Structure Report: Smart meter conflict of interest and cover up of skyrocketing bills

SMARTcop100Posted on March 14, 2015 by Sandi Maurer

Emails between utility giant PG&E and the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC)[1] expose conflict of interest and cover up of skyrocketing smart meter bills.[2]    The consultant the CPUC hired in 2010 to investigate the complaints, Structure, had worked for PG&E for the previous five years, and was not “independent” (as claimed in CPUC and PG&E’s misrepresentations).  CPUC President Peevey knew the results of Structure’s investigation long before it was complete, and shared that information with PG&E.  CPUC’s Peevey was aware smart meters were overcharging through personal experience.

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.

Inaccurate “Accuracy Report” authors had PG&E ties

March 30, 2010:  The same day the CPUC announced they selected an “independent” evaluator, Structure, to test smart meters, PG&E’s Brian Cherry sent an email to the CPUC’s Energy Division Director Julie Fitch, and President Peevey’s advisor Carol Brown.  He writes, “Julie-we have a small hiccup… I hope you know that we have done some work with them [Structure], and continue to do work with them.”  He tells her they are concerned about media inquiries, and wants to avoid any hint of favoritism.[3]

PG&E lawyer, Chonda Nwamu, confirms Structure worked for the company over the last five years, including an ongoing license to use software they purchased, but that the contract was transferred to another company called Ventex. She writes, “We don’t currently have work with Structure.”

Cherry writes: “Then we tell the media that we do not currently work with them.”
Fitch responds: “Yes. And we will say the same thing. We asked for disclosure. There is no current relationship between PG&E and Structure.”[4]

Meanwhile the CPUC still claims Structure was an “independent” investigation.[5]

Peevey told PG&E the Structure Report results two months before it was complete

On July 2, 2010 PG&E’s Brian Cherry writes: “He [Peevey] said he could not go into details, but that we would like their [Structure] conclusions on the viability of the technology and infrastructure that supports it.  He did say the Structure Audit report would be very critical of the way we handled the problem and communicated with our customers.”[6]

According to the Structure Report, they were still field testing meters in July and did not complete their investigation until August 25, 2010.[7]

SMARTtower100Smart meter propaganda campaign

On July 14, 2010 PG&E’s Felecia Lokey writes to Marzia Zafar, CPUC’s Program and Project Supervisor, “I’d like to take advantage of your offer to follow up and brainstorm a strategy around the Structure Report and how we think about messaging.”[8] Zafar worked with PG&E to promote smart meters to residential and business customers.

Commissioner Nancy Ryan initiated the “Consumer Education and Outreach Task Force” and their smart meter efforts were coordinated with PG&E, and marketing firm Targetbase. [9]  How can they “message” a report that is reputedly not completed for another six weeks?

PG&E wants access to the report before it’s public

On August 19, 2010 PG&E’s Cherry asks for the report before it’s released to the public. Paul Clanon tells him he can’t have it because “for obvious reasons there must be no hint of anything but a fully independent assessment”. [10] 

PG&E told the CPUC President smart meters were overcharging

On August 31, 2010 PG&E’s Brian Cherry sent an email to President Peevey warning PG&E found smart meters were overcharging, and there were 4800 commercial smart meters at risk for the problem.[11]

Cherry explained the mechanism of how the meters were failing:  “There are two chips in the meter, a meter card chip to record usage and a Nic communication card. The Nic card is a Silver Springs Network chip that communicates with the network every 15 minutes. When the meter chip is recording load and the Nic chip is at the 15 minutes mark, the meter chip may be in an operating mode that precludes communicating with the Nic chips and sends a busy signal. The Nic chip will then try to communicate with the meter chip again in 140 seconds and will do so up to 4 times. While it is waiting it is recording the 140 seconds as time usage.” 

Two days later the CPUC announces the “independent” Structure’s investigation found smart meters were accurate.

Despite proof that the smart meters were producing readings that led to excessive charges, Peevey is quoted in the CPUC press release: “I am happy to hear that PG&E’s Smart Meters are functioning properly, but disturbed by PG&E’s lack of customer service and responsiveness. We will ensure that PG&E improves their customer service, and we will also continue to improve our own complaint handling processes,” said CPUC President Michael R. Peevey. “I hope these findings help ease minds about the accuracy of Smart Meters…”

Commissioner Nancy E. Ryan is also quoted, “Consumers won’t fully realize the many potential benefits of Smart Meters and other grid upgrades unless utilities and regulators place more emphasis on the human side of the equation,” she added. “Better communication and customer service will help ensure that consumers see Smart Meters as something that is done for them, not to them.” [12]

The CPUC used the Structure findings to justify continuing the deployment of inaccurate, overcharging meters.  Utility customers were forced into paying inflated bills.  The emails between Brian Cherry and President Peevey violated both the public trust and exparte rules.


