEthica Case 73 Extraction

Engineer A Public Safety Escalation Rolling Blackout
type: PublicSafetyEscalationCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Public Safety Escalation Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A required public safety escalation capability to evaluate whether the rolling blackout risk — which affects not only the organization but the broader public served by the utility grid — rises to the level requiring escalation beyond the board report to regulatory authorities or public bodies.
casecontext: Applied when assessing whether the rolling blackout risk identified by utility resource planners requires escalation beyond the organizational board report to external regulatory or public authorities
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.85
demonstratedthrough: Recognition that rolling blackout risks affect the broader public served by the utility grid, potentially triggering public welfare escalation obligations beyond the organizational advisory role
discoveredincase: 73
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T23:38:44.605760+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 73
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T23:38:44.605760+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: Engineer A also realizes that a move to solar production without storage may stress the local utility generation mix even more, increasing the likelihood of rolling blackouts.
textreferences: Engineer A also realizes that a move to solar production without storage may stress the local utility generation mix even more, increasing the likelihood of rolling blackouts.
textreferences: Engineer A learns that the utility resource planners reviewed their current generation mix and believe that during extreme weather events, they may be forced to institute rolling outages to keep system generating facilities on-line.
wasattributedto: Case 73 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T23:54:19.981519
was generated by: ProEthica Case 73 Extraction

Engineer A Public Safety Escalation Rolling Blackout Public Impact
type: PublicSafetyEscalationCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Public Safety Escalation Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A possessed the capability to evaluate whether the rolling blackout risk — which affects not only the organization but the broader public served by the utility grid — exceeds the threshold requiring escalation beyond the board report to regulatory authorities or public bodies, consistent with the principle that public health and safety obligations may require action beyond the client relationship.
casecontext: Engineer A evaluating whether rolling blackout risk from solar without storage transition requires escalation beyond the organizational board report
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.86
demonstratedthrough: Required to assess whether the systemic grid reliability risk and rolling blackout probability triggered escalation obligations beyond the board report, drawing on BER Cases 98-5 and 20-4 as precedent for when public safety concerns require action beyond the immediate client relationship
discoveredincase: 73
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T23:45:47.534367+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 73
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T23:45:47.534367+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: But this option may also increase the likelihood of future rolling blackouts.
textreferences: But this option may also increase the likelihood of future rolling blackouts.
textreferences: It is not difficult to imagine, for example, the stress placed upon elderly or confined individuals as well as those with medical conditions if they are left without a comfortable environment during an extreme weather event.
wasattributedto: Case 73 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T23:54:19.988771
was generated by: ProEthica Case 73 Extraction

Engineer A Public Welfare Paramountcy Recognition Energy Advisory
type: PublicWelfareParamountcyRecognitionCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Public Welfare Paramountcy Recognition Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A must recognize that public health, safety, and welfare — including protection of vulnerable populations from rolling blackouts — must be held paramount over client preferences and sustainability advocacy pressure
casecontext: Engineer A preparing board report where public safety (grid reliability, vulnerable populations) may conflict with organizational preferences (carbon footprint reduction)
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.91
demonstratedthrough: Obligation to hold public health and safety paramount in the board report, consistent with the BER 98-5 affirmation that engineers must hold public health and safety paramount
discoveredincase: 73
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T22:48:49.553722+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 73
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T22:48:49.553722+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: the BER affirmed that engineers 'must hold the public health and safety paramount.'
textreferences: It is not difficult to imagine, for example, the stress placed upon elderly or confined individuals as well as those with medical conditions if they are left without a comfortable environment during an extreme weather event
textreferences: the BER affirmed that engineers 'must hold the public health and safety paramount.'
wasattributedto: Case 73 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T22:54:37.534168
was generated by: ProEthica Case 73 Extraction

Engineer A Reliability Equivalence Qualification
type: ReliabilityEquivalenceQualificationinEnergyAdvisoryCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Reliability Equivalence Qualification in Energy Advisory Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A possesses advanced reasoning capability to recognize that the finding of energy quantity equivalence under normal conditions does not imply reliability equivalence, and to qualify this finding explicitly in the board report.
casecontext: Applied when Engineer A must qualify the equivalency finding in the board report to prevent misleading the board into treating quantity equivalence as reliability equivalence.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.97
demonstratedthrough: Recognizing that the finding that solar panels can supply 'equivalent' energy under normal conditions must be qualified to clarify that this equivalence does not hold during extreme weather or nighttime conditions, and that the solar system is not reliability-equivalent to the dispatchable co-generation facility.
discoveredincase: 73
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T22:41:34.941854+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 73
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T22:41:34.941854+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: Engineer A is satisfied that under normal conditions, the system of solar panels can supply electric energy equivalent to that provided by the existing generator.
textreferences: Capital constraints prevent the organization from installing a system of batteries to store energy for use at night or in bad weather.
textreferences: Engineer A is satisfied that under normal conditions, the system of solar panels can supply electric energy equivalent to that provided by the existing generator.
wasattributedto: Case 73 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T22:54:37.527067
was generated by: ProEthica Case 73 Extraction

Engineer A Reliability Equivalence Qualification Solar Without Storage Board Report
type: ReliabilityEquivalenceQualificationObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A's analysis found that the solar without storage system produces equivalent energy at similar cost, but this equivalence finding does not address reliability — a material distinction that must be explicitly drawn in the board report.
compliancestatus: unclear
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.89
discoveredincase: 73
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T23:43:26.005222+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 73
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T23:43:26.005222+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationclass: Reliability Equivalence Qualification Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A was obligated to explicitly qualify the finding that the solar without storage system produces equivalent energy at similar cost by clarifying that 'equivalent' energy production does not mean equivalent reliability, and to affirmatively disclose that the proposed system is less reliable than the existing fossil-fueled co-generation facility in ways that affect both the organization's operations and the broader electric grid.
sourcetext: Note that 'equivalent' as used to this point in the discussion has not addressed reliability.
temporalscope: At the time of preparing and delivering the board report on the energy system replacement proposal
textreferences: Further, a system without energy storage decreases the reliability of the entire local electric power system.
textreferences: Given the facts presented in this case, the solar generation system without storage will provide energy generation equivalent to the existing fossil-fueled generator at a similar cost; the system also reduces the organization's carbon footprint.
textreferences: Note that 'equivalent' as used to this point in the discussion has not addressed reliability.
textreferences: The proposed solar generation system without storage may produce the same energy that the existing fossil-fueled generator does, but it will not be as reliable.
wasattributedto: Case 73 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T23:54:19.984605
was generated by: ProEthica Case 73 Extraction

Engineer A Selective Information Omission Recognition Solar Report
type: SelectiveInformationOmissionRecognitionCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Selective Information Omission Recognition Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A required selective information omission recognition capability to identify that omitting the rolling blackout risk and systemic grid stress implications from the board report — while presenting only the favorable isolated system viability findings — would constitute a material omission violating professional obligations of objective and truthful reporting.
casecontext: Applied when preparing the board report and recognizing the tension between the favorable isolated system analysis and the adverse systemic grid reliability findings
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.88
demonstratedthrough: Recognition that presenting only the isolated viability of the solar project without disclosing rolling blackout risks and grid stress implications would create a misleading and incomplete picture for the board
discoveredincase: 73
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T23:38:44.605760+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 73
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T23:38:44.605760+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: Engineer A is convinced that the solar project, when considered in isolation, is viable and will satisfy those stakeholders interested in reducing the organization's carbon footprint.
textreferences: Engineer A also realizes that a move to solar production without storage may stress the local utility generation mix even more, increasing the likelihood of rolling blackouts.
textreferences: Engineer A is convinced that the solar project, when considered in isolation, is viable and will satisfy those stakeholders interested in reducing the organization's carbon footprint.
wasattributedto: Case 73 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T23:54:19.981241
was generated by: ProEthica Case 73 Extraction

Engineer A Solar Without Storage Risk Assessment
type: SolarGenerationWithoutStorageRiskAssessmentCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Solar Generation Without Storage Risk Assessment Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A possessed solar generation without storage risk assessment capability, demonstrated by identifying that capital constraints preventing battery storage installation created material operational risks — including nighttime and adverse weather energy supply gaps — that must be disclosed in the board report.
casecontext: Applied during evaluation of the solar panel replacement proposal when capital constraints precluded battery storage installation
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.88
demonstratedthrough: Identification that the absence of battery storage creates energy supply gaps during nighttime and adverse weather, and that this limitation is material to the board's decision
discoveredincase: 73
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T23:38:44.605760+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 73
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T23:38:44.605760+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: Capital constraints prevent the organization from installing a system of batteries to store energy for use at night or in bad weather, but the cost of installing the solar panels is essentially the same as the cost to rebuild the generator.
textreferences: Capital constraints prevent the organization from installing a system of batteries to store energy for use at night or in bad weather, but the cost of installing the solar panels is essentially the same as the cost to rebuild the generator.
wasattributedto: Case 73 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T23:54:19.980200
was generated by: ProEthica Case 73 Extraction

Engineer A Stakeholder-Driven Technology Transition Pressure — Solar Without Storage
type: Stakeholder-DrivenTechnologyTransitionPressureState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From organizational decision to explore solar replacement through board's final decision
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: Local grid users
affectedparties: The organization
affectedparties: The organization's board
concept category: State
confidence: 0.91
discoveredincase: 73
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T23:33:22.110152+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 73
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T23:33:22.110152+00:00
importance: medium
sourcetext: the organization will increase its green footprint and will support a laudable goal of increasing environmentally friendly energy production
stateclass: Stakeholder-Driven Technology Transition Pressure State
subject: Organizational stakeholder pressure on Engineer A to recommend transition from fossil-fueled generator to solar production without storage
terminatedby: Board's informed decision incorporating full technical tradeoff analysis
textreferences: An ethical corollary to the organization's decision to replace an on-demand, fossil-fueled generator with solar production without storage is worthy of discussion.
textreferences: the organization will increase its green footprint and will support a laudable goal of increasing environmentally friendly energy production
triggeringevent: Organization's sustainability goals and desire to reduce carbon footprint driving preference for solar-without-storage option despite reliability tradeoffs
urgencylevel: medium
wasattributedto: Case 73 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T23:54:19.974636
was generated by: ProEthica Case 73 Extraction

Engineer A Stakeholder Pressure Resistance Carbon Footprint
type: ProfessionalJudgmentIndependenceUnderClientPressureCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Professional Judgment Independence Under Client Pressure Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A required professional judgment independence capability to resist implicit pressure from carbon footprint reduction stakeholders to present the solar project as unambiguously favorable, and to maintain complete and objective reporting of identified risks including rolling blackout probability.
casecontext: Applied when preparing the board report in the context of stakeholder advocacy for the solar project as a carbon footprint reduction measure
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.85
demonstratedthrough: Recognition that stakeholder interest in carbon footprint reduction creates pressure to omit adverse findings, and obligation to resist that pressure in preparing the board report
discoveredincase: 73
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T23:38:44.605760+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 73
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T23:38:44.605760+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: Recently, stakeholders have expressed interest in reducing the organization's carbon footprint, and these stakeholders suggest that the facility eliminate the generator and replace it with solar panels.
textreferences: Engineer A is convinced that the solar project, when considered in isolation, is viable and will satisfy those stakeholders interested in reducing the organization's carbon footprint.
textreferences: Recently, stakeholders have expressed interest in reducing the organization's carbon footprint, and these stakeholders suggest that the facility eliminate the generator and replace it with solar panels.
wasattributedto: Case 73 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T23:54:19.980949
was generated by: ProEthica Case 73 Extraction

Engineer A Stakeholder Pressure Resistance Carbon Footprint Advocates Solar Report
type: IntentionalInformationDisregardProhibitionObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Organizational stakeholders have expressed interest in reducing the carbon footprint by replacing the fossil-fueled co-generation facility with solar panels, creating implicit pressure on Engineer A to present the solar option favorably. Engineer A must resist this pressure and present a complete and objective technical assessment.
compliancestatus: unclear
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.87
discoveredincase: 73
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T23:43:26.005222+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 73
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T23:43:26.005222+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationclass: Intentional Information Disregard Prohibition Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A was obligated to resist implicit pressure from carbon footprint reduction stakeholders to present the solar without storage option as unambiguously viable, and to refrain from selectively omitting or downplaying the rolling blackout risk and reliability differential in the board report in deference to stakeholder preferences.
sourcetext: If the solar production without storage option moves forward, the organization will increase its green footprint and will support a laudable goal of increasing environmentally friendly energy production.
temporalscope: Throughout the preparation and delivery of the board report on the energy system replacement proposal
textreferences: But this option may also increase the likelihood of future rolling blackouts.
textreferences: If the solar production without storage option moves forward, the organization will increase its green footprint and will support a laudable goal of increasing environmentally friendly energy production.
textreferences: The ethical objective is an informed policy and project decision-making process.
wasattributedto: Case 73 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T23:54:19.985521
was generated by: ProEthica Case 73 Extraction

Engineer A Systemic Grid Externality Disclosure Rolling Blackout Solar Transition
type: SystemicExternalityDisclosureConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A has identified through utility resource planner communication that the solar-without-storage transition will increase grid stress and rolling blackout likelihood; the board report currently presents only isolated project viability
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.92
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Systemic Externality Disclosure Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A is constrained from submitting a board report that presents only the isolated viability of the solar-without-storage system without disclosing the systemic externality that eliminating on-site generation will increase demand stress on the local utility grid and may increase the likelihood of rolling blackouts affecting third-party utility customers, including vulnerable populations such as elderly and medically dependent individuals.
discoveredincase: 73
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T23:45:36.327958+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 73
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T23:45:36.327958+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics objectivity and completeness provisions; Systemic Externality Disclosure Constraint (prior section extraction)
sourcetext: With the current co-generation facility and a like-in-kind replacement, a presumably large electric load served by the utility can either stand alone or be operated to greatly reduce the electric load on a power system that will be stressed during extreme weather events.
temporalscope: During preparation and submission of the board report on the solar energy system replacement proposal
textreferences: If the solar production without storage option moves forward, the organization will increase its green footprint and will support a laudable goal of increasing environmentally friendly energy production. But this option may also increase the likelihood of future rolling blackouts.
textreferences: It is not difficult to imagine, for example, the stress placed upon elderly or confined individuals as well as those with medical conditions if they are left without a comfortable environment during an extreme weather event
textreferences: With the current co-generation facility and a like-in-kind replacement, a presumably large electric load served by the utility can either stand alone or be operated to greatly reduce the electric load on a power system that will be stressed during extreme weather events.
wasattributedto: Case 73 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T23:54:19.986303
was generated by: ProEthica Case 73 Extraction

Engineer A Third-Party Grid Stress Risk — Solar Without Storage Rolling Blackout Risk
type: Third-PartyGridStressRiskState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From Engineer A's technical analysis through board decision on the energy system
affectedparties: Elderly individuals
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: General public in service territory
affectedparties: Local utility grid users
affectedparties: Medically vulnerable individuals
affectedparties: The organization
concept category: State
confidence: 0.95
discoveredincase: 73
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T23:33:22.110152+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 73
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T23:33:22.110152+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: this option may also increase the likelihood of future rolling blackouts
stateclass: Third-Party Grid Stress Risk State
subject: Engineer A's knowledge that the solar-without-storage option will increase demand stress on the local utility grid
terminatedby: Board decision incorporating full reliability and grid-impact information, or adoption of storage solution that mitigates grid stress
textreferences: It is not difficult to imagine the stress placed upon elderly or confined individuals as well as those with medical conditions if they are left without a comfortable environment during an extreme weather event such as California and Texas recently experienced - and which led to rolling blackouts.
textreferences: a system without energy storage decreases the reliability of the entire local electric power system
textreferences: this option may also increase the likelihood of future rolling blackouts
triggeringevent: Technical finding that eliminating on-site dispatchable generation in favor of intermittent solar without storage increases grid stress during extreme weather events
urgencylevel: high
wasattributedto: Case 73 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T23:54:19.973727
was generated by: ProEthica Case 73 Extraction

Engineer A Vulnerable Population Energy Reliability Impact Solar Report
type: VulnerablePopulationEnergyReliabilityImpactAssessmentCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Vulnerable Population Energy Reliability Impact Assessment Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A possessed the capability to identify and disclose in the board report the foreseeable impact of increased rolling blackout probability on vulnerable populations — including elderly, confined, and medically dependent individuals — who would be placed under severe stress during extreme weather events if energy reliability is reduced by the solar without storage transition.
casecontext: Engineer A preparing board report on solar energy system replacement, assessing public welfare implications of reduced grid reliability
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.85
demonstratedthrough: Required to incorporate into the board report the specific human welfare consequences of rolling blackouts for vulnerable populations, drawing on recent California and Texas extreme weather events as illustrative precedents
discoveredincase: 73
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T23:45:47.534367+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 73
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T23:45:47.534367+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: It is not difficult to imagine, for example, the stress placed upon elderly or confined individuals as well as those with medical conditions if they are left without a comfortable environment during an extreme weather event such as California and Texas recently experienced - and which led to rolling blackouts.
textreferences: It is not difficult to imagine, for example, the stress placed upon elderly or confined individuals as well as those with medical conditions if they are left without a comfortable environment during an extreme weather event such as California and Texas recently experienced - and which led to rolling blackouts.
wasattributedto: Case 73 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T23:54:19.987518
was generated by: ProEthica Case 73 Extraction

Engineer A Vulnerable Population Grid Reliability Impact Assessment
type: VulnerablePopulationEnergyReliabilityImpactAssessmentCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Vulnerable Population Energy Reliability Impact Assessment Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A possesses advanced awareness capability to identify and communicate the foreseeable impacts of increased rolling blackout probability on vulnerable populations who depend on stable energy supply for health and safety.
casecontext: Required for fulfillment of the Vulnerable Population Grid Reliability Impact Disclosure Obligation in the board advisory report.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.95
demonstratedthrough: Obligation to disclose in the board report the foreseeable impact of increased rolling blackout probability on vulnerable populations such as elderly, confined, or medically dependent individuals.
discoveredincase: 73
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T22:41:34.941854+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 73
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T22:41:34.941854+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: Engineer A also realizes that a move to solar production without storage may stress the local utility generation mix even more, increasing the likelihood of rolling blackouts.
textreferences: Engineer A also realizes that a move to solar production without storage may stress the local utility generation mix even more, increasing the likelihood of rolling blackouts.
wasattributedto: Case 73 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T22:54:37.526914
was generated by: ProEthica Case 73 Extraction

Engineer A Vulnerable Population Grid Reliability Impact Disclosure Rolling Blackout
type: VulnerablePopulationGridReliabilityImpactDisclosureObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A is evaluating the solar without storage option, which utility resource planners have indicated may increase the likelihood of rolling blackouts during extreme weather events similar to those recently experienced in California and Texas.
compliancestatus: unclear
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.88
discoveredincase: 73
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T23:43:26.005222+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 73
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T23:43:26.005222+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationclass: Vulnerable Population Grid Reliability Impact Disclosure Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A was obligated to explicitly identify and disclose in the board report the foreseeable impact of increased rolling blackout probability on vulnerable populations — including elderly individuals, confined individuals, and those with medical conditions — who depend on continuous electric supply for health and safety during extreme weather events.
sourcetext: It is not difficult to imagine, for example, the stress placed upon elderly or confined individuals as well as those with medical conditions if they are left without a comfortable environment during an extreme weather event such as California and Texas recently experienced - and which led to rolling blackouts.
temporalscope: At the time of preparing and delivering the board report on the energy system replacement proposal
textreferences: But this option may also increase the likelihood of future rolling blackouts.
textreferences: It is not difficult to imagine, for example, the stress placed upon elderly or confined individuals as well as those with medical conditions if they are left without a comfortable environment during an extreme weather event such as California and Texas recently experienced - and which led to rolling blackouts.
wasattributedto: Case 73 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T23:54:19.984457
was generated by: ProEthica Case 73 Extraction

Engineer Adam Building Inspection Program PE
type: BuildingInspectionProgramPEUnderPoliticalPressure
type: NamedIndividual
attributes: {'license': 'Professional Engineer', 'position': 'Director of city building department', 'obligation_context': 'Must refuse politically-motivated compromise of code enforcement standards even when offered resource relief'}
caseinvolvement: Serves as director of a city building department facing inadequate inspection staffing due to budget cutbacks, required to sign off on all final inspection reports, meets with city council chairman to address concerns, and faces a politically-motivated Faustian bargain to concur with grandfathering buildings under older less-rigorous code requirements in exchange for authorization to hire additional code officials.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.95
discoveredincase: 73
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T23:33:20.103706+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 73
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T23:33:20.103706+00:00
importance: high
relationships: {'type': 'meets_with', 'target': 'City Council Chairman Political Authority'}
relationships: {'type': 'supervises', 'target': 'Building Code Officials'}
rolecategory: public_responsibility
roleclass: Building Inspection Program PE Under Political Pressure
sourcetext: BER Case 98-5 describes how Engineer Adam serves as director of a building department in a major city.
textreferences: BER Case 98-5 describes how Engineer Adam serves as director of a building department in a major city.
textreferences: Engineer Adam is required to sign off on all final inspection reports.
textreferences: Engineer Adam meets with the chairman of the local city council to discuss his concerns.
textreferences: the BER affirmed that engineers 'must hold the public health and safety paramount.'
wasattributedto: Case 73 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T23:54:19.972394
was generated by: ProEthica Case 73 Extraction

Engineer Adam Competing Duties — Inspection Thoroughness vs. City Cost Pressure
type: CompetingDutiesState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From implementation of the 60-inspection-per-day requirement through resolution of the staffing deficit
affectedparties: Building occupants
affectedparties: Building owners
affectedparties: City code officials
affectedparties: Engineer Adam
affectedparties: General public
concept category: State
confidence: 0.88
discoveredincase: 73
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T23:33:22.110152+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 73
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T23:33:22.110152+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: The code officials are caught between the responsibility to be thorough in their inspections and the city's desire to hold down costs and generate revenue from inspection fees.
stateclass: Competing Duties State
subject: Engineer Adam's staff being caught between thorough inspection obligations and city cost-containment directives requiring 60 inspections per day
terminatedby: Hiring of additional code officials sufficient to allow thorough inspections, or formal escalation to higher authority
textreferences: Engineer Adam believes there is no way even the most conscientious code official can make 60 adequate, much less thorough, inspections in one day
textreferences: The code officials are caught between the responsibility to be thorough in their inspections and the city's desire to hold down costs and generate revenue from inspection fees.
triggeringevent: Budget cutbacks and more rigid code enforcement requirements creating an impossible inspection workload that prevents adequate performance of safety obligations
urgencylevel: high
wasattributedto: Case 73 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T23:54:19.974278
was generated by: ProEthica Case 73 Extraction

Engineer Adam Faustian Bargain Safety Non-Concurrence BER 98-5
type: FaustianBargainSafetyNon-ConcurrenceCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Faustian Bargain Safety Non-Concurrence Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer Adam demonstrated the capability to recognize the city council chairman's proposal as an impermissible Faustian bargain and to refuse concurrence with the grandfathering ordinance despite the offer of additional code officials
casecontext: BER 98-5: Engineer Adam as director of city building department facing politically-motivated Faustian bargain from city council chairman
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.95
demonstratedthrough: Refusal to concur with a city ordinance permitting specified buildings to be grandfathered under older code requirements in exchange for hiring additional code officials — recognizing this as righting a wrong with another wrong
discoveredincase: 73
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T22:48:49.553722+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 73
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T22:48:49.553722+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer Adam
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: In finding that it was not ethical for Engineer Adam to concur with the chairman's proposal – a politically-motivated 'Faustian bargain' to hire additional building code officials – the BER affirmed that engineers 'must hold the public health and safety paramount.'
textreferences: In finding that it was not ethical for Engineer Adam to concur with the chairman's proposal – a politically-motivated 'Faustian bargain' to hire additional building code officials – the BER affirmed that engineers 'must hold the public health and safety paramount.'
textreferences: righting a wrong with another wrong does grave damage to the public health and safety
wasattributedto: Case 73 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T22:54:37.533837
was generated by: ProEthica Case 73 Extraction

Engineer Adam Faustian Bargain Safety Non-Concurrence Grandfathering Ordinance
type: FaustianBargainSafetyNon-ConcurrenceCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Faustian Bargain Safety Non-Concurrence Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer Adam possessed — and was required to exercise — the capability to recognize the city council chairman's proposal as an impermissible Faustian bargain, and to refuse concurrence with the grandfathering ordinance that would exempt specified buildings from newer, more rigid code requirements, even though concurrence would have secured the legitimate benefit of additional building code officials.
casecontext: Engineer Adam serving as director of city building department, offered additional inspectors in exchange for concurrence with safety-compromising grandfathering ordinance
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.88
demonstratedthrough: BER found it was not ethical for Engineer Adam to concur with the chairman's proposal — a politically-motivated Faustian bargain — affirming that righting a wrong with another wrong does grave damage to public health and safety, and that long-term public welfare cannot be undermined for short-term gain
discoveredincase: 73
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T23:45:47.534367+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 73
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T23:45:47.534367+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer Adam
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: In finding that it was not ethical for Engineer Adam to concur with the chairman's proposal – a politically-motivated 'Faustian bargain' to hire additional building code officials – the BER affirmed that engineers 'must hold the public health and safety paramount.'
textreferences: In finding that it was not ethical for Engineer Adam to concur with the chairman's proposal – a politically-motivated 'Faustian bargain' to hire additional building code officials – the BER affirmed that engineers 'must hold the public health and safety paramount.'
textreferences: The BER further noted 'righting a wrong with another wrong' does grave damage to the public health and safety, and that long-term public welfare (a valid building code enforcement process) cannot be undermined for short-term gain.
wasattributedto: Case 73 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T23:54:19.988166
was generated by: ProEthica Case 73 Extraction

Engineer Adam Long-Term Public Welfare Non-Subordination BER 98-5
type: Long-TermPublicWelfareNon-SubordinationtoShort-TermSustainabilityGainCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Long-Term Public Welfare Non-Subordination to Short-Term Sustainability Gain Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer Adam demonstrated the capability to recognize that the short-term gain of hiring additional code officials could not justify subordinating the long-term public welfare interest in rigorous building code enforcement
casecontext: BER 98-5: Engineer Adam as director of city building department facing Faustian bargain from city council chairman
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.87
demonstratedthrough: Refusal to concur with grandfathering specified buildings under older code requirements despite the offer of additional code officials — recognizing that righting a wrong with another wrong does grave damage to public health and safety
discoveredincase: 73
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T22:48:49.553722+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 73
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T22:48:49.553722+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer Adam
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: righting a wrong with another wrong does grave damage to the public health and safety
textreferences: long-term public welfare (a valid building code enforcement process) cannot be undermined for short-term gain (grandfathering specified buildings in the name of increased jobs and tax revenues)
textreferences: righting a wrong with another wrong does grave damage to the public health and safety
wasattributedto: Case 73 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T22:54:37.532514
was generated by: ProEthica Case 73 Extraction

Engineer Adam Political Bargain Safety Non-Concurrence BER 98-5
type: PoliticalBargainSafetyNon-ConcurrenceObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer Adam serves as director of a city building department; the city council chairman offered to authorize additional code officials in exchange for Engineer Adam's concurrence on a city ordinance grandfathering certain buildings under older code requirements; the BER found this concurrence would be unethical
compliancestatus: met
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.92
discoveredincase: 73
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T22:46:47.115804+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 73
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T22:46:47.115804+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer Adam
obligationclass: Political Bargain Safety Non-Concurrence Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer Adam was obligated to refuse the city council chairman's proposal to concur with grandfathering specified buildings under older, less rigorous code requirements in exchange for authorization to hire additional code officials, recognizing that trading one public safety wrong for another does grave damage to public health and safety and that long-term public welfare cannot be undermined for short-term political gain.
sourcetext: In finding that it was not ethical for Engineer Adam to concur with the chairman's proposal – a politically-motivated 'Faustian bargain' to hire additional building code officials – the BER affirmed that engineers 'must hold the public health and safety paramount.'
temporalscope: At the time of the meeting with the city council chairman and the proposed ordinance concurrence
textreferences: In finding that it was not ethical for Engineer Adam to concur with the chairman's proposal – a politically-motivated 'Faustian bargain' to hire additional building code officials – the BER affirmed that engineers 'must hold the public health and safety paramount.'
textreferences: The BER further noted 'righting a wrong with another wrong' does grave damage to the public health and safety, and that long-term public welfare (a valid building code enforcement process) cannot be undermined for short-term gain (grandfathering specified buildings in the name of increased jobs and tax revenues).
wasattributedto: Case 73 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T22:54:37.531640
was generated by: ProEthica Case 73 Extraction

Engineer Adam Political Bargain Safety Non-Concurrence Grandfathering Ordinance
type: PoliticalTrade-OffSafetyNon-CompromiseObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer Adam serves as director of a city building department facing inadequate inspection staffing due to budget cutbacks. The city council chairman offered to authorize additional staff in exchange for Engineer Adam's concurrence on a grandfathering ordinance that would allow certain buildings to be inspected under older, less rigorous code requirements.
compliancestatus: unclear
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.93
discoveredincase: 73
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T23:43:26.005222+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 73
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T23:43:26.005222+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer Adam
obligationclass: Political Trade-Off Safety Non-Compromise Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer Adam was obligated to refuse to concur with the city council chairman's proposed grandfathering ordinance — which would exempt specified buildings from newer, more rigorous code requirements — even in exchange for authorization to hire additional building code officials, and to insist strongly and vociferously that public officials take corrective steps to fulfill public safety obligations without trading one wrong for another.
sourcetext: In finding that it was not ethical for Engineer Adam to concur with the chairman's proposal – a politically-motivated 'Faustian bargain' to hire additional building code officials – the BER affirmed that engineers 'must hold the public health and safety paramount.'
temporalscope: At the time of the meeting with the city council chairman when the political bargain was proposed
textreferences: Engineer Adam 'had a responsibility to insist, however strongly and vociferously, that public officials and decision-makers take steps and corrective steps if necessary to see that this obligation is fulfilled.'
textreferences: In finding that it was not ethical for Engineer Adam to concur with the chairman's proposal – a politically-motivated 'Faustian bargain' to hire additional building code officials – the BER affirmed that engineers 'must hold the public health and safety paramount.'
textreferences: The BER further noted 'righting a wrong with another wrong' does grave damage to the public health and safety, and that long-term public welfare (a valid building code enforcement process) cannot be undermined for short-term gain (grandfathering specified buildings in the name of increased jobs and tax revenues).
wasattributedto: Case 73 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T23:54:19.984765
was generated by: ProEthica Case 73 Extraction

Engineer Adam Political Bargain Safety Non-Concurrence Grandfathering Ordinance BER 98-5
type: PoliticalBargainSafetyStandardNon-CompromiseConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer Adam serves as director of a building department facing inadequate staffing for code inspections; the city council chairman offers additional staff in exchange for concurrence on a grandfathering ordinance exempting specified buildings from current code requirements
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.96
constrainedentity: Engineer Adam
constraintclass: Political Bargain Safety Standard Non-Compromise Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer Adam is absolutely constrained from concurring with the city council chairman's proposed grandfathering ordinance — which would exempt specified buildings from current code requirements — as a condition of receiving additional building code officials, establishing that the political bargain to trade safety standard compromise for resource acquisition is ethically impermissible regardless of the genuine resource need.
discoveredincase: 73
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T23:45:36.327958+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 73
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T23:45:36.327958+00:00
importance: critical
severity: critical
source: BER Case 98-5; NSPE Code of Ethics public safety paramount provisions; Political Bargain Safety Standard Non-Compromise Constraint
sourcetext: In finding that it was not ethical for Engineer Adam to concur with the chairman's proposal – a politically-motivated 'Faustian bargain' to hire additional building code officials – the BER affirmed that engineers 'must hold the public health and safety paramount.'
temporalscope: At the time of the meeting with the city council chairman and any subsequent decision on the grandfathering ordinance
textreferences: In finding that it was not ethical for Engineer Adam to concur with the chairman's proposal – a politically-motivated 'Faustian bargain' to hire additional building code officials – the BER affirmed that engineers 'must hold the public health and safety paramount.'
textreferences: The BER further noted 'righting a wrong with another wrong' does grave damage to the public health and safety
textreferences: long-term public welfare (a valid building code enforcement process) cannot be undermined for short-term gain (grandfathering specified buildings in the name of increased jobs and tax revenues)
wasattributedto: Case 73 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T23:54:19.986763
was generated by: ProEthica Case 73 Extraction

