June 8, 2016 7:00 pm Ben D. Kritz
LAST week, Energy Regulatory
Commission (ERC) chairman Jose Vicente Salazar took to the media to make a case
for one of the two significant regulatory improvements pushed by the Aquino era
version of the agency, Retail Competition and Open Access (RCOA). As is usually
the case with anything even faintly progressive or customer-friendly contrived
by the ERC, the regulator finds itself mounting a defense against a single
malcontent, distribution giant Meralco, the nation’s largest electric company.
At the end of last month, the
brigade of attorneys that Meralco maintains as a private army filed an urgent
petition in the Pasig Regional Trial Court for a temporary restraining order
against the Department of Energy (DOE) and the ERC’s implementation of RCOA. It
said the measure violated Section 29 of the Electric Power Industry Reform Act
(Epira), which stipulates that electric distributors “have the right to engage
in the business of supplying electricity to the contestable market.”
The logic behind this particular
argument completely escapes me, as it would anyone who has not suffered a
comprehensive brain injury.
What RCOA does is provide a framework
that first creates a ‘contestable market’ by defining what a ‘contestable
customer’ is, and then sets the guidelines by which electric distributors can
appeal to those customers to peddle their