500,000 smart meters at risk for billing errors in hot weather

In April 2011 CPUC’s Aloke Gupta wrote to Commissioner Ryan, Peevey’s advisors, and other CPUC staff:  “PG&E has just alerted me to a new problem recently discovered with their smart meters. The bad news is this is the worst case scenario in terms of the location and circumstances.  Problem: Apparently, a particular batch of SMs [smart meters] show a sensitivity to temperature, which can ultimately lead to inaccurate usage readings. The faulty reading occurs only in a narrow band of temperature (approx 100-115 estimated)[13]

PG&E’s Sid Dietz responds, “500,000 have the same electronics as the ones with a problem, but only 3000 have thrown an error code and only 1500 have the problem.  So the real number is 1500.”  And that’s how PG&E spins a problem to avert a major media crisis.[14]

Peevey’s own bill doubled!

A little over a year later Peevey got his first smart meter bill, which more than doubled the cost.  He writes to PG&E, “something is screwy…. I would like an explanation.”[15]  PG&E investigates his bill and they don’t find a problem.  Peevey concedes it’s no big thing, and that they did a recent remodel, with a “super-duper new bathroom with electric towel warmers and warm floor”.  However he still thinks the bill is “way out of line” because it’s a vacation home and they were not there for most of the month.[16]

6 months after his first high bill Brian Cherry sends him a PG&E press release about having installed their nine millionth meter, Peevey’s responds, “Great. However, I am considering supporting creation of a Smart Meter Free Zone at The Sea Ranch.  In fact I want to go further to have no electricity, period, for everyone there.  Back to the land, I say.”[17]

Restore analog metering and meter readers

The CPUC is a 300 million dollar state funded organization that has betrayed the public trust by negotiating critical problems outside of its formal public process in order to prevent public participation.  Emails prove the Structure Report has been misrepresented as a reliable source to determine smart meter accuracy.

The public is entitled to evidentiary hearings on smart meter costs, health and safety, privacy and security risks.  Customers seeking relief from faulty utility equipment should not have to pay in order to avoid the risks of faulty smart meters.  Those coerced into paying to “opt-out” of smart meters are due refunds.

*     *     *     *     *     *

Sandi Maurer is the Director of the EMF Safety Network and has been working as an intervenor in smart meters proceedings at the California Public Utilities Commission since April 2010.  Cartoons by Brian Narelle (

[1] A CPUC law judge in the San Bruno gas explosion case ordered emails between PG&E and the CPUC, which are part of state and federal investigations, to be public.

[2] Video footage of Bakersfield customers smart meter billing complaints




[6] (exhibit 2 pg. 9)

[7] Summary of key findings:


[9] , ,


[11] (see last paragraph)







12 thoughts on “Structure Report: Smart meter conflict of interest and cover up of skyrocketing bills”

  1. I would like to see the FBI unleashed on to the Arizona Corporation Commission .
    They know all too well ,the workings of the CPUC . They work the same way lie to the public ,ignore complaints, conducted a phony yearlong health study through the Az dept of health with a conclusion of( not likely to harm), in which the ACC took that to be their defense of approving opt out fees for APS What a Circus!
    John Lee

  2. PGE, CPUC, APS/ACC amongst others! ALL of them violate laws on the books concerning distribution of safe utilities. But when their own personal power bills go up, then it’s time to check into “smart meters” overcharging. If everyone else is affected, that’s just – tough beans! Their motto is: Pay up or shut-up! But when it hits home on them, that’s a different story! What a bunch of hypocrites! They ALL need to be FIRED!!! It’s high time we start having some accountability!

  3. Of the fundamental flaws in the design in these devices which result in mis-metering: did they get through to production like this because the designers didn’t spot the issues at their stage or were they pressured by management/management ignored designers’ concerns?

  4. Thanks again for your hard work and findings on PG&E. I will continue to spread the word on smart meters and engage my local utility firm to check on their smart meters for overcharges.