Engineer Adam Political Trade-Off Safety Non-Compromise Grandfathering
type: PoliticalTrade-OffSafetyandTruthNon-CompromiseCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Political Trade-Off Safety and Truth Non-Compromise Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer Adam possessed the capability to recognize that the city council chairman's proposal presented a false trade-off between competing public goods — additional inspectors versus grandfathered buildings — and to correctly identify that professional ethics obligations to public safety cannot be compromised through political bargaining, even when the trade-off appears to produce net public benefit through increased employment and tax revenues.
casecontext: Engineer Adam facing political pressure from city council chairman to concur with grandfathering ordinance in exchange for additional building inspection staff
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.87
demonstratedthrough: BER affirmed that Engineer Adam had a responsibility to insist, however strongly and vociferously, that public officials take corrective steps to fulfill safety obligations, rather than accepting a political bargain that would undermine long-term public welfare for short-term gain
discoveredincase: 73
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T23:45:47.534367+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 73
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T23:45:47.534367+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer Adam
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: Engineer Adam had a responsibility to insist, however strongly and vociferously, that public officials and decision-makers take steps and corrective steps if necessary to see that this obligation is fulfilled.
textreferences: Engineer Adam had a responsibility to insist, however strongly and vociferously, that public officials and decision-makers take steps and corrective steps if necessary to see that this obligation is fulfilled.
textreferences: long-term public welfare (a valid building code enforcement process) cannot be undermined for short-term gain (grandfathering specified buildings in the name of increased jobs and tax revenues).
wasattributedto: Case 73 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T23:54:19.988314
was generated by: ProEthica Case 73 Extraction

Engineer Adam Politically Conditioned Safety Compliance — Grandfathering Bargain
type: PoliticallyConditionedSafetyComplianceState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From the chairman's conditional offer through Engineer Adam's decision to accept or refuse the bargain
affectedparties: Building occupants in grandfathered buildings
affectedparties: City building department staff
affectedparties: City council chairman
affectedparties: Engineer Adam
affectedparties: General public subject to code enforcement
concept category: State
confidence: 0.92
discoveredincase: 73
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T23:33:22.110152+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 73
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T23:33:22.110152+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: the chairman seeks Engineer Adam's concurrence on a city ordinance that would permit certain specified buildings under construction to be 'grandfathered' under the older existing enforcement requirements
stateclass: Politically Conditioned Safety Compliance State
subject: Engineer Adam's position when the city council chairman conditions additional inspection staff on concurrence with grandfathering buildings under older code requirements
terminatedby: Engineer Adam's refusal of the conditioned offer and insistence on unconditional fulfillment of code enforcement obligations
textreferences: long-term public welfare (a valid building code enforcement process) cannot be undermined for short-term gain
textreferences: righting a wrong with another wrong does grave damage to the public health and safety
textreferences: the BER affirmed that engineers 'must hold the public health and safety paramount'
textreferences: the chairman seeks Engineer Adam's concurrence on a city ordinance that would permit certain specified buildings under construction to be 'grandfathered' under the older existing enforcement requirements
triggeringevent: City council chairman's offer to authorize additional code officials contingent on Engineer Adam's concurrence with a grandfathering ordinance reducing safety requirements for specified buildings
urgencylevel: high
wasattributedto: Case 73 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T23:54:19.974113
was generated by: ProEthica Case 73 Extraction

Engineer Adam Resource Constrained Inspection State
type: ResourceConstrained
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From budget cutbacks through Engineer Adam's meeting with the city council chairman
affectedparties: Building department code officials
affectedparties: Engineer Adam
affectedparties: Public occupants of inspected buildings
concept category: State
confidence: 0.93
discoveredincase: 73
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T22:28:50.636637+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 73
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T22:28:50.636637+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: as a result of a series of budget cutbacks and more rigid code enforcement requirements, the city has been unable to provide a sufficient number of qualified individuals to perform adequate and timely building inspections
stateclass: Resource Constrained
subject: Engineer Adam's building department unable to perform adequate inspections due to budget cutbacks and understaffing
terminatedby: Resolution of staffing and resource adequacy (not resolved within the case facts)
textreferences: Each code official member of Engineer Adam's staff is often required to make as many as 60 code inspections per day
textreferences: Engineer Adam believes there is no way even the most conscientious code official can make 60 adequate, much less thorough, inspections in one day
textreferences: as a result of a series of budget cutbacks and more rigid code enforcement requirements, the city has been unable to provide a sufficient number of qualified individuals to perform adequate and timely building inspections
triggeringevent: Series of budget cutbacks combined with more rigid code enforcement requirements leaving insufficient qualified inspectors
urgencylevel: high
wasattributedto: Case 73 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T22:54:37.519725
was generated by: ProEthica Case 73 Extraction

Engineer A's load profile study before preparation of board report
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-26T22:54:37.537438
was generated by: ProEthica Case 73 Extraction

Engineer A's solar panel study before discussion with utility representative
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T23:54:19.990419
was generated by: ProEthica Case 73 Extraction

Engineer BER 16-5 Autonomous Vehicle Harm Minimization Risk Management
type: AutonomousVehicleHarmMinimizationRiskManagementParticipationCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Autonomous Vehicle Harm Minimization Risk Management Participation Capability
capabilitystatement: The engineer in BER Case 16-5 possessed — and was required to exercise — the capability to fully and actively participate as a member of the engineering risk management team developing the autonomous vehicle operating system, expressing clearly and unambiguously concerns regarding safety, and recommending further study before the operating system was utilized if safety concerns remained unresolved.
casecontext: Engineer working on autonomous vehicle development team tasked with considering harm minimization outcomes in unavoidable crash scenarios
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.85
demonstratedthrough: BER Case 16-5 conclusions affirmed that the engineer should fully and actively participate in the risk management team and express safety concerns clearly and unambiguously, including recommending further study before deployment — addressing the harm minimization question of whether the system should minimize harm to occupants only or to all involved parties
discoveredincase: 73
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T23:45:47.534367+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 73
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T23:45:47.534367+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer in BER Case 16-5
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: The conclusions in Case 16-5 suggest the engineer fully and actively participate as a member of the engineering risk management team and express clearly and unambiguously concerns regarding safety of the operating system.
textreferences: The BER also suggested that, if necessary, the engineer recommend further study before the operating system is utilized.
textreferences: The conclusions in Case 16-5 suggest the engineer fully and actively participate as a member of the engineering risk management team and express clearly and unambiguously concerns regarding safety of the operating system.
textreferences: The development team was tasked with considering outcomes to choose in the event of an unavoidable vehicle crash – does the system choose the option that reduces the harm to vehicle occupants only, or should the system operate in a way that will minimize the harm that is done to anyone involved in the accident?
wasattributedto: Case 73 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T23:54:19.988626
was generated by: ProEthica Case 73 Extraction

Engineer BER 16-5 Autonomous Vehicle Harm Minimization Risk Management Participation
type: AutonomousVehicleHarmMinimizationRiskManagementParticipationObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: An engineer is a member of a team developing a driverless/autonomous vehicle operating system, tasked with considering harm-minimization outcomes in unavoidable crash scenarios — specifically whether the system should minimize harm to vehicle occupants only or to all parties involved in the accident.
compliancestatus: unclear
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.86
discoveredincase: 73
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T23:43:26.005222+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 73
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T23:43:26.005222+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer in BER Case 16-5
obligationclass: Autonomous Vehicle Harm Minimization Risk Management Participation Obligation
obligationstatement: The engineer in BER Case 16-5 was obligated to fully and actively participate as a member of the engineering risk management team developing the autonomous vehicle operating system, to express clearly and unambiguously any concerns regarding the safety of the harm-minimization operating logic, and if necessary to recommend further study before the operating system was deployed for public use.
sourcetext: The conclusions in Case 16-5 suggest the engineer fully and actively participate as a member of the engineering risk management team and express clearly and unambiguously concerns regarding safety of the operating system.
temporalscope: During the development and pre-deployment phases of the autonomous vehicle operating system
textreferences: The BER also suggested that, if necessary, the engineer recommend further study before the operating system is utilized.
textreferences: The conclusions in Case 16-5 suggest the engineer fully and actively participate as a member of the engineering risk management team and express clearly and unambiguously concerns regarding safety of the operating system.
textreferences: The development team was tasked with considering outcomes to choose in the event of an unavoidable vehicle crash – does the system choose the option that reduces the harm to vehicle occupants only, or should the system operate in a way that will minimize the harm that is done to anyone involved in the accident?
wasattributedto: Case 73 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T23:54:19.985077
was generated by: ProEthica Case 73 Extraction

Engineer BER 16-5 Autonomous Vehicle Risk Management Active Participation Safety Concerns
type: AutonomousVehicleRiskManagementActiveParticipationConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: An engineer is working on a team developing a driverless/autonomous vehicle operating system tasked with considering outcomes in the event of an unavoidable vehicle crash; the engineer has safety concerns about the operating system
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.9
constrainedentity: Engineer in BER Case 16-5
constraintclass: Autonomous Vehicle Risk Management Active Participation Constraint
constraintstatement: The engineer in BER Case 16-5 is constrained from passive participation in the autonomous vehicle risk management team and must fully and actively participate, express safety concerns clearly and unambiguously, and recommend further study before the operating system is utilized if safety concerns remain unresolved.
discoveredincase: 73
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T23:45:36.327958+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 73
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T23:45:36.327958+00:00
importance: critical
severity: critical
source: BER Case 16-5; NSPE Code of Ethics public safety paramount provisions; Autonomous Vehicle Risk Management Active Participation Constraint
sourcetext: BER Case 16-5 is also instructive; it deals with an engineer working on a team developing a driverless/autonomous vehicle operating system.
temporalscope: Throughout the development and pre-deployment phases of the autonomous vehicle operating system
textreferences: BER Case 16-5 is also instructive; it deals with an engineer working on a team developing a driverless/autonomous vehicle operating system.
textreferences: The BER also suggested that, if necessary, the engineer recommend further study before the operating system is utilized.
textreferences: The conclusions in Case 16-5 suggest the engineer fully and actively participate as a member of the engineering risk management team and express clearly and unambiguously concerns regarding safety of the operating system.
wasattributedto: Case 73 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T23:54:19.987085
was generated by: ProEthica Case 73 Extraction

Engineer Public Safety Escalation Standard - Rolling Blackout Disclosure
type: EngineerPublicSafetyEscalationStandard
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.85
createdby: Professional engineering ethics bodies including NSPE
discoveredincase: 73
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
documenttitle: Professional norms governing engineer duty to escalate and disclose public health and safety concerns
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T23:31:30.780685+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 73
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T23:31:30.780685+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: Engineer Public Safety Escalation Standard
sourcetext: Engineer A also realizes that a move to solar production without storage may stress the local utility generation mix even more, increasing the likelihood of rolling blackouts
textreferences: Engineer A also realizes that a move to solar production without storage may stress the local utility generation mix even more, increasing the likelihood of rolling blackouts
textreferences: Engineer A is preparing a report that will be presented to the board
usedby: Engineer A in determining the scope of disclosure obligations in the board report
usedincontext: Governs Engineer A's obligation to disclose the rolling blackout risk to the board and potentially to broader stakeholders, even when the immediate client (the organization) may prefer a report focused solely on the project's viability in isolation
version: Current professional consensus
wasattributedto: Case 73 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T23:54:19.969900
was generated by: ProEthica Case 73 Extraction

Engineer Public Safety Escalation Standard – Grid Reliability Context
type: EngineerPublicSafetyEscalationStandard
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.87
createdby: Professional engineering community / NSPE
discoveredincase: 73
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
documenttitle: Professional norms governing engineer duty to escalate public safety concerns beyond immediate client interests
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T22:27:33.123798+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 73
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T22:27:33.123798+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: Engineer Public Safety Escalation Standard
sourcetext: Engineer A also realizes that a move to solar production without storage may stress the local utility generation mix even more, increasing the likelihood of rolling blackouts.
textreferences: Engineer A also realizes that a move to solar production without storage may stress the local utility generation mix even more, increasing the likelihood of rolling blackouts.
usedby: Engineer A in deciding what to include in the board report
usedincontext: Grounds Engineer A's obligation to ensure that the board and potentially broader stakeholders are informed of the public safety risk (rolling blackouts) that could result from the solar transition, even if the client's primary interest is carbon footprint reduction
version: Current
wasattributedto: Case 73 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T22:54:37.513062
was generated by: ProEthica Case 73 Extraction

Engineers BER 20-4 Post-Override Regulatory Escalation Water Safety
type: Post-Client-OverrideRegulatoryEscalationAssessmentCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Post-Client-Override Regulatory Escalation Assessment Capability
capabilitystatement: The engineers in BER Case 20-4 possessed — and were required to exercise — the capability to assess that the municipal water commission's override of their safety recommendations triggered an obligation to formally report their concerns to the state regulatory agency, given the gravity of the potential danger to public health and safety.
casecontext: Engineers retained by municipal water commission whose recommendation for further study before changing potable water source was overridden by the commission to reduce public expenditures
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.85
demonstratedthrough: BER found that after formally communicating concerns to the water commission (which overrode their recommendations), the engineers had an obligation to formally report their concerns to the state regulatory agency — demonstrating that client override of safety recommendations triggers escalation rather than ending the obligation
discoveredincase: 73
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T23:45:47.534367+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 73
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T23:45:47.534367+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineers in BER Case 20-4
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: The BER found that the engineers have an obligation to formally communicate their concerns to the water commission.
textreferences: The BER also found that given the gravity of the potential danger to public health and safety, the engineers have an obligation to formally report their concerns to the state regulatory agency.
textreferences: The BER found that the engineers have an obligation to formally communicate their concerns to the water commission.
wasattributedto: Case 73 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T23:54:19.988457
was generated by: ProEthica Case 73 Extraction

Engineers BER 20-4 Post-Water-Commission-Override State Regulatory Escalation
type: Post-Client-OverrideRegulatoryEscalationinWaterSafetyObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: A municipal water commission chose to change the source of their potable water system to reduce public expenditures despite the recommendations of two engineers that further study was needed to ensure public safety. After formally communicating concerns to the commission, the engineers faced the question of whether to escalate to the state regulatory agency.
compliancestatus: unclear
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.89
discoveredincase: 73
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T23:43:26.005222+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 73
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T23:43:26.005222+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineers in BER Case 20-4
obligationclass: Post-Client-Override Regulatory Escalation in Water Safety Obligation
obligationstatement: The engineers in BER Case 20-4 were obligated, after the municipal water commission chose to change the potable water source despite their recommendations for further study, to formally report their public health and safety concerns to the state regulatory agency, given the gravity of the potential danger to public health and safety from the commission's decision.
sourcetext: Recent BER Case 20-4 addressed a public board (a municipal water commission) choosing to change the source of their potable water system to reduce public expenditures despite the recommendations of two engineers that further study was needed to ensure public safety.
temporalscope: After the water commission overrode the engineers' recommendations and proceeded with the water source change
textreferences: Recent BER Case 20-4 addressed a public board (a municipal water commission) choosing to change the source of their potable water system to reduce public expenditures despite the recommendations of two engineers that further study was needed to ensure public safety.
textreferences: The BER also found that given the gravity of the potential danger to public health and safety, the engineers have an obligation to formally report their concerns to the state regulatory agency.
textreferences: The BER found that the engineers have an obligation to formally communicate their concerns to the water commission.
wasattributedto: Case 73 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T23:54:19.984929
was generated by: ProEthica Case 73 Extraction

Engineers BER 20-4 Post-Water-Commission-Override State Regulatory Escalation Constraint
type: Post-DismissalSafetyEscalationConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: A municipal water commission chose to change the source of their potable water system to reduce public expenditures despite the recommendations of two engineers that further study was needed to ensure public safety
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.93
constrainedentity: Engineers in BER Case 20-4
constraintclass: Post-Dismissal Safety Escalation Constraint
constraintstatement: The engineers in BER Case 20-4 are constrained from passively accepting the municipal water commission's decision to change the potable water source despite their safety recommendations, and must escalate their concerns to the applicable state regulatory agency given the gravity of the potential danger to public health and safety.
discoveredincase: 73
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T23:45:36.327958+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 73
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T23:45:36.327958+00:00
importance: critical
severity: critical
source: BER Case 20-4; NSPE Code of Ethics public safety paramount provisions; Post-Dismissal Safety Escalation Constraint
sourcetext: Recent BER Case 20-4 addressed a public board (a municipal water commission) choosing to change the source of their potable water system to reduce public expenditures despite the recommendations of two engineers that further study was needed to ensure public safety.
temporalscope: After the municipal water commission overrides the engineers' recommendations and proceeds with the potable water source change
textreferences: Recent BER Case 20-4 addressed a public board (a municipal water commission) choosing to change the source of their potable water system to reduce public expenditures despite the recommendations of two engineers that further study was needed to ensure public safety.
textreferences: The BER also found that given the gravity of the potential danger to public health and safety, the engineers have an obligation to formally report their concerns to the state regulatory agency.
textreferences: The BER found that the engineers have an obligation to formally communicate their concerns to the water commission.
wasattributedto: Case 73 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T23:54:19.986927
was generated by: ProEthica Case 73 Extraction

Environmental Stewardship Invoked By Carbon Footprint Stakeholders Solar Project
type: EnvironmentalStewardshipinEngineeringPractice
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Fossil-fueled co-generation facility retirement
appliedto: Solar panel replacement decision
balancingwith: Public Welfare Paramount
balancingwith: Risk Threshold Calibration in Public Safety Reporting
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: The carbon footprint reduction stakeholders' proposal to replace the fossil-fueled co-generation facility with solar panels reflects a legitimate environmental stewardship goal that Engineer A must acknowledge and engage with substantively in the board report.
confidence: 0.88
discoveredincase: 73
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T23:35:16.556086+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 73
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T23:35:16.556086+00:00
importance: medium
interpretation: Environmental stewardship is a legitimate engineering principle that supports the stakeholders' solar proposal; Engineer A must engage with this goal seriously while also disclosing the grid reliability risks that the solar-without-storage option creates.
invokedby: Carbon Footprint Reduction Stakeholders Organization
principleclass: Environmental Stewardship in Engineering Practice
sourcetext: Recently, stakeholders have expressed interest in reducing the organization's carbon footprint, and these stakeholders suggest that the facility eliminate the generator and replace it with solar panels.
tensionresolution: Environmental stewardship supports the solar project goal, but public welfare paramount requires disclosure of the rolling blackout risk; both principles must be reflected in the board report.
textreferences: Engineer A is convinced that the solar project, when considered in isolation, is viable and will satisfy those stakeholders interested in reducing the organization's carbon footprint.
textreferences: Recently, stakeholders have expressed interest in reducing the organization's carbon footprint, and these stakeholders suggest that the facility eliminate the generator and replace it with solar panels.
wasattributedto: Case 73 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T23:54:19.975812
was generated by: ProEthica Case 73 Extraction

Environmental Stewardship Invoked By Solar Option Carbon Footprint
type: EnvironmentalStewardshipinEngineeringPractice
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Solar generation without storage option evaluation
balancingwith: Public Welfare Paramount
balancingwith: Risk Threshold Calibration in Public Safety Reporting
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: The solar without storage option advances legitimate environmental stewardship goals by reducing the organization's carbon footprint and supporting environmentally friendly energy production, which Engineer A must acknowledge as a genuine public good in the advisory report
confidence: 0.91
discoveredincase: 73
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T23:41:15.494672+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 73
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T23:41:15.494672+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: Environmental stewardship is a legitimate and weighty public welfare consideration that must be presented fully in the advisory report, but it does not override the obligation to also disclose reliability risks and grid impacts — both values must be presented for the board to make an informed decision
invokedby: Engineer A Energy Systems Reporting Engineer
invokedby: Organization Carbon Footprint Reduction Stakeholders
principleclass: Environmental Stewardship in Engineering Practice
sourcetext: If the solar production without storage option moves forward, the organization will increase its green footprint and will support a laudable goal of increasing environmentally friendly energy production.
tensionresolution: Environmental stewardship is presented as one legitimate public good among competing public goods; the tension is resolved not by subordinating environmental stewardship but by ensuring that the board has complete information about both the environmental benefits and the reliability costs of the solar option
textreferences: If the solar production without storage option moves forward, the organization will increase its green footprint and will support a laudable goal of increasing environmentally friendly energy production.
textreferences: Some may argue that continuing to operate a fossil-fueled generator is inconsistent with public health, safety, and welfare, while others will point to the increased reliability of the fossil-fueled generator as a demonstration of greater concern for public welfare.
wasattributedto: Case 73 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T23:54:19.982899
was generated by: ProEthica Case 73 Extraction

Escalation Obligation Invoked By Engineers BER 20-4 Water Commission
type: EscalationObligationWhenInitialRegulatoryReportIsInsufficient
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Municipal water commission decision to change potable water source over engineer objections
balancingwith: Client Loyalty
balancingwith: Faithful Agent Obligation Within Ethical Limits
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: When the municipal water commission chose to change the potable water source despite the engineers' recommendations for further study, the engineers had an obligation not only to formally communicate concerns to the water commission but to escalate by formally reporting to the state regulatory agency given the gravity of the potential danger to public health and safety
confidence: 0.96
discoveredincase: 73
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T23:41:15.494672+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 73
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T23:41:15.494672+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: A single formal communication to an unresponsive decision-making body does not discharge the engineer's public safety obligation; when the initial authority fails to act on safety concerns of sufficient gravity, the obligation escalates to higher regulatory authorities
invokedby: Municipal Water Commission BER 20-4 Decision Authority
principleclass: Escalation Obligation When Initial Regulatory Report Is Insufficient
sourcetext: The BER also found that given the gravity of the potential danger to public health and safety, the engineers have an obligation to formally report their concerns to the state regulatory agency.
tensionresolution: The gravity of the public health and safety risk from a compromised potable water system overrides client loyalty and faithful agent obligations, requiring escalation to state regulatory authorities
textreferences: The BER found that the engineers have an obligation to formally communicate their concerns to the water commission. The BER also found that given the gravity of the potential danger to public health and safety, the engineers have an obligation to formally report their concerns to the state regulatory agency.
wasattributedto: Case 73 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T23:54:19.983200
was generated by: ProEthica Case 73 Extraction

Escalation Obligation Invoked in BER 20-4 Water Commission Analogy
type: EscalationObligationWhenInitialRegulatoryReportIsInsufficient
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Municipal water commission potable water source change
appliedto: Public health risk escalation
appliedto: State regulatory agency reporting obligation
balancingwith: Confidentiality
balancingwith: Faithful Agent Obligation Within Ethical Limits
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: In BER Case 20-4, engineers who recommended further study before the municipal water commission changed its potable water source had an obligation not only to formally communicate concerns to the commission, but also to formally report to the state regulatory agency when the commission proceeded despite their concerns
confidence: 0.91
discoveredincase: 73
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T22:44:21.888625+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 73
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T22:44:21.888625+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: The BER 20-4 precedent is invoked to illustrate that when a decision-making body proceeds despite formal engineering safety concerns, the engineer's obligation does not terminate at the initial communication — escalation to regulatory authorities is required when public health is at stake
invokedby: Water Commission Engineers BER 20-4
principleclass: Escalation Obligation When Initial Regulatory Report Is Insufficient
sourcetext: The BER also found that given the gravity of the potential danger to public health and safety, the engineers have an obligation to formally report their concerns to the state regulatory agency.
tensionresolution: The gravity of potential danger to public health and safety overrides deference to the commission's decision authority; formal regulatory reporting is required as a second-level escalation
textreferences: The BER also found that given the gravity of the potential danger to public health and safety, the engineers have an obligation to formally report their concerns to the state regulatory agency
textreferences: The BER found that the engineers have an obligation to formally communicate their concerns to the water commission
wasattributedto: Case 73 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T22:54:37.530407
was generated by: ProEthica Case 73 Extraction

Extreme Weather Grid Vulnerability Moving Baseline Engineer A Solar Design
type: ClimateMovingTargetDesignBaselineConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: The utility resource planners' concern about extreme weather events reflects a moving climate baseline that Engineer A must incorporate into the risk assessment rather than treating normal conditions as the definitive baseline.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.82
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Climate Moving Target Design Baseline Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A must not treat current normal-condition grid performance as a fixed, reliable baseline for evaluating the solar transition, but must account for the moving target of extreme weather frequency and intensity when assessing the rolling blackout risk associated with the proposed solar-without-storage system.
discoveredincase: 73
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T22:40:57.194915+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 73
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T22:40:57.194915+00:00
importance: medium
severity: medium
source: Climate Moving Target Design Baseline Constraint; NSPE Code of Ethics — public safety provisions
sourcetext: during extreme weather events, they may be forced to institute rolling outages to keep system generating facilities on-line
temporalscope: At the time of board report preparation and submission
textreferences: Engineer A is satisfied that under normal conditions, the system of solar panels can supply electric energy equivalent to that provided by the existing generator.
textreferences: during extreme weather events, they may be forced to institute rolling outages to keep system generating facilities on-line
wasattributedto: Case 73 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T22:54:37.525777
was generated by: ProEthica Case 73 Extraction

Extreme Weather Grid Vulnerability as Moving Baseline
type: MovingTargetClimateBaselineState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: Ongoing; present at the time of Engineer A's analysis and persisting into the future operational life of any installed system
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: Local utility
affectedparties: Organization
affectedparties: Third-party electricity consumers
concept category: State
confidence: 0.87
discoveredincase: 73
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T22:27:43.324490+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 73
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T22:27:43.324490+00:00
importance: medium
sourcetext: during extreme weather events, they may be forced to institute rolling outages to keep system generating facilities on-line
stateclass: Moving Target Climate Baseline State
subject: Local utility grid planning assumptions under changing climate conditions
terminatedby: Not terminated; represents an ongoing dynamic condition requiring continuous reassessment
textreferences: After careful study of the facility electric load profile... Engineer A is satisfied that under normal conditions, the system of solar panels can supply electric energy equivalent to that provided by the existing generator
textreferences: during extreme weather events, they may be forced to institute rolling outages to keep system generating facilities on-line
triggeringevent: Utility resource planners' acknowledgment that extreme weather events may force rolling outages, indicating that historical normal-condition assumptions are no longer sufficient for design planning
urgencylevel: medium
wasattributedto: Case 73 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T22:54:37.514469
was generated by: ProEthica Case 73 Extraction

Extreme Weather Rolling Blackout Vulnerable Population Disclosure Engineer A
type: Low-ProbabilityHigh-ConsequenceRiskDisclosureConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Rolling blackouts during extreme weather events are low-probability but high-consequence, particularly for vulnerable populations; Engineer A must disclose this risk profile completely.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.91
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Low-Probability High-Consequence Risk Disclosure Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A must disclose in the board report the rolling blackout risk during extreme weather events — including its foreseeable disproportionate impact on vulnerable populations dependent on continuous electricity — and may not omit or minimize this risk on the grounds that it is contingent on extreme weather conditions.
discoveredincase: 73
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T22:40:57.194915+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 73
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T22:40:57.194915+00:00
importance: high
severity: critical
source: NSPE Code of Ethics — public safety paramount canon; Low-Probability High-Consequence Risk Disclosure Constraint
sourcetext: during extreme weather events, they may be forced to institute rolling outages to keep system generating facilities on-line
temporalscope: At the time of board report preparation and submission
textreferences: Engineer A also realizes that a move to solar production without storage may stress the local utility generation mix even more, increasing the likelihood of rolling blackouts.
textreferences: during extreme weather events, they may be forced to institute rolling outages to keep system generating facilities on-line
wasattributedto: Case 73 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T22:54:37.525619
was generated by: ProEthica Case 73 Extraction

Fact-Based Disclosure Obligation Invoked By Engineer A Reliability Assessment
type: Fact-BasedDisclosureObligation
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Technical basis for reliability risk disclosure in advisory report
balancingwith: Completeness and Non-Selectivity in Professional Advisory Opinions
balancingwith: Proactive Risk Disclosure
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer A's disclosure of grid reliability risks must be grounded in the established technical assessment communicated by the local electric utility's resource planners — that rolling blackouts are a foreseeable consequence of the solar without storage option — rather than speculative concern, ensuring the disclosure is both factually grounded and complete
confidence: 0.88
discoveredincase: 73
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T23:41:15.494672+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 73
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T23:41:15.494672+00:00
importance: medium
interpretation: The utility resource planners' assessment that the current generation mix reduces stress on the power system during extreme weather events provides the factual foundation for Engineer A's reliability risk disclosure; this is a confirmed technical finding, not a speculative concern, and must be disclosed accordingly
invokedby: Engineer A Energy Systems Reporting Engineer
principleclass: Fact-Based Disclosure Obligation
sourcetext: The proposed solar generation system without storage may produce the same energy that the existing fossil-fueled generator does, but it will not be as reliable.
tensionresolution: The fact-based disclosure obligation is satisfied because the reliability risk is grounded in the utility's technical assessment; Engineer A is not speculating but reporting a confirmed finding from a competent technical authority
textreferences: Further, a system without energy storage decreases the reliability of the entire local electric power system.
textreferences: The proposed solar generation system without storage may produce the same energy that the existing fossil-fueled generator does, but it will not be as reliable.
wasattributedto: Case 73 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T23:54:19.984149
was generated by: ProEthica Case 73 Extraction

Fact-Based Disclosure Obligation Invoked By Engineer A Utility Assessment
type: Fact-BasedDisclosureObligation
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Board report on solar panel replacement decision
appliedto: Local Electric Utility Resource Planner
balancingwith: Avoiding premature alarm
balancingwith: Stakeholder preferences for unqualified endorsement
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: The utility resource planner's rolling blackout assessment constitutes a completed professional assessment communicated by qualified professionals, meeting the factual grounding threshold for inclusion in Engineer A's board report.
confidence: 0.9
discoveredincase: 73
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T23:35:16.556086+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 73
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T23:35:16.556086+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: The utility resource planner's assessment is not speculation but a professional evaluation communicated by the utility's own planners; this meets the factual grounding requirement for disclosure in the board report.
invokedby: Engineer A Energy Systems Reporting Engineer
principleclass: Fact-Based Disclosure Obligation
sourcetext: Engineer A learns that the utility resource planners reviewed their current generation mix and believe that during extreme weather events, they may be forced to institute rolling outages to keep system generating facilities on-line.
tensionresolution: The utility resource planner's professional assessment meets the factual grounding threshold; Engineer A must include it in the board report rather than dismissing it as too speculative.
textreferences: Engineer A learns that the utility resource planners reviewed their current generation mix and believe that during extreme weather events, they may be forced to institute rolling outages to keep system generating facilities on-line.
wasattributedto: Case 73 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T23:54:19.975635
was generated by: ProEthica Case 73 Extraction

Fact Based Disclosure Engineer A Utility Assessment Rolling Blackout
type: Fact-GroundedTechnicalOpinionObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: The utility resource planners' assessment that rolling outages may be necessary during extreme weather events constitutes a completed professional assessment by qualified professionals. Engineer A must treat this as established fact for purposes of the board report disclosure obligation.
compliancestatus: unclear
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.87
discoveredincase: 73
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T23:36:47.063155+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 73
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T23:36:47.063155+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationclass: Fact-Grounded Technical Opinion Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A is obligated to ground the board report's disclosure of the rolling blackout risk in the established facts communicated by the local electric utility's resource planners — treating that professional assessment as a completed and credible technical finding — and to include that fact-grounded risk disclosure in the report rather than omitting it on the basis that the risk is contingent or uncertain.
sourcetext: When discussing the analysis of the electric load profile with a representative of the local electric utility, Engineer A learns that the utility resource planners reviewed their current generation mix and believe that during extreme weather events, they may be forced to institute rolling outages to keep system generating facilities on-line.
temporalscope: In the preparation and submission of the board report
textreferences: When discussing the analysis of the electric load profile with a representative of the local electric utility, Engineer A learns that the utility resource planners reviewed their current generation mix and believe that during extreme weather events, they may be forced to institute rolling outages to keep system generating facilities on-line.
wasattributedto: Case 73 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T23:54:19.977519
was generated by: ProEthica Case 73 Extraction

