Aksamit Resource Mgmt. v. Nebraska Pub. Power Dist., 299 Neb. 114

Aksamit Resource Management LLC and First Security Power, LLC (Aksamit) sought to enter Nebraska electricity markets and requested NPPD records showing generation-unit-specific costs, revenues, and multi-year rate outlooks for 2008–2015.
Nebraska Public Power District (NPPD) produced most records but refused three requests, asserting exemption under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 84-712.05(3) for "proprietary or commercial information which if released would give advantage to business competitors and serve no public purpose."
Aksamit petitioned for a writ of mandamus under § 84-712.03; the district court found NPPD had shown by clear and convincing evidence that disclosure would advantage competitors and concluded disclosure would not serve a public purpose, denying the writ.
At trial, Aksamit presented testimony from an economist and a former NPPD employee asserting substantial public interest in unit-level financial data for evaluating public power’s viability and informing public debate and oversight.
NPPD emphasized competitive harm, industry confidentiality (including masked bids in the Southwest Power Pool), and contract confidentiality clauses for power purchase agreements.
The Nebraska Supreme Court reversed, holding NPPD failed to prove the statutory exemption’s second conjunct — that disclosure would serve no public purpose — and ordered issuance of an appropriate writ.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether § 84-712.05(3) permits withholding unit-level cost/revenue data	Aksamit: data are public records; disclosure serves public purposes (ratepayer oversight, public policy debate, assessing public power viability)	NPPD: data are proprietary; disclosure would give competitors an advantage and therefore may be withheld under § 84-712.05(3)	Court: Exemption is conjunctive — NPPD must prove both competitive advantage and that disclosure would serve no public purpose; NPPD proved advantage but failed to prove absence of any public purpose, so records must be disclosed.

McCoy v. Albin, 298 Neb. 297, 903 N.W.2d 902 (statutory interpretation; public-records context)
State ex rel. Veskrna v. Steel, 296 Neb. 581, 894 N.W.2d 788 (mandamus standards and public records remedies)
Dutton-Lainson Co. v. Continental Ins. Co., 271 Neb. 810, 716 N.W.2d 87 (conjunctive statutory exceptions interpretation)
Northeast Council v. Dept. of Public Health, 513 N.W.2d 757 (Iowa Supreme Court construing similar confidentiality exception)
Platte Valley Public Power & Irrigation Dist. v. County of Lincoln, 144 Neb. 584, 14 N.W.2d 202 (definition of public purpose)