    Juan Nubes

  5. 9/23/2015
    My SCE bills have been unreasonably high these last two months. Interestingly, I see in the above article that wifi smart meters are prone to erroneous readings in temperatures from 100 to 115 degrees; just the temperatures that are common in Palm Springs in summer. Feeling helpless and despondent at the realization that a morally-insane run utility company could issue any unreasonable old bill and then it’s my problem, I searched the net for information about SCE and was surprised to see an assertion in a forum from a year or two ago that SCE is the MOST EXPENSIVE utility company in the nation! How could that be so when it is regulated by a costly agency (CPUC) put in place to protect the interests of captive rate payers?
    Then I remembered that the now former CPUC president, Mr. Peevey, who distinguished himself – in my eyes from the plethora of other “moral imbeciles” (a 19th century technical term for the conscience-less) that appeared to populate not just the management of the privately owned government sanctioned monopoly-utility-cartel operating in CA to the detriment of those unfortunate enough to live within their territories, – by having a distinct megalomaniacal streak, & was a former CEO of SCE.
    Is it a coincidence that SCE under the Peevey 12 year dominance of the CPUC gave birth to the utility with the highest residential utility rates in America?
    I looked for the agency that was mentioned as producing information on the residential utility electricity rates of various utility providers in America: JEA.
    The initial forum comment I read also mentioned that a San Diego electricity provider refused to be part of the JEA review any more because their rates also put them
    near the top with SCE which has remained as the most expensive residential electricity utility in this moral imbecile degraded nation.
    This is the JEA site:
    “Quarterly Electric Rate Comparison
    This survey is a comparison of utilities throughout the United States for the quarter beginning July 1, 2015. This quarterly rate comparison is for residential customers and includes base rates, fuel adjustment charges, and applicable franchise fees per 1,000 kWh.”
    [below I copy/pasted just a small section from the site which are the most expensive; these include 2 municipal utilities in CA–one can see that there is a substantial amount of difference between SCE, the most expensive, and the second most expensive electric utility provider. Why should SCE be permitted to inflict such rates?:]
    “Southern California Southern California Edison* $239.54
    Fairbank, AK Golden Valley Electric Assoc.*** $198.47
    Newark, NJ (and other areas of NJ) Public Service Electric & Gas Co.* $179.09 Anchorage, AK Chugach Electric Assoc., Inc.*** $165.69
    Los Angeles, CA Department of Water & Power** $164.37
    Pascoag, RI Pascoag Utility District** $159.39
    Milwaukee, WI We-Energies* $149.68
    Columbia, SC South Carolina Electric & Gas* $145.87 Gainesville, FL
    Gainesville Regional Util.** $140.51 St. Louis, MO
    AmerenUE* $139.83 Atlanta, GA (Other port. of GA)
    Georgia Power Co.* $139.26
    Sacramento, CA Sacramento Mun. Util. District** $136.64 ”

    The obvious next thought is perhaps there is now a need for the state of CA to engage an independent investigation into what transpired between the Peevey controlled CPUC and SCE that led to this ongoing heist. Who has the authority to initiate such an investigation? Without such an investigation
    the CPUC and the state government apparatus that permitted it’s commissioners to chart a course of corruption through the last 6 or perhaps 12-plus years remain stuck in the morass created by Peevey, acting apparently without dissent from his fellow commissioners.
    So, my inflated electricity bill has a baseline of probably corruption inflation from the wayward CPUC-SCE under the reign of Peevey; and that is further inflated by
    the faulty wifi smart meter technology so irresponsibly forced on the captive cartel-customers by a CPUC which has retained three of the Peevey cohorts from the criminal commission cabal that foisted the weaponized wifi utility meters on
    a large segment of hapless citizenry. I, and all SCE captive rate payers, are paying a great and hefty corruption tax, while we wallow in smart meter radiation, to keep the CPUC-SCE morally-insane scammers in luxury.
    Also I will include here this Gallup pole I saw today:
    “WASHINGTON, D.C. — Three in four Americans (75%) last year perceived corruption as widespread in the country’s government. This figure is up from two in three in 2007 (67%) and 2009 (66%).”