Faithful Agent Boundary — Engineer A Post-Report
type: FaithfulAgentBoundaryState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: Throughout Engineer A's engagement, particularly after full disclosure of tradeoffs to the board
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: Organization/Board
concept category: State
confidence: 0.91
discoveredincase: 73
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T22:28:50.636637+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 73
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T22:28:50.636637+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: This discussion has so far not addressed the obligation of Engineer A in this case to act as a faithful agent or trustee for the employer.
stateclass: Faithful Agent Boundary State
subject: Engineer A's obligation to act as faithful agent/trustee for the organization while also fulfilling public safety obligations
terminatedby: Board's informed decision; Engineer A's transition to executing chosen option
textreferences: The board may choose to rebuild/refurbish the fossil-fueled generator because it provides function and reliability at a lower cost than a solar production system with storage.
textreferences: This discussion has so far not addressed the obligation of Engineer A in this case to act as a faithful agent or trustee for the employer.
triggeringevent: Recognition that Engineer A must balance trustee obligations to the organization with independent public safety reporting obligations
urgencylevel: medium
wasattributedto: Case 73 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T22:54:37.519209
was generated by: ProEthica Case 73 Extraction

Faithful Agent Notification Obligation Invoked By Engineer A Grid Risk
type: FaithfulAgentNotificationObligationforProjectSuccessRisk
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Board report on solar panel replacement decision
appliedto: Organizational Board Energy Decision Authority
balancingwith: Client Loyalty
balancingwith: Scope limitations of contracted work
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer A's faithful agent obligation to the organization requires notification of the rolling blackout risk discovered during the load profile analysis, even though the contracted scope was the solar panel load profile analysis rather than regional grid reliability assessment.
confidence: 0.93
discoveredincase: 73
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T23:35:16.556086+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 73
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T23:35:16.556086+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: The faithful agent relationship encompasses the organization's overall project welfare; the rolling blackout risk threatens the viability and wisdom of the solar project decision, and therefore falls within Engineer A's notification obligation even though it arose outside the contracted scope.
invokedby: Engineer A Energy Systems Reporting Engineer
principleclass: Faithful Agent Notification Obligation for Project Success Risk
sourcetext: Engineer A learns that the utility resource planners reviewed their current generation mix and believe that during extreme weather events, they may be forced to institute rolling outages to keep system generating facilities on-line.
tensionresolution: Faithful agent obligation extends beyond literal contracted scope to encompass risks that affect the client's overall project welfare; Engineer A must include the utility's rolling blackout assessment in the board report.
textreferences: Engineer A is preparing a report that will be presented to the board to consider the new solar project.
textreferences: Engineer A learns that the utility resource planners reviewed their current generation mix and believe that during extreme weather events, they may be forced to institute rolling outages to keep system generating facilities on-line.
wasattributedto: Case 73 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T23:54:19.975159
was generated by: ProEthica Case 73 Extraction

Faithful Agent Notification Obligation Invoked By Engineer A Reliability Risk
type: FaithfulAgentNotificationObligationforProjectSuccessRisk
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Organizational board energy system replacement decision
balancingwith: Carbon Footprint Reduction Stakeholder interests
balancingwith: Environmental Stewardship in Engineering Practice
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer A must advise the board in writing that the solar without storage system, while producing equivalent energy at similar cost, will not be as reliable as the fossil-fueled co-generation facility and may result in rolling blackouts and facility interruptions that would constitute project failure
confidence: 0.95
discoveredincase: 73
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T23:41:15.494672+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 73
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T23:41:15.494672+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: The faithful agent obligation encompasses the client's overall project welfare including reliability outcomes; presenting only energy production and cost equivalence without reliability data would fail the board as faithful agent even if technically accurate as far as it goes
invokedby: Engineer A Energy Systems Reporting Engineer
principleclass: Faithful Agent Notification Obligation for Project Success Risk
sourcetext: Installing a system without storage may result in rolling blackouts and facility interruptions and thus not be a success. Therefore, Engineer A has an obligation to present this information in a report to the board.
tensionresolution: The faithful agent obligation requires disclosure of the reliability gap because installing a system that results in rolling blackouts and facility interruptions would not be a project success from the board's perspective
textreferences: Installing a system without storage may result in rolling blackouts and facility interruptions and thus not be a success. Therefore, Engineer A has an obligation to present this information in a report to the board.
textreferences: This discussion has so far not addressed the obligation of Engineer A in this case to act as a faithful agent or trustee for the employer.
wasattributedto: Case 73 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T23:54:19.982566
was generated by: ProEthica Case 73 Extraction

Faithful Agent Notification Obligation Invoked by Engineer A for Grid Risk
type: FaithfulAgentNotificationObligationforProjectSuccessRisk
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Organizational Board Decision Authority
appliedto: Solar energy replacement project viability
balancingwith: Public Welfare Paramount
balancingwith: Trustee Discretion and Deference Obligation
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer A's faithful agent obligation to the organization requires written notification in the board report of the identified risk that the solar-without-storage option may contribute to rolling blackouts during extreme weather events — a risk that threatens the project's functional success (reliable energy supply) even though it arises from conditions outside the organization's direct control (grid-level stress).
confidence: 0.91
discoveredincase: 73
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T22:36:47.519403+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 73
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T22:36:47.519403+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: The faithful agent relationship encompasses the client's overall project welfare; the rolling blackout risk is a foreseeable threat to the project's ability to reliably serve the organization's energy needs, and the agent must advise the principal of this risk.
invokedby: Engineer A
principleclass: Faithful Agent Notification Obligation for Project Success Risk
sourcetext: Engineer A learns that the utility resource planners reviewed their current generation mix and believe that during extreme weather events, they may be forced to institute rolling outages to keep system generating facilities on-line.
tensionresolution: Faithful agent notification and public welfare disclosure converge here: both require Engineer A to include the grid risk in the report, with no tension between them.
textreferences: Engineer A also realizes that a move to solar production without storage may stress the local utility generation mix even more, increasing the likelihood of rolling blackouts.
textreferences: Engineer A learns that the utility resource planners reviewed their current generation mix and believe that during extreme weather events, they may be forced to institute rolling outages to keep system generating facilities on-line.
wasattributedto: Case 73 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T22:54:37.521062
was generated by: ProEthica Case 73 Extraction

Faithful Agent Obligation Invoked for Complete Board Reporting by Engineer A
type: FaithfulAgentObligationWithinEthicalLimits
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Complete technical reporting obligation
appliedto: Organizational board energy system replacement decision
balancingwith: Competing Public Goods Balancing in Engineering Advisory Roles
balancingwith: Public Welfare Paramount
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer A's obligation to act as a faithful agent and trustee for the organization by presenting complete technical information — including reliability data and systemic grid impacts — even when doing so may complicate or undermine the organization's stated preference for the solar-without-storage option
confidence: 0.91
discoveredincase: 73
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T22:44:21.888625+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 73
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T22:44:21.888625+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: Acting as a faithful agent does not mean confirming the client's preferred conclusion; it means exercising full professional judgment to develop and present the best analysis, then deferring to the client's ultimate decision authority
invokedby: Engineer A Energy Systems Reporting Engineer
principleclass: Faithful Agent Obligation Within Ethical Limits
sourcetext: This discussion has so far not addressed the obligation of Engineer A in this case to act as a faithful agent or trustee for the employer.
tensionresolution: The faithful agent obligation and public welfare obligation are aligned in this case: both require complete reporting; the board may then choose any option based on complete information
textreferences: At first glance, this finding in conjunction with the earlier conclusion that system reliability data be included in the report to board may seem to satisfy Engineer A's obligations
textreferences: Given the facts presented in this case, the solar generation system without storage will provide energy generation equivalent to the existing fossil-fueled generator at a similar cost; the system also reduces the organization's carbon footprint
textreferences: Therefore, Engineer A has an obligation to present this information in a report to the board
textreferences: This discussion has so far not addressed the obligation of Engineer A in this case to act as a faithful agent or trustee for the employer
wasattributedto: Case 73 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T22:54:37.529530
was generated by: ProEthica Case 73 Extraction

Fossil Fuel Reliability Retention Legitimate Option Presentation Engineer A Board Report
type: FossilFuelReliabilityRetentionLegitimateOptionPresentationConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: The board may choose to rebuild/refurbish the fossil-fueled generator for reliability reasons; Engineer A must present this as a legitimate option to enable informed decision-making.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.9
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Fossil Fuel Reliability Retention Legitimate Option Presentation Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A is constrained to present the option of rebuilding or refurbishing the existing fossil-fueled co-generation facility as a legitimate alternative in the board report — including its reliability advantages and cost profile — and cannot omit or dismiss this option on the basis of sustainability preferences or stakeholder pressure for carbon footprint reduction.
discoveredincase: 73
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T22:49:20.614459+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 73
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T22:49:20.614459+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics; Complete Design Alternative Presentation principles
sourcetext: The board may choose to rebuild/refurbish the fossil-fueled generator because it provides function and reliability at a lower cost than a solar production system with storage
temporalscope: At time of preparing and submitting the board advisory report
textreferences: Some may argue that continuing to operate a fossil-fueled generator is inconsistent with public health, safety, and welfare, while others will point to the increased reliability of the fossil-fueled generator as a demonstration of greater concern for public welfare
textreferences: The board may choose to rebuild/refurbish the fossil-fueled generator because it provides function and reliability at a lower cost than a solar production system with storage
wasattributedto: Case 73 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T22:54:37.535869
was generated by: ProEthica Case 73 Extraction

Frame Solar vs. Rebuild Recommendation
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Action
generated at time: 2026-02-25T23:54:19.989786
was generated by: ProEthica Case 73 Extraction

Further Study Recommendation Before Unreliable System Deployment Engineer A Solar Without Storage
type: FurtherStudyRecommendationBeforeUnreliableSystemDeploymentConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A has identified unresolved safety concerns (rolling blackout risk, grid stress, vulnerable population harm) that parallel the unresolved safety concerns in BER 16-5 and BER 20-4, triggering the further study recommendation obligation.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.87
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Further Study Recommendation Before Unreliable System Deployment Constraint
constraintstatement: By analogy to BER Case 16-5, Engineer A is constrained to recommend further study before the solar-without-storage system is deployed, given the unresolved public safety concerns about rolling blackout risk and grid reliability that have been identified through the analysis.
discoveredincase: 73
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T22:49:20.614459+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 73
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T22:49:20.614459+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: BER Case 16-5 (by analogy); BER Case 20-4 (by analogy); NSPE Code of Ethics
sourcetext: The BER also suggested that, if necessary, the engineer recommend further study before the operating system is utilized
temporalscope: At time of preparing the board advisory report and any subsequent communications
textreferences: Installing a system without storage may result in rolling blackouts and facility interruptions and thus not be a success
textreferences: The BER also suggested that, if necessary, the engineer recommend further study before the operating system is utilized
textreferences: Therefore, Engineer A has an obligation to present this information in a report to the board
wasattributedto: Case 73 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T22:54:37.535382
was generated by: ProEthica Case 73 Extraction

Generator Approaches End-of-Life
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Event
generated at time: 2026-02-26T22:54:37.537008
was generated by: ProEthica Case 73 Extraction

Generator Approaches End-of-Life → Stakeholder Carbon Reduction Pressure Emerges
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-26T22:54:37.537369
was generated by: ProEthica Case 73 Extraction

Generator End-of-Life Reached
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Event
generated at time: 2026-02-25T23:54:19.989857
was generated by: ProEthica Case 73 Extraction

Generator End-of-Life Reached → Stakeholder Carbon Pressure Emerges
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T23:54:19.990135
was generated by: ProEthica Case 73 Extraction

Grid-Reliability-Utility-Resource-Planning-Report
type: GridReliabilityandUtilityResourcePlanningReport
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.88
createdby: Electric utility resource planners / public record of California and Texas grid events
discoveredincase: 73
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
documenttitle: Grid Reliability and Utility Resource Planning Reference (California and Texas Rolling Blackout Events)
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T22:28:36.405231+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 73
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T22:28:36.405231+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: Grid Reliability and Utility Resource Planning Report
sourcetext: With the current co-generation facility and a like-in-kind replacement, a presumably large electric load served by the utility can either stand alone or be operated to greatly reduce the electric load on a power system that will be stressed during extreme weather events.
textreferences: With the current co-generation facility and a like-in-kind replacement, a presumably large electric load served by the utility can either stand alone or be operated to greatly reduce the electric load on a power system that will be stressed during extreme weather events.
textreferences: the stress placed upon elderly or confined individuals as well as those with medical conditions if they are left without a comfortable environment during an extreme weather event such as California and Texas recently experienced - and which led to rolling blackouts.
textreferences: this option may also increase the likelihood of future rolling blackouts.
usedby: BER in establishing the factual basis for grid reliability concerns
usedincontext: Referenced as evidentiary background establishing that solar production without storage can stress the power grid during extreme weather events, increasing the likelihood of rolling blackouts; grounds Engineer A's obligation to include reliability data in the board report
wasattributedto: Case 73 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T22:54:37.515627
was generated by: ProEthica Case 73 Extraction

Grid Stress Risk Not Yet Disclosed to Board
type: UndisclosedRiskState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From Engineer A's conversation with the utility representative through the submission of the board report
affectedparties: Board of directors
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: Organization
affectedparties: Third-party electricity consumers
concept category: State
confidence: 0.93
discoveredincase: 73
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T22:27:43.324490+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 73
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T22:27:43.324490+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: Engineer A learns that the utility resource planners reviewed their current generation mix and believe that during extreme weather events, they may be forced to institute rolling outages
stateclass: Undisclosed Risk State
subject: Engineer A's knowledge of rolling blackout risk relative to the board
terminatedby: Disclosure of the grid stress and rolling blackout risk in the board report
textreferences: Engineer A is preparing a report that will be presented to the board
textreferences: Engineer A learns that the utility resource planners reviewed their current generation mix and believe that during extreme weather events, they may be forced to institute rolling outages
triggeringevent: Engineer A learning from the utility that rolling outages are possible during extreme weather, and realizing solar without storage would worsen this, before the board report is finalized
urgencylevel: high
wasattributedto: Case 73 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T22:54:37.514286
was generated by: ProEthica Case 73 Extraction

Honesty Invoked By Engineer A Complete Board Report
type: Honesty
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Board report on solar panel replacement decision
appliedto: Organizational Board Energy Decision Authority
balancingwith: Carbon Footprint Reduction Stakeholder preferences
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer A's honesty obligation requires that the board report not create a misleading impression that the solar project is unambiguously viable by omitting the rolling blackout risk that Engineer A is aware of.
confidence: 0.91
discoveredincase: 73
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T23:35:16.556086+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 73
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T23:35:16.556086+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: Honesty encompasses not only avoiding false statements but also avoiding misleading omissions; presenting the solar project as viable without disclosing the rolling blackout risk would create a false impression even if technically accurate in isolation.
invokedby: Engineer A Energy Systems Reporting Engineer
principleclass: Honesty
sourcetext: Engineer A is convinced that the solar project, when considered in isolation, is viable and will satisfy those stakeholders interested in reducing the organization's carbon footprint.
tensionresolution: Honesty requires Engineer A to include the rolling blackout risk in the board report to avoid creating a misleading impression of the solar project's viability.
textreferences: Engineer A also realizes that a move to solar production without storage may stress the local utility generation mix even more, increasing the likelihood of rolling blackouts.
textreferences: Engineer A is convinced that the solar project, when considered in isolation, is viable and will satisfy those stakeholders interested in reducing the organization's carbon footprint.
wasattributedto: Case 73 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T23:54:19.976307
was generated by: ProEthica Case 73 Extraction

Hybrid Design Exploration Constraint Engineer A Solar Storage Phased Options
type: HybridDesignExplorationConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A has identified that the solar-without-storage option creates a resilience gap and grid stress externality, while the generator rebuild option addresses these concerns but does not satisfy stakeholder carbon reduction interests. The binary framing may be premature if hybrid or phased solutions exist that could reduce the respective disadvantages.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.84
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Hybrid Design Exploration Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A is constrained from presenting the board with a binary choice between rebuilding the generator and installing solar panels without storage, without first exploring and presenting whether hybrid or phased solutions — such as partial battery storage, demand response programs, or phased solar-plus-storage implementation — could mitigate the resilience gap and grid stress externalities identified in the analysis.
discoveredincase: 73
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T23:38:28.511212+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 73
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T23:38:28.511212+00:00
importance: medium
severity: medium
source: NSPE Code of Ethics Section II.3.a and the principle that engineers must explore creative engineering synthesis before accepting binary design framings as definitive
sourcetext: Capital constraints prevent the organization from installing a system of batteries to store energy for use at night or in bad weather, but the cost of installing the solar panels is essentially the same as the cost to rebuild the generator.
temporalscope: During preparation of the board report and advisory analysis
textreferences: Capital constraints prevent the organization from installing a system of batteries to store energy for use at night or in bad weather, but the cost of installing the solar panels is essentially the same as the cost to rebuild the generator.
textreferences: Engineer A is satisfied that under normal conditions, the system of solar panels can supply electric energy equivalent to that provided by the existing generator.
wasattributedto: Case 73 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T23:54:19.979187
was generated by: ProEthica Case 73 Extraction

Hybrid Design Exploration Engineer A Solar Storage Phased Option
type: HybridDesignExplorationConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: The binary framing of solar-without-storage versus generator rebuild may not exhaust the design space; Engineer A should explore hybrid or phased alternatives that could reduce the reliability gap.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.83
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Hybrid Design Exploration Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A must explore and present to the board whether hybrid or phased design solutions exist — such as a partial battery storage system, a phased solar-plus-storage approach, or a hybrid solar-generator configuration — before accepting the binary framing of solar-without-storage versus generator rebuild as definitive.
discoveredincase: 73
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T22:40:57.194915+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 73
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T22:40:57.194915+00:00
importance: medium
severity: medium
source: Hybrid Design Exploration Constraint; NSPE Code of Ethics — completeness and sustainable development provisions
sourcetext: Capital constraints prevent the organization from installing a system of batteries to store energy for use at night or in bad weather
temporalscope: At the time of board report preparation and submission
textreferences: Capital constraints prevent the organization from installing a system of batteries to store energy for use at night or in bad weather
textreferences: the cost of installing the solar panels is essentially the same as the cost to rebuild the generator.
wasattributedto: Case 73 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T22:54:37.526210
was generated by: ProEthica Case 73 Extraction

I.1.
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-26T00:07:28.425330
was generated by: ProEthica Case 73 Extraction

I.6.
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-26T00:07:28.425380
was generated by: ProEthica Case 73 Extraction

II.1.c.
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-26T00:07:28.425416
was generated by: ProEthica Case 73 Extraction

II.3.a.
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-26T00:07:28.425448
was generated by: ProEthica Case 73 Extraction

II.3.b.
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-26T00:07:28.425481
was generated by: ProEthica Case 73 Extraction

II.4.
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-26T00:07:28.425512
was generated by: ProEthica Case 73 Extraction

III.1.b.
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-26T00:07:28.425543
was generated by: ProEthica Case 73 Extraction

III.2.d.
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-26T00:07:28.425577
was generated by: ProEthica Case 73 Extraction

In-Isolation Viability Finding Masking Grid Stress Externality
type: IsolatedProjectViabilityMaskingSystemicRiskState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From the time Engineer A completed the in-isolation viability analysis and simultaneously recognized the grid stress externality, through the finalization and presentation of the board report
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: Local utility
affectedparties: Organization board
affectedparties: Stakeholders
affectedparties: Third-party utility customers
concept category: State
confidence: 0.89
discoveredincase: 73
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T23:32:16.024444+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 73
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T23:32:16.024444+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: Engineer A is convinced that the solar project, when considered in isolation, is viable
stateclass: Isolated Project Viability Masking Systemic Risk State
subject: Engineer A's board report presenting solar project viability without yet incorporating the grid stress externality finding
terminatedby: Engineer A revises the board report to include the grid stress externality and resilience gap disclosures
textreferences: Engineer A also realizes that a move to solar production without storage may stress the local utility generation mix even more
textreferences: Engineer A is convinced that the solar project, when considered in isolation, is viable
textreferences: Engineer A is preparing a report that will be presented to the board
triggeringevent: Engineer A completed analysis confirming solar viability under normal conditions and simultaneously learned from the utility of the grid stress risk, creating a gap between the in-isolation finding and the complete picture
urgencylevel: high
wasattributedto: Case 73 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T23:54:19.970910
was generated by: ProEthica Case 73 Extraction

Incomplete Risk Disclosure Prohibition Engineer A Rolling Blackout Omission
type: IncompleteRiskDisclosureProhibition
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A knows that the solar-without-storage transition will increase demand stress on the local utility grid and that utility resource planners believe rolling outages may be necessary during extreme weather events. This risk must be included in the board report regardless of its third-party origin.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.93
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Incomplete Risk Disclosure Prohibition
constraintstatement: Engineer A is prohibited from omitting the rolling blackout risk — communicated by the local electric utility's resource planners — from the board report, even though that risk arises from third-party grid stress rather than from the solar system's direct performance characteristics.
discoveredincase: 73
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T23:38:28.511212+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 73
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T23:38:28.511212+00:00
importance: high
severity: critical
source: NSPE Code of Ethics Section II.3.a and the principle that engineers must not omit known material risks from communications with clients and employers
sourcetext: Engineer A learns that the utility resource planners reviewed their current generation mix and believe that during extreme weather events, they may be forced to institute rolling outages
temporalscope: During preparation and submission of the board report on the solar project
textreferences: Engineer A also realizes that a move to solar production without storage may stress the local utility generation mix even more, increasing the likelihood of rolling blackouts.
textreferences: Engineer A learns that the utility resource planners reviewed their current generation mix and believe that during extreme weather events, they may be forced to institute rolling outages
wasattributedto: Case 73 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T23:54:19.978296
was generated by: ProEthica Case 73 Extraction

Informal Technical Communication Factual Grounding Constraint Engineer A Utility Planner Communication
type: InformalTechnicalCommunicationFactualGroundingConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A learned of the rolling blackout risk through a discussion with a representative of the local electric utility rather than through a formal written report. The informal nature of the communication does not relieve Engineer A of the obligation to disclose the risk in the board report.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.87
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Informal Technical Communication Factual Grounding Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A is constrained from omitting the rolling blackout risk from the board report on the grounds that the utility resource planner's communication was informal or unverified — the communication from a qualified technical authority constitutes sufficient factual grounding to trigger the disclosure obligation, and Engineer A must disclose the risk with appropriate qualification as to its source.
discoveredincase: 73
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T23:38:28.511212+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 73
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T23:38:28.511212+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics Section II.3.a and the principle that professional disclosure obligations are triggered by actual knowledge regardless of the formality of the communication channel
sourcetext: When discussing the analysis of the electric load profile with a representative of the local electric utility, Engineer A learns that the utility resource planners reviewed their current generation mix and believe that during extreme weather events, they may be forced to institute rolling outages
temporalscope: From the time Engineer A received the utility resource planner communication through submission of the board report
textreferences: When discussing the analysis of the electric load profile with a representative of the local electric utility, Engineer A learns that the utility resource planners reviewed their current generation mix and believe that during extreme weather events, they may be forced to institute rolling outages
wasattributedto: Case 73 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T23:54:19.978753
was generated by: ProEthica Case 73 Extraction

Informed Decision-Making Enablement Obligation Invoked by Engineer A for Board Report
type: InformedDecision-MakingEnablementObligation
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Grid reliability disclosure
appliedto: Organizational board energy system replacement decision
appliedto: Solar-without-storage vs. fossil-fueled co-generation comparison
balancingwith: Faithful Agent Obligation Within Ethical Limits
balancingwith: Trustee Discretion and Deference Obligation
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer A's obligation to include grid reliability data and systemic grid impact analysis in the report to the organizational board, so that the board can make a genuinely informed capital investment decision rather than one based solely on energy production equivalence and carbon footprint metrics
confidence: 0.92
discoveredincase: 73
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T22:44:21.888625+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 73
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T22:44:21.888625+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: The board, as a non-engineer decision-making body, depends entirely on Engineer A's report for technical information; omitting reliability data would structurally prevent informed decision-making regardless of whether the omission was intentional
invokedby: Engineer A Energy Systems Reporting Engineer
principleclass: Informed Decision-Making Enablement Obligation
sourcetext: A report that does not contain information about the reliability of the utility source will not help them make an informed decision
tensionresolution: The engineer's obligation to enable informed decision-making is satisfied by presenting complete information including reliability trade-offs; the ultimate decision authority remains with the board, which may choose the fossil-fueled option, the solar-with-storage option, or the solar-without-storage option based on complete information
textreferences: A report that does not contain information about the reliability of the utility source will not help them make an informed decision
textreferences: Engineer A has an obligation to present this information in a report to the board
textreferences: Engineer A is obliged to include relevant and pertinent information in a report to the board
textreferences: The ethical objective is an informed policy and project decision-making process
wasattributedto: Case 73 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T22:54:37.528751
was generated by: ProEthica Case 73 Extraction

Informed Policy Decision Facilitation Engineer A Board Report Structure
type: InformedPolicyDecisionFacilitationConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: The ethical objective identified in the case is 'an informed policy and project decision-making process'; Engineer A's report must be structured to achieve this objective.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.96
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Informed Policy Decision Facilitation Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A is constrained to structure the board report so that the organizational board's decision-making process is genuinely informed — presenting all material technical findings, trade-offs, and alternatives (including fossil fuel retention, solar-with-storage, and solar-without-storage) — and cannot submit a report that, while technically accurate in isolated findings, fails to provide the complete information necessary for an informed policy choice.
discoveredincase: 73
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T22:49:20.614459+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 73
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T22:49:20.614459+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics; BER Case precedents
sourcetext: The ethical objective is an informed policy and project decision-making process
temporalscope: Throughout preparation and submission of the board advisory report
textreferences: A report that does not contain information about the reliability of the utility source will not help them make an informed decision
textreferences: The ethical objective is an informed policy and project decision-making process
wasattributedto: Case 73 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T22:54:37.535691
was generated by: ProEthica Case 73 Extraction

Informed Policy Decision Facilitation Engineer A Board Solar Report
type: InformedPolicyDecisionFacilitationConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: The board must make a policy decision about the solar transition; Engineer A's report must provide complete information including the rolling blackout risk and battery storage alternative.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.93
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Informed Policy Decision Facilitation Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A must structure the board report to facilitate an informed policy decision by the board — including presenting all material technical findings, tradeoffs between carbon reduction and grid reliability, and the battery storage alternative — prohibiting a report that, while technically accurate in isolated findings, fails to provide the board with complete information necessary for an informed policy choice.
discoveredincase: 73
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T22:40:57.194915+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 73
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T22:40:57.194915+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics — objectivity and completeness provisions; Professional Report Integrity Standard
sourcetext: Engineer A is preparing a report that will be presented to the board to consider the new solar project
temporalscope: At the time of board report preparation and submission
textreferences: Engineer A is convinced that the solar project, when considered in isolation, is viable and will satisfy those stakeholders interested in reducing the organization's carbon footprint.
textreferences: Engineer A is preparing a report that will be presented to the board to consider the new solar project
wasattributedto: Case 73 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T22:54:37.525377
was generated by: ProEthica Case 73 Extraction

Initiate Solar Replacement Study
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Action
generated at time: 2026-02-25T23:54:19.989447
was generated by: ProEthica Case 73 Extraction

Initiate Solar Replacement Study → Solar Energy Equivalence Confirmed
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T23:54:19.990167
was generated by: ProEthica Case 73 Extraction

Isolated Solar Viability Masking Systemic Grid Risk
type: IsolatedProjectViabilityMaskingSystemicRiskState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From Engineer A's initial equivalence finding through recognition of broader grid-stress implications
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: Local grid users
affectedparties: Organization/Board
concept category: State
confidence: 0.95
discoveredincase: 73
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T22:28:50.636637+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 73
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T22:28:50.636637+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: the solar generation system without storage will provide energy generation equivalent to the existing fossil-fueled generator at a similar cost; the system also reduces the organization's carbon footprint.
stateclass: Isolated Project Viability Masking Systemic Risk State
subject: Solar-without-storage system appearing viable in isolation (equivalent energy, similar cost, reduced carbon) while masking systemic grid reliability risk
terminatedby: Engineer A's full disclosure of systemic reliability implications to the board
textreferences: At first glance, this finding in conjunction with the earlier conclusion that system reliability data be included in the report to board may seem to satisfy Engineer A's obligations.
textreferences: Further, a system without energy storage decreases the reliability of the entire local electric power system.
textreferences: Note that 'equivalent' as used to this point in the discussion has not addressed reliability.
textreferences: the solar generation system without storage will provide energy generation equivalent to the existing fossil-fueled generator at a similar cost; the system also reduces the organization's carbon footprint.
triggeringevent: Finding that solar system produces equivalent energy at similar cost, which is accurate in isolation but incomplete without reliability and grid-impact context
urgencylevel: high
wasattributedto: Case 73 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T22:54:37.518669
was generated by: ProEthica Case 73 Extraction

Isolated Technical Viability Insufficiency Invoked by Engineer A Solar Normal Conditions Finding
type: IsolatedTechnicalViabilityInsufficiencyPrinciple
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Board report viability finding for solar replacement project
appliedto: Organizational Board Decision Authority
balancingwith: Completeness and Non-Selectivity in Professional Advisory Opinions
balancingwith: Reliability Equivalence Disclosure in Energy System Advisory Reports
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer A's finding that solar panels can supply energy equivalent to the co-generation facility 'under normal conditions' is technically accurate but ethically insufficient as the sole basis for the board report recommendation, because it omits the material qualifier that viability breaks down under abnormal conditions (night, bad weather, extreme weather events) and that these conditions are precisely when grid stress and rolling blackout risk are highest.
confidence: 0.88
discoveredincase: 73
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T22:36:47.519403+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 73
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T22:36:47.519403+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: The 'under normal conditions' qualifier in Engineer A's own assessment signals awareness that the isolated viability finding is incomplete; professional ethics requires that this qualifier be prominently featured in the board report, not buried or omitted.
invokedby: Engineer A
principleclass: Isolated Technical Viability Insufficiency Principle
sourcetext: Engineer A is satisfied that under normal conditions, the system of solar panels can supply electric energy equivalent to that provided by the existing generator.
tensionresolution: The isolated viability finding should be presented as a qualified finding, explicitly noting the conditions under which it holds and the conditions under which it does not, so the board can assess the full risk profile.
textreferences: Engineer A is convinced that the solar project, when considered in isolation, is viable and will satisfy those stakeholders interested in reducing the organization's carbon footprint.
textreferences: Engineer A is satisfied that under normal conditions, the system of solar panels can supply electric energy equivalent to that provided by the existing generator.
wasattributedto: Case 73 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T22:54:37.521928
was generated by: ProEthica Case 73 Extraction

