Updated May 6, 2019, 6:41 PM By Jeffrey Damicog
and Ellson Quismorio
The Supreme Court (SC) has ordered
the Manila Electric Company (Meralco) and other Distribution Utilities (DU) to
pick their respective power suppliers through Competitive Selection Process
(CSP).
In an en banc session held on May 3,
the SC ruled that all power supply agreements submitted to the Energy
Regulatory Commission (ERC) on or after June 30, 2015 should have undergone CSP
pursuant to Department of Energy (DOE) Circular No. DC2015-06-0008.
Because of this, the High Court said
that it “further ordered that the power purchase cost after compliance with the
CSP shall retroact to the date of the effectivity of the PSA, but in no case
earlier than 30 June 2015, for purposes of passing the purchase cost to the
consumers.”
The SC acted on the petition filed
by the Alyansa para sa Bagong Pilipinas, Inc. (ABP) which questioned ERC
resolutions which pushed back the implementation of the CSP requirement set by
the DOE and allowed DUs to make direct deals with power suppliers and skipped
conducting CSPs.
The ABP named as respondents in its
petition ERC Chairperson Jose Vicente Salazar, DOE Secretary Alfonso Cusi,
Meralco, Central Luzon Premier Power Corporation, St. Raphael Power
Generation Corporation, Panay Energy Development Corporation, Mariveles Power
Generation Corporation, Global Luzon Energy Development Corporation, Atimonan
One Energy, Inc., Redondo Peninsula Energy, Inc., and Philippine Competition
Commission
In its ruling which granted the
petition, the SC said the ERC gravely abused its discretion
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction when it unilaterally postponed the
effectivity of the CSP requirement twice through the issuance of ERC
Resolution No. 13 in 2015 and ERC Resolution No. 1 in 2016.
“The ERC’s delegated authority is
limited to implementing or executing Competitive Selection Process (CSP) in
accordance with the 2015 DOE Circular, not postponing the CSP so as to freeze
CSP for at least 20 years, effectively suspending CSP for one entire generation
of Filipinos,” read the ruling penned by SC Associate Justice Antonio Carpio.
“The delegated authority to
implement CSP does not include the authority to postpone or suspend CSP for 20
years, beyond the seven-year terms of office of the ERC Commissioners
postponing or suspending the CSP, and beyond the seven-year terms of office of
their next successors, as well as beyond the six-year terms of office of three
Presidents of the Republic,” the ruling added.
“This is a very positive development
because it spared consumers another burden that we would have to bear for 20
years. We believe that some ERC officials bent backwards several times to
accommodate these Meralco power deals. We repeat our vow to oppose these PSAs
and hold officials who allow it accountable,” said Bayan Muna Party-List Rep.
Carlos Zarate.
The SC pointed out DOE Circular No.
DC2015-06-0008 was issued pursuant to DOE’s mandate under the Electric Power
Industry Reform Act of 2001 (EPIRA) to “formulate such rules and regulations as
may be necessary to implement the objectives of this Act.”
The High Court noted the CSP
is “a form of competitive public bidding for the purchase of electricity
by DUs” and “formulated for the protection of the consuming public.”
It explained the CSP is “primarily
aimed at ensuring a fair, reasonable, and cost effective generation charge for
consumers, under a transparent power sale mechanism between the generation
companies and the DUs.”
But the ERC issued in 2015
Resolution No. 13 which set the cut-off date for the compliance of the CSP
requirement to Nov. 7, 2015 instead of June 30, 2015 set by the DOE circular.
The same ERC resolution also
indicated that the CSP requirement shall not apply to PSAs already
filed with the ERC.
The ERC later issued Resolution No.
1 in 2016 which pushed further back the CSP implementation to April 29, 2016.
So far, there are a total 90 PSAs
pending for approval with the ERC, including those with deals between DUs and
power suppliers spanning over 20 years.
Zarate said the SC rejection of the
alleged “sweetheart deals” that Meralco negotiated with its own generating
companies (gencos) in 2016 is consistent with the findings of the House on
these controversial contracts.
“The decision of the Supreme Court
jived with the joint committee report of the House of Representatives and
showed that the ERC (Energy Regulatory Commission) and Meralco toyed with the
competitive selection process,” Zarate said in a statement Monday.
It was recalled that Zarate filed in
2017 House Resolution (HR) 566, which called for an investigation on the
supposedly onerous and disadvantageous PSAs that the gencos were seeking before
the regulatory body.
The Committees on Good Government
and Public Accountability and on Energy took part in the House inquiry, wherein
it was learned that the PSAs were accepted by the ERC after the 5 p.m., April
29, 2016 deadline set by the Commission itself. This meant that ERC
accommodated Meralco and “bent its own rules,” Zarate said.
Last month, in a
“Petition-in-intervention with an application for urgent relief by way of
Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) and/or Writ of Preliminary Injunction,”
Zarate and Bayan Muna Chairman Neri Colmenares asked the SC to allow them to
intervene in the case originally filed by ABP, Inc. in 2017.
“We salute and congratulate ABP for
pursuing this monumental case all the way to the SC, despite the limited
resources and grave pressures in battling a giant like Meralco,” Zarate said.
“We should not allow the greed of
these energy oligarchs to continue. Those government officials who allowed this
should be made accountable and charges must be filed against them,” the
Davao-based lawmaker further said.
Zarate has claimed that based on his
computation, consumers will shoulder a whopping P930 billion in additional
power rate expenses should the ERC approve the power deals, which have a
duration of 20 to 21 years.
While he isn’t opposed to the
construction of new power plants, Zarate said that a CSP will ensure that the
public will get a better deal as far as power rates are concerned.
No comments:
Post a Comment