  6. An email might be the thing to capture the conscience of the king ‘s associates: To the Office of Ratepayer Advocates @ CPUC
    Hello ORA,
    In searching the internet for information regarding utility wifi-smart-meter-device generated over-billing and possible mechanisms by which it may occur, I found this compelling article: “Structure Report: Smart meter conflict of interest and cover up of skyrocketing bills” by Sandi Maurer located at The leaked PGE emails referenced in the article clearly indicate top commission functionaries were well aware of the meter over-billing and even of two specific intermittent modalities of malfunction yet I cannot find any information or evidence that the CPUC, as regulatory agency, performed any due diligence in following -up the information nor any evidence that any of the utility companies regulated by the CPUC released to the public this information nor any of the meter related investigative in-house reports that must have ensued. Yet the private utilities continued to deny claims of over-billing; and utility agents or contractors sent to check the meters of complaining ratepayers were likely to find they functioning satisfactorily.
    Because PG&E, and other cartel members, stood to gain perhaps very substantially over time by over-billing errors about which the ratepayer could do nothing effective, once the report that the meter in question was found to be working well.
    The failure of the CPUC to act appropriately over this long period [and still has not acted correctly], created a moral hazard with an absence of regulatory disincentives for the private utility monopolies; a hazard that rendered captive ratepayers as helpless victims of parasitical extraction, sucking, of their economic resources.
    The situation remains uncorrected.
    The captive ratepayers whose interests were and are supposed to be protected by the CPUC were in fact abandoned. And the captive utility customers have been rendered fair game to be scalped financially by multiple wifi meter mechanisms about which information was kept from the public in general and the captive ratepayers even when they brought their disputes to CPUC’s Consumer Affairs Branch [CAB] In some cases the customers persevered on to formal adjudications that generally or possibly inevitably produced outcomes of defeated ratepayer plaintiffs left humiliated by being placed as helpless and frustrated by infliction of willful injustice; and saddled with a costly position of de facto inflated electricity billing price increases masked as increased customer utility usage.
    Ought not the CPUC to now consider a full review and invite all past utility bill disputants since the first deployment of wifi smart meter devices who brought their disputes to their utility provider, and/or to the CPUC CAB and certainly for those who braved humiliation enhanced injustice in CPUC courts, to resubmit their disputes but this time with the presumption that the meters were inaccurate.
    It seems fair to expect that the Office of Ratepayer Advocates should take an active interest in advocating for, and open discussion of, the necessity to investigate the obvious implications for the faulty treatment meted out to captive customer bill disputants since the deployment of the wifi smart meters which are clearly neither safe nor reliable devices. The PG&E-released emails between PG&E and CPUC commissioners and staff referenced in the excellent emfsafetynetwork article by Sandi Maurer linked above are the place to start.
    Please advise me if the ORA can suggest other state and/or Federal agencies that
    might have an interest in investigating and correcting the serious ethical lapses of the CPUC and ongoing abuse of the captive ratepayers as a result of CPUC officials abandoning their responsibilities to captive ratepayers while colluding with the utility cartel.
    The several gravely serious, almost preposterous, Peevey centered scandals in the media, revealing corruption, amorality and flagrant disregard for laws and rules that has likely characterized a decade of mismanagement of the costly CPUC agency should not keep the parasitic meter mediated over-billing scam from being promptly addressed.
    The CAB billing dispute claims are the place to begin.