Isolated Technical Viability Insufficiency Invoked for Energy Equivalence Finding
type: IsolatedTechnicalViabilityInsufficiencyPrinciple
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Board advisory report completeness
appliedto: Energy production equivalence analysis
appliedto: Solar-without-storage technical viability finding
balancingwith: Reliability Equivalence Disclosure in Energy System Advisory Reports
balancingwith: Systemic Grid Impact Disclosure Obligation
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer A's finding that the solar-without-storage system produces energy equivalent to the fossil-fueled co-generator at similar cost is technically accurate in isolation but ethically insufficient as the sole basis for a recommendation, because it does not account for reliability differences, systemic grid impacts, or vulnerable population welfare
confidence: 0.95
discoveredincase: 73
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T22:44:21.888625+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 73
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T22:44:21.888625+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: The isolated finding of energy production equivalence creates a misleading impression of full equivalence; the principle requires the engineer to contextualize this finding within the full operational environment before presenting conclusions to the board
invokedby: Engineer A Energy Systems Reporting Engineer
principleclass: Isolated Technical Viability Insufficiency Principle
sourcetext: Note that 'equivalent' as used to this point in the discussion has not addressed reliability. At first glance, this finding in conjunction with the earlier conclusion that system reliability data be included in the report to board may seem to satisfy Engineer A's obligations.
tensionresolution: The principle is operationalized by requiring Engineer A to supplement the isolated equivalence finding with reliability analysis, systemic grid impact assessment, and vulnerable population impact disclosure before presenting the report to the board
textreferences: At first glance, this finding in conjunction with the earlier conclusion that system reliability data be included in the report to board may seem to satisfy Engineer A's obligations
textreferences: Note that 'equivalent' as used to this point in the discussion has not addressed reliability
textreferences: The proposed solar generation system without storage may produce the same energy that the existing fossil-fueled generator does, but it will not be as reliable
wasattributedto: Case 73 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T22:54:37.530220
was generated by: ProEthica Case 73 Extraction

Local Electric Utility Resource Planner
type: ElectricUtilityGridResourcePlanner
type: NamedIndividual
attributes: {'organization': 'Local electric utility', 'function': 'Generation resource mix planning and grid reliability assessment', 'key_disclosure': 'Potential rolling outages during extreme weather events due to current generation mix constraints'}
caseinvolvement: Representative of the local electric utility whose resource planners assessed the current generation mix and communicated to Engineer A that rolling outages may be necessary during extreme weather events, providing the critical grid reliability information that Engineer A must incorporate into the board report.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.83
discoveredincase: 73
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T23:31:46.147008+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 73
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T23:31:46.147008+00:00
importance: medium
relationships: {'type': 'grid_operator_for', 'target': 'General Public (service territory)'}
relationships: {'type': 'information_provider_to', 'target': 'Engineer A Energy Systems Reporting Engineer'}
rolecategory: participant
roleclass: Electric Utility Grid Resource Planner
sourcetext: When discussing the analysis of the electric load profile with a representative of the local electric utility
textreferences: Engineer A learns that the utility resource planners reviewed their current generation mix and believe that during extreme weather events, they may be forced to institute rolling outages to keep system generating facilities on-line
textreferences: When discussing the analysis of the electric load profile with a representative of the local electric utility
wasattributedto: Case 73 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T23:54:19.970194
was generated by: ProEthica Case 73 Extraction

Local Utility Resource Planner Electric Utility Grid Resource Planner
type: ElectricUtilityGridResourcePlanner
type: NamedIndividual
attributes: {'organization': 'Local electric utility', 'function': 'Generation resource mix planning and grid reliability assessment'}
caseinvolvement: A representative of the local electric utility whose resource planners have reviewed the current generation mix and assessed that during extreme weather events they may be forced to institute rolling outages. This assessment, communicated to Engineer A, creates the obligation for Engineer A to disclose grid-level impacts in the board report.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.95
discoveredincase: 73
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T22:27:25.884461+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 73
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T22:27:25.884461+00:00
importance: medium
relationships: {'type': 'affected_by', 'target': 'Solar project decision'}
relationships: {'type': 'informs', 'target': 'Engineer A Energy Systems Reporting Engineer'}
rolecategory: participant
roleclass: Electric Utility Grid Resource Planner
sourcetext: When discussing the analysis of the electric load profile with a representative of the local electric utility, Engineer A learns that the utility resource planners reviewed their current generation mix and believe that during extreme weather events, they may be forced to institute rolling outages
textreferences: When discussing the analysis of the electric load profile with a representative of the local electric utility, Engineer A learns that the utility resource planners reviewed their current generation mix and believe that during extreme weather events, they may be forced to institute rolling outages
wasattributedto: Case 73 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T22:54:37.511824
was generated by: ProEthica Case 73 Extraction

Long-Term Public Welfare Non-Subordination Engineer A Solar Transition Board Report
type: Long-TermPublicWelfareNon-SubordinationtoShort-TermGainConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: The solar-without-storage option offers short-term sustainability gains (carbon footprint reduction) but may undermine long-term public welfare (grid reliability, vulnerable population protection); Engineer A must not allow the short-term gain to dominate the report framing.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.88
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Long-Term Public Welfare Non-Subordination to Short-Term Gain Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A is constrained from structuring the board report in a manner that subordinates long-term public welfare considerations — sustained grid reliability and protection of vulnerable populations — to the short-term sustainability gain of carbon footprint reduction, and must explicitly identify and disclose the long-term welfare trade-offs when presenting the short-term benefits of the solar transition.
discoveredincase: 73
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T22:49:20.614459+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 73
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T22:49:20.614459+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics; BER Case 98-5 (long-term public welfare cannot be undermined for short-term gain)
sourcetext: long-term public welfare (a valid building code enforcement process) cannot be undermined for short-term gain (grandfathering specified buildings in the name of increased jobs and tax revenues)
temporalscope: Throughout preparation and submission of the board advisory report
textreferences: Some may argue that continuing to operate a fossil-fueled generator is inconsistent with public health, safety, and welfare, while others will point to the increased reliability of the fossil-fueled generator as a demonstration of greater concern for public welfare
textreferences: The ethical objective is an informed policy and project decision-making process
textreferences: long-term public welfare (a valid building code enforcement process) cannot be undermined for short-term gain (grandfathering specified buildings in the name of increased jobs and tax revenues)
wasattributedto: Case 73 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T22:54:37.536055
was generated by: ProEthica Case 73 Extraction

Low Probability High Consequence Risk Disclosure Constraint Engineer A Extreme Weather Rolling Blackout
type: Low-ProbabilityHigh-ConsequenceRiskDisclosureConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: The rolling blackout risk arises specifically during extreme weather events, which are by definition lower-probability occurrences. However, the consequences — loss of electricity during extreme weather — are high-consequence events that disproportionately affect vulnerable populations. Engineer A must disclose this risk with appropriate probability and consequence framing.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.89
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Low-Probability High-Consequence Risk Disclosure Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A is constrained from omitting the rolling blackout risk from the board report on the grounds that it arises only during extreme weather events — the low-probability but high-consequence nature of the risk, combined with its disproportionate impact on vulnerable populations dependent on electricity during extreme weather, requires disclosure regardless of its conditional probability.
discoveredincase: 73
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T23:38:28.511212+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 73
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T23:38:28.511212+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics Section I.1 and the principle that low-probability high-consequence risks must be disclosed with their full consequence profile alongside probability assessments
sourcetext: the utility resource planners reviewed their current generation mix and believe that during extreme weather events, they may be forced to institute rolling outages to keep system generating facilities on-line.
temporalscope: During preparation and submission of the board report on the solar project
textreferences: Engineer A also realizes that a move to solar production without storage may stress the local utility generation mix even more, increasing the likelihood of rolling blackouts.
textreferences: the utility resource planners reviewed their current generation mix and believe that during extreme weather events, they may be forced to institute rolling outages to keep system generating facilities on-line.
wasattributedto: Case 73 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T23:54:19.979631
was generated by: ProEthica Case 73 Extraction

Municipal Water Commission BER 20-4
type: MetropolitanWaterCommissionDecisionAuthority
type: NamedIndividual
attributes: {'type': 'Public water authority board', 'case_reference': 'BER Case 20-4'}
caseinvolvement: A public board (municipal water commission) that chose to change the source of their potable water system to reduce public expenditures despite engineers' recommendations that further study was needed to ensure public safety.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.95
discoveredincase: 73
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T22:28:40.748926+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 73
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T22:28:40.748926+00:00
importance: high
relationships: {'type': 'receives_recommendations_from', 'target': 'Water Commission Engineers BER 20-4'}
rolecategory: public_responsibility
roleclass: Metropolitan Water Commission Decision Authority
sourcetext: a public board (a municipal water commission) choosing to change the source of their potable water system to reduce public expenditures despite the recommendations of two engineers that further study was needed to ensure public safety
textreferences: a public board (a municipal water commission) choosing to change the source of their potable water system to reduce public expenditures despite the recommendations of two engineers that further study was needed to ensure public safety
wasattributedto: Case 73 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T22:54:37.517619
was generated by: ProEthica Case 73 Extraction

Municipal Water Commission BER 20-4 Decision Authority
type: MetropolitanWaterCommissionDecisionAuthority
type: NamedIndividual
attributes: {'entity_type': 'Public water authority board', 'decision_context': 'BER Case 20-4 referenced as analogous precedent'}
caseinvolvement: A public water authority board that chose to change the source of their potable water system to reduce public expenditures despite recommendations from two engineers that further study was needed to ensure public safety, generating engineer obligations to formally communicate concerns to the commission and to state regulatory agencies.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.9
discoveredincase: 73
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T23:33:20.103706+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 73
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T23:33:20.103706+00:00
importance: medium
relationships: {'type': 'receives_recommendations_from', 'target': 'Public Health Risk Reporting Engineers BER 20-4'}
rolecategory: public_responsibility
roleclass: Metropolitan Water Commission Decision Authority
sourcetext: Recent BER Case 20-4 addressed a public board (a municipal water commission) choosing to change the source of their potable water system to reduce public expenditures despite the recommendations of two engineers that further study was needed to ensure public safety.
textreferences: Recent BER Case 20-4 addressed a public board (a municipal water commission) choosing to change the source of their potable water system to reduce public expenditures despite the recommendations of two engineers that further study was needed to ensure public safety.
wasattributedto: Case 73 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T23:54:19.972913
was generated by: ProEthica Case 73 Extraction

NSPE-BER-Case-16-5
type: BERCasePrecedent
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.97
createdby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review
discoveredincase: 73
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
documenttitle: NSPE Board of Ethical Review Case 16-5 (Autonomous Vehicle Operating System)
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T22:28:36.405231+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 73
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T22:28:36.405231+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: BER Case Precedent
sourcetext: BER Case 16-5 is also instructive; it deals with an engineer working on a team developing a driverless/autonomous vehicle operating system.
textreferences: BER Case 16-5 is also instructive; it deals with an engineer working on a team developing a driverless/autonomous vehicle operating system.
textreferences: The BER also suggested that, if necessary, the engineer recommend further study before the operating system is utilized.
textreferences: The conclusions in Case 16-5 suggest the engineer fully and actively participate as a member of the engineering risk management team and express clearly and unambiguously concerns regarding safety of the operating system.
usedby: BER in analyzing Engineer A's obligations regarding competing public goods and risk communication
usedincontext: Cited as precedent for the principle that engineers must fully and actively participate in risk management deliberations, express safety concerns clearly and unambiguously, and recommend further study before deployment when necessary; applied to Engineer A's obligation to raise reliability and public safety concerns about the solar-without-storage option
wasattributedto: Case 73 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T22:54:37.515114
was generated by: ProEthica Case 73 Extraction

NSPE-BER-Case-20-4
type: BERCasePrecedent
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.97
createdby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review
discoveredincase: 73
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
documenttitle: NSPE Board of Ethical Review Case 20-4 (Municipal Water Commission / Potable Water Source Change)
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T22:28:36.405231+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 73
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T22:28:36.405231+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: BER Case Precedent
sourcetext: Recent BER Case 20-4 addressed a public board (a municipal water commission) choosing to change the source of their potable water system to reduce public expenditures despite the recommendations of two engineers that further study was needed to ensure public safety.
textreferences: Recent BER Case 20-4 addressed a public board (a municipal water commission) choosing to change the source of their potable water system to reduce public expenditures despite the recommendations of two engineers that further study was needed to ensure public safety.
textreferences: The BER also found that given the gravity of the potential danger to public health and safety, the engineers have an obligation to formally report their concerns to the state regulatory agency.
textreferences: The BER found that the engineers have an obligation to formally communicate their concerns to the water commission.
usedby: BER in analyzing Engineer A's reporting and escalation obligations
usedincontext: Cited as precedent establishing that engineers have an obligation to formally communicate safety concerns to a public board and, given gravity of potential danger to public health and safety, to formally report concerns to the state regulatory agency; directly analogous to Engineer A's obligation to report grid reliability risks to the board
wasattributedto: Case 73 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T22:54:37.514968
was generated by: ProEthica Case 73 Extraction

NSPE-BER-Case-98-5
type: BERCasePrecedent
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.97
createdby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review
discoveredincase: 73
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
documenttitle: NSPE Board of Ethical Review Case 98-5 (Engineer Adam / Building Inspection)
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T22:28:36.405231+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 73
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T22:28:36.405231+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: BER Case Precedent
sourcetext: BER Case 98-5 describes how Engineer Adam serves as director of a building department in a major city.
textreferences: 'righting a wrong with another wrong' does grave damage to the public health and safety
textreferences: BER Case 98-5 describes how Engineer Adam serves as director of a building department in a major city.
textreferences: In finding that it was not ethical for Engineer Adam to concur with the chairman's proposal – a politically-motivated 'Faustian bargain' to hire additional building code officials – the BER affirmed that engineers 'must hold the public health and safety paramount.'
usedby: BER in analyzing Engineer A's reporting obligations
usedincontext: Cited as precedent establishing that engineers must hold public health and safety paramount and cannot accept politically-motivated compromises ('Faustian bargains') that undermine long-term public welfare for short-term gain; used to ground Engineer A's obligation to report complete information to the board
wasattributedto: Case 73 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T22:54:37.514821
was generated by: ProEthica Case 73 Extraction

NSPE-Code-of-Ethics
type: ProfessionalCode
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.95
createdby: National Society of Professional Engineers
discoveredincase: 73
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
documenttitle: NSPE Code of Ethics for Engineers
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T22:28:36.405231+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 73
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T22:28:36.405231+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: Professional Code
sourcetext: As a registered professional, Engineer A is obliged to include relevant and pertinent information in a report to the board.
textreferences: As a registered professional, Engineer A is obliged to include relevant and pertinent information in a report to the board.
textreferences: This discussion has so far not addressed the obligation of Engineer A in this case to act as a faithful agent or trustee for the employer.
textreferences: engineers 'must hold the public health and safety paramount.'
usedby: BER in framing all ethical obligations of Engineer A
usedincontext: Implicitly invoked throughout as the normative foundation for Engineer A's obligations: to hold public health and safety paramount, to act as faithful agent or trustee, and to include complete and relevant information in professional reports to the board
wasattributedto: Case 73 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T22:54:37.515253
was generated by: ProEthica Case 73 Extraction

NSPE Code of Ethics - Fundamental Canon on Public Safety
type: ProfessionalCode
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.95
createdby: National Society of Professional Engineers
discoveredincase: 73
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
documenttitle: NSPE Code of Ethics for Engineers
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T22:27:33.123798+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 73
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T22:27:33.123798+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: Professional Code
sourcetext: Engineer A also realizes that a move to solar production without storage may stress the local utility generation mix even more, increasing the likelihood of rolling blackouts.
textreferences: Engineer A also realizes that a move to solar production without storage may stress the local utility generation mix even more, increasing the likelihood of rolling blackouts.
usedby: Engineer A in preparing the board report
usedincontext: Grounds Engineer A's obligation to hold public safety paramount and to disclose systemic risks (rolling blackouts) that extend beyond the immediate client's interests when preparing the board report on the solar project
version: Current
wasattributedto: Case 73 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T22:54:37.512291
was generated by: ProEthica Case 73 Extraction

NSPE Code of Ethics - Sustainable Development Ethics Provision
type: SustainableDevelopmentEthicsProvision
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.85
createdby: National Society of Professional Engineers
discoveredincase: 73
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
documenttitle: NSPE Code of Ethics for Engineers – Professional Obligations (sustainable development)
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T22:27:33.123798+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 73
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T22:27:33.123798+00:00
importance: medium
resourceclass: Sustainable Development Ethics Provision
sourcetext: stakeholders have expressed interest in reducing the organization's carbon footprint
textreferences: Engineer A is convinced that the solar project, when considered in isolation, is viable and will satisfy those stakeholders interested in reducing the organization's carbon footprint
textreferences: stakeholders have expressed interest in reducing the organization's carbon footprint
usedby: Engineer A and organizational stakeholders evaluating the solar project
usedincontext: Provides normative grounding for stakeholder interest in reducing the organization's carbon footprint and Engineer A's engagement with the solar transition proposal
version: Current
wasattributedto: Case 73 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T22:54:37.512439
was generated by: ProEthica Case 73 Extraction

NSPE Code of Ethics for Engineers
type: ProfessionalCode
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.95
createdby: National Society of Professional Engineers
discoveredincase: 73
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
documenttitle: NSPE Code of Ethics for Engineers
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T23:31:30.780685+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 73
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T23:31:30.780685+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: Professional Code
sourcetext: Engineer A is preparing a report that will be presented to the board
textreferences: Engineer A also realizes that a move to solar production without storage may stress the local utility generation mix even more, increasing the likelihood of rolling blackouts
textreferences: Engineer A is preparing a report that will be presented to the board
usedby: Engineer A in preparing the board report and evaluating disclosure obligations
usedincontext: Primary normative authority governing Engineer A's obligations to hold public safety paramount, provide complete and accurate reports to the board, and disclose systemic risks of the solar project beyond the isolated project analysis
version: Current
wasattributedto: Case 73 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T23:54:19.968681
was generated by: ProEthica Case 73 Extraction

No-Storage Solar Risk Notification Engineer A Board Faithful Agent
type: No-StorageSolarTransitionFaithfulAgentRiskNotificationObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Capital constraints prevent installation of battery storage. The solar system is viable under normal conditions but cannot supply energy at night or in bad weather without storage. The utility has warned of potential rolling outages during extreme weather events, and the solar transition may worsen this risk.
compliancestatus: unclear
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.88
discoveredincase: 73
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T23:36:47.063155+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 73
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T23:36:47.063155+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationclass: No-Storage Solar Transition Faithful Agent Risk Notification Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A is obligated, as a faithful agent of the organization, to advise the board in writing that the proposed solar system without battery storage cannot guarantee continuous electric supply during extreme weather events or grid rolling blackout conditions, and that the transition may increase the probability of such events, so that the board can make an informed decision about whether to proceed, invest in storage, or maintain the existing generation capability.
sourcetext: Capital constraints prevent the organization from installing a system of batteries to store energy for use at night or in bad weather, but the cost of installing the solar panels is essentially the same as the cost to rebuild the generator.
temporalscope: In the board report prepared for the solar project decision
textreferences: Capital constraints prevent the organization from installing a system of batteries to store energy for use at night or in bad weather, but the cost of installing the solar panels is essentially the same as the cost to rebuild the generator.
textreferences: Engineer A is preparing a report that will be presented to the board to consider the new solar project
textreferences: Engineer A learns that the utility resource planners reviewed their current generation mix and believe that during extreme weather events, they may be forced to institute rolling outages to keep system generating facilities on-line.
wasattributedto: Case 73 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T23:54:19.977206
was generated by: ProEthica Case 73 Extraction

No-Storage Solar Risk Notification Engineer A Written Board Report
type: No-StorageSolarTransitionFaithfulAgentRiskNotificationObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Capital constraints prevent battery storage installation; the solar system is dependent on grid availability; utility resource planners have flagged rolling outage risk during extreme weather.
compliancestatus: unclear
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.96
discoveredincase: 73
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T22:39:03.522019+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 73
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T22:39:03.522019+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationclass: No-Storage Solar Transition Faithful Agent Risk Notification Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A is obligated to notify the board in writing that the solar-without-storage system cannot guarantee continuous electric supply during extreme weather events or rolling blackout conditions, and that the transition may increase the probability of such events, so the board can make an informed decision about whether to proceed, invest in storage, or maintain the generator.
sourcetext: Capital constraints prevent the organization from installing a system of batteries to store energy for use at night or in bad weather
temporalscope: In the written board report prior to the capital investment decision
textreferences: Capital constraints prevent the organization from installing a system of batteries to store energy for use at night or in bad weather
textreferences: Engineer A also realizes that a move to solar production without storage may stress the local utility generation mix even more
textreferences: during extreme weather events, they may be forced to institute rolling outages
wasattributedto: Case 73 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T22:54:37.523168
was generated by: ProEthica Case 73 Extraction

Non-Subordination of Public Safety to Political Bargaining Invoked By Engineer Adam BER 98-5
type: Non-SubordinationofPublicSafetyObligationtoPoliticalorBudgetaryBargaining
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: City council chairman's proposed grandfathering ordinance for buildings under construction
balancingwith: Employer Loyalty
balancingwith: Faithful Agent Obligation Within Ethical Limits
balancingwith: Practical resource constraints
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer Adam must refuse to concur with the chairman's proposed grandfathering ordinance — which would exempt specified buildings from newer, more rigorous safety codes — even though concurrence is offered as consideration for the politically valuable benefit of hiring additional code officials to address the inspection staffing crisis
confidence: 0.97
discoveredincase: 73
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T23:41:15.494672+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 73
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T23:41:15.494672+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: The political bargain offered — additional inspectors in exchange for grandfathering — is a Faustian bargain that uses public safety as a negotiating chip; the BER found this ethically impermissible because righting a wrong (inadequate inspectors) with another wrong (reduced code enforcement) does grave damage to public health and safety
invokedby: Engineer Adam Building Inspection Program PE
principleclass: Non-Subordination of Public Safety Obligation to Political or Budgetary Bargaining
sourcetext: the BER affirmed that engineers 'must hold the public health and safety paramount.'
tensionresolution: The public safety obligation is non-negotiable and cannot be traded away for political concessions; Engineer Adam must insist vociferously that public officials fulfill safety obligations through legitimate means rather than accepting the bargain
textreferences: Engineer Adam 'had a responsibility to insist, however strongly and vociferously, that public officials and decision-makers take steps and corrective steps if necessary to see that this obligation is fulfilled.'
textreferences: in finding that it was not ethical for Engineer Adam to concur with the chairman's proposal – a politically-motivated 'Faustian bargain' to hire additional building code officials – the BER affirmed that engineers 'must hold the public health and safety paramount.'
textreferences: the BER further noted 'righting a wrong with another wrong' does grave damage to the public health and safety, and that long-term public welfare (a valid building code enforcement process) cannot be undermined for short-term gain (grandfathering specified buildings in the name of increased jobs and tax revenues).
wasattributedto: Case 73 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T23:54:19.983058
was generated by: ProEthica Case 73 Extraction

Non-Subordination of Public Safety to Political Bargaining Invoked in BER 98-5 Analogy
type: Non-SubordinationofPublicSafetyObligationtoPoliticalorBudgetaryBargaining
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Building code grandfathering ordinance
appliedto: Building inspection adequacy
appliedto: City council chairman's political bargain
balancingwith: Competing Public Goods Balancing in Engineering Advisory Roles
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer Adam's refusal to concur with grandfathering buildings under older, less rigorous code requirements as a political quid pro quo for hiring additional code officials, affirming that public safety cannot be traded for political concessions even when the concession would address a genuine resource problem
confidence: 0.93
discoveredincase: 73
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T22:44:21.888625+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 73
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T22:44:21.888625+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: The BER 98-5 precedent is invoked in this case to provide guidance on how engineers should handle conflicts between competing public goods — the principle is that engineers must insist on public safety standards through legitimate channels rather than accepting politically-motivated compromises
invokedby: Engineer Adam Building Inspection Program PE
principleclass: Non-Subordination of Public Safety Obligation to Political or Budgetary Bargaining
sourcetext: righting a wrong with another wrong does grave damage to the public health and safety, and that long-term public welfare (a valid building code enforcement process) cannot be undermined for short-term gain
tensionresolution: The BER affirmed that 'righting a wrong with another wrong' is not ethically permissible; Engineer Adam was required to insist on corrective action through legitimate means rather than accepting the political bargain
textreferences: Engineer Adam had a responsibility to insist, however strongly and vociferously, that public officials and decision-makers take steps and corrective steps if necessary to see that this obligation is fulfilled
textreferences: long-term public welfare (a valid building code enforcement process) cannot be undermined for short-term gain (grandfathering specified buildings in the name of increased jobs and tax revenues)
textreferences: righting a wrong with another wrong does grave damage to the public health and safety
textreferences: the BER affirmed that engineers must hold the public health and safety paramount
wasattributedto: Case 73 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T22:54:37.528188
was generated by: ProEthica Case 73 Extraction

Objective Complete Reporting Engineer A Solar Board Report
type: ObjectiveandCompleteReportingObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A is preparing a board report that will inform the organization's decision about whether to replace the co-generation facility with solar panels. The report must be objective and complete, including adverse information about grid stress and rolling blackout risk.
compliancestatus: unclear
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.92
discoveredincase: 73
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T23:36:47.063155+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 73
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T23:36:47.063155+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationclass: Objective and Complete Reporting Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A is obligated to prepare an objective and complete board report on the solar project that includes all relevant and pertinent information — including both the normal-condition viability of the solar system and the rolling blackout risk communicated by the utility resource planners — without selectively presenting only the information favorable to the stakeholders' preferred outcome.
sourcetext: Engineer A is preparing a report that will be presented to the board to consider the new solar project, and is convinced that the solar project, when considered in isolation, is viable
temporalscope: In the preparation and submission of the board report on the solar project
textreferences: Engineer A also realizes that a move to solar production without storage may stress the local utility generation mix even more, increasing the likelihood of rolling blackouts.
textreferences: Engineer A is preparing a report that will be presented to the board to consider the new solar project, and is convinced that the solar project, when considered in isolation, is viable
wasattributedto: Case 73 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T23:54:19.977381
was generated by: ProEthica Case 73 Extraction

Objective and Complete Reporting Engineer A Solar Board Report
type: ObjectiveandCompleteReportingObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A is preparing a board report and is 'convinced' the solar project is viable in isolation; the obligation requires the report to be complete and not selectively favorable.
compliancestatus: unclear
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.95
discoveredincase: 73
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T22:39:03.522019+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 73
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T22:39:03.522019+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationclass: Objective and Complete Reporting Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A is obligated to prepare an objective and complete board report that includes all material technical findings — including the rolling blackout risk, the reliability differential, and the systemic grid impact — rather than a report that presents only the favorable isolated viability finding.
sourcetext: Engineer A is preparing a report that will be presented to the board to consider the new solar project
temporalscope: Throughout the preparation and presentation of the board report
textreferences: Engineer A is convinced that the solar project, when considered in isolation, is viable and will satisfy those stakeholders interested in reducing the organization's carbon footprint.
textreferences: Engineer A is preparing a report that will be presented to the board to consider the new solar project
wasattributedto: Case 73 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T22:54:37.524102
was generated by: ProEthica Case 73 Extraction

Objectivity Invoked By Engineer A Competing Stakeholder Pressures
type: Objectivity
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Technical evaluation of energy system replacement options for organizational board
balancingwith: Carbon Footprint Reduction Stakeholder interests
balancingwith: Environmental Stewardship in Engineering Practice
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer A must render an objective technical assessment of both the solar without storage and fossil-fueled co-generation options — including reliability, grid impact, cost, and environmental dimensions — without allowing the carbon footprint reduction stakeholders' preferences to skew the analysis toward the solar option
confidence: 0.93
discoveredincase: 73
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T23:41:15.494672+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 73
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T23:41:15.494672+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: Objectivity requires Engineer A to present the reliability disadvantages of the solar option with the same prominence as its environmental and cost advantages, resisting stakeholder pressure to frame the analysis favorably toward the preferred option
invokedby: Engineer A Energy Systems Reporting Engineer
principleclass: Objectivity
sourcetext: The ethical objective is an informed policy and project decision-making process.
tensionresolution: Objectivity prevails over stakeholder preference; the board is entitled to an unbiased technical assessment that enables informed decision-making rather than a report structured to support a predetermined conclusion
textreferences: Some may argue that continuing to operate a fossil-fueled generator is inconsistent with public health, safety, and welfare, while others will point to the increased reliability of the fossil-fueled generator as a demonstration of greater concern for public welfare.
textreferences: The ethical objective is an informed policy and project decision-making process.
wasattributedto: Case 73 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T23:54:19.982740
was generated by: ProEthica Case 73 Extraction

Objectivity Invoked By Engineer A Stakeholder Pressure Resistance
type: Objectivity
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Board report on solar panel replacement decision
appliedto: Carbon Footprint Reduction Stakeholders Organization
balancingwith: Carbon Footprint Reduction Stakeholder preferences
balancingwith: Organizational sustainability goals
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer A must resist the implicit pressure from carbon footprint reduction stakeholders to present the solar project as unambiguously viable, and must instead render an objective technical assessment that includes the rolling blackout risk.
confidence: 0.92
discoveredincase: 73
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T23:35:16.556086+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 73
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T23:35:16.556086+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: Objectivity requires Engineer A to present the complete technical picture even when stakeholders have strong preferences about the outcome; the solar project's viability in isolation does not justify omitting the grid stress risk.
invokedby: Engineer A Energy Systems Reporting Engineer
principleclass: Objectivity
sourcetext: Engineer A is convinced that the solar project, when considered in isolation, is viable and will satisfy those stakeholders interested in reducing the organization's carbon footprint.
tensionresolution: Objectivity obligation requires Engineer A to include the rolling blackout risk in the board report despite stakeholder preference for an unqualified endorsement of the solar project.
textreferences: Engineer A also realizes that a move to solar production without storage may stress the local utility generation mix even more, increasing the likelihood of rolling blackouts.
textreferences: Engineer A is convinced that the solar project, when considered in isolation, is viable and will satisfy those stakeholders interested in reducing the organization's carbon footprint.
wasattributedto: Case 73 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T23:54:19.975476
was generated by: ProEthica Case 73 Extraction

Organization Board Organizational Board Decision Authority
type: OrganizationalBoardDecisionAuthority
type: NamedIndividual
attributes: {'authority': 'Final decision-maker on energy infrastructure capital investment', 'constraint': 'Capital constraints prevent battery storage installation'}
caseinvolvement: The board of the organization that will receive Engineer A's report and make the ultimate capital investment decision on whether to replace the co-generation generator with solar panels. As the primary recipient of Engineer A's faithful-agent reporting obligations, the board requires complete and non-misleading disclosure including grid-stress and rolling blackout risks.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.93
discoveredincase: 73
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T22:27:25.884461+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 73
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T22:27:25.884461+00:00
importance: high
relationships: {'type': 'receives_report_from', 'target': 'Engineer A Energy Systems Reporting Engineer'}
relationships: {'type': 'subject_to_advocacy_from', 'target': 'Organization Stakeholders Carbon Footprint Reduction Stakeholder'}
rolecategory: provider_client
roleclass: Organizational Board Decision Authority
sourcetext: Engineer A is preparing a report that will be presented to the board to consider the new solar project
textreferences: Engineer A is preparing a report that will be presented to the board to consider the new solar project
wasattributedto: Case 73 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T22:54:37.512136
was generated by: ProEthica Case 73 Extraction

Organization Board of Directors City Infrastructure Decision Authority
type: CityInfrastructureDecisionAuthority
type: NamedIndividual
attributes: {'authority': 'Final decision-making over capital investment in energy systems', 'information_dependency': "Relies on Engineer A's complete and objective technical report", 'decision_context': 'Solar panel replacement vs. generator rebuild under capital constraints'}
caseinvolvement: The organizational board of directors that will receive Engineer A's report on the solar project and bear ultimate decision-making authority over whether to proceed with the solar panel replacement, requiring complete and objective technical information including grid reliability risks.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.8
discoveredincase: 73
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T23:31:46.147008+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 73
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T23:31:46.147008+00:00
importance: high
relationships: {'type': 'decision_authority_over', 'target': 'Organization energy system investment'}
relationships: {'type': 'report_recipient_from', 'target': 'Engineer A Energy Systems Reporting Engineer'}
rolecategory: participant
roleclass: City Infrastructure Decision Authority
sourcetext: Engineer A is preparing a report that will be presented to the board to consider the new solar project
textreferences: Engineer A is preparing a report that will be presented to the board to consider the new solar project
wasattributedto: Case 73 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T23:54:19.970325
was generated by: ProEthica Case 73 Extraction

