CPAPtalk.com

-SWS wrote:

PetrusKy wrote:

Here's one customer happy with his Walmart Breast Implants.

montana wrote:[Show me a lightly regulated industry that has major corruption./quote]
I showed you an example Montana Power. I knew the old president of MPC..they lived in a modest house in Butte. They helped out with many community events. Then he retires then comes along Mr G.....
He got out with a golden  parachute and a swell house on Flathead Lake. 
The govenor at that time was Marc Racicot ..you might also remember him as chairman of the republican party during Bush era?
oh and my friend and most Of his MPC workers who Invested so stupidly? It was his retirement savings...yep...all Montana Power stock.

The Montana utility “deregulation” myth
Written by Rob Natelson on 30 December 2008
Was utility deregulation bad for Montana?

You’ll never know — because “deregulation” never happened. The fabrication that 1997 “Utility Industry Restructuring and Customer Choice Act” deregulated the utilities is just an old crock kept around for the demagogy it can carry.

You get a rare flash of truth from behind the moldy curtain that certain politicos – with the connivance of the Montana press – have pulled over this episode in today’s news story by reporter Mike Dennison. The story discusses potential energy issues in the 2009 Montana legislature. At one point, it describes the agenda of John Fitzpatrick, a lobbyist for Northwest Energy: Fitzpatrick opposes freeing up small local energy generation: “Small is not beautiful; it’s expensive,” he says. Then the story continues with this revealing sentence:

“Fitzpatrick says the company also is supporting a bill that would undo a portion of utility deregulation on natural gas, allowing the electric-and-gas utility to get back into the natural gas production business.”

Now think about that for a minute – if the 1997 bill was about “deregulation,” then how come Northwest needs permission to “get back into the natural gas production business?”

Because the measure was not a “deregulation” bill at all. The politicians just called it that for their own purposes. In fact, it was a sweetheart restructuring bill for Montana Power. It did deregulate some, but it imposed new regulations also. Montana leftists continue to call it ”deregulation” to convince people that true deregulation is a bad thing.

Obviously, if we had had true deregulation, Northwest Energy would not have to seek permission today to “get back into the natural gas production business.” Nor would small energy generators have to seek the freedom to sell their product.

By the way, you can get a feel for the mixed nature of the bill — and some of the new regulations it imposed – from Justice Nelson’s summary of a part of the measure, in Montana Power Co. v. Montana Public Service Commission, 305 Mont. 260, 26 P.3d 91 (2001). For those interested, I have reproduced the summary below:
Enacted in 1997, the legislation, under Title 69, Chapter 8, also known as the “Electric Utility Industry Restructuring and Customer Choice Act” (hereinafter the Act), requires utilities such as MPC to separate the generation, distribution, and transmission functions of their operations. In turn, the generation function must be deregulated, or exposed to competitive markets, whereas the functions of distribution and transmission will remain regulated by the Montana Public Service Commission.

¶ 6 The Commission, under the Act, is charged with administering this process of restructuring and deregulation. Thus, the Act requires utilities to file a deregulation “transition” plan with the Commission that comports with various deregulation requirements under the Act. In turn, the Commission must review and approve of the plan pursuant to the mandates under the Act, including issuing a final order “approving, modifying, or denying the transition plan.”

¶ 7 One such requirement is that in order for a utility to recover “transition costs” it must include a proposal in its transition plan as provided under the Act. These transition costs, which may ultimately be recouped from consumers, represent “stranded” costs associated with complying with legislated deregulation that could not otherwise be recovered in the soon-to-be competitive electrical power generation market. Categories of transition costs under the Act include the “unmitigable” costs associated with qualifying facility contracts, energy supply-related regulatory assets and deferred charges that exist because of current regulatory practices, and costs related to public utility-owned generation and other power purchase contracts.

¶ 8 The Act does not guarantee utilities that all transition costs may be recovered. Rather, in order to garner approval from the Commission of these transition costs, utilities such as MPC must supply the Commission with an “affirmative showing” of these costs, and also show “reasonable mitigation.” A proposal for transition cost recovery would invariably involve estimating some costs that have yet to accrue, and therefore remain uncertain.

¶ 9 In turn, in determining whether to approve, modify, or deny these proposed costs contained in a utility’s transition plan, the Commission must look at whether they are “reasonably demonstrable,” and must consider them as a whole on a “net basis” unless waived by the public utility, the Commission must conduct a hearing and then issue a final order, determining if and to what extent a utility’s transition costs can be recovered.

¶ 10 In the matter at bar, such a final order has yet to materialize due to the dispute that arose over MPC’s proposed transition costs. At issue here is the method MPC proposed to the Commission for demonstrating its transition costs.

¶ 11 Foreseeing imminent uncertainty in the costs of electricity, MPC proposed that a current estimation of some, but not all, transition costs be deferred, and “tracked”-in some instances for as long as the next 25 to 30 years-so that a more accurate figure could be determined in the future. Therefore, with regard to certain assets, in particular a number of “qualifying facility contracts,” MPC in essence proposed to offer no estimation of any transition costs; instead, such costs would be determined and thereby recovered at a later time, most likely on an annual basis, subsequent to the Commission issuing its “final” order as required under the Act.