  7. 10.2.2015
    10.01.15 To Madame Admin:
    I sent the letter as an email to the email address indicated on the ORA website yesterday-9/30/15. I just now printed -out a complaint form from the Attorney General website. I believe the Moral Hazard created around a failure to dis-
    incentivize Utility companies profiting from various wifi meter aberrations especially in areas where it might appear sort-of plausible to a third party observer
    and even to the hapless customer who really does not understand how such high bills come about. Utility companie agents may insist that the over-billing bill is absolutely accurate and the meter was checked on such-and-such a date and found to be
    functioning properly, and believe the bill must be accurate if unaware of the various
    aberrant wifi meter behaviors that produce intermittent or situation dependent overbilling which when over the top in thousands are refutable but with low level
    episodic misreadings generating over-billing which might include a doubling of the amount of actual (kWh) consumed as well as episodic, such as the over-billing when temperatures are between 100 & 115 degrees F. If neither the customer nor the testers of the wifi meters when disputes of over-billing arise are knowledgeable
    of the prospect and in any case the Utility is likely to admit the prospect of error
    there is probably nothing the customer can do but pay. Some might pursue a
    formal dispute through CPUC’s system to presnt the case before a judge which
    likely at some point will involve travel to the putative court but without proof
    and usually without an inkling that the wifi meter aberrencies even exist the
    disputee is doomed to humialted failure with apparently no help from the CPUC
    which however fiercely unneutral it may act in the interests of Utility company bimonthly need for new rate increase due to such and such when the baffled and
    exploited customer comes with a dispute that their bill asserts a usage of triple the daily (kWh) for instance, over last year and all the years before, the CPUC takes
    a determined neutrality and asks the customer to prove it and then asks PG&E etc to
    prove it and the latter always has the document showing the meter was checked as a result of the complaint and is functionally normally and might add some red herrings, a leaky sink might cause the electric water heater to work much more and they use a lot of power. Your honor we have offered and do so now again to help the disputee manage bills in our program to average anticipated bills for the coming year and then pay a similar price monthly overall. Plus we have programs to help
    with new better insulated appliances and even, is the customer qualifies programs that reduce their bill by 20% per month! [The 20% is then charged to other pooled ratepayers.]And the costs of sending someone to check the meter, and handling disputes even with sending an agent to spend a night in a city for a court event with meals is probably all billed to ratepayers. For major Owners of Utility private legal monopolies operating in California it must seem almost like being in heaven.
    The wifi meter PGE emails that revealed two types of aberrant meter activity quite possibly revealed a moral hazard for the top utility executives: whether or not
    in the effective absence of regulatory oversight achieved by Peevey to exploit
    the intermittent and unlikely to be detected aberrancies of the wifi smart meters
    that if ignored and complaints deflected could produce, or may be producing,
    a Bonanza of unearned revenue from hapless captive customers who will not have a clue as to what is actually going on.
    I listened to a compelling video yesterday: Onofre $5 BILLION Cover-up w/ Mia Severson –
    In it she mentioned that with the exposure of his secret dealing to shaft the “captive ratepayers” he hired a $900/hour attorney at a total cost paid by the CPUC ,i.e. by the very captive ratepayers whose legitimate interests he was scheming against. She,
    Mia Severson also in passing mentioned someone from T.U.R.N. being at one of the
    covert meetings, perhaps in Poland. I saw on TURN’s website that the commission
    Florio was TURN’s attorney for 30 years
    The above Structure Report article made me realize that the Structure Report and the CCST Report are like two ugly sibling concoctions, birthed most likely in the
    ethics-free-mind that has made magus Peevey such a success at turning the CPUC
    upside-down & inside-out, so it functions now smoothly as an agency to regulate
    or manage captive rate payer population groupings, belonging in effect to the
    discreet geographical areas associated with the various private-utility entities, for the benefit of privately-owned-legal-monopoly-utility companies to exploit ruthlessly
    while maintaining a veneer to the public of being leashed by much fussing by regulators at the CPUC.
    Though he would likely deny it, he could not have accomplished this alone. Ideally he would have had to fight every inch of the way to destroy the CPUC and do the opposite of it’s Mission dictates. Ideally, other commissioners would have objected and leaked to the public the corruption that must have been too evident within the inner sanctum ; although, uncooperative commissioners might get the worst assignments,which I assume were Peevey’s prerogative to dispense. And I imagine
    the public hearings might be deemed by commissioners as the most icky; especially with the advent of the wifi smart meter deployment blitzkrieg; and whichever unfortunate commissioner had displeased the King of CPUC would have to host the public input 1 hour sessions where, thank heavens, the time for each speaker could be severely limited. Like a mob of easily irate supplicants against
    the inevitable, the little people, perhaps parents with wee children weeping and imploring things more or less like: ‘pleassse, pleassse don’t do this to us..we have young children and hope to have another and they will be the most vulnerable to the wifi meter.. “TIME IS UP”..radiation! Oh God make”NEXT SPEAKER PLEASE” them see what they are doing !’
    I imagine the commissioners biting their tongues throughout the hour to keep from saying what THEY really thought. But no matter, they had the power [so long as they served the King].
    It seems to me likely Peevey fixed the production of the two reports by saying what conclusions he wanted but allowing a free hand for Structure and CCST to produce the body of the report. If I may have poetic license to speculate based on his controlling nature.
    When I first encountered the CCST Report it seemed like a pin- the- tail- on- the- donkey report. And I still, personally, believe that the CCST directors had the conclusions to the report [perhaps provided by magus Peevey] before forming the Team whose task was to make the donkey-report on which they could pin the ill-fitting Conclusions after much hoopla about soliciting input submissions from people with expertise in the relevant field. Clearly no stone was to be left unturned in the search for answers to the two questions which the intended report meant to determine The submissions by experts were listed at the end of the report, after the astonishing conclusion that the wifi smart meter device technology was safe because the FCC in the mid-1990’s said so. So there!
    The CCST directors must have believed that by making an ugly twin report to fortify functional perfection documentation of the wifi meter technology with a document attesting to it’s safty–and thus eliminating any perceived need to delay deployment of the life-curtailing bonanza devices, this
    would somehow be beneficial for the durability of the Council on Science and Technology’s future; otherwise it would have been madness to take such a risk as they did in producing the necessary ugly twin report to shore up the STRUCTURE Report. And so, through some alchemical process two science based reports were created that established both the functional reliability and the inherent safety of the wifi smart meter technology.
    Notwithstanding the un-laudable report, Time, itself,
    before long showed the wishful reports to be in error as the wifi smart meters commenced wreaking havoc on the captive utility customer communities from combusting homes, to over-billing sometimes by astonishing amounts, with headaches, nosebleeds, brainfog etc., all to the intense dismay of the many captive rate payers affected. And such complainy customers did not inspire any sympathy from the utility masters who were certainly not going to admit any possible errors of their dangerous and faulty wifi meter devices; unless in some circumstances they were forced to.
    Essentially , in my humble opinion, and I am not a scientist, the CCST Report directors, for their evaluation of the health safety of the wifi smart meter technology, did not need their Team with the possible exception of the attorney whose expertise was listed as being in “ethics and the law”; –other than for manifesting a magical, smoke and mirrors illusion of much research and deep thought, and great selfless effort, being a foundation upon which rests their REPORT that evaluated the safety of wifi meters. This is the report in a nutshell:

