The MA Auditor Should Not Hire a Consulting Firm in Order to Audit the MA Legislature (smart meters!)
And Taxpayers Should Not Pay for it: An Illustrative Smart Meter Story
This is a round-about story with a small number of twists and turns that includes “independent consultants,” and smart utility meters, spanning Texas, California and Massachusetts, dating back 14 years.
It is an ugly story, with implications for why MA taxpayers should not support the demand for “an independent firm” to become involved in the audit of the MA Legislature.
There is also another ugly story that is continuing to unfold, because investor-owned utilities are on the verge of rolling out smart wireless utility meters in Massachusetts, despite over fourteen years of issues and reported harm.
This is an argument in support of State Auditor Diana DiZoglio not being required to hire an outside auditor/consultant, because in terms of smart meters, outside consultants have been weaponized in favor of decision-based evidence making, including in Massachusetts.
It could also be an argument in favor of an urgent investigation into the relationship between the MA Dept of Public Utilities and the Joint Committee on Telecommunications, Utilities and Energy and the investor-owned utilities, and the failure of the Legislature to investigate the results of the National Grid Smart Meter Pilot Program when they had the chance. (See more here: When Politicians Checkmate the Wisdom of Informed Citizens re: EMF, RF, 5G & ...Utility Meters??? Massachusetts Matters), including questioning the health and safety assumptions and science underlying smart meter deployment.
Part 1; 2024, The MA Legislative Audit
In 2024, MA voters approved: Question 1: Allow State Auditor Diana DiZoglio to audit the Massachusetts Legislature. Diana DiZoglio was previously a state Rep (2012), and then a Senator, (2018) before running for State Auditor (2022).
In October 2024, NBC Boston explained,
“Under current law, the auditor’s office has authority over all departments, offices, commissions, institutions and activities of the commonwealth; Question 1 explicitly adds the Legislature to the list.” “What began as a campaign promise central to Diana DiZoglio’s election as Massachusetts auditor in 2022, has led to a ballot question in the November 2024 election.
Ballot Question 1 asks Massachusetts voters whether the Office of the State Auditor should have the authority to audit the Legislature. DiZoglio, who built her successful campaign, in part, on the promise that if elected she would audit the Legislature, is an ardent supporter of the measure. “Question 1 would bring on the sun. Sunlight is the best disinfectant,” DiZoglio said. DiZoglio said Question 1 is about bringing transparency and accountability to the Massachusetts Legislature, which consistently ranks as one of the least transparent legislative bodies in the country. “Bills are able to be passed in the middle of the night with no recorded roll calls. Committee votes oftentimes don't take place, so we can't track how people voted, what people's opinions on things are,” she said. “Those are all matters of concern for the general public.”
Under current law, the auditor’s office has authority over all departments, offices, commissions, institutions and activities of the Commonwealth. Question 1 explicitly adds the Legislature to the list. DiZoglio believes an audit would peel back the curtain on the legislative process and show voters how their tax dollars are spent on things like hiring, state contracts, and non-disclosure agreements. “My office would be able to come in to help shine a light in the dark areas of state government, looking at how those taxpayer dollars are being spent, whether it's in state contracts and procurement processes — which are currently hidden from the public by our state Legislature — or whether it's comparing receipts with the claimed financial expenditures,” she said.
Stalling The Audit
Boston.com reported: Where does the push to audit the Mass. Legislature stand right now? State Auditor Diana DiZoglio said she is prepared for legal action if the Legislature does not cooperate with her efforts to audit it. One of the roadblocks is an argument about when the regulations take effect.
But the focus of this article is the question of independent consultants. Legislators are calling for an external auditing firm. Just say No.
A rule change in the House
“Last month, House lawmakers approved a rule change that grants DiZoglio the authority to select a private, external auditing firm to conduct an audit. While the lawmakers said that the change was meant to prevent the politicization of an audit, DiZoglio said it was equivalent to “slapping voters in the face.” The House business manager has contacted DiZoglio’s office to set up a meeting in January about the new rule. DiZoglio said this week that she is happy to meet with leaders, but is telling them that any meeting in the new year would be about the full scope of an audit conducted by her office, not the rule change or the possibility of selecting an outside auditing firm.