Organization Carbon Footprint Reduction Stakeholders
type: CarbonFootprintReductionStakeholder
type: NamedIndividual
attributes: {'affiliation': 'Organization (internal stakeholders)', 'advocacy_focus': 'Carbon footprint reduction, renewable energy transition', 'authority': 'Preference-expressing, not decision-making'}
caseinvolvement: Organizational stakeholders who have expressed interest in reducing the organization's carbon footprint and proposed replacing the fossil-fueled co-generation facility generator with solar panels, establishing the preference context for Engineer A's board report.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.85
discoveredincase: 73
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T23:31:46.147008+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 73
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T23:31:46.147008+00:00
importance: medium
relationships: {'type': 'affiliated_with', 'target': 'Organization (Employer)'}
relationships: {'type': 'obligation_generating_toward', 'target': 'Engineer A Energy Systems Reporting Engineer'}
relationships: {'type': 'preference_recipient', 'target': 'Board of Directors'}
rolecategory: participant
roleclass: Carbon Footprint Reduction Stakeholder
sourcetext: stakeholders have expressed interest in reducing the organization's carbon footprint
textreferences: stakeholders have expressed interest in reducing the organization's carbon footprint
textreferences: these stakeholders suggest that the facility eliminate the generator and replace it with solar panels
textreferences: will satisfy those stakeholders interested in reducing the organization's carbon footprint
wasattributedto: Case 73 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T23:54:19.970055
was generated by: ProEthica Case 73 Extraction

Organization Stakeholders Carbon Footprint Reduction Stakeholder
type: CarbonFootprintReductionStakeholder
type: NamedIndividual
attributes: {'advocacy': 'Transition from fossil-fuel co-generation to solar energy', 'constraint': 'No direct professional obligations; preference-setting role only'}
caseinvolvement: Stakeholders affiliated with the organization who have expressed interest in reducing the organization's carbon footprint and advocate for eliminating the fossil-fueled generator in favor of solar panels. Their preferences establish the sustainability context Engineer A must faithfully represent while also disclosing countervailing grid-reliability risks.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.95
discoveredincase: 73
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T22:27:25.884461+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 73
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T22:27:25.884461+00:00
importance: medium
relationships: {'type': 'influences', 'target': 'Engineer A Energy Systems Reporting Engineer'}
relationships: {'type': 'recipient_of_report', 'target': 'Organizational Board Decision Authority'}
rolecategory: participant
roleclass: Carbon Footprint Reduction Stakeholder
sourcetext: stakeholders have expressed interest in reducing the organization's carbon footprint
textreferences: stakeholders have expressed interest in reducing the organization's carbon footprint
textreferences: these stakeholders suggest that the facility eliminate the generator and replace it with solar panels
textreferences: will satisfy those stakeholders interested in reducing the organization's carbon footprint
wasattributedto: Case 73 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T22:54:37.511994
was generated by: ProEthica Case 73 Extraction

Organizational Board
type: OrganizationalBoardDecisionAuthority
type: NamedIndividual
attributes: {'type': 'Non-engineer organizational governance body', 'decision_scope': 'Energy infrastructure replacement'}
caseinvolvement: The organization's board receives Engineer A's technical report and holds ultimate authority over the energy system replacement decision (fossil-fueled generator vs. solar without storage).
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.95
discoveredincase: 73
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T22:28:40.748926+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 73
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T22:28:40.748926+00:00
importance: high
relationships: {'type': 'receives_report_from', 'target': 'Engineer A Energy Systems Reporting Engineer'}
rolecategory: provider_client
roleclass: Organizational Board Decision Authority
sourcetext: Engineer A is obliged to include relevant and pertinent information in a report to the board.
textreferences: Engineer A has an obligation to present this information in a report to the board.
textreferences: Engineer A is obliged to include relevant and pertinent information in a report to the board.
textreferences: The board may choose to rebuild/refurbish the fossil-fueled generator.
wasattributedto: Case 73 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T22:54:37.516531
was generated by: ProEthica Case 73 Extraction

Organizational Board Energy Decision Authority
type: OrganizationalBoardDecisionAuthority
type: NamedIndividual
attributes: {'entity_type': 'Non-engineer organizational governance body', 'decision_scope': 'Energy system replacement policy for the organization'}
caseinvolvement: Receives Engineer A's technical report on energy system replacement options, bears ultimate authority to decide between solar generation without storage, solar with storage, or fossil-fueled generator refurbishment, and must make an informed decision based on complete reliability and public safety information provided by Engineer A.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.9
discoveredincase: 73
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T23:33:20.103706+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 73
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T23:33:20.103706+00:00
importance: high
relationships: {'type': 'receives_report_from', 'target': 'Engineer A Energy Systems Reporter'}
rolecategory: provider_client
roleclass: Organizational Board Decision Authority
sourcetext: Engineer A is obliged to include relevant and pertinent information in a report to the board.
textreferences: A report that does not contain information about the reliability of the utility source will not help them make an informed decision.
textreferences: Engineer A is obliged to include relevant and pertinent information in a report to the board.
textreferences: The board may choose to rebuild/refurbish the fossil-fueled generator because it provides function and reliability at a lower cost than a solar production system with storage.
wasattributedto: Case 73 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T23:54:19.972247
was generated by: ProEthica Case 73 Extraction

Permissible But Suboptimal Solar Design Without Storage
type: PermissibleButSuboptimalDesignAssignmentState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From the time Engineer A confirmed solar viability under normal conditions through the board's decision
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: Local utility
affectedparties: Organization board
affectedparties: Stakeholders
concept category: State
confidence: 0.85
discoveredincase: 73
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T23:32:16.024444+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 73
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T23:32:16.024444+00:00
importance: medium
sourcetext: Engineer A is satisfied that under normal conditions, the system of solar panels can supply electric energy equivalent to that provided by the existing generator
stateclass: Permissible But Suboptimal Design Assignment State
subject: The solar-only design without battery storage, which is technically permissible and meets normal-condition requirements but falls short of optimal resilience and grid-impact standards
terminatedby: Board decision on the solar project, or addition of storage to the design
textreferences: Capital constraints prevent the organization from installing a system of batteries
textreferences: Engineer A is satisfied that under normal conditions, the system of solar panels can supply electric energy equivalent to that provided by the existing generator
triggeringevent: Engineer A's analysis confirmed that solar panels without storage can meet normal-condition electric load requirements, making the design technically permissible but not optimal
urgencylevel: medium
wasattributedto: Case 73 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T23:54:19.971800
was generated by: ProEthica Case 73 Extraction

Political Bargain Safety Standard Non-Concurrence Engineer Adam Grandfathering Ordinance
type: PoliticalBargainSafetyStandardNon-ConcurrenceConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer Adam faces a politically-motivated Faustian bargain: concur with grandfathering ordinance in exchange for resources needed to perform adequate inspections. BER found this impermissible.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.97
constrainedentity: Engineer Adam
constraintclass: Political Bargain Safety Standard Non-Concurrence Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer Adam is absolutely constrained from concurring with the city council chairman's proposal to grandfather specified buildings under older, less rigorous code requirements as a condition of receiving authorization to hire additional building code officials, regardless of the resource pressures created by understaffing.
discoveredincase: 73
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T22:49:20.614459+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 73
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T22:49:20.614459+00:00
importance: critical
severity: critical
source: BER Case 98-5; NSPE Code of Ethics — engineers must hold public health and safety paramount
sourcetext: the BER affirmed that engineers 'must hold the public health and safety paramount'
temporalscope: At the time of the meeting with the city council chairman and any subsequent formal response
textreferences: In finding that it was not ethical for Engineer Adam to concur with the chairman's proposal – a politically-motivated 'Faustian bargain' to hire additional building code officials
textreferences: righting a wrong with another wrong does grave damage to the public health and safety
textreferences: the BER affirmed that engineers 'must hold the public health and safety paramount'
wasattributedto: Case 73 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T22:54:37.534515
was generated by: ProEthica Case 73 Extraction

Political Trade-Off Safety Non-Compromise Engineer Adam Resource Constraint Context
type: PoliticalTrade-OffSafetyandTruthNon-CompromiseConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: The chairman's proposal creates an apparent logic that one wrong (understaffed inspections) justifies another wrong (grandfathering); BER Case 98-5 establishes this logic is impermissible in engineering ethics.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.95
constrainedentity: Engineer Adam
constraintclass: Political Trade-Off Safety and Truth Non-Compromise Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer Adam is constrained from accepting the logic that trading a safety standard compromise (grandfathering) for a resource gain (additional inspectors) is ethically permissible, even when the resource gain would itself serve public safety by enabling more thorough inspections.
discoveredincase: 73
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T22:49:20.614459+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 73
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T22:49:20.614459+00:00
importance: critical
severity: critical
source: BER Case 98-5; NSPE Code of Ethics
sourcetext: righting a wrong with another wrong does grave damage to the public health and safety
temporalscope: At the time of the meeting with the city council chairman
textreferences: long-term public welfare (a valid building code enforcement process) cannot be undermined for short-term gain (grandfathering specified buildings in the name of increased jobs and tax revenues)
textreferences: righting a wrong with another wrong does grave damage to the public health and safety
wasattributedto: Case 73 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T22:54:37.534720
was generated by: ProEthica Case 73 Extraction

Politically Conditioned Hiring Offer — Engineer Adam Case
type: PoliticallyConditionedResourceOfferState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From chairman's proposal through BER's finding that Engineer Adam must refuse the bargain
affectedparties: Building inspection staff
affectedparties: City council chairman
affectedparties: Engineer Adam
affectedparties: Public occupants of grandfathered buildings
concept category: State
confidence: 0.97
discoveredincase: 73
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T22:28:50.636637+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 73
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T22:28:50.636637+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: the chairman seeks Engineer Adam's concurrence on a city ordinance that would permit certain specified buildings under construction to be 'grandfathered' under the older existing enforcement requirements
stateclass: Politically Conditioned Resource Offer State
subject: Chairman's offer to authorize additional building code officials contingent on Engineer Adam's concurrence with grandfathering ordinance
terminatedby: BER finding that Engineer Adam must refuse the politically-motivated Faustian bargain
textreferences: 'righting a wrong with another wrong' does grave damage to the public health and safety
textreferences: it was not ethical for Engineer Adam to concur with the chairman's proposal – a politically-motivated 'Faustian bargain' to hire additional building code officials
textreferences: the chairman seeks Engineer Adam's concurrence on a city ordinance that would permit certain specified buildings under construction to be 'grandfathered' under the older existing enforcement requirements
triggeringevent: Chairman's conditional offer: additional inspection staff in exchange for Engineer Adam's concurrence on grandfathering specified buildings under older, less rigorous code requirements
urgencylevel: high
wasattributedto: Case 73 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T22:54:37.519520
was generated by: ProEthica Case 73 Extraction

Post-Client-Override Regulatory Escalation Engineer A Solar Grid Safety BER 20-4 Analogy
type: Post-Client-OverridePublicSafetyRegulatoryEscalationConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: BER Case 20-4 is cited as instructive precedent for Engineer A's situation; the analogy establishes that post-override regulatory escalation is required when public safety concerns are of sufficient gravity.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.88
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Post-Client-Override Public Safety Regulatory Escalation Constraint
constraintstatement: By analogy to BER Case 20-4, if the organizational board proceeds with the solar-without-storage replacement despite Engineer A's formal communication of rolling blackout and grid reliability concerns, Engineer A is constrained to escalate those concerns to the applicable state regulatory agency given the gravity of the potential danger to public health and safety.
discoveredincase: 73
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T22:49:20.614459+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 73
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T22:49:20.614459+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: BER Case 20-4 (by analogy); NSPE Code of Ethics
sourcetext: Recent BER Case 20-4 addressed a public board (a municipal water commission) choosing to change the source of their potable water system to reduce public expenditures despite the recommendations of two engineers that further study was needed to ensure public safety
temporalscope: After the board overrides Engineer A's safety recommendations, if that occurs
textreferences: Recent BER Case 20-4 addressed a public board (a municipal water commission) choosing to change the source of their potable water system to reduce public expenditures despite the recommendations of two engineers that further study was needed to ensure public safety
textreferences: The BER also found that given the gravity of the potential danger to public health and safety, the engineers have an obligation to formally report their concerns to the state regulatory agency
wasattributedto: Case 73 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T22:54:37.535043
was generated by: ProEthica Case 73 Extraction

Post-Client-Override Regulatory Escalation Water Commission Engineers BER 20-4
type: Post-Client-OverridePublicSafetyRegulatoryEscalationConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: BER Case 20-4 cited as precedent: engineers must formally communicate concerns to the board and, given gravity of potential danger, escalate to state regulatory agency.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.96
constrainedentity: Water Commission Engineers (BER 20-4)
constraintclass: Post-Client-Override Public Safety Regulatory Escalation Constraint
constraintstatement: The engineers advising the municipal water commission are constrained to escalate their public safety concerns to the state regulatory agency after the commission overrides their recommendation for further study, and cannot treat the commission's override as a complete discharge of their public safety obligation.
discoveredincase: 73
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T22:49:20.614459+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 73
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T22:49:20.614459+00:00
importance: critical
severity: critical
source: BER Case 20-4; NSPE Code of Ethics
sourcetext: The BER found that the engineers have an obligation to formally communicate their concerns to the water commission
temporalscope: After the water commission overrides the engineers' recommendation for further study
textreferences: The BER also found that given the gravity of the potential danger to public health and safety, the engineers have an obligation to formally report their concerns to the state regulatory agency
textreferences: The BER found that the engineers have an obligation to formally communicate their concerns to the water commission
wasattributedto: Case 73 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T22:54:37.534888
was generated by: ProEthica Case 73 Extraction

Proactive Risk Disclosure Engineer A Rolling Blackout Without Board Request
type: TimelyRiskDisclosureObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: The board is a non-engineer decision-making body that will rely on Engineer A's report to make the energy infrastructure decision. Engineer A must proactively include the rolling blackout risk rather than waiting for the board to inquire about grid implications.
compliancestatus: unclear
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.88
discoveredincase: 73
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T23:36:47.063155+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 73
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T23:36:47.063155+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationclass: Timely Risk Disclosure Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A is obligated to proactively disclose the rolling blackout risk in the board report without waiting for the board to ask about grid implications, because the board — as a non-engineer decision-making body — may not know to ask about systemic grid impacts of the solar transition, and the risk is material to the board's decision.
sourcetext: Engineer A is preparing a report that will be presented to the board to consider the new solar project
temporalscope: In the preparation and submission of the board report, before the board makes its decision
textreferences: Engineer A also realizes that a move to solar production without storage may stress the local utility generation mix even more, increasing the likelihood of rolling blackouts.
textreferences: Engineer A is preparing a report that will be presented to the board to consider the new solar project
wasattributedto: Case 73 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T23:54:19.977985
was generated by: ProEthica Case 73 Extraction

Proactive Risk Disclosure Invoked By Engineer A Grid Reliability Warning
type: ProactiveRiskDisclosure
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Advisory report to organizational board on solar without storage option
balancingwith: Carbon Footprint Reduction Stakeholder interests
balancingwith: Faithful Agent Obligation Within Ethical Limits
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer A must proactively communicate the grid reliability risks of the solar without storage option — including the increased likelihood of rolling blackouts — to the board without waiting for the board to specifically request reliability analysis or for harm to materialize
confidence: 0.93
discoveredincase: 73
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T23:41:15.494672+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 73
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T23:41:15.494672+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: The proactive disclosure obligation requires Engineer A to surface reliability risks that the board has not specifically requested and may not know to ask about, because the board lacks the technical expertise to identify the reliability gap independently
invokedby: Engineer A Energy Systems Reporting Engineer
principleclass: Proactive Risk Disclosure
sourcetext: As a registered professional, Engineer A is obliged to include relevant and pertinent information in a report to the board.
tensionresolution: Proactive disclosure of reliability risks is required regardless of whether the board or stakeholders have requested it; the engineer's professional obligation to enable informed decision-making is not contingent on the client's awareness of what information is material
textreferences: A report that does not contain information about the reliability of the utility source will not help them make an informed decision.
textreferences: As a registered professional, Engineer A is obliged to include relevant and pertinent information in a report to the board.
textreferences: Therefore, Engineer A has an obligation to present this information in a report to the board.
wasattributedto: Case 73 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T23:54:19.983968
was generated by: ProEthica Case 73 Extraction

Proactive Risk Disclosure Invoked By Engineer A Rolling Blackout
type: ProactiveRiskDisclosure
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Local Electric Utility Resource Planner
appliedto: Organizational Board Energy Decision Authority
balancingwith: Carbon Footprint Reduction Stakeholder preferences
balancingwith: Client Loyalty
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer A must proactively disclose the rolling blackout risk to the board without waiting for the board to ask about grid implications, because the board lacks the technical knowledge to know what questions to ask.
confidence: 0.93
discoveredincase: 73
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T23:35:16.556086+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 73
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T23:35:16.556086+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: Proactive disclosure is required because the board is a non-technical decision-making body that relies on Engineer A to surface all material risks; the rolling blackout risk is material to the board's decision and must be disclosed proactively.
invokedby: Engineer A Energy Systems Reporting Engineer
principleclass: Proactive Risk Disclosure
sourcetext: Engineer A also realizes that a move to solar production without storage may stress the local utility generation mix even more, increasing the likelihood of rolling blackouts.
tensionresolution: Proactive disclosure obligation requires Engineer A to include the rolling blackout risk in the board report even though the board did not specifically request grid reliability analysis.
textreferences: Engineer A also realizes that a move to solar production without storage may stress the local utility generation mix even more, increasing the likelihood of rolling blackouts.
textreferences: Engineer A learns that the utility resource planners reviewed their current generation mix and believe that during extreme weather events, they may be forced to institute rolling outages to keep system generating facilities on-line.
wasattributedto: Case 73 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T23:54:19.975313
was generated by: ProEthica Case 73 Extraction

Proactive Risk Disclosure Invoked by Engineer A Grid Stress Information
type: ProactiveRiskDisclosure
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Board report on solar replacement project
appliedto: Rolling blackout risk to organization and community
balancingwith: Completeness and Non-Selectivity in Professional Advisory Opinions
balancingwith: Scope-of-Work Limitation as Incomplete Ethical Defense
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer A must proactively communicate the rolling blackout risk to the board without waiting for the board to ask about grid reliability implications, recognizing that the board may not know to ask this question and that the risk was identified through Engineer A's own professional inquiry with the utility resource planner.
confidence: 0.92
discoveredincase: 73
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T22:36:47.519403+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 73
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T22:36:47.519403+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: Proactive disclosure is triggered by Engineer A's actual knowledge of the grid stress risk; having learned this information from the utility planner, Engineer A cannot ethically omit it from the report on the grounds that the board did not specifically request grid reliability analysis.
invokedby: Engineer A
principleclass: Proactive Risk Disclosure
sourcetext: When discussing the analysis of the electric load profile with a representative of the local electric utility, Engineer A learns that the utility resource planners reviewed their current generation mix and believe that during extreme weather events, they may be forced to institute rolling outages.
tensionresolution: The proactive disclosure obligation overrides any scope-of-work argument that grid reliability was not part of the original analysis mandate; Engineer A's actual knowledge of the risk triggers the disclosure obligation.
textreferences: Engineer A also realizes that a move to solar production without storage may stress the local utility generation mix even more, increasing the likelihood of rolling blackouts.
textreferences: When discussing the analysis of the electric load profile with a representative of the local electric utility, Engineer A learns that the utility resource planners reviewed their current generation mix and believe that during extreme weather events, they may be forced to institute rolling outages.
wasattributedto: Case 73 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T22:54:37.522325
was generated by: ProEthica Case 73 Extraction

Proactive Risk Disclosure Invoked for Further Study Recommendation in BER 16-5 Analogy
type: ProactiveRiskDisclosure
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Autonomous vehicle crash outcome algorithm safety concerns
appliedto: Engineering risk management team participation
appliedto: Further study recommendation obligation
balancingwith: Faithful Agent Obligation Within Ethical Limits
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: In BER Case 16-5, the engineer working on autonomous vehicle operating system development had an obligation to express safety concerns clearly and unambiguously to the risk management team and, if necessary, to recommend further study before the operating system is utilized — proactively disclosing risks rather than waiting for harm to materialize
confidence: 0.9
discoveredincase: 73
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T22:44:21.888625+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 73
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T22:44:21.888625+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: The BER 16-5 precedent is invoked to illustrate that proactive risk disclosure includes both active participation in risk management processes and formal recommendation for further study when safety concerns are unresolved
invokedby: Autonomous Vehicle Development Engineer BER 16-5
principleclass: Proactive Risk Disclosure
sourcetext: The conclusions in Case 16-5 suggest the engineer fully and actively participate as a member of the engineering risk management team and express clearly and unambiguously concerns regarding safety of the operating system.
tensionresolution: Proactive risk disclosure requires the engineer to raise concerns clearly and unambiguously even in a team context where other members may not share the concern; the obligation is not discharged by passive awareness of the risk
textreferences: The BER also suggested that, if necessary, the engineer recommend further study before the operating system is utilized
textreferences: The conclusions in Case 16-5 suggest the engineer fully and actively participate as a member of the engineering risk management team and express clearly and unambiguously concerns regarding safety of the operating system
wasattributedto: Case 73 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T22:54:37.530602
was generated by: ProEthica Case 73 Extraction

Professional-Report-Integrity-Standard
type: ProfessionalReportIntegrityStandard
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.93
createdby: NSPE professional ethics norms
discoveredincase: 73
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
documenttitle: Professional Report Integrity Standard (Complete and Relevant Information Obligation)
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T22:28:36.405231+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 73
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T22:28:36.405231+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: Professional Report Integrity Standard
sourcetext: As a registered professional, Engineer A is obliged to include relevant and pertinent information in a report to the board.
textreferences: A report that does not contain information about the reliability of the utility source will not help them make an informed decision.
textreferences: As a registered professional, Engineer A is obliged to include relevant and pertinent information in a report to the board.
textreferences: The ethical objective is an informed policy and project decision-making process.
textreferences: Therefore, Engineer A has an obligation to present this information in a report to the board.
usedby: Engineer A in preparing the board report
usedincontext: Invoked as the professional norm requiring Engineer A to include all relevant and pertinent information — specifically grid reliability data — in the report to the board, so that the board can make a fully informed decision
wasattributedto: Case 73 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T22:54:37.516100
was generated by: ProEthica Case 73 Extraction

Professional Report Integrity Standard - Solar Project Board Report
type: ProfessionalReportIntegrityStandard
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.87
createdby: Professional engineering ethics bodies including NSPE
discoveredincase: 73
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
documenttitle: Professional norms governing completeness and accuracy of engineering reports presented to decision-making bodies
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T23:31:30.780685+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 73
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T23:31:30.780685+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: Professional Report Integrity Standard
sourcetext: Engineer A is convinced that the solar project, when considered in isolation, is viable
textreferences: Engineer A also realizes that a move to solar production without storage may stress the local utility generation mix even more
textreferences: Engineer A is convinced that the solar project, when considered in isolation, is viable
usedby: Engineer A in structuring the board report on the solar project
usedincontext: Governs Engineer A's obligation not to present the solar project as viable 'in isolation' without disclosing the systemic grid reliability risks identified through utility planner consultation, prohibiting selective omission of material facts from the board report
version: Current professional consensus
wasattributedto: Case 73 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T23:54:19.968966
was generated by: ProEthica Case 73 Extraction

Professional Report Integrity Standard – Board Report Completeness
type: ProfessionalReportIntegrityStandard
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.88
createdby: Professional engineering community / NSPE
discoveredincase: 73
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
documenttitle: Professional norms governing completeness and transparency of engineering reports to decision-making bodies
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T22:27:33.123798+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 73
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T22:27:33.123798+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: Professional Report Integrity Standard
sourcetext: Engineer A is preparing a report that will be presented to the board to consider the new solar project
textreferences: Engineer A is preparing a report that will be presented to the board to consider the new solar project
textreferences: is convinced that the solar project, when considered in isolation, is viable
usedby: Engineer A in preparing the report for the board
usedincontext: Governs Engineer A's obligation to present the board with a complete and non-misleading report that includes the rolling-blackout risk, not merely the isolated viability of the solar project
version: Current
wasattributedto: Case 73 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T22:54:37.512925
was generated by: ProEthica Case 73 Extraction

Public Safety Paramount Constraint Engineer A Rolling Blackout Third Party Impact
type: PublicSafetyParamountConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: The rolling blackout risk identified by utility resource planners affects not only the organization but the broader public served by the local electric utility. Engineer A's public safety obligation requires disclosure of this third-party impact in the board report.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.95
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Public Safety Paramount Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A is constrained by the paramount obligation to public safety from presenting the solar project as viable without disclosing the rolling blackout risk to third-party utility customers — the public safety obligation extends beyond the organization's internal interests to the broader public served by the local electric utility grid.
discoveredincase: 73
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T23:38:28.511212+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 73
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T23:38:28.511212+00:00
importance: high
severity: critical
source: NSPE Code of Ethics Section I.1 (engineers shall hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public)
sourcetext: Engineer A also realizes that a move to solar production without storage may stress the local utility generation mix even more, increasing the likelihood of rolling blackouts.
temporalscope: Throughout the preparation and submission of the board report and any subsequent advisory activities
textreferences: Engineer A also realizes that a move to solar production without storage may stress the local utility generation mix even more, increasing the likelihood of rolling blackouts.
textreferences: the utility resource planners reviewed their current generation mix and believe that during extreme weather events, they may be forced to institute rolling outages to keep system generating facilities on-line.
wasattributedto: Case 73 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T23:54:19.978892
was generated by: ProEthica Case 73 Extraction

Public Safety Paramount Engineer A Rolling Blackout Grid Risk
type: PublicSafetyParamountConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: The rolling blackout risk identified by utility resource planners constitutes a public safety risk that Engineer A must hold paramount over stakeholder carbon footprint preferences.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.97
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Public Safety Paramount Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A must hold public safety paramount over organizational stakeholder preferences for carbon footprint reduction, and may not proceed with a board report that omits the rolling blackout risk to third-party electricity consumers even if the organization's stakeholders prefer the solar-without-storage option.
discoveredincase: 73
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T22:40:57.194915+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 73
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T22:40:57.194915+00:00
importance: critical
severity: critical
source: NSPE Code of Ethics — Fundamental Canon I; NSPE BER Case 98-5; NSPE BER Case 20-4
sourcetext: Engineer A also realizes that a move to solar production without storage may stress the local utility generation mix even more, increasing the likelihood of rolling blackouts.
temporalscope: Throughout the board report preparation and submission process
textreferences: Engineer A also realizes that a move to solar production without storage may stress the local utility generation mix even more, increasing the likelihood of rolling blackouts.
textreferences: Engineer A learns that the utility resource planners reviewed their current generation mix and believe that during extreme weather events, they may be forced to institute rolling outages
wasattributedto: Case 73 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T22:54:37.525219
was generated by: ProEthica Case 73 Extraction

Public Safety Rolling Blackout Risk
type: PublicSafetyatRisk
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From Engineer A's awareness of the rolling blackout risk through any board decision that fails to address the grid stress externality
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: Local utility
affectedparties: Organization
affectedparties: Third-party electricity consumers
concept category: State
confidence: 0.91
discoveredincase: 73
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T22:27:43.324490+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 73
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T22:27:43.324490+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: during extreme weather events, they may be forced to institute rolling outages
stateclass: Public Safety at Risk
subject: Third-party electricity consumers and the broader public served by the local utility
terminatedby: Adoption of a design that includes storage, retention of co-generation, or utility capacity expansion sufficient to prevent rolling outages
textreferences: a move to solar production without storage may stress the local utility generation mix even more, increasing the likelihood of rolling blackouts
textreferences: during extreme weather events, they may be forced to institute rolling outages
triggeringevent: Utility planners' disclosure of potential rolling outages during extreme weather, worsened by the prospective solar-without-storage transition
urgencylevel: high
wasattributedto: Case 73 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T22:54:37.514633
was generated by: ProEthica Case 73 Extraction

Public Welfare Paramount Invoked By Engineer A Rolling Blackout Disclosure
type: PublicWelfareParamount
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Board report on solar panel replacement decision
appliedto: Rolling blackout risk to broader public
balancingwith: Carbon Footprint Reduction Stakeholder preferences
balancingwith: Client Loyalty
balancingwith: Environmental Stewardship in Engineering Practice
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer A's obligation to hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public requires inclusion of the rolling blackout risk in the board report, because rolling blackouts during extreme weather events pose risks to public health and safety beyond the organization's own operations.
confidence: 0.97
discoveredincase: 73
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T23:35:16.556086+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 73
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T23:35:16.556086+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: In this context, public welfare paramount requires Engineer A to disclose the grid stress and rolling blackout risk even though the solar project is viable in isolation and satisfies stakeholder sustainability preferences, because the broader public is affected by grid reliability.
invokedby: Engineer A Energy Systems Reporting Engineer
principleclass: Public Welfare Paramount
sourcetext: Engineer A also realizes that a move to solar production without storage may stress the local utility generation mix even more, increasing the likelihood of rolling blackouts.
tensionresolution: Public welfare obligation overrides the preference of carbon footprint reduction stakeholders for an unqualified endorsement of the solar project; Engineer A must include the rolling blackout risk in the board report.
textreferences: Engineer A also realizes that a move to solar production without storage may stress the local utility generation mix even more, increasing the likelihood of rolling blackouts.
textreferences: Engineer A learns that the utility resource planners reviewed their current generation mix and believe that during extreme weather events, they may be forced to institute rolling outages to keep system generating facilities on-line.
wasattributedto: Case 73 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T23:54:19.974847
was generated by: ProEthica Case 73 Extraction

Public Welfare Paramount Invoked By Engineer A Solar Reliability
type: PublicWelfareParamount
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Solar generation without storage recommendation to organizational board
balancingwith: Carbon footprint reduction stakeholder interests
balancingwith: Environmental Stewardship in Engineering Practice
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer A must hold paramount the public welfare implications of reduced grid reliability — including rolling blackouts affecting vulnerable populations — when advising the board on the solar without storage option, even though the organization's stakeholders favor the environmental benefits of that option
confidence: 0.97
discoveredincase: 73
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T23:41:15.494672+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 73
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T23:41:15.494672+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: In this context, public welfare encompasses not only the organization's interests but the broader grid reliability impacts on all members of the public, particularly vulnerable populations who cannot self-protect from rolling blackouts during extreme weather events
invokedby: Engineer A Energy Systems Reporting Engineer
principleclass: Public Welfare Paramount
sourcetext: As a registered professional, Engineer A is obliged to include relevant and pertinent information in a report to the board.
tensionresolution: Public welfare obligation requires full disclosure of reliability risks and grid impacts even when this disclosure may disfavor the environmentally preferred option advocated by organizational stakeholders
textreferences: As a registered professional, Engineer A is obliged to include relevant and pertinent information in a report to the board.
textreferences: It is not difficult to imagine, for example, the stress placed upon elderly or confined individuals as well as those with medical conditions if they are left without a comfortable environment during an extreme weather event such as California and Texas recently experienced - and which led to rolling blackouts.
textreferences: What guidance can Engineer A rely upon to address a potential conflict between competing public goods?
wasattributedto: Case 73 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T23:54:19.976466
was generated by: ProEthica Case 73 Extraction