    The wifi smart meter technology is safe, no need to worry, because the FCC says so.*

    * Note: there are some people who fuss about the safety of some aspects of the wifi meter technology.
    Curiously, the young attorney who lent himself to the CCST Team in question, had focused in his published academic writings to a considerable extent on the issue of ethical management of “Biobanks”, which are repositories of
    living tissues kept alive for long periods in special storage conditions suitable for maintaining them alive until they are needed for research for which there is a great need, from bioweapon to genetic based medical possibilities. The issue of Informed Consent in the matter of disbursement of such living tissues which apparently are obtained as byproducts of surgery had excited some public controversy in England with some of the people from whom such tissues had been extracted demanding the right to provide, or withhold, Informed Consent for what use is made of their extracted still living tissues; with possibly the issue of genetic-based targeted bioweapon research being simultaneously in the media due I think to a then current British-Israel cooperative effort. But that was untenable to have to track down and obtain Informed Consent from each person whose living tissues might be obtained from the Biobanks.

    The young attorney, perhaps after his ivy league American undergraduate and law school education, attended Cambridge University in England for a spell while the Biobank tissue issue of Informed Consent raged. I do not think the matter has received public attention in the USA and must have been dealt with on the QT without messy public input. The attorney in his writing [if my memory serves me] proposed in an article a scheme of how such issues of Informed Consent for use of Biobanked living tissue for research might best be structured in America. There should be an agency that physically accommodates the storage of the living tissues and arranges for the [sale?] of the living tissues. I am not sure where the money generated by the tissues goes but probably to maintain the system which includes the housing or storage maintenance of the flesh and fluids in a physical location. Then providing it to appropriate researchers. The third element of the system is something akin to a charitable foundation, which the attorney suggested as a model for the agency, and I would add perhaps an agency like the CPUC whose very purpose is to protect the interests of populations of captive utility customer
    and act in their behalf as regulators. Endowed with authority by a democratically elected state government, what could be better to provide Informed Consent if the captive ratepayes were ever to be rendered for research, especially if the research is deemed safe? The CPUC is restricted in jurisdiction to just the populations geographically delineated by the various privately owned legal-monopoly utility companies operating in California.
    And it may be reasonably supposed to enjoy high regard and respect as a public agency not engaged in making profit an might be an appropriate choice to be presumed to have the public confidence and trust, to be presumed to possess
    the authority to give Informed Consent, on behalf of all individuals of Biobanked living tissues, for such tissues to be rendered for scientific research if such Biobanks were ever included in it’s sphere. Where are the biobanks?
    Is it us?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

So we know you\'re not a machine * Time limit is exhausted. Please reload CAPTCHA.