Meralco Refund Expected By Christmas

Manila Bulletin

By MYRNA M. VELASCO

October 28, 2012, 2:55pm

Electricity consumers will likely enjoy lower electricity rates come Christmas time with the expected approval of the refund of Manila Electric Company (Meralco), which latest computation already placed it at R10 billion from the previous submission of R9.1 billion.

“We’re targeting (approval) before yearend, but it still depends on how soon the evaluation will be finished and how soon the Commission can act on it,” Energy Regulatory Commission (ERC) executive director Francis Saturnino Juan has noted.

The expected refund was in relation to the double charging committed by PSALM on the line loss component on its billings to Meralco for their transition supply contract (TSC) and the line rental costs which was integrated in the company’s traded volumes at the Wholesale Electricity Spot Market.

Juan said that “Meralco has updated the calculation, it’s a little higher than R9.1 billion …more or less, it is in the R10 billion range already.”

The ERC official pointed out that PSALM has not submitted its own computation but it merely lodged its comments on the Meralco filing. Thus, it will already be up to the regulatory body to evaluate the refund petition based on the submitted data and other pieces of evidence.

“PSALM was given the opportunity to further ventilate its position. Of course, ultimately, it will be the decision of the Commission,” he stressed.

The ERC will have to draw the peso-per-kilowatt hour (R/kWh) equivalent of the refund amount that will eventually be reflected in the consumers’ electric bills.

It will also lay down the parameters of the refund process – if it can be done as “credit to billing” and how long the duration of the payback must be.

Juan explained that exchange of information and discussions were already carried out after the ERC rendered its decision in March 2010 establishing the fact that PSALM was in fact committing “double charging” in its billing to Meralco on the specified cost components.

“We anticipated that a methodology will be adopted or will be found for us to be able to address the past period, but unfortunately, there was a limitation to that methodology if we talk of the past period,” he said.

The ERC official was referring to the June 2006 to June 2008 data which would have hiked the refund amount, thus, escalating the benefit for the consumers. It must be noted that the reckoning dates have been from July 2008 to May 2010 in its initial filing.    source