ERC chair wants more time to answer raps

By  Michael Lim Ubac
3:13 am | Saturday, March 1st, 2014
Philippine Daily Inquirer

Energy Regulatory Commission Chairperson Zenaida Cruz-Ducut. PHOTO BY RICHARD A. REYES

MANILA, Philippines—Embattled Energy Regulatory Commission (ERC) Chair Zenaida Ducut has asked Malacañang to be given more time to answer the charge that she failed to protect power consumers when she gave tacit approval to the record-high rate increase announced by the Manila Electric Co. (Meralco) last December.

Ducut’s legal move allows her to momentarily delay an investigation being spearheaded by the Office of the Executive Secretary of her supposed complicity in the questionable power rate increase.

There were calls for Ducut to resign after Meralco announced a huge P4.15/kilowatt-hour increase to be implemented in three tranches from December 2013 to March 2014. The Supreme Court has issued a temporary restraining order (TRO) stopping the hike.

Ducut has asked for more time to answer a complaint for gross neglect of duty filed by Akbayan Representatives Walden Bello and Ibarra Gutierrez, who contended that Ducut was liable for not looking after the interest of consumers, which is her duty.

The two lawmakers sought Ducut’s preventive suspension while the charges against her are being investigated.

‘Usual course’

A Palace deputy spokesperson said on Friday it was Ducut’s right to file a motion for an extension to file her answer.

“She asked for additional time to answer the allegations… As far as I know she will be given time to do so. This is usual in the course of the procedures that have been conducted by the Office of the President,” said Undersecretary Abigail Valte.

Valte, a lawyer, explained that it was “normal” for aggrieved parties to file “motions for extension of time.”

“So due to the confidentiality of the process, we will not be able to give you any more updates until such time that it is resolved—that both are finally resolved by the Office of the President,” Valte said.

She added: “The Office of the President has always been on guard against dilatory motions that may be filed that are just intended to delay the process.”

Meralco said the rate increase stemmed from the shutdown of the Malampaya gas pipeline and other power plants for maintenance from Nov. 11 to Dec. 10, 2013. This resulted in a shortfall in Meralco’s supply, forcing it to buy additional, more expensive power from the spot market.

Critics accused the country’s biggest power distributor and generating firms of colluding to jack up power rates.

Second complaint

She confirmed that a second complaint was filed against Ducut by a group of 15 sectoral leaders citing essentially the same ground—that Ducut failed to protect the Filipino consumer when she allowed Meralco to jack up its rate “without any public consultation or regulatory investigation.”

“I confirmed that the second complaint was indeed filed in the Office of the President. It will be subjected to the same process as the first complaint that was filed, I think, about a month ago,” Valte said.

The second complaint for “gross negligence” was filed Thursday in the Office of the President.

One of the complainants, Manny Manato of the Santolan Riverside Neighborhood Federation, asked:

“How she could have failed to exercise the barest minimum of regulation to a proposed power rate hike that is appallingly high is unimaginable?

“Ducut’s failure to act knowing too well that the record-high generation charge will be passed to hapless consumers is mind-boggling, if not ruthless,” he said.

Manato said Ducut had no business leading a regulatory body, as her “continued stay in office was a mockery of the concept of regulation with the public at the losing end of this cruel joke.”

Newly minted statement

At a hearing on Thursday, the Department of Trade and Industry (DTI) ordered Meralco to explain the confusion arising from new entries in its latest billing statement.

Prior to this, consumers pay the monthly due called “total current amount” to avoid disconnection.

On February this year, Meralco surprised its consumers when it unveiled a new billing statement that has three new categories under the topmost entry, “account summary for account number,” to wit: “balance from previous billing,” “current charges” and “total amount due.”

The DTI told Meralco to conduct information dissemination campaign for consumers to understand the latest billing statements and to clarify the confusion among the public on the difference between the amount due, as well as the total amount due, she said.

“So it was clarified that the subscribers need not pay the amount described as ‘deferred’ pending resolution of the Supreme Court TRO.  So these amounts apparently were included in the billing for purposes of being transparent to its subscribers who are affected by the pending resolution of the Supreme Court,” she said.   source