Public Welfare Paramount Invoked by Engineer A Regarding Rolling Blackout Risk
type: PublicWelfareParamount
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Board report on solar energy replacement project
appliedto: Rolling blackout risk to community grid users
balancingwith: Faithful Agent Obligation Within Ethical Limits
balancingwith: Sustainable Development Advocacy Obligation
balancingwith: Trustee Discretion and Deference Obligation
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer A's obligation to hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public requires including in the board report the utility resource planners' assessment that solar-without-storage will increase the likelihood of rolling blackouts during extreme weather events, which pose serious risks to the broader public beyond the organization.
confidence: 0.95
discoveredincase: 73
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T22:36:47.519403+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 73
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T22:36:47.519403+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: Public welfare here extends beyond the organization's stakeholders to the broader community served by the shared electric grid; the engineer cannot limit the welfare analysis to the client organization when the decision creates foreseeable externalized public risks.
invokedby: Engineer A
principleclass: Public Welfare Paramount
sourcetext: Engineer A also realizes that a move to solar production without storage may stress the local utility generation mix even more, increasing the likelihood of rolling blackouts.
tensionresolution: Public welfare paramount requires that the rolling blackout risk be disclosed in the report regardless of stakeholder pressure for carbon footprint reduction; the board must make an informed decision with full knowledge of the public welfare implications.
textreferences: Engineer A also realizes that a move to solar production without storage may stress the local utility generation mix even more, increasing the likelihood of rolling blackouts.
textreferences: Engineer A learns that the utility resource planners reviewed their current generation mix and believe that during extreme weather events, they may be forced to institute rolling outages to keep system generating facilities on-line.
wasattributedto: Case 73 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T22:54:37.520085
was generated by: ProEthica Case 73 Extraction

Public Welfare Paramount Invoked in Energy System Advisory Context
type: PublicWelfareParamount
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Energy system replacement decision
appliedto: Grid reliability impact on vulnerable populations
appliedto: Rolling blackout risk during extreme weather
balancingwith: Environmental Stewardship in Engineering Practice
balancingwith: Faithful Agent Obligation Within Ethical Limits
balancingwith: Sustainable Development Advocacy Obligation
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer A's obligation to hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public — including vulnerable populations such as elderly and medically dependent individuals — when advising the board on the solar-without-storage option that may increase rolling blackout risk during extreme weather events
confidence: 0.95
discoveredincase: 73
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T22:44:21.888625+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 73
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T22:44:21.888625+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: Public welfare paramount extends beyond the organization's immediate stakeholders to the broader community served by the shared electric grid; the engineer cannot limit the welfare analysis to the client's carbon footprint goals when systemic grid reliability impacts are foreseeable
invokedby: Engineer A Energy Systems Reporting Engineer
principleclass: Public Welfare Paramount
sourcetext: it is not difficult to imagine, for example, the stress placed upon elderly or confined individuals as well as those with medical conditions if they are left without a comfortable environment during an extreme weather event
tensionresolution: Public welfare paramount requires full disclosure of grid reliability risks and vulnerable population impacts; it does not require the engineer to resolve the competing goods question, but does require that the board receive complete information to make an informed decision
textreferences: engineers must hold the public health and safety paramount
textreferences: it is not difficult to imagine, for example, the stress placed upon elderly or confined individuals as well as those with medical conditions if they are left without a comfortable environment during an extreme weather event such as California and Texas recently experienced - and which led to rolling blackouts
textreferences: this option may also increase the likelihood of future rolling blackouts
wasattributedto: Case 73 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T22:54:37.527921
was generated by: ProEthica Case 73 Extraction

Public Welfare Safety Escalation Engineer A Rolling Blackout Public Impact
type: PublicWelfareSafetyEscalationObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: The rolling blackout risk identified by the utility resource planners affects the broader public, not only the organization. Engineer A must assess whether the public welfare impact of the solar transition decision requires notification beyond the organizational board to regulatory or public authorities.
compliancestatus: unclear
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.79
discoveredincase: 73
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T23:36:47.063155+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 73
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T23:36:47.063155+00:00
importance: medium
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationclass: Public Welfare Safety Escalation Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A is obligated to evaluate whether the rolling blackout risk — which affects not only the organization but the broader public served by the electric utility — rises to a level requiring escalation beyond the organizational board report to appropriate regulatory or public authorities, and to take such escalation steps if the risk to public welfare warrants it after calibrated assessment.
sourcetext: Engineer A also realizes that a move to solar production without storage may stress the local utility generation mix even more, increasing the likelihood of rolling blackouts.
temporalscope: After completing the calibrated risk assessment and before or concurrent with submitting the board report
textreferences: Engineer A also realizes that a move to solar production without storage may stress the local utility generation mix even more, increasing the likelihood of rolling blackouts.
textreferences: Engineer A learns that the utility resource planners reviewed their current generation mix and believe that during extreme weather events, they may be forced to institute rolling outages to keep system generating facilities on-line.
wasattributedto: Case 73 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T23:54:19.977658
was generated by: ProEthica Case 73 Extraction

Qualitative Risk Assessment - Grid Stability Impact of Solar Transition
type: QualitativeRiskAssessment
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.8
createdby: Engineer A in consultation with utility resource planners
discoveredincase: 73
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
documenttitle: Structured assessment of likelihood and magnitude of rolling blackout risk from solar-without-storage transition
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T23:31:30.780685+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 73
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T23:31:30.780685+00:00
importance: medium
resourceclass: Qualitative Risk Assessment
sourcetext: Engineer A also realizes that a move to solar production without storage may stress the local utility generation mix even more, increasing the likelihood of rolling blackouts
textreferences: Engineer A also realizes that a move to solar production without storage may stress the local utility generation mix even more, increasing the likelihood of rolling blackouts
usedby: Engineer A in evaluating and reporting systemic risks of the solar project
usedincontext: Provides the methodological framework for Engineer A to estimate and communicate the public safety risk of increased rolling blackout likelihood resulting from the proposed solar project's effect on the utility generation mix
version: Project-specific
wasattributedto: Case 73 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T23:54:19.969500
was generated by: ProEthica Case 73 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_1
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-26T00:07:28.429024
was generated by: ProEthica Case 73 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_10
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-26T00:07:28.429314
was generated by: ProEthica Case 73 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_11
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-26T00:07:28.429344
was generated by: ProEthica Case 73 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_12
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-26T00:07:28.429375
was generated by: ProEthica Case 73 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_13
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-26T00:07:28.429403
was generated by: ProEthica Case 73 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_14
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-26T00:07:28.429432
was generated by: ProEthica Case 73 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_15
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-26T00:07:28.429461
was generated by: ProEthica Case 73 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_16
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-26T00:07:28.429504
was generated by: ProEthica Case 73 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_17
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-26T00:07:28.429536
was generated by: ProEthica Case 73 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_18
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-26T00:07:28.429566
was generated by: ProEthica Case 73 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_19
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-26T00:07:28.429595
was generated by: ProEthica Case 73 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_2
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-26T00:07:28.429053
was generated by: ProEthica Case 73 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_20
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-26T00:07:28.429625
was generated by: ProEthica Case 73 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_3
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-26T00:07:28.429097
was generated by: ProEthica Case 73 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_4
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-26T00:07:28.429133
was generated by: ProEthica Case 73 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_5
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-26T00:07:28.429164
was generated by: ProEthica Case 73 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_6
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-26T00:07:28.429194
was generated by: ProEthica Case 73 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_7
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-26T00:07:28.429223
was generated by: ProEthica Case 73 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_8
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-26T00:07:28.429255
was generated by: ProEthica Case 73 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_9
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-26T00:07:28.429285
was generated by: ProEthica Case 73 Extraction

Question_1
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 1
question text: Should Engineer A include information about the utility generation mix and rolling blackouts in the report to the board?
question type: board_explicit
generated at time: 2026-02-26T00:07:28.426527
was generated by: ProEthica Case 73 Extraction

Question_101
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 101
question text: Does Engineer A have an obligation to independently verify the utility resource planner's informal warning about rolling blackouts before including it in the board report, and if the warning cannot be verified, how should Engineer A characterize its reliability and evidentiary weight?
question type: implicit
generated at time: 2026-02-26T00:07:28.426731
was generated by: ProEthica Case 73 Extraction

Question_102
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 102
question text: Is Engineer A obligated to explore and present hybrid or phased design alternatives — such as a partial battery storage system or a staged solar-plus-storage rollout — even when the organization's stated capital constraints appear to foreclose those options, and does omitting such alternatives from the board report itself constitute an incomplete advisory?
question type: implicit
generated at time: 2026-02-26T00:07:28.426786
was generated by: ProEthica Case 73 Extraction

Question_103
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 103
question text: To what extent does Engineer A bear ethical responsibility for third-party harms — such as rolling blackouts affecting vulnerable populations — that result from a board decision made on the basis of a technically accurate but contextually incomplete report, and does that responsibility persist even after Engineer A has fulfilled the disclosure obligation?
question type: implicit
generated at time: 2026-02-26T00:07:28.426839
was generated by: ProEthica Case 73 Extraction

Question_104
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 104
question text: If the board receives Engineer A's complete report — including the rolling blackout risk and battery storage cost — and nonetheless decides to proceed with solar-only installation, does Engineer A have any residual obligation to escalate concerns to a higher authority, such as a state regulatory body or public utility commission, or does faithful agent loyalty to the organization terminate Engineer A's public safety duty at the point of board notification?
question type: implicit
generated at time: 2026-02-26T00:07:28.426910
was generated by: ProEthica Case 73 Extraction

Question_2
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 2
question text: Should Engineer A include information about cost of battery storage and the potential consequences of not having battery storage?
question type: board_explicit
generated at time: 2026-02-26T00:07:28.426676
was generated by: ProEthica Case 73 Extraction

Question_201
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 201
question text: Does the principle of Environmental Stewardship — which supports the stakeholders' carbon footprint reduction goals and the solar transition — conflict with the principle of Public Welfare Paramount when the solar-without-storage option demonstrably increases the probability of rolling blackouts that could harm vulnerable third parties, and how should Engineer A weight these competing public goods in the board report?
question type: principle_tension
generated at time: 2026-02-26T00:07:28.426967
was generated by: ProEthica Case 73 Extraction

Question_202
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 202
question text: Does the principle of Client Loyalty — which requires Engineer A to act as a faithful agent serving the organization's interests, including its capital constraints and stakeholder preferences — conflict with the principle of Proactive Risk Disclosure when fully disclosing the rolling blackout risk and battery storage costs may effectively compel the board toward a more expensive option or undermine the stakeholder-driven solar initiative the organization has already signaled support for?
question type: principle_tension
generated at time: 2026-02-26T00:07:28.427022
was generated by: ProEthica Case 73 Extraction

Question_203
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 203
question text: Does the principle of Completeness and Non-Selectivity — which obligates Engineer A to present all material facts including the rolling blackout risk and storage cost gap — conflict with the principle of Risk Threshold Calibration when the rolling blackout risk is probabilistic, contingent on extreme weather, and based on an informal utility planner communication rather than a formal engineering assessment, raising the question of whether every speculative risk must be disclosed or only those exceeding a defensible materiality threshold?
question type: principle_tension
generated at time: 2026-02-26T00:07:28.427076
was generated by: ProEthica Case 73 Extraction

Question_204
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 204
question text: Does the principle of Objectivity — which requires Engineer A to present an unbiased technical assessment free from stakeholder pressure — conflict with the principle of Reliability Equivalence Disclosure when Engineer A is personally convinced the solar project is viable in isolation, creating a risk that Engineer A's own professional confidence in the solar design may unconsciously suppress the weight given to systemic grid reliability concerns in the final board report?
question type: principle_tension
generated at time: 2026-02-26T00:07:28.427129
was generated by: ProEthica Case 73 Extraction

Question_301
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 301
question text: From a deontological perspective, did Engineer A fulfill their duty of complete disclosure by including the utility's rolling blackout warning in the board report, regardless of whether that information was explicitly requested or whether it complicated the stakeholder-preferred solar narrative?
question type: theoretical
generated at time: 2026-02-26T00:07:28.427183
was generated by: ProEthica Case 73 Extraction

Question_302
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 302
question text: From a consequentialist perspective, does the aggregate public harm of increased rolling blackout risk during extreme weather events — potentially affecting vulnerable populations dependent on electricity for medical or thermal needs — outweigh the organizational benefit of a cost-equivalent solar transition that satisfies stakeholder carbon reduction goals?
question type: theoretical
generated at time: 2026-02-26T00:07:28.427238
was generated by: ProEthica Case 73 Extraction

Question_303
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 303
question text: From a virtue ethics perspective, did Engineer A demonstrate professional integrity and intellectual courage by resisting stakeholder pressure to present the solar project as straightforwardly viable, and instead proactively surfacing the grid stress externality that complicated the preferred narrative?
question type: theoretical
generated at time: 2026-02-26T00:07:28.427339
was generated by: ProEthica Case 73 Extraction

Question_304
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 304
question text: From a deontological perspective, does Engineer A's duty as a faithful agent to the organization require disclosure of the battery storage cost and resilience gap even when the organization has already determined it lacks the capital for storage, or does that capital constraint relieve Engineer A of the obligation to present storage as a viable option in the board report?
question type: theoretical
generated at time: 2026-02-26T00:07:28.427396
was generated by: ProEthica Case 73 Extraction

Question_305
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 305
question text: From a consequentialist perspective, would the board's decision-making quality — and the organization's long-term resilience — be meaningfully improved if Engineer A presented battery storage costs alongside a phased or hybrid implementation pathway, even if full storage deployment is currently capital-constrained?
question type: theoretical
generated at time: 2026-02-26T00:07:28.427450
was generated by: ProEthica Case 73 Extraction

Question_306
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 306
question text: From a virtue ethics perspective, does Engineer A's willingness to present battery storage costs and resilience consequences — despite knowing the organization cannot currently afford storage — reflect the professional virtue of honest counsel, or does it risk being perceived as undermining a decision the organization has already effectively made on capital grounds?
question type: theoretical
generated at time: 2026-02-26T00:07:28.427504
was generated by: ProEthica Case 73 Extraction

Question_401
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 401
question text: If Engineer A had omitted the utility resource planner's rolling blackout warning from the board report — reasoning that the warning was informal, unverified, and outside the scope of the organization's internal project — and the board approved the solar transition, after which rolling blackouts occurred during an extreme weather event, would Engineer A bear professional ethical responsibility for the resulting public harm?
question type: counterfactual
generated at time: 2026-02-26T00:07:28.427558
was generated by: ProEthica Case 73 Extraction

Question_402
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 402
question text: If the utility resource planner's rolling blackout concern had been communicated in a formal written report rather than in a casual conversation, would Engineer A's ethical obligation to include that information in the board report be stronger, or is the disclosure obligation the same regardless of the formality of the source communication?
question type: counterfactual
generated at time: 2026-02-26T00:07:28.427612
was generated by: ProEthica Case 73 Extraction

Question_403
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 403
question text: If the organization had possessed sufficient capital to install battery storage alongside the solar panels, would Engineer A's ethical obligations regarding the board report content have been substantially reduced — specifically the obligations around grid stress disclosure and reliability equivalence qualification — or would those obligations persist independently of the storage availability?
question type: counterfactual
generated at time: 2026-02-26T00:07:28.427664
was generated by: ProEthica Case 73 Extraction

Question_404
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 404
question text: If the board, after receiving Engineer A's complete report including rolling blackout risks and battery storage costs, chose to proceed with solar-without-storage anyway — citing capital constraints and stakeholder carbon reduction commitments — would Engineer A have any remaining ethical obligation to escalate the grid reliability concern to the local utility, a regulatory body, or another external authority, or does the faithful agent obligation terminate once the board has been fully informed?
question type: counterfactual
generated at time: 2026-02-26T00:07:28.427718
was generated by: ProEthica Case 73 Extraction

Reliability-Sustainability Conflict Crystallizes
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Event
generated at time: 2026-02-26T22:54:37.537172
was generated by: ProEthica Case 73 Extraction

Reliability-Sustainability Conflict Crystallizes → Decide Report Content Scope
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-26T22:54:37.537334
was generated by: ProEthica Case 73 Extraction

Reliability Equivalence Disclosure Invoked By Engineer A Solar Energy Report
type: ReliabilityEquivalenceDisclosureinEnergySystemAdvisoryReports
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Advisory report to organizational board comparing solar without storage to fossil-fueled co-generation
balancingwith: Carbon Footprint Reduction Stakeholder interests
balancingwith: Faithful Agent Obligation Within Ethical Limits
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer A must explicitly disclose in the advisory report that while the solar without storage system produces equivalent energy at similar cost to the fossil-fueled co-generation facility, it is materially less reliable — and that this reliability gap has implications not only for the organization but for the entire local electric power system
confidence: 0.92
discoveredincase: 73
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T23:41:15.494672+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 73
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T23:41:15.494672+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: The board cannot be expected to independently recognize that energy production equivalence does not imply reliability equivalence; Engineer A must make this distinction explicit and prominent in the report to enable informed decision-making
invokedby: Engineer A Energy Systems Reporting Engineer
principleclass: Reliability Equivalence Disclosure in Energy System Advisory Reports
sourcetext: Note that 'equivalent' as used to this point in the discussion has not addressed reliability.
tensionresolution: The reliability equivalence disclosure obligation is not in tension with the faithful agent obligation — it is an expression of it; a faithful agent must ensure the board understands the full performance profile of each option, not merely the dimensions that favor the stakeholder-preferred choice
textreferences: A report that does not contain information about the reliability of the utility source will not help them make an informed decision.
textreferences: Further, a system without energy storage decreases the reliability of the entire local electric power system.
textreferences: Note that 'equivalent' as used to this point in the discussion has not addressed reliability.
textreferences: The proposed solar generation system without storage may produce the same energy that the existing fossil-fueled generator does, but it will not be as reliable.
wasattributedto: Case 73 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T23:54:19.983820
was generated by: ProEthica Case 73 Extraction

Reliability Equivalence Disclosure Invoked by Engineer A Solar vs Co-Gen Reliability
type: ReliabilityEquivalenceDisclosureinEnergySystemAdvisoryReports
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Board capital investment decision
appliedto: Comparison of solar-without-storage vs. fossil-fueled co-generation facility
balancingwith: Client Education Through Sustainable Option Presentation
balancingwith: Sustainable Development Advocacy Obligation
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer A must disclose in the board report that while solar panels can supply energy equivalent to the co-generation facility under normal conditions, the two systems are not reliability-equivalent: the co-generation facility provides dispatchable power independent of weather and time of day, while solar-without-storage cannot supply power at night or during bad weather, creating a material reliability gap that affects both the organization and the broader grid.
confidence: 0.96
discoveredincase: 73
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T22:36:47.519403+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 73
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T22:36:47.519403+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: Energy production equivalence under normal conditions does not constitute reliability equivalence; the report must explicitly address the reliability differential and its implications for the organization's continuity and the grid's stability.
invokedby: Engineer A
principleclass: Reliability Equivalence Disclosure in Energy System Advisory Reports
sourcetext: Engineer A is satisfied that under normal conditions, the system of solar panels can supply electric energy equivalent to that provided by the existing generator.
tensionresolution: Disclosure of the reliability gap does not preclude recommending solar; it ensures the board understands what they are trading away and can make an informed decision, potentially including seeking battery storage funding or a hybrid solution.
textreferences: After careful study of the facility electric load profile and the capability of the proposed solar energy system, Engineer A is satisfied that under normal conditions, the system of solar panels can supply electric energy equivalent to that provided by the existing generator.
textreferences: Capital constraints prevent the organization from installing a system of batteries to store energy for use at night or in bad weather.
textreferences: Engineer A also realizes that a move to solar production without storage may stress the local utility generation mix even more, increasing the likelihood of rolling blackouts.
wasattributedto: Case 73 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T22:54:37.520465
was generated by: ProEthica Case 73 Extraction

Reliability Equivalence Disclosure Invoked for Solar-Without-Storage Evaluation
type: ReliabilityEquivalenceDisclosureinEnergySystemAdvisoryReports
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Organizational board capital investment decision
appliedto: Solar-without-storage vs. fossil-fueled co-generation reliability comparison
balancingwith: Environmental Stewardship in Engineering Practice
balancingwith: Sustainable Development Advocacy Obligation
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer A's obligation to disclose that the solar-without-storage system, while producing equivalent energy to the fossil-fueled co-generator, is not equivalent in reliability — and that this reliability gap has material implications for both organizational continuity and broader grid stability
confidence: 0.96
discoveredincase: 73
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T22:44:21.888625+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 73
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T22:44:21.888625+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: The word 'equivalent' in the initial analysis was limited to energy production and cost; the principle requires the engineer to surface the reliability dimension of equivalence as a separate and material consideration
invokedby: Engineer A Energy Systems Reporting Engineer
principleclass: Reliability Equivalence Disclosure in Energy System Advisory Reports
sourcetext: Note that 'equivalent' as used to this point in the discussion has not addressed reliability. The proposed solar generation system without storage may produce the same energy that the existing fossil-fueled generator does, but it will not be as reliable.
tensionresolution: Reliability equivalence disclosure does not require the engineer to recommend against the solar option; it requires that the board understand the reliability difference before making its decision
textreferences: Further, a system without energy storage decreases the reliability of the entire local electric power system
textreferences: Installing a system without storage may result in rolling blackouts and facility interruptions and thus not be a success
textreferences: Note that 'equivalent' as used to this point in the discussion has not addressed reliability
textreferences: The proposed solar generation system without storage may produce the same energy that the existing fossil-fueled generator does, but it will not be as reliable
wasattributedto: Case 73 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T22:54:37.528965
was generated by: ProEthica Case 73 Extraction

Reliability Equivalence Qualification Engineer A Normal Conditions Finding
type: ReliabilityEquivalenceQualificationObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A's analysis found solar panels can supply equivalent energy 'under normal conditions' — this finding must be qualified to prevent the board from treating the systems as fully interchangeable.
compliancestatus: unclear
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.96
discoveredincase: 73
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T22:39:03.522019+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 73
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T22:39:03.522019+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationclass: Reliability Equivalence Qualification Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A is obligated to qualify the finding that solar panels can supply 'equivalent' energy in the board report by explicitly clarifying that this equivalence holds only under normal conditions and does not mean equivalent reliability, particularly during extreme weather events or grid stress conditions.
sourcetext: Engineer A is satisfied that under normal conditions, the system of solar panels can supply electric energy equivalent to that provided by the existing generator.
temporalscope: In the board report, when presenting the equivalence finding
textreferences: Engineer A is convinced that the solar project, when considered in isolation, is viable
textreferences: Engineer A is satisfied that under normal conditions, the system of solar panels can supply electric energy equivalent to that provided by the existing generator.
wasattributedto: Case 73 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T22:54:37.523497
was generated by: ProEthica Case 73 Extraction

Reliability Equivalence Qualification Engineer A Normal Conditions Only Finding
type: ReliabilityEquivalenceQualificationDisclosureConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A has found that solar panels supply equivalent energy under normal conditions but has not yet qualified this finding to address night, bad weather, and extreme weather reliability gaps.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.96
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Reliability Equivalence Qualification Disclosure Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A must qualify the finding that solar panels can supply 'equivalent' energy by explicitly clarifying that equivalence holds only under normal conditions, and must disclose that the solar system cannot guarantee continuous supply at night, in bad weather, or during extreme weather events that may trigger rolling outages.
discoveredincase: 73
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T22:40:57.194915+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 73
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T22:40:57.194915+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics — completeness and non-deception provisions; Reliability Equivalence Qualification Disclosure Constraint
sourcetext: Engineer A is satisfied that under normal conditions, the system of solar panels can supply electric energy equivalent to that provided by the existing generator.
temporalscope: At the time of board report preparation and submission
textreferences: Engineer A is satisfied that under normal conditions, the system of solar panels can supply electric energy equivalent to that provided by the existing generator.
wasattributedto: Case 73 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T22:54:37.524589
was generated by: ProEthica Case 73 Extraction

Reliability Equivalence Qualification Engineer A Solar Without Storage Board Report
type: ReliabilityEquivalenceQualificationDisclosureConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A's analysis found solar panels can supply 'equivalent' energy at similar cost, but this finding does not address reliability; presenting it without qualification creates a misleading impression of full functional equivalence.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.97
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Reliability Equivalence Qualification Disclosure Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A is constrained from presenting the solar-without-storage system as producing 'equivalent' energy to the fossil-fueled generator without explicitly qualifying that equivalence finding to disclose the material reliability difference — specifically that the solar system cannot guarantee continuous supply during extreme weather events and that it decreases reliability of the entire local electric power system.
discoveredincase: 73
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T22:49:20.614459+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 73
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T22:49:20.614459+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics completeness and objectivity provisions
sourcetext: Note that 'equivalent' as used to this point in the discussion has not addressed reliability
temporalscope: At time of preparing and submitting the board advisory report
textreferences: Further, a system without energy storage decreases the reliability of the entire local electric power system
textreferences: Note that 'equivalent' as used to this point in the discussion has not addressed reliability
textreferences: The proposed solar generation system without storage may produce the same energy that the existing fossil-fueled generator does, but it will not be as reliable
wasattributedto: Case 73 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T22:54:37.535539
was generated by: ProEthica Case 73 Extraction

Renewable-Energy-Transition-Risk-Assessment-Standard
type: RenewableEnergyTransitionRiskAssessmentStandard
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.87
createdby: Professional engineering community / emerging standards for renewable energy integration
discoveredincase: 73
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
documenttitle: Renewable Energy Transition Risk Assessment Standard (Solar Without Storage Grid Impact)
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T22:28:36.405231+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 73
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T22:28:36.405231+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: Renewable Energy Transition Risk Assessment Standard
sourcetext: A report that does not contain information about the reliability of the utility source will not help them make an informed decision.
textreferences: A report that does not contain information about the reliability of the utility source will not help them make an informed decision.
textreferences: Engineer A has an obligation to present this information in a report to the board.
textreferences: Further, a system without energy storage decreases the reliability of the entire local electric power system.
textreferences: The proposed solar generation system without storage may produce the same energy that the existing fossil-fueled generator does, but it will not be as reliable.
usedby: Engineer A in preparing the board report
usedincontext: Implicitly invoked as the professional norm requiring Engineer A to assess and disclose systemic risks of replacing a fossil-fueled generator with solar production without storage, including grid stability impacts and rolling blackout risks, in the report to the board
wasattributedto: Case 73 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T22:54:37.515803
was generated by: ProEthica Case 73 Extraction

Renewable Energy Transition Risk Assessment Standard – Solar Without Storage
type: RenewableEnergyTransitionRiskAssessmentStandard
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.9
createdby: Professional engineering community / NSPE
discoveredincase: 73
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
documenttitle: Professional norms governing risk disclosure when transitioning from co-generation to solar without battery storage
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T22:27:33.123798+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 73
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T22:27:33.123798+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: Renewable Energy Transition Risk Assessment Standard
sourcetext: Capital constraints prevent the organization from installing a system of batteries to store energy for use at night or in bad weather
textreferences: Capital constraints prevent the organization from installing a system of batteries to store energy for use at night or in bad weather
textreferences: Engineer A also realizes that a move to solar production without storage may stress the local utility generation mix even more, increasing the likelihood of rolling blackouts.
usedby: Engineer A in preparing the board report
usedincontext: Establishes the professional obligation for Engineer A to assess and disclose systemic grid-stability risks (rolling blackouts) arising from the proposed solar transition without battery storage, beyond the isolated viability of the solar panels themselves
version: Current
wasattributedto: Case 73 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T22:54:37.512776
was generated by: ProEthica Case 73 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_1
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-26T00:07:28.429654
was generated by: ProEthica Case 73 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_10
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-26T00:07:28.429958
was generated by: ProEthica Case 73 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_11
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-26T00:07:28.429988
was generated by: ProEthica Case 73 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_12
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-26T00:07:28.430017
was generated by: ProEthica Case 73 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_13
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-26T23:09:08.463834
was generated by: ProEthica Case 73 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_14
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-26T23:09:08.463870
was generated by: ProEthica Case 73 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_15
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-26T23:09:08.463905
was generated by: ProEthica Case 73 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_16
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-26T23:09:08.463935
was generated by: ProEthica Case 73 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_17
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-26T23:09:08.463988
was generated by: ProEthica Case 73 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_18
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-26T23:09:08.464024
was generated by: ProEthica Case 73 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_19
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-26T23:09:08.464058
was generated by: ProEthica Case 73 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_2
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-26T00:07:28.429684
was generated by: ProEthica Case 73 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_20
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-26T23:09:08.464088
was generated by: ProEthica Case 73 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_21
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-26T23:09:08.464118
was generated by: ProEthica Case 73 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_22
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-26T23:09:08.464148
was generated by: ProEthica Case 73 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_23
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-26T23:09:08.464180
was generated by: ProEthica Case 73 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_24
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-26T23:09:08.464209
was generated by: ProEthica Case 73 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_3
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-26T00:07:28.429713
was generated by: ProEthica Case 73 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_4
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-26T00:07:28.429741
was generated by: ProEthica Case 73 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_5
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-26T00:07:28.429771
was generated by: ProEthica Case 73 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_6
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-26T00:07:28.429833
was generated by: ProEthica Case 73 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_7
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-26T00:07:28.429867
was generated by: ProEthica Case 73 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_8
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-26T00:07:28.429898
was generated by: ProEthica Case 73 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_9
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-26T00:07:28.429928
was generated by: ProEthica Case 73 Extraction

Resource Constrained: No Battery Storage Capital
type: ResourceConstrained
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From the time capital constraints were identified as preventing battery storage through the board's decision on the solar project
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: Organization board
affectedparties: Stakeholders
concept category: State
confidence: 0.9
discoveredincase: 73
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T23:32:16.024444+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 73
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T23:32:16.024444+00:00
importance: medium
sourcetext: Capital constraints prevent the organization from installing a system of batteries to store energy for use at night or in bad weather
stateclass: Resource Constrained
subject: The organization's capital budget, which is insufficient to include battery storage in the solar project despite the resilience gap this creates
terminatedby: Capital constraints resolved, or board decision made accepting the constraint
textreferences: Capital constraints prevent the organization from installing a system of batteries to store energy for use at night or in bad weather
triggeringevent: Engineer A's analysis revealed that capital constraints prevent installation of battery storage alongside the solar panels
urgencylevel: medium
wasattributedto: Case 73 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T23:54:19.971643
was generated by: ProEthica Case 73 Extraction

Resource Constraint Battery Storage Capital Limitation Engineer A
type: ResourceConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: The absence of capital for battery storage is a binding resource constraint that shapes the design options available and creates the reliability gap that Engineer A must disclose.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.97
constrainedentity: Engineer A and Organization
constraintclass: Resource Constraint
constraintstatement: Capital constraints prevent the organization from installing battery storage, limiting the available design options to solar-without-storage or generator rebuild, and constraining Engineer A's ability to recommend a fully resilient solar solution.
discoveredincase: 73
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T22:40:57.194915+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 73
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T22:40:57.194915+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: Organizational capital budget limitation
sourcetext: Capital constraints prevent the organization from installing a system of batteries to store energy for use at night or in bad weather, but the cost of installing the solar panels is essentially the same as the cost to rebuild the generator.
temporalscope: At the time of the solar transition decision
textreferences: Capital constraints prevent the organization from installing a system of batteries to store energy for use at night or in bad weather, but the cost of installing the solar panels is essentially the same as the cost to rebuild the generator.
wasattributedto: Case 73 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T22:54:37.525978
was generated by: ProEthica Case 73 Extraction

Resource Constraint Battery Storage Capital Limitation Engineer A Solar Project
type: ResourceConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Capital constraints prevent the organization from installing a system of batteries to store energy for use at night or in bad weather, even though the cost of installing the solar panels is essentially the same as the cost to rebuild the generator. This resource constraint shapes the design and creates the resilience gap that Engineer A must disclose.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.92
constrainedentity: Engineer A and the Organization
constraintclass: Resource Constraint
constraintstatement: The organization's capital budget is insufficient to include battery storage in the solar project, constraining the design to a solar-without-storage configuration that creates a foreseeable resilience vulnerability under non-normal operating conditions and contributes to grid stress externalities.
discoveredincase: 73
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T23:38:28.511212+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 73
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T23:38:28.511212+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: Organization capital budget limitations as described in the case facts
sourcetext: Capital constraints prevent the organization from installing a system of batteries to store energy for use at night or in bad weather, but the cost of installing the solar panels is essentially the same as the cost to rebuild the generator.
temporalscope: At the time of the solar project design and board decision
textreferences: Capital constraints prevent the organization from installing a system of batteries to store energy for use at night or in bad weather, but the cost of installing the solar panels is essentially the same as the cost to rebuild the generator.
wasattributedto: Case 73 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T23:54:19.979046
was generated by: ProEthica Case 73 Extraction