DiZoglio insisted that the auditor’s office is not subject to House rules, and that those rules do not supersede the laws of the state. Even if she were to choose an outside auditing firm, it would be limited in what information it could request, as it would not have subpoena authority over the house like the State Auditor’s office.” - Where does the push to audit the Mass. Legislature stand right now?
Part 2: What the San Bruno Gas Explosion Revealed about Consultants (Who Were Subsequently Used in Massachusetts)
The September 9, 2010 San Bruno Gas Explosion was a horrific inferno that killed 8 people. Wikipedia notes “The United States Geological Survey registered the explosion and resulting shock wave as a magnitude 1.1 earthquake. Eyewitnesses reported the initial blast "shot a fireball more than 1,000 feet (300 m) in the air". [] At 6:11 pm PDT on September 9, 2010, a huge explosion occurred in the Crestmoor residential neighborhood of San Bruno, near Skyline Boulevard and San Bruno Avenue. This caused a fire, which quickly engulfed nearby houses. Emergency responders from San Bruno and nearby cities soon arrived at the scene and evacuated surrounding neighborhoods. Strong winds fanned the flames, hampering fire fighting efforts. The blaze was fed by a ruptured gas pipe, and large clouds of smoke soared into the sky. It took 60 to 90 minutes to shut off the gas after the explosion, according to San Bruno Fire Chief Dennis Haag. The explosion and resulting fire leveled either 35 or 37 houses and damaged at least 8 more, according to conflicting sources. [] In September 2013, PG&E settled the claims of 347 victims. PG&E had previously settled with 152 victims; the additional settlements brought the total payment to $565 million for 499 victims. Two victims' lawsuits remained after the settlement, but newspapers later reported the $565 million figure as the final settlement for all victim claims. PG&E stated in its 2015 annual report that it had paid $558 million in third-party claims, and $92 million in legal costs, and received $515 million from insurance.”
Court Ordered Release of Emails to the Public, California
One significant outcome of the San Bruno Gas Explosion was that a California Public Utilities Commission law judge ordered emails between PG&E and the CPUC, which are part of state and federal investigations, to be made public. ftp://ftp2.cpuc.ca.gov/PG&E20150130ResponseToA1312012Ruling/
The San Bruno gas explosion coincided with the controversial deployment of wireless smart utility meters in California, with resulting opposition due to green-washing, surveillance, privacy, security, fire, cost, planned obsolescence, and health harm concerns, including the acute onset of neurological disability caused by the electrical pollution introduced by meters and infrastructure (placing 21st century tech on a 19th century distribution system.)
Citizen volunteers from all sides of the political spectrum read through thousands of emails exchanged between the public utility commission and Pacific Gas and Electric and discovered the evidence trail indicating that consultant firms were hired to “put out fires,” by lying, repeatedly, about smart meters.
Conflict of Interest and Cover Up
The article: Structure Report: Smart meter conflict of interest and cover up of skyrocketing bills posted by the EMF Safety Network outlines revelations contained in the emails, which included illuminating/incriminating correspondence with CPUC President Michael Peevey.
“The coordinated propaganda campaign between the CPUC, PG&E and marketing firms that resulted in the smart meter deployment couldn’t tolerate news such as the fact that 500,000 smart meters were at risk for overcharging in hot weather. Peevey’s own bill doubled when a smart meter was installed on his vacation home, causing him to joke about making The Sea Ranch a smart meter free zone. The CPUC and PG&E used the Structure report to cover up smart meter problems, and to defend the deployment at the customers’ expense. These emails suggest that returning to the tried and true analog meters is a viable remedy to avoid future skyrocketing utility costs, and that observant meter readers are a cost-effective way to ensure public and environmental safety.”
Part 3: 2010, Navigant,Texas
As reported here: U.S. National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners gave presentation on Smart Meter problems in 2011. Why aren’t they telling Americans? | Smart Meter Harm “Consumers have complained that their energy bills increased as a result of inaccurate smart meters.
In 2010, the Public Utility Commission of Texas ordered an independent study of the accuracy of recently-installed smart meters in response to consumer complaints. The study found that the smart meters gave more accurate readings than the traditional meters they replaced (99.96% of the meters were accurate compared to 96% of traditional meters).