¶ 12 The Montana Consumer Counsel and the Large Customer Group received permission to intervene in this matter. Both disagreed with MPC’s proposed use of “trackers,” claiming that the method would require as many as 30 years of cost tracking, which did not comport with the imperative of finality for fixing transition costs under the Act. At the Commission’s request the parties briefed the issue, along with the Montana Department of Environmental Quality, Big Sky Power, and Montana Energy Brokers.

¶ 13 On November 24, 1999, the Commission issued an Order, which determined that MPC’s proposed “tracking” or “trackers” cost accounting system, which would adjust transition costs in the future as such costs accrued, rather than reaching a current estimated fixed sum, was not consistent with the requirements of the Act. The Commission therefore concluded that under its interpretation of the Act, MPC’s transition costs must be reduced to a fixed, net amount in order to gain approval. The Commission ordered MPC to amend its transition plan to specifically identify and demonstrate all transition costs it sought to recover, and not to rely on a future tracking mechanism.

¶ 14 MPC filed a motion for reconsideration, which was denied by the Commission on January 26, 2000. MPC sought judicial review by the District Court on February 17, 2000. MPC argued that the Commission improperly interpreted the Act to preclude the use of trackers in its transition cost plan. MPC further contended that use of the proposed tracking method, although not expressly provided for under the Act, was well within the discretion afforded the Commission by the Legislature. MPC requested that the District Court reverse the Commission’s decision that disallowed MPC’s proposed tracking method for determining transition costs and permanently enjoin the Commission from enforcing its interpretation of the Act.

¶ 15 The District Court, in its May 12, 2000 Order, concluded that MPC’s “substantial rights have been prejudiced because of the Commission’s interpretation of the Act to disallow trackers, in violation of constitutional and statutory provisions.” The court ordered that the Commission “must allow MPC to incorporate tracking mechanisms in its transition plan proposal.”

¶ 16 The court reasoned that the Commission’s interpretation of the Act “has great potential for depriving MPC or Montana consumers of property, and as such, is in violation of our Constitution.” The court also determined that there was “no clear provision in the Act disallowing trackers,” and therefore “the use of trackers is allowed,” under the Act.

¶ 17 The Commission and intervenor LCG appealed. Oral argument was heard by this Court on May 3, 2001.


http://electriccityweblog.com/?p=2202

DreamStalker wrote: I mean WTF, deregulating DMEs isn't going to stop them from cheating patients with the cheapest machine for the highest profit.

roster wrote:

DreamStalker wrote: I mean WTF, deregulating DMEs isn't going to stop them from cheating patients with the cheapest machine for the highest profit.

Oh yes. Deregulate the sale of CPAPs and take them OTC and the cheating DMEs will be put out of business. They need the government to prop them up to stay in business today.

DreamStalker wrote: I would still want vendors (DME or OTC) regulated so that they don't sell "crap" and cheat unsuspecting victims. I just don't like unsuspecting victims getting "crap" regardless of whether they received it for free on a CPAP forum or for money by a business.

roster wrote:

DreamStalker wrote: I would still want vendors (DME or OTC) regulated so that they don't sell "crap" and cheat unsuspecting victims. I just don't like unsuspecting victims getting "crap" regardless of whether they received it for free on a CPAP forum or for money by a business.

How many times do I have to say it before it sinks into your brain. You don't have to regulate businesses to protect the citizens from fraud and coercion. Every state in the Union has very old, basic laws against fraud and coercion. So does D.C., Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands.

Protection of the citizens from fraud and coercion is a proper role of government. If someone is cheated (fraud) or sold "crap" which was represented otherwise (fraud also), they have recourse through government force.

No wonder we have such difficult discussions, you don't even understand the basics of government and civilized life.

It is not the government's role to regulate CPAPs and tell suppliers what the quality, price or terms of sale should be. It is not the government's role to tell you what CPAP you should purchase - not what quality, not what price, not what terms. If the supplier offers you what you want, you buy. If he doesn't, you take your dollars elsewhere.

The government gets involved (properly) when the supplier commits fraud. The government gets involved when you rob the supplier and take the CPAP (coercion). The government gets involved if the supplier sells you a CPAP containing friable asbestos (fraud). The government gets involved if you don't pay your bills (fraud).

I have never met a single person favoring deregulation who wanted to repeal the laws against fraud and coercion. To the contrary, most people in favor of market deregulation want strong enforcement of the basic laws against fraud and coercion. (And ironically, many of those who want heavy market regulation, want leniency in law enforcement for certain groups of citizens.)

Can we have discussions in the future with the assumption that no one in the forum wants basic laws against fraud and coercion repealed?

DreamStalker wrote: I just don't like unsuspecting victims getting "crap" regardless of whether they received it for free from a bird on a CPAP forum ....

roster wrote:

DreamStalker wrote: I just don't like unsuspecting victims getting "crap" regardless of whether they received it for free from a bird on a CPAP forum ....

I enthusiastically support your right to get a full refund of the purchase price!

roster wrote:No wonder we have such difficult discussions, you don't even understand the basics of government and civilized life.

echo wrote: Sorry , I just don't have the patience anymore to have the big business - big government debate. I'm just glad that I live in socialist europe where I pay a ton of taxes and don't have to worry that when I get sick I might lose my job and benefits, or after getting fired I don't have to worry about being on the street not being able to pay for meds, rent, etc.

DreamStalker wrote:Again you fill the thread with a load of bird crap.