Resource Constraint Engineer Adam Building Department Understaffing
type: ResourceConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: The resource constraint creates the pressure that makes the chairman's Faustian bargain tempting; Engineer Adam faces inadequate inspection capacity but cannot resolve this by compromising safety standards.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.95
constrainedentity: Engineer Adam / Building Department
constraintclass: Resource Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer Adam's building department is constrained by severe resource limitations — budget cutbacks and understaffing — that prevent adequate and timely building inspections, with each code official required to make as many as 60 inspections per day under newer, more rigid code requirements.
discoveredincase: 73
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T22:49:20.614459+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 73
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T22:49:20.614459+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: BER Case 98-5 factual record
sourcetext: as a result of a series of budget cutbacks and more rigid code enforcement requirements, the city has been unable to provide a sufficient number of qualified individuals to perform adequate and timely building inspections
temporalscope: During the period of budget cutbacks and understaffing described in BER Case 98-5
textreferences: Each code official member of Engineer Adam's staff is often required to make as many as 60 code inspections per day
textreferences: Engineer Adam believes there is no way even the most conscientious code official can make 60 adequate, much less thorough, inspections in one day
textreferences: as a result of a series of budget cutbacks and more rigid code enforcement requirements, the city has been unable to provide a sufficient number of qualified individuals to perform adequate and timely building inspections
wasattributedto: Case 73 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T22:54:37.536720
was generated by: ProEthica Case 73 Extraction

Risk Threshold Calibration Invoked By Engineer A Grid Reliability Rolling Blackouts
type: RiskThresholdCalibrationinPublicSafetyReporting
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Assessment of grid reliability risks from solar without storage option
balancingwith: Carbon Footprint Reduction Stakeholder interests
balancingwith: Environmental Stewardship in Engineering Practice
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer A must calibrate the reporting obligation associated with the solar without storage option's grid reliability risks — which include increased likelihood of rolling blackouts affecting vulnerable populations — as a risk to public welfare requiring disclosure in the advisory report, even though the risk is probabilistic rather than certain and depends on extreme weather events
confidence: 0.9
discoveredincase: 73
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T23:41:15.494672+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 73
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T23:41:15.494672+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: The rolling blackout risk falls between a clear and imminent life-safety risk and a speculative de minimis risk; it is a material risk to public welfare — particularly for vulnerable populations — that triggers a faithful agent notification obligation and a completeness obligation in the advisory report
invokedby: Engineer A Energy Systems Reporting Engineer
principleclass: Risk Threshold Calibration in Public Safety Reporting
sourcetext: But this option may also increase the likelihood of future rolling blackouts.
tensionresolution: The risk is calibrated as sufficiently material — given recent California and Texas precedents and the vulnerability of affected populations — to require explicit disclosure and analysis in the advisory report, even though it does not rise to the level of an imminent life-safety emergency requiring regulatory reporting
textreferences: But this option may also increase the likelihood of future rolling blackouts.
textreferences: Further, a system without energy storage decreases the reliability of the entire local electric power system.
textreferences: It is not difficult to imagine, for example, the stress placed upon elderly or confined individuals as well as those with medical conditions if they are left without a comfortable environment during an extreme weather event such as California and Texas recently experienced - and which led to rolling blackouts.
wasattributedto: Case 73 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T23:54:19.983368
was generated by: ProEthica Case 73 Extraction

Risk Threshold Calibration Invoked By Engineer A Rolling Blackout Severity Assessment
type: RiskThresholdCalibrationinPublicSafetyReporting
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Board report on solar panel replacement decision
appliedto: Rolling blackout risk to broader public
balancingwith: Faithful Agent Notification Obligation for Project Success Risk
balancingwith: Public Welfare Paramount
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer A must assess whether the rolling blackout risk — described by utility resource planners as a possibility during extreme weather events — rises to the level of a clear and imminent public safety risk requiring escalation beyond the board report, or whether faithful agent notification through the board report satisfies the obligation.
confidence: 0.9
discoveredincase: 73
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T23:35:16.556086+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 73
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T23:35:16.556086+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: The rolling blackout risk is not speculative — it has been communicated by utility resource planners — but its imminence and severity are conditional on extreme weather events; Engineer A must calibrate the appropriate level of reporting obligation accordingly, with the board report as the minimum required disclosure.
invokedby: Engineer A Energy Systems Reporting Engineer
principleclass: Risk Threshold Calibration in Public Safety Reporting
sourcetext: Engineer A also realizes that a move to solar production without storage may stress the local utility generation mix even more, increasing the likelihood of rolling blackouts.
tensionresolution: At minimum, the rolling blackout risk must be included in the board report; whether additional escalation is required depends on the severity and imminence of the risk as Engineer A assesses it.
textreferences: Engineer A also realizes that a move to solar production without storage may stress the local utility generation mix even more, increasing the likelihood of rolling blackouts.
textreferences: Engineer A learns that the utility resource planners reviewed their current generation mix and believe that during extreme weather events, they may be forced to institute rolling outages to keep system generating facilities on-line.
wasattributedto: Case 73 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T23:54:19.975987
was generated by: ProEthica Case 73 Extraction

Rolling Blackout Risk Disclosure Engineer A Board Report
type: RollingBlackoutRiskDisclosureObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A is preparing a board report on replacing the fossil-fueled co-generation facility with solar panels without battery storage. The local utility's resource planners have communicated that rolling outages may be necessary during extreme weather events, and Engineer A recognizes that the solar transition may further stress the utility's generation mix.
compliancestatus: unclear
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.91
discoveredincase: 73
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T23:36:47.063155+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 73
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T23:36:47.063155+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationclass: Rolling Blackout Risk Disclosure Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A is obligated to include the rolling blackout risk — communicated by the local electric utility's resource planners — prominently and completely in the board report on the solar project, so that the board can make an informed decision with full awareness of the potential systemic grid impacts and public welfare consequences of the proposed transition.
sourcetext: Engineer A learns that the utility resource planners reviewed their current generation mix and believe that during extreme weather events, they may be forced to institute rolling outages to keep system generating facilities on-line.
temporalscope: Before or upon submission of the board report on the solar project
textreferences: Engineer A also realizes that a move to solar production without storage may stress the local utility generation mix even more, increasing the likelihood of rolling blackouts.
textreferences: Engineer A is preparing a report that will be presented to the board to consider the new solar project
textreferences: Engineer A learns that the utility resource planners reviewed their current generation mix and believe that during extreme weather events, they may be forced to institute rolling outages to keep system generating facilities on-line.
wasattributedto: Case 73 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T23:54:19.976657
was generated by: ProEthica Case 73 Extraction

Rolling Blackout Risk Disclosure Engineer A Board Report Completeness
type: WrittenReportCompletenessConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A has learned from utility resource planners about rolling outage risk but has not yet included this in the board report being prepared.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.96
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Written Report Completeness Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A's board report must include all relevant and pertinent factual information — including the utility resource planners' communication about potential rolling outages during extreme weather events — and may not selectively omit this known risk even if it is unfavorable to the solar-without-storage option.
discoveredincase: 73
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T22:40:57.194915+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 73
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T22:40:57.194915+00:00
importance: critical
severity: critical
source: NSPE Code of Ethics — completeness provisions; Professional Report Integrity Standard; NSPE BER Case 20-4
sourcetext: Engineer A learns that the utility resource planners reviewed their current generation mix and believe that during extreme weather events, they may be forced to institute rolling outages to keep system generating facilities on-line.
temporalscope: At the time of board report preparation and submission
textreferences: Engineer A is preparing a report that will be presented to the board to consider the new solar project
textreferences: Engineer A learns that the utility resource planners reviewed their current generation mix and believe that during extreme weather events, they may be forced to institute rolling outages to keep system generating facilities on-line.
wasattributedto: Case 73 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T22:54:37.525045
was generated by: ProEthica Case 73 Extraction

Solar-Without-Storage Grid Stress Risk
type: Third-PartyGridStressRiskState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From the point Engineer A identifies the grid reliability implications through the board's final decision
affectedparties: Elderly and medically vulnerable third parties
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: General public
affectedparties: Local utility grid users
affectedparties: Organization/Board
concept category: State
confidence: 0.97
discoveredincase: 73
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T22:28:50.636637+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 73
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T22:28:50.636637+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: this option may also increase the likelihood of future rolling blackouts
stateclass: Third-Party Grid Stress Risk State
subject: Proposed replacement of fossil-fueled generator with solar production without storage
terminatedby: Board decision incorporating full reliability and grid-impact information
textreferences: Installing a system without storage may result in rolling blackouts and facility interruptions
textreferences: a system without energy storage decreases the reliability of the entire local electric power system
textreferences: the stress placed upon elderly or confined individuals as well as those with medical conditions if they are left without a comfortable environment during an extreme weather event
textreferences: this option may also increase the likelihood of future rolling blackouts
triggeringevent: Organization's decision to consider replacing on-demand fossil-fueled generator with solar production without battery storage, creating intermittent supply and increased grid demand stress during peak/extreme weather events
urgencylevel: high
wasattributedto: Case 73 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T22:54:37.518144
was generated by: ProEthica Case 73 Extraction

Solar Cost-Output Parity Found
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Event
generated at time: 2026-02-26T22:54:37.537090
was generated by: ProEthica Case 73 Extraction

Solar Cost-Output Parity Found → Reliability-Sustainability Conflict Crystallizes
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-26T22:54:37.537299
was generated by: ProEthica Case 73 Extraction

Solar Energy Equivalence Confirmed
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Event
generated at time: 2026-02-25T23:54:19.989947
was generated by: ProEthica Case 73 Extraction

Solar Project Viable In Isolation But Masking Systemic Risk
type: IsolatedProjectViabilityMaskingSystemicRiskState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From completion of Engineer A's load profile analysis through submission of the board report
affectedparties: Board of directors
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: Local utility
affectedparties: Organization
affectedparties: Third-party electricity consumers
concept category: State
confidence: 0.97
discoveredincase: 73
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T22:27:43.324490+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 73
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T22:27:43.324490+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: Engineer A is convinced that the solar project, when considered in isolation, is viable and will satisfy those stakeholders interested in reducing the organization's carbon footprint
stateclass: Isolated Project Viability Masking Systemic Risk State
subject: Engineer A's analysis and forthcoming board report
terminatedby: Submission of a complete report that discloses both the in-isolation viability and the systemic risk factors
textreferences: Engineer A also realizes that a move to solar production without storage may stress the local utility generation mix even more
textreferences: Engineer A is convinced that the solar project, when considered in isolation, is viable and will satisfy those stakeholders interested in reducing the organization's carbon footprint
triggeringevent: Engineer A concluding that the solar project is viable under normal conditions in isolation, while simultaneously knowing about the grid stress and rolling blackout risk
urgencylevel: high
wasattributedto: Case 73 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T22:54:37.513950
was generated by: ProEthica Case 73 Extraction

Solar Reliability Omission in Board Report
type: SelectiveInformationOmissioninProfessionalReportState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From initial framing of equivalence claim until Engineer A includes reliability and grid-impact data in the report
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: Organization/Board
affectedparties: Public
concept category: State
confidence: 0.93
discoveredincase: 73
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T22:28:50.636637+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 73
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T22:28:50.636637+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: A report that does not contain information about the reliability of the utility source will not help them make an informed decision.
stateclass: Selective Information Omission in Professional Report State
subject: Engineer A's report to the board that initially treats solar-without-storage as 'equivalent' without addressing reliability
terminatedby: Engineer A's obligation-fulfilling inclusion of reliability and grid-stress information in the board report
textreferences: A report that does not contain information about the reliability of the utility source will not help them make an informed decision.
textreferences: Note that 'equivalent' as used to this point in the discussion has not addressed reliability.
textreferences: The proposed solar generation system without storage may produce the same energy that the existing fossil-fueled generator does, but it will not be as reliable.
textreferences: Therefore, Engineer A has an obligation to present this information in a report to the board.
triggeringevent: Engineer A's preliminary finding that solar generation is 'equivalent' to fossil-fueled generator in energy output and cost, without addressing reliability dimension
urgencylevel: high
wasattributedto: Case 73 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T22:54:37.518502
was generated by: ProEthica Case 73 Extraction

Solar Transition Increasing Grid Stress Risk
type: Third-PartyGridStressRiskState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From Engineer A's conversation with the utility representative through the board decision and beyond if solar is adopted without storage
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: Local utility
affectedparties: Organization
affectedparties: Third-party electricity consumers
concept category: State
confidence: 0.98
discoveredincase: 73
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T22:27:43.324490+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 73
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T22:27:43.324490+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: the utility resource planners reviewed their current generation mix and believe that during extreme weather events, they may be forced to institute rolling outages
stateclass: Third-Party Grid Stress Risk State
subject: Local utility grid and third-party electricity consumers
terminatedby: Installation of battery storage, retention of co-generation capability, or utility capacity expansion
textreferences: a move to solar production without storage may stress the local utility generation mix even more, increasing the likelihood of rolling blackouts
textreferences: the utility resource planners reviewed their current generation mix and believe that during extreme weather events, they may be forced to institute rolling outages
triggeringevent: Utility resource planners' disclosure that they may be forced to institute rolling outages during extreme weather events, compounded by Engineer A's realization that solar without storage would further stress the grid
urgencylevel: high
wasattributedto: Case 73 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T22:54:37.513776
was generated by: ProEthica Case 73 Extraction

Stakeholder Carbon Footprint Reduction Pressure
type: Stakeholder-DrivenTechnologyTransitionPressureState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From the point stakeholders expressed interest in reducing carbon footprint through the board decision on the solar project
affectedparties: Board of directors
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: Local utility
affectedparties: Organization stakeholders
concept category: State
confidence: 0.97
discoveredincase: 73
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T22:27:43.324490+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 73
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T22:27:43.324490+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: stakeholders have expressed interest in reducing the organization's carbon footprint
stateclass: Stakeholder-Driven Technology Transition Pressure State
subject: Engineer A's organization and its stakeholders
terminatedby: Board decision on the solar project proposal
textreferences: stakeholders have expressed interest in reducing the organization's carbon footprint
textreferences: these stakeholders suggest that the facility eliminate the generator and replace it with solar panels
triggeringevent: Stakeholders expressing interest in eliminating the generator and replacing it with solar panels to reduce the organization's carbon footprint
urgencylevel: medium
wasattributedto: Case 73 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T22:54:37.513378
was generated by: ProEthica Case 73 Extraction

Stakeholder Carbon Pressure Emerges
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Event
generated at time: 2026-02-25T23:54:19.989906
was generated by: ProEthica Case 73 Extraction

Stakeholder Carbon Reduction Pressure Emerges
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Event
generated at time: 2026-02-26T22:54:37.537049
was generated by: ProEthica Case 73 Extraction

Stakeholder Carbon Reduction Pressure on Solar Transition
type: Stakeholder-DrivenTechnologyTransitionPressureState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From the time stakeholders expressed interest in solar replacement through the preparation and presentation of Engineer A's board report
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: Local utility
affectedparties: Organization board
affectedparties: Stakeholders
affectedparties: Third-party electricity consumers
concept category: State
confidence: 0.87
discoveredincase: 73
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T23:32:16.024444+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 73
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T23:32:16.024444+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: stakeholders have expressed interest in reducing the organization's carbon footprint
stateclass: Stakeholder-Driven Technology Transition Pressure State
subject: Engineer A's obligation to prepare a complete and unbiased board report on the solar project
terminatedby: Board decision on the solar project following receipt of Engineer A's complete report
textreferences: Engineer A is convinced that the solar project, when considered in isolation, is viable and will satisfy those stakeholders interested in reducing the organization's carbon footprint
textreferences: stakeholders have expressed interest in reducing the organization's carbon footprint
textreferences: these stakeholders suggest that the facility eliminate the generator and replace it with solar panels
triggeringevent: Stakeholders expressed interest in reducing the organization's carbon footprint and suggested replacing the generator with solar panels
urgencylevel: medium
wasattributedto: Case 73 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T23:54:19.970545
was generated by: ProEthica Case 73 Extraction

Stakeholder Green Energy Transition Pressure on Engineer A
type: Stakeholder-DrivenTechnologyTransitionPressureState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From organization's initial decision to replace fossil-fueled generator with solar through Engineer A's report to the board
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: Organization/Board
concept category: State
confidence: 0.92
discoveredincase: 73
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T22:28:50.636637+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 73
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T22:28:50.636637+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: An ethical corollary to the organization's decision to replace an on-demand, fossil-fueled generator with solar production without storage is worthy of discussion.
stateclass: Stakeholder-Driven Technology Transition Pressure State
subject: Organization's preference for solar-without-storage driven by carbon footprint and sustainability goals
terminatedby: Board's informed decision after receiving complete technical analysis including reliability tradeoffs
textreferences: An ethical corollary to the organization's decision to replace an on-demand, fossil-fueled generator with solar production without storage is worthy of discussion.
textreferences: If the solar production without storage option moves forward, the organization will increase its green footprint and will support a laudable goal of increasing environmentally friendly energy production.
textreferences: the system also reduces the organization's carbon footprint
triggeringevent: Organization's decision to replace on-demand fossil-fueled generator with solar production without storage to increase green footprint
urgencylevel: medium
wasattributedto: Case 73 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T22:54:37.518874
was generated by: ProEthica Case 73 Extraction

Stakeholder Preference Non-Distortion Constraint Engineer A Carbon Footprint Stakeholders
type: StakeholderPreferenceNon-DistortionofTechnicalReportConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Stakeholders have expressed interest in reducing the organization's carbon footprint and have suggested eliminating the generator in favor of solar panels. Engineer A is convinced the solar project satisfies these stakeholder interests when considered in isolation, creating implicit pressure to present the project favorably without disclosing the grid stress externality.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.89
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Stakeholder Preference Non-Distortion of Technical Report Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A is constrained from structuring the board report to emphasize the solar project's carbon footprint reduction benefits while omitting or minimizing the rolling blackout risk, even though stakeholders have expressed strong preference for the solar transition and Engineer A is convinced the project satisfies their interests.
discoveredincase: 73
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T23:38:28.511212+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 73
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T23:38:28.511212+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics Sections II.3.a (objective and truthful professional manner) and III.2.b (engineers shall not complete, sign, or seal plans not conforming to accepted engineering standards)
sourcetext: stakeholders have expressed interest in reducing the organization's carbon footprint, and these stakeholders suggest that the facility eliminate the generator and replace it with solar panels.
temporalscope: During preparation and submission of the board report on the solar project
textreferences: Engineer A is convinced that the solar project, when considered in isolation, is viable and will satisfy those stakeholders interested in reducing the organization's carbon footprint.
textreferences: stakeholders have expressed interest in reducing the organization's carbon footprint, and these stakeholders suggest that the facility eliminate the generator and replace it with solar panels.
wasattributedto: Case 73 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T23:54:19.978466
was generated by: ProEthica Case 73 Extraction

Stakeholder Preference Non-Distortion Engineer A Carbon Footprint Advocates Solar Report
type: StakeholderPreferenceNon-DistortionofTechnicalReportConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: The organization and its stakeholders favor solar transition for sustainability reasons; Engineer A must resist implicit pressure to validate this predetermined outcome by omitting adverse reliability findings.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.94
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Stakeholder Preference Non-Distortion of Technical Report Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A is constrained from structuring the board report in a manner that selectively emphasizes the carbon footprint reduction benefits of solar-without-storage while omitting or minimizing the rolling blackout risk and reliability deficiencies, even if stakeholders and the organization strongly prefer the solar transition outcome.
discoveredincase: 73
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T22:49:20.614459+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 73
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T22:49:20.614459+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics objectivity provisions; BER Case 98-5
sourcetext: If the solar production without storage option moves forward, the organization will increase its green footprint and will support a laudable goal of increasing environmentally friendly energy production
temporalscope: Throughout preparation and submission of the board advisory report
textreferences: At first glance, this finding in conjunction with the earlier conclusion that system reliability data be included in the report to board may seem to satisfy Engineer A's obligations
textreferences: But this option may also increase the likelihood of future rolling blackouts
textreferences: If the solar production without storage option moves forward, the organization will increase its green footprint and will support a laudable goal of increasing environmentally friendly energy production
wasattributedto: Case 73 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T22:54:37.536390
was generated by: ProEthica Case 73 Extraction

Stakeholder Pressure Non-Distortion Engineer A Carbon Footprint Advocates
type: StakeholderPreferenceNon-DistortionofTechnicalReportConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Carbon footprint reduction stakeholders have implicitly pressured Engineer A to present the solar option favorably; Engineer A must resist this pressure in structuring the board report.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.93
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Stakeholder Preference Non-Distortion of Technical Report Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A must not structure or frame the board report in a manner that selectively emphasizes carbon footprint reduction findings while omitting or minimizing the rolling blackout risk and grid reliability findings, regardless of stakeholder pressure to validate the solar-without-storage option.
discoveredincase: 73
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T22:40:57.194915+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 73
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T22:40:57.194915+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics — objectivity and completeness provisions; Stakeholder Preference Non-Distortion of Technical Report Constraint
sourcetext: stakeholders have expressed interest in reducing the organization's carbon footprint
temporalscope: At the time of board report preparation and submission
textreferences: Engineer A is convinced that the solar project, when considered in isolation, is viable and will satisfy those stakeholders interested in reducing the organization's carbon footprint.
textreferences: stakeholders have expressed interest in reducing the organization's carbon footprint
wasattributedto: Case 73 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T22:54:37.524890
was generated by: ProEthica Case 73 Extraction

Stakeholder Pressure Resistance Engineer A Carbon Footprint Advocates
type: StakeholderPressureResistanceinEnergyAdvisoryReportingObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Stakeholders have expressed interest in reducing the organization's carbon footprint and have proposed the solar panel replacement. Engineer A is convinced the solar project is viable in isolation and would satisfy these stakeholders, creating implicit pressure to present the project favorably without full disclosure of the rolling blackout risk.
compliancestatus: unclear
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.85
discoveredincase: 73
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T23:36:47.063155+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 73
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T23:36:47.063155+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationclass: Stakeholder Pressure Resistance in Energy Advisory Reporting Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A is obligated to resist the implicit pressure from carbon footprint reduction stakeholders to present the solar project as unambiguously viable, and to ensure that the board report reflects an objective and complete technical assessment that includes both the favorable normal-condition performance and the adverse rolling blackout risk, without framing the analysis to favor the stakeholders' preferred outcome.
sourcetext: Engineer A is convinced that the solar project, when considered in isolation, is viable and will satisfy those stakeholders interested in reducing the organization's carbon footprint.
temporalscope: In the preparation and submission of the board report
textreferences: Engineer A is convinced that the solar project, when considered in isolation, is viable and will satisfy those stakeholders interested in reducing the organization's carbon footprint.
textreferences: stakeholders have expressed interest in reducing the organization's carbon footprint, and these stakeholders suggest that the facility eliminate the generator and replace it with solar panels.
wasattributedto: Case 73 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T23:54:19.977066
was generated by: ProEthica Case 73 Extraction

Storage Gap Identified
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Event
generated at time: 2026-02-25T23:54:19.989985
was generated by: ProEthica Case 73 Extraction

Storage Gap Identified + Utility Blackout Warning Issued → Compound Risk State Created
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T23:54:19.990262
was generated by: ProEthica Case 73 Extraction

Sustainability-Reliability Conflict in Energy Design
type: SustainabilityStandardConflictState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: Throughout Engineer A's analysis and the board's deliberation
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: Organization/Board
affectedparties: Public
concept category: State
confidence: 0.88
discoveredincase: 73
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T22:28:50.636637+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 73
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T22:28:50.636637+00:00
importance: medium
sourcetext: Some may argue that continuing to operate a fossil-fueled generator is inconsistent with public health, safety, and welfare, while others will point to the increased reliability of the fossil-fueled generator as a demonstration of greater concern for public welfare.
stateclass: Sustainability Standard Conflict State
subject: Tension between organization's sustainability/carbon-reduction goals and engineering reliability and public safety standards
terminatedby: Board's informed decision incorporating both sustainability and reliability considerations
textreferences: Some may argue that continuing to operate a fossil-fueled generator is inconsistent with public health, safety, and welfare, while others will point to the increased reliability of the fossil-fueled generator as a demonstration of greater concern for public welfare.
textreferences: The ethical objective is an informed policy and project decision-making process.
textreferences: the system also reduces the organization's carbon footprint
triggeringevent: Organization's commitment to increasing green footprint conflicts with engineering reliability standards and public safety obligations regarding grid stability
urgencylevel: medium
wasattributedto: Case 73 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T22:54:37.519905
was generated by: ProEthica Case 73 Extraction

Sustainable Development Advocacy Obligation Invoked by Carbon Footprint Stakeholders
type: SustainableDevelopmentAdvocacyObligation
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Board report on energy system alternatives
appliedto: Solar panel replacement proposal
balancingwith: Competing Public Goods Balancing in Engineering Advisory Roles
balancingwith: Public Welfare Paramount
balancingwith: Reliability Equivalence Disclosure in Energy System Advisory Reports
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: The carbon footprint reduction stakeholders' advocacy for the solar-without-storage option represents a legitimate sustainability interest that Engineer A must acknowledge and present in the report, recognizing that sustainable development is a genuine professional value — but one that must be balanced against grid reliability and public safety rather than treated as dispositive.
confidence: 0.87
discoveredincase: 73
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T22:36:47.519403+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 73
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T22:36:47.519403+00:00
importance: medium
interpretation: Sustainable development advocacy is a legitimate basis for the solar proposal, and Engineer A should present it as such; the obligation is to balance it against other values, not to dismiss it.
invokedby: Carbon Footprint Sustainability Advocates
invokedby: Engineer A
principleclass: Sustainable Development Advocacy Obligation
sourcetext: stakeholders have expressed interest in reducing the organization's carbon footprint, and these stakeholders suggest that the facility eliminate the generator and replace it with solar panels.
tensionresolution: Engineer A should present the sustainability case for solar alongside the reliability and grid stress concerns, enabling the board to weigh the trade-off with full information.
textreferences: Engineer A is convinced that the solar project, when considered in isolation, is viable and will satisfy those stakeholders interested in reducing the organization's carbon footprint.
textreferences: Recently, stakeholders have expressed interest in reducing the organization's carbon footprint, and these stakeholders suggest that the facility eliminate the generator and replace it with solar panels.
wasattributedto: Case 73 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T22:54:37.521466
was generated by: ProEthica Case 73 Extraction

Sustainable Development Ethics Provision - Carbon Footprint Reduction
type: SustainableDevelopmentEthicsProvision
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.82
createdby: Professional engineering ethics bodies
discoveredincase: 73
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
documenttitle: Professional ethics provisions encouraging sustainable development and environmental stewardship
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T23:31:30.780685+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 73
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T23:31:30.780685+00:00
importance: medium
resourceclass: Sustainable Development Ethics Provision
sourcetext: stakeholders have expressed interest in reducing the organization's carbon footprint, and these stakeholders suggest that the facility eliminate the generator and replace it with solar panels
textreferences: stakeholders have expressed interest in reducing the organization's carbon footprint, and these stakeholders suggest that the facility eliminate the generator and replace it with solar panels
usedby: Engineer A and organizational stakeholders in framing the solar project rationale
usedincontext: Provides normative grounding for stakeholder interest in replacing the fossil-fueled co-generation facility with solar panels to reduce the organization's carbon footprint, establishing sustainability as a legitimate professional and ethical consideration in the engineering analysis
version: Current
wasattributedto: Case 73 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T23:54:19.969730
was generated by: ProEthica Case 73 Extraction

Systemic Grid Externality Disclosure Constraint Engineer A Solar Board Report
type: SystemicExternalityDisclosureConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A has completed analysis showing solar-without-storage is viable in isolation but has learned from utility resource planners that the transition may increase rolling blackout likelihood during extreme weather events, creating a systemic public safety risk that must be disclosed in the board report.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.91
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Systemic Externality Disclosure Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A is constrained from submitting a board report that presents the solar project as viable based solely on isolated analysis without disclosing the systemic grid stress externality — specifically the increased likelihood of rolling blackouts — that Engineer A has identified through the utility resource planner communication.
discoveredincase: 73
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T23:38:28.511212+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 73
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T23:38:28.511212+00:00
importance: high
severity: critical
source: NSPE Code of Ethics Sections II.3.a (objective and truthful), III.2.b (complete and accurate information), and I.1 (public safety paramount)
sourcetext: Engineer A also realizes that a move to solar production without storage may stress the local utility generation mix even more, increasing the likelihood of rolling blackouts.
temporalscope: At the time of preparing and submitting the board report on the solar project
textreferences: Engineer A also realizes that a move to solar production without storage may stress the local utility generation mix even more, increasing the likelihood of rolling blackouts.
textreferences: Engineer A is convinced that the solar project, when considered in isolation, is viable
wasattributedto: Case 73 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T23:54:19.978136
was generated by: ProEthica Case 73 Extraction

Systemic Grid Impact Disclosure Engineer A Solar Advisory
type: SystemicGridImpactDisclosureinEnergyAdvisoryObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A's analysis confirms that the solar system is viable under normal conditions, but the engineer also recognizes that the transition may increase grid stress. The board report must address both dimensions to give decision-makers a complete picture.
compliancestatus: unclear
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.89
discoveredincase: 73
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T23:36:47.063155+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 73
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T23:36:47.063155+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationclass: Systemic Grid Impact Disclosure in Energy Advisory Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A is obligated to disclose in the board report not only the isolated normal-condition viability of the solar panel system but also the systemic grid-level impact — specifically that eliminating the co-generation facility and transitioning to solar without storage may further stress the local utility's generation mix and increase the probability of rolling blackouts affecting the broader public.
sourcetext: Engineer A is convinced that the solar project, when considered in isolation, is viable and will satisfy those stakeholders interested in reducing the organization's carbon footprint.
temporalscope: In the board report prepared for the solar project decision
textreferences: Engineer A also realizes that a move to solar production without storage may stress the local utility generation mix even more, increasing the likelihood of rolling blackouts.
textreferences: Engineer A is convinced that the solar project, when considered in isolation, is viable and will satisfy those stakeholders interested in reducing the organization's carbon footprint.
wasattributedto: Case 73 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T23:54:19.976794
was generated by: ProEthica Case 73 Extraction

Systemic Grid Impact Disclosure Engineer A Solar Transition
type: SystemicGridImpactDisclosureinEnergyAdvisoryObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A realizes that eliminating the co-generation facility and moving to full grid dependence via solar-without-storage will stress the local utility generation mix, increasing rolling blackout likelihood beyond what the utility already anticipates.
compliancestatus: unclear
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.97
discoveredincase: 73
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T22:39:03.522019+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 73
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T22:39:03.522019+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationclass: Systemic Grid Impact Disclosure in Energy Advisory Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A is obligated to disclose in the board report not only the isolated viability of the solar panels but also the systemic impact of the solar-without-storage transition on the local utility grid, including the increased stress on the generation mix and heightened rolling blackout probability.
sourcetext: Engineer A also realizes that a move to solar production without storage may stress the local utility generation mix even more, increasing the likelihood of rolling blackouts.
temporalscope: In the board report prior to the board's capital investment decision
textreferences: Engineer A also realizes that a move to solar production without storage may stress the local utility generation mix even more, increasing the likelihood of rolling blackouts.
textreferences: Engineer A is convinced that the solar project, when considered in isolation, is viable
wasattributedto: Case 73 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T22:54:37.522704
was generated by: ProEthica Case 73 Extraction