This report was by Navigant Consulting, which was involved in the Los Angeles King-Harbor scandal and was audited over overbilling and incomplete work for the NY Port Authority. This is not an independent firm. It is involved in AMI and “successful smart grid deployments” and cites “our deep industry experience”. Navigant presented at an Itron conference, one of the meter vendors in Texas. Was there an investigation by the PUCT of the Navigant report, or like California, did the Texas Commission refuse to do so?”
In 2017, Energy Central reported, Navigant Consulting, Inc. and TROVE partner to combined power of predictive data science and analytics Navigant Consulting, Inc. (NYSE:NCI) and TROVE announced a strategic alliance that will help utilities harness the combined power of predictive data science and an analytics platform to make their data more useful, dramatically improving load forecasting, grid performance, and customer adoption of new products and services. “This alliance brings together Navigant’s deep industry and process expertise, our modeling capabilities, and our global consulting footprint with TROVE’s world class data science capabilities and their newly launched TROVE Platform,” said Jan Vrins, leader of Navigant’s Energy practice, which has over 600 energy consultants globally. “TROVE’s Platform delivers the open architecture, scale, and data-science acumen needed to transform a utility’s latent data arsenal into a game-changing strategic asset. For example, TROVE’s premise-level forecasting precision combined with Navigant’s demand forecasting and econometric modeling provides utilities a new playbook for meeting demand that effectively integrates distributed energy resources.”
Navigant is not neutral or independent.
As Marzia Zafar explained in her emails with colleagues at Pacific Gas and Electric, “Navigant (Texas) operates in a similar capacity as Structure (California).”
Worcester National Grid Smart Meter Pilot Program
And who did Massachusetts hire to spin the results of the Worcester National Grid Smart Meter pilot program cost savings, energy savings, participation, opt out rate, retention, and customer satisfaction in order to justify saddling all ratepayers with the cost of the new metering infrastructure?
They hired Navigant.
(See the information reported to the Legislature and others here: MA House 2888 and 2840.docx)
For a fun adventure go to the page for the DPU website: Department of Public Utilities | Mass.gov and the file room Index and see if you can find the final report, or anything, about the National Grid Smart Meter Pilot Program or its results.
Ignoring the August 13, 2021 Landmark Safety Ruling:
Rip and replace benefits industry. If Massachusetts rolls out wireless and powerline utility meters that are subsequently needing to be replaced for any reason, the beneficiaries will be the investor-owned utilities.
Why should the MA DPU be concerned about foisting the cost of smart meters on ratepayers? A court ruling in 2021 against the FCC noted that the agency failed to respond to reports of harm in a proceeding that it had opened from 2013-2019 about its exposure guidelines - and then ignored. After ignoring the testimony submitted, the FCC ignored the court remand as well.
Transcript of Press Conference Following EHT Federal Court Victory Over FCC Wireless Radiation Safety Limits
The court held that the FCC failed to respond to “record evidence that exposure to RF radiation at levels below the Commission’s current limits may cause negative health effects unrelated to cancer.” Further, the agency demonstrated “a complete failure to respond to comments concerning environmental harm caused by RF radiation.” The court found the FCC ignored numerous organizations, scientists and medical doctors who called on them to update limits and the court found the FCC failed to address these issues:
impacts of long-term wireless exposure
impacts to children,
the testimony of people injured by wireless radiation,
impacts to wildlife and the environment
impacts to the developing brain and reproduction. Source: Environmental Health Trust
Testimony submitted to the FCC in the 2013-2019 proceeding had included ‘smart’ utility meter injuries and disability.
What Is the Basis of the Assumption That Smart Meters are Safe?
You will absolutely lose your lunch. Think independent consultants.
Postscript:
On January 13, 2012, an independent audit from the State of California issued a report stating that PG&E had illegally diverted over $100 million from a fund used for safety operations, and instead used it for executive compensation and bonuses - San Bruno pipeline explosion - Wikipedia I suspect some was also spent by lobbyists with checkbooks in the statehouse.
An independent audit of how much the MA DPU and the Legislature spent to ignore and override issues about smart meters and the smart grid, including health, presented by informed citizens, would be lovely.
No outside consultants for auditing the MA legislature.
Let the Auditor do her job, and if the legislature has issues, they can either conduct their own research on their own time, as volunteer citizens across the country have done, or pay for expertise out of their own pockets.