Systemic Grid Impact Disclosure Obligation Invoked by Engineer A Regarding Utility Grid Stress
type: SystemicGridImpactDisclosureObligation
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Board report on solar replacement project
appliedto: Broader community grid users
appliedto: Local electric utility grid reliability
balancingwith: Faithful Agent Obligation Within Ethical Limits
balancingwith: Public Welfare Paramount
balancingwith: Trustee Discretion and Deference Obligation
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer A must disclose in the board report that the organization's transition from self-generation (co-gen) to full grid dependence (solar-without-storage) will externalize a reliability burden onto the shared electric grid, increasing the probability of rolling blackouts for the broader community during extreme weather events — a systemic impact that extends Engineer A's disclosure obligation beyond the organization's internal interests.
confidence: 0.87
discoveredincase: 73
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T22:36:47.519403+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 73
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T22:36:47.519403+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: The utility resource planner's assessment is not merely background context; it is material information about a foreseeable public welfare impact that Engineer A has a professional obligation to include in the report and, if warranted, to communicate to the utility or relevant authorities.
invokedby: Engineer A
principleclass: Systemic Grid Impact Disclosure Obligation
sourcetext: Engineer A also realizes that a move to solar production without storage may stress the local utility generation mix even more, increasing the likelihood of rolling blackouts.
tensionresolution: The systemic grid impact disclosure obligation reinforces rather than conflicts with the faithful agent obligation here; the organization itself faces rolling blackout risk, so disclosing the systemic impact serves both the client and the public.
textreferences: Engineer A also realizes that a move to solar production without storage may stress the local utility generation mix even more, increasing the likelihood of rolling blackouts.
textreferences: Engineer A learns that the utility resource planners reviewed their current generation mix and believe that during extreme weather events, they may be forced to institute rolling outages to keep system generating facilities on-line.
wasattributedto: Case 73 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T22:54:37.522154
was generated by: ProEthica Case 73 Extraction

Systemic Grid Impact Disclosure Obligation Invoked for Solar-Without-Storage Recommendation
type: SystemicGridImpactDisclosureObligation
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Local electric utility grid reliability
appliedto: Rolling blackout probability increase
appliedto: Solar-without-storage systemic grid impact
balancingwith: Environmental Stewardship in Engineering Practice
balancingwith: Faithful Agent Obligation Within Ethical Limits
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer A's obligation to disclose that replacing the fossil-fueled co-generator with solar-without-storage will shift the organization's entire load to the grid under conditions of known grid stress during extreme weather events, thereby increasing the probability of rolling blackouts for the broader community served by the shared grid infrastructure
confidence: 0.96
discoveredincase: 73
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T22:44:21.888625+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 73
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T22:44:21.888625+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: The engineer's duty extends beyond the organization to the community served by the shared grid; the systemic impact of eliminating on-demand generation capacity during peak stress periods is a material public welfare consideration that must be disclosed
invokedby: Engineer A Energy Systems Reporting Engineer
principleclass: Systemic Grid Impact Disclosure Obligation
sourcetext: Further, a system without energy storage decreases the reliability of the entire local electric power system.
tensionresolution: Systemic grid impact disclosure is required regardless of the organization's preference for the solar option; the disclosure enables the board and the utility to make informed decisions about grid management
textreferences: Further, a system without energy storage decreases the reliability of the entire local electric power system
textreferences: With the current co-generation facility and a like-in-kind replacement, a presumably large electric load served by the utility can either stand alone or be operated to greatly reduce the electric load on a power system that will be stressed during extreme weather events
textreferences: this option may also increase the likelihood of future rolling blackouts
wasattributedto: Case 73 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T22:54:37.530005
was generated by: ProEthica Case 73 Extraction

Systemic Grid Stress Disclosure Constraint Engineer A Solar Board Report
type: SystemicExternalityDisclosureConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A has learned from utility resource planners that solar-without-storage will stress the grid during extreme weather events, increasing rolling blackout likelihood, but is preparing a report that treats the solar project as viable in isolation.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.93
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Systemic Externality Disclosure Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A must disclose in the board report that the proposed solar-without-storage transition will foreseeably increase stress on the local utility grid and thereby increase the probability of rolling blackouts for third-party consumers, and may not present the solar project as viable based solely on isolated facility-level analysis.
discoveredincase: 73
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T22:40:57.194915+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 73
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T22:40:57.194915+00:00
importance: critical
severity: critical
source: NSPE Code of Ethics — public safety paramount canon; NSPE BER Case 20-4; Professional Report Integrity Standard
sourcetext: Engineer A also realizes that a move to solar production without storage may stress the local utility generation mix even more, increasing the likelihood of rolling blackouts.
temporalscope: Prior to and at the time of board report submission
textreferences: Engineer A also realizes that a move to solar production without storage may stress the local utility generation mix even more, increasing the likelihood of rolling blackouts.
textreferences: Engineer A is preparing a report that will be presented to the board to consider the new solar project, and is convinced that the solar project, when considered in isolation, is viable
wasattributedto: Case 73 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T22:54:37.524288
was generated by: ProEthica Case 73 Extraction

Temporal Disclosure Urgency Constraint Engineer A Rolling Blackout Board Report Timing
type: TemporalDisclosureUrgencyConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A is currently preparing the board report and has already learned of the rolling blackout risk from the utility resource planner. The board report represents the natural and timely communication opportunity for this disclosure, and deferral would be ethically impermissible.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.9
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Temporal Disclosure Urgency Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A is constrained from deferring disclosure of the rolling blackout risk to a later phase of the project or a subsequent report — the risk must be disclosed in the current board report being prepared, as the board's decision on the solar project will be made on the basis of this report and deferral would deprive the board of material safety information at the critical decision point.
discoveredincase: 73
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T23:38:28.511212+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 73
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T23:38:28.511212+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics Section I.1 and the principle that risk disclosures must be made promptly upon identification, particularly when a natural communication opportunity exists
sourcetext: Engineer A is preparing a report that will be presented to the board to consider the new solar project
temporalscope: At the time of preparing the current board report on the solar project
textreferences: Engineer A is preparing a report that will be presented to the board to consider the new solar project
textreferences: Engineer A learns that the utility resource planners reviewed their current generation mix and believe that during extreme weather events, they may be forced to institute rolling outages
wasattributedto: Case 73 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T23:54:19.979476
was generated by: ProEthica Case 73 Extraction

Third-Party Rolling Blackout Risk from Solar Transition Without Storage
type: Third-PartyGridStressRiskState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From the time Engineer A learned of the utility's grid stress concerns through the board's decision on the solar project
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: Local electric utility
affectedparties: Organization board
affectedparties: Third-party utility customers subject to rolling blackouts
concept category: State
confidence: 0.92
discoveredincase: 73
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T23:32:16.024444+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 73
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T23:32:16.024444+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: the utility resource planners reviewed their current generation mix and believe that during extreme weather events, they may be forced to institute rolling outages to keep system generating facilities on-line
stateclass: Third-Party Grid Stress Risk State
subject: The foreseeable increase in rolling blackout probability for third-party utility customers if the organization eliminates on-site generation and transitions to solar without battery storage
terminatedby: Board decision incorporating full disclosure of grid stress externality, or addition of battery storage to the design
textreferences: a move to solar production without storage may stress the local utility generation mix even more, increasing the likelihood of rolling blackouts
textreferences: the utility resource planners reviewed their current generation mix and believe that during extreme weather events, they may be forced to institute rolling outages to keep system generating facilities on-line
triggeringevent: Utility resource planners informed Engineer A that they may be forced to institute rolling outages during extreme weather events, and Engineer A realized the solar transition without storage would exacerbate this
urgencylevel: high
wasattributedto: Case 73 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T23:54:19.970707
was generated by: ProEthica Case 73 Extraction

Trustee Discretion and Deference Invoked by Engineer A Toward Organizational Board
type: TrusteeDiscretionandDeferenceObligation
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Capital investment decision on energy system replacement
appliedto: Organizational Board Decision Authority
balancingwith: Competing Public Goods Balancing in Engineering Advisory Roles
balancingwith: Faithful Agent Obligation Within Ethical Limits
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer A acts as a trustee for the organization, exercising full professional judgment to develop a complete technical analysis of the solar replacement option, but must then defer to the board's ultimate decision authority once the complete analysis — including grid reliability risks — has been presented, refraining from filtering the report to pre-determine the outcome in favor of either the carbon footprint stakeholders or the status quo.
confidence: 0.9
discoveredincase: 73
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T22:36:47.519403+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 73
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T22:36:47.519403+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: The trustee role means Engineer A must give the board everything they need to decide, including uncomfortable information about grid stress; the engineer's job ends with complete presentation, not with steering the board toward a preferred outcome.
invokedby: Engineer A
principleclass: Trustee Discretion and Deference Obligation
sourcetext: Engineer A is preparing a report that will be presented to the board to consider the new solar project.
tensionresolution: Engineer A satisfies the trustee obligation by presenting complete analysis including grid risk; the board then exercises its decision authority with full information.
textreferences: Engineer A is convinced that the solar project, when considered in isolation, is viable and will satisfy those stakeholders interested in reducing the organization's carbon footprint.
textreferences: Engineer A is preparing a report that will be presented to the board to consider the new solar project.
wasattributedto: Case 73 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T22:54:37.520876
was generated by: ProEthica Case 73 Extraction

Trustee Discretion and Deference Obligation Invoked for Board Decision Authority Preservation
type: TrusteeDiscretionandDeferenceObligation
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Engineer A's advisory role boundary
appliedto: Organizational board capital investment decision authority
balancingwith: Faithful Agent Obligation Within Ethical Limits
balancingwith: Public Welfare Paramount
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer A, acting as trustee for the organization, must exercise full professional judgment to develop a complete analysis — including reliability and systemic grid impact — but must then defer to the board's ultimate decision authority, which may choose the fossil-fueled option, the solar-with-storage option, or the solar-without-storage option
confidence: 0.89
discoveredincase: 73
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T22:44:21.888625+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 73
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T22:44:21.888625+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: The trustee role requires Engineer A to present complete analysis without self-interested advocacy for a particular outcome; the ethical objective is an informed decision-making process, not a particular decision
invokedby: Engineer A Faithful Agent Sustainability Trustee Engineer
principleclass: Trustee Discretion and Deference Obligation
sourcetext: The board may choose to rebuild/refurbish the fossil-fueled generator because it provides function and reliability at a lower cost than a solar production system with storage.
tensionresolution: The trustee obligation is satisfied when the board receives complete, objective analysis; Engineer A's professional duty ends at enabling informed decision-making, not at ensuring a particular environmental or reliability outcome
textreferences: The board may choose to rebuild/refurbish the fossil-fueled generator because it provides function and reliability at a lower cost than a solar production system with storage
textreferences: The ethical objective is an informed policy and project decision-making process
textreferences: This discussion has so far not addressed the obligation of Engineer A in this case to act as a faithful agent or trustee for the employer
wasattributedto: Case 73 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T22:54:37.529711
was generated by: ProEthica Case 73 Extraction

Unverified Grid Stress Concern from Utility Planners
type: UnverifiedConcernState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From the time Engineer A learned of the utility's concern through any independent verification or formal utility communication
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: Local utility
affectedparties: Organization board
concept category: State
confidence: 0.82
discoveredincase: 73
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T23:32:16.024444+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 73
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T23:32:16.024444+00:00
importance: medium
sourcetext: When discussing the analysis of the electric load profile with a representative of the local electric utility, Engineer A learns that the utility resource planners reviewed their current generation mix and believe that during extreme weather events, they may be forced to institute rolling outages
stateclass: Unverified Concern State
subject: The utility resource planners' belief — expressed informally to Engineer A — that rolling outages may be necessary during extreme weather events, which Engineer A has not independently verified through formal analysis
terminatedby: Engineer A obtains formal utility documentation or conducts independent analysis confirming or refuting the grid stress risk
textreferences: When discussing the analysis of the electric load profile with a representative of the local electric utility, Engineer A learns that the utility resource planners reviewed their current generation mix and believe that during extreme weather events, they may be forced to institute rolling outages
triggeringevent: Utility resource planners informally communicated to Engineer A their belief about potential rolling outages during extreme weather
urgencylevel: medium
wasattributedto: Case 73 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T23:54:19.971463
was generated by: ProEthica Case 73 Extraction

Utility Blackout Warning Issued
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Event
generated at time: 2026-02-25T23:54:19.990024
was generated by: ProEthica Case 73 Extraction

Utility Issues Rolling Blackout Warning
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Event
generated at time: 2026-02-26T22:54:37.537131
was generated by: ProEthica Case 73 Extraction

Utility Resource Planner Communication on Grid Reliability
type: GridReliabilityandUtilityResourcePlanningReport
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.92
createdby: Local electric utility resource planners
discoveredincase: 73
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
documenttitle: Local Electric Utility Resource Planning Assessment – Rolling Outage Risk During Extreme Weather
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T22:27:33.123798+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 73
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T22:27:33.123798+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: Grid Reliability and Utility Resource Planning Report
sourcetext: Engineer A learns that the utility resource planners reviewed their current generation mix and believe that during extreme weather events, they may be forced to institute rolling outages to keep system generating facilities on-line.
textreferences: Engineer A learns that the utility resource planners reviewed their current generation mix and believe that during extreme weather events, they may be forced to institute rolling outages to keep system generating facilities on-line.
usedby: Engineer A in evaluating systemic grid impacts of the solar transition
usedincontext: Provides evidentiary grounding that the local utility may institute rolling outages during extreme weather events, a material fact Engineer A must weigh when preparing the board report on the solar project
version: Current (verbal communication to Engineer A)
wasattributedto: Case 73 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T22:54:37.512605
was generated by: ProEthica Case 73 Extraction

Utility Resource Planner Communication on Rolling Outage Risk
type: GridReliabilityandUtilityResourcePlanningReport
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.88
createdby: Local electric utility resource planning department
discoveredincase: 73
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
documenttitle: Utility Resource Planner Assessment of Generation Mix and Extreme Weather Outage Risk
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T23:31:30.780685+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 73
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T23:31:30.780685+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: Grid Reliability and Utility Resource Planning Report
sourcetext: When discussing the analysis of the electric load profile with a representative of the local electric utility, Engineer A learns that the utility resource planners reviewed their current generation mix and believe that during extreme weather events, they may be forced to institute rolling outages to keep system generating facilities on-line
textreferences: When discussing the analysis of the electric load profile with a representative of the local electric utility, Engineer A learns that the utility resource planners reviewed their current generation mix and believe that during extreme weather events, they may be forced to institute rolling outages to keep system generating facilities on-line
usedby: Engineer A during analysis of the solar project's systemic impacts
usedincontext: Provides Engineer A with factual grounding that the proposed solar-without-storage system may exacerbate grid stress and increase the likelihood of rolling blackouts during extreme weather events, creating a public safety disclosure obligation in the board report
version: Current (informal communication)
wasattributedto: Case 73 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T23:54:19.968824
was generated by: ProEthica Case 73 Extraction

Vulnerable Population Consideration Invoked By Engineer A Blackout Risk
type: VulnerablePopulationConsiderationinGridReliabilityEngineering
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Grid reliability risk assessment for solar without storage option
balancingwith: Carbon Footprint Reduction Stakeholder interests
balancingwith: Environmental Stewardship in Engineering Practice
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer A must explicitly consider and disclose in the advisory report the foreseeable impact of increased rolling blackout probability on elderly persons, confined individuals, and those with medical conditions who face disproportionate harm from grid failures during extreme weather events
confidence: 0.87
discoveredincase: 73
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T23:41:15.494672+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 73
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T23:41:15.494672+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: The public welfare obligation extends beyond aggregate reliability metrics to the distributional impact on those least able to self-protect from grid failures; making this impact visible in the advisory report is essential to enabling informed decision-making by the board
invokedby: Engineer A Energy Systems Reporting Engineer
principleclass: Vulnerable Population Consideration in Grid Reliability Engineering
sourcetext: It is not difficult to imagine, for example, the stress placed upon elderly or confined individuals as well as those with medical conditions if they are left without a comfortable environment during an extreme weather event such as California and Texas recently experienced - and which led to rolling blackouts.
tensionresolution: The vulnerable population consideration reinforces the obligation to disclose reliability risks fully; the environmental benefits of the solar option do not diminish the obligation to make visible the disproportionate harm that rolling blackouts would impose on vulnerable populations
textreferences: It is not difficult to imagine, for example, the stress placed upon elderly or confined individuals as well as those with medical conditions if they are left without a comfortable environment during an extreme weather event such as California and Texas recently experienced - and which led to rolling blackouts.
wasattributedto: Case 73 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T23:54:19.983665
was generated by: ProEthica Case 73 Extraction

Vulnerable Population Consideration Invoked by Engineer A Rolling Blackout Extreme Weather
type: VulnerablePopulationConsiderationinGridReliabilityEngineering
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Board report on solar replacement project
appliedto: Broader community served by the electric grid
appliedto: Rolling blackout risk assessment
balancingwith: Competing Public Goods Balancing in Engineering Advisory Roles
balancingwith: Sustainable Development Advocacy Obligation
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer A must consider and disclose in the board report that the increased likelihood of rolling blackouts during extreme weather events — exacerbated by the solar-without-storage transition — poses disproportionate risks to vulnerable populations (elderly, medically dependent, confined individuals) who rely on grid power for life-sustaining needs during extreme heat or cold events.
confidence: 0.89
discoveredincase: 73
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T22:36:47.519403+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 73
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T22:36:47.519403+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: The extreme weather context makes vulnerable population impacts particularly salient; rolling blackouts during heat waves or cold snaps are known to cause preventable deaths among vulnerable persons, and this foreseeable harm must inform the completeness of Engineer A's analysis.
invokedby: Engineer A
principleclass: Vulnerable Population Consideration in Grid Reliability Engineering
sourcetext: the utility resource planners reviewed their current generation mix and believe that during extreme weather events, they may be forced to institute rolling outages to keep system generating facilities on-line.
tensionresolution: The carbon footprint reduction benefit does not eliminate the obligation to disclose the vulnerable population risk; both must be presented to enable an ethically informed board decision.
textreferences: Engineer A also realizes that a move to solar production without storage may stress the local utility generation mix even more, increasing the likelihood of rolling blackouts.
textreferences: Engineer A learns that the utility resource planners reviewed their current generation mix and believe that during extreme weather events, they may be forced to institute rolling outages to keep system generating facilities on-line.
wasattributedto: Case 73 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T22:54:37.521285
was generated by: ProEthica Case 73 Extraction

Vulnerable Population Consideration Invoked for Rolling Blackout Risk Assessment
type: VulnerablePopulationConsiderationinGridReliabilityEngineering
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Elderly and medically dependent population welfare
appliedto: Rolling blackout risk during extreme weather events
appliedto: Solar-without-storage grid reliability impact
balancingwith: Carbon Footprint Reduction Stakeholder advocacy
balancingwith: Environmental Stewardship in Engineering Practice
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer A's obligation to explicitly consider and disclose the foreseeable impact of reduced grid reliability — specifically increased rolling blackout risk — on elderly persons, medically dependent individuals, and confined individuals who face disproportionate harm from loss of climate control during extreme weather events
confidence: 0.95
discoveredincase: 73
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T22:44:21.888625+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 73
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T22:44:21.888625+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: The engineer's public welfare obligation extends beyond the organization's stakeholders to the broader community; vulnerable populations who cannot protect themselves from grid failures must be explicitly considered in the reliability analysis
invokedby: Engineer A Energy Systems Reporting Engineer
principleclass: Vulnerable Population Consideration in Grid Reliability Engineering
sourcetext: It is not difficult to imagine, for example, the stress placed upon elderly or confined individuals as well as those with medical conditions if they are left without a comfortable environment during an extreme weather event such as California and Texas recently experienced - and which led to rolling blackouts.
tensionresolution: Vulnerable population consideration does not override the environmental benefit analysis but requires it to be presented alongside a concrete account of who bears the reliability risk and how severely
textreferences: It is not difficult to imagine, for example, the stress placed upon elderly or confined individuals as well as those with medical conditions if they are left without a comfortable environment during an extreme weather event such as California and Texas recently experienced - and which led to rolling blackouts
wasattributedto: Case 73 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T22:54:37.529334
was generated by: ProEthica Case 73 Extraction

Vulnerable Population Extreme Weather Energy Reliability Disclosure Engineer A Rolling Blackout
type: VulnerablePopulationExtremeWeatherEnergyReliabilityDisclosureConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A has learned from utility resource planners that extreme weather may trigger rolling outages; the case text explicitly identifies elderly, confined, and medically dependent individuals as foreseeably harmed populations.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.9
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Vulnerable Population Extreme Weather Energy Reliability Disclosure Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A is constrained to explicitly disclose in the board report the foreseeable impact of increased rolling blackout probability on vulnerable populations — including elderly individuals, confined individuals, and those with medical conditions — and cannot omit this impact on the grounds that the rolling blackout risk is contingent on extreme weather or that the harm is speculative.
discoveredincase: 73
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T22:49:20.614459+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 73
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T22:49:20.614459+00:00
importance: critical
severity: critical
source: NSPE Code of Ethics — public health, safety, and welfare paramount; Low-Probability High-Consequence Risk Disclosure principles
sourcetext: It is not difficult to imagine, for example, the stress placed upon elderly or confined individuals as well as those with medical conditions if they are left without a comfortable environment during an extreme weather event such as California and Texas recently experienced - and which led to rolling blackouts
temporalscope: At time of preparing and submitting the board advisory report
textreferences: But this option may also increase the likelihood of future rolling blackouts
textreferences: It is not difficult to imagine, for example, the stress placed upon elderly or confined individuals as well as those with medical conditions if they are left without a comfortable environment during an extreme weather event such as California and Texas recently experienced - and which led to rolling blackouts
wasattributedto: Case 73 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T22:54:37.536231
was generated by: ProEthica Case 73 Extraction

Vulnerable Population Grid Reliability Disclosure Engineer A Board Report
type: VulnerablePopulationGridReliabilityImpactDisclosureObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: The increased rolling blackout risk from the solar-without-storage transition during extreme weather events poses disproportionate harm to vulnerable populations dependent on continuous power.
compliancestatus: unclear
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.93
discoveredincase: 73
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T22:39:03.522019+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 73
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T22:39:03.522019+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationclass: Vulnerable Population Grid Reliability Impact Disclosure Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A is obligated to disclose in the board report the foreseeable impact of increased rolling blackout probability on vulnerable populations — including elderly, medically dependent, and confined individuals — who depend on continuous electric supply for health and safety.
sourcetext: during extreme weather events, they may be forced to institute rolling outages to keep system generating facilities on-line
temporalscope: In the board report prior to the board's capital investment decision
textreferences: Engineer A also realizes that a move to solar production without storage may stress the local utility generation mix even more, increasing the likelihood of rolling blackouts.
textreferences: during extreme weather events, they may be forced to institute rolling outages to keep system generating facilities on-line
wasattributedto: Case 73 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T22:54:37.522861
was generated by: ProEthica Case 73 Extraction

Water Commission Engineers BER 20-4
type: PublicHealthRiskReportingEngineer
type: NamedIndividual
attributes: {'license': 'Professional Engineers', 'count': 2, 'case_reference': 'BER Case 20-4'}
caseinvolvement: Two engineers who recommended further study before the municipal water commission changed its potable water source; the BER found they had obligations to formally communicate concerns to the commission and to report to the state regulatory agency given the gravity of the public health risk.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.95
discoveredincase: 73
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T22:28:40.748926+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 73
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T22:28:40.748926+00:00
importance: high
relationships: {'type': 'escalates_to', 'target': 'State regulatory agency'}
relationships: {'type': 'reports_to', 'target': 'Municipal Water Commission BER 20-4'}
rolecategory: public_responsibility
roleclass: Public Health Risk Reporting Engineer
sourcetext: the engineers have an obligation to formally communicate their concerns to the water commission
textreferences: the engineers have an obligation to formally communicate their concerns to the water commission
textreferences: the engineers have an obligation to formally report their concerns to the state regulatory agency
wasattributedto: Case 73 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T22:54:37.517786
was generated by: ProEthica Case 73 Extraction

Water Commission Engineers Formal Regulatory Escalation BER 20-4
type: Post-Client-OverrideRegulatoryEscalationinWaterSafetyObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: BER 20-4: A municipal water commission chose to change the source of their potable water system to reduce public expenditures despite the recommendations of two engineers that further study was needed to ensure public safety; the BER found the engineers had obligations to formally communicate concerns and to report to the state regulatory agency
compliancestatus: unclear
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.91
discoveredincase: 73
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T22:46:47.115804+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 73
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T22:46:47.115804+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Water Commission Engineers (BER 20-4)
obligationclass: Post-Client-Override Regulatory Escalation in Water Safety Obligation
obligationstatement: The engineers advising the municipal water commission in BER 20-4 were obligated, after the commission overrode their recommendation for further study, to formally report their public health and safety concerns to the applicable state regulatory agency, given the gravity of the potential danger to public health and safety from the changed potable water source.
sourcetext: The BER found that the engineers have an obligation to formally communicate their concerns to the water commission.
temporalscope: After the water commission's decision to proceed despite the engineers' recommendations for further study
textreferences: Recent BER Case 20-4 addressed a public board (a municipal water commission) choosing to change the source of their potable water system to reduce public expenditures despite the recommendations of two engineers that further study was needed to ensure public safety.
textreferences: The BER also found that given the gravity of the potential danger to public health and safety, the engineers have an obligation to formally report their concerns to the state regulatory agency.
textreferences: The BER found that the engineers have an obligation to formally communicate their concerns to the water commission.
wasattributedto: Case 73 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T22:54:37.532048
was generated by: ProEthica Case 73 Extraction

Water Commission Engineers Post-Override Regulatory Escalation BER 20-4
type: Post-Board-OverrideEnergyGridSafetyRegulatoryEscalationCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Post-Board-Override Energy Grid Safety Regulatory Escalation Capability
capabilitystatement: The water commission engineers demonstrated the capability to formally report public health and safety concerns to the state regulatory agency after the municipal water commission overrode their recommendations for further study
casecontext: BER 20-4: Engineers advising municipal water commission that changed potable water source despite safety recommendations
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.86
demonstratedthrough: BER 20-4 finding that engineers have an obligation to formally report concerns to the state regulatory agency given the gravity of the potential danger to public health and safety
discoveredincase: 73
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T22:48:49.553722+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 73
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T22:48:49.553722+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Water Commission Engineers BER 20-4
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: The BER also found that given the gravity of the potential danger to public health and safety, the engineers have an obligation to formally report their concerns to the state regulatory agency.
textreferences: Recent BER Case 20-4 addressed a public board (a municipal water commission) choosing to change the source of their potable water system to reduce public expenditures despite the recommendations of two engineers that further study was needed to ensure public safety.
textreferences: The BER also found that given the gravity of the potential danger to public health and safety, the engineers have an obligation to formally report their concerns to the state regulatory agency.
wasattributedto: Case 73 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T22:54:37.533349
was generated by: ProEthica Case 73 Extraction

Whose Interests Are Being Served Self-Assessment Engineer A Carbon Stakeholder Pressure
type: WhoseInterestsAreBeingServedSelf-AssessmentConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A faces implicit pressure from carbon footprint stakeholders to present the solar option favorably; the self-assessment constraint requires Engineer A to identify whose interests are being served by any selective presentation.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.88
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Whose Interests Are Being Served Self-Assessment Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A must affirmatively self-assess whose interests are being served by any decision to present the solar-without-storage option as viable without disclosing the rolling blackout risk — specifically whether Engineer A is serving the organization's interests, the public's interests, or the carbon footprint stakeholders' interests — and must refrain from proceeding with a report that places stakeholder preferences above public safety.
discoveredincase: 73
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T22:40:57.194915+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 73
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T22:40:57.194915+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: Whose Interests Are Being Served Self-Assessment Constraint; NSPE Code of Ethics — faithful agent and public safety provisions
sourcetext: stakeholders have expressed interest in reducing the organization's carbon footprint
temporalscope: At the time of board report preparation and submission
textreferences: Engineer A is convinced that the solar project, when considered in isolation, is viable and will satisfy those stakeholders interested in reducing the organization's carbon footprint.
textreferences: stakeholders have expressed interest in reducing the organization's carbon footprint
wasattributedto: Case 73 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T22:54:37.526380
was generated by: ProEthica Case 73 Extraction

Written Report Completeness Engineer A Board Report Solar Reliability
type: WrittenReportCompletenessConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A is preparing a board report on replacing a fossil-fueled co-generation facility with solar-without-storage; the report must include reliability data to enable informed board decision-making.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.97
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Written Report Completeness Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A is constrained to include all relevant and pertinent information — specifically system reliability data and rolling blackout risk — in the board report, and cannot submit a report that omits this material information even if the isolated energy equivalence finding is technically accurate.
discoveredincase: 73
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T22:49:20.614459+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 73
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T22:49:20.614459+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics; BER Case precedent on report completeness
sourcetext: As a registered professional, Engineer A is obliged to include relevant and pertinent information in a report to the board
temporalscope: At time of preparing and submitting the board advisory report
textreferences: A report that does not contain information about the reliability of the utility source will not help them make an informed decision
textreferences: As a registered professional, Engineer A is obliged to include relevant and pertinent information in a report to the board
wasattributedto: Case 73 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T22:54:37.534330
was generated by: ProEthica Case 73 Extraction

board report presentation before board decision on solar project
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-26T22:54:37.537688
was generated by: ProEthica Case 73 Extraction

co-generation facility operation (years) before stakeholder push for carbon footprint reduction
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T23:54:19.990356
was generated by: ProEthica Case 73 Extraction

discussion with utility representative before preparation of board report
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T23:54:19.990451
was generated by: ProEthica Case 73 Extraction

extreme weather events overlaps potential rolling blackouts
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T23:54:19.990592
was generated by: ProEthica Case 73 Extraction

further study (Case 16-5) before operating system utilization
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-26T22:54:37.537724
was generated by: ProEthica Case 73 Extraction

generator approaching end of useful life before stakeholder interest in carbon footprint reduction
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-26T22:54:37.537611
was generated by: ProEthica Case 73 Extraction

generator approaching end of useful life overlaps stakeholder push for carbon footprint reduction
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T23:54:19.990530
was generated by: ProEthica Case 73 Extraction

load profile study overlaps discussion with utility representative
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-26T22:54:37.537527
was generated by: ProEthica Case 73 Extraction

long-term public welfare considerations after short-term gain considerations
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T23:54:19.990805
was generated by: ProEthica Case 73 Extraction

night hours / bad weather periods during solar generation unavailability
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-26T22:54:37.537842
was generated by: ProEthica Case 73 Extraction

preparation of board report before board's final investment decision
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T23:54:19.990499
was generated by: ProEthica Case 73 Extraction

solar panel energy production before nighttime / bad weather periods (storage gap)
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T23:54:19.990561
was generated by: ProEthica Case 73 Extraction

solar panel generation equals existing generator output (energy quantity only)
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-26T22:54:37.537803
was generated by: ProEthica Case 73 Extraction

solar production without storage installation before potential rolling blackouts
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-26T22:54:37.537655
was generated by: ProEthica Case 73 Extraction

solar project implementation (without storage) before increased likelihood of rolling blackouts
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T23:54:19.990642
was generated by: ProEthica Case 73 Extraction

stakeholder interest in carbon footprint reduction before Engineer A's load profile study
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-26T22:54:37.537403
was generated by: ProEthica Case 73 Extraction

stakeholder push for carbon footprint reduction before Engineer A's solar panel study
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T23:54:19.990387
was generated by: ProEthica Case 73 Extraction

thermal energy needs satisfaction before electric energy production by co-generation facility
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T23:54:19.990835
was generated by: ProEthica Case 73 Extraction

years of co-generation facility operation before generator approaching end of useful life
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-26T22:54:37.537566
was generated by: ProEthica Case 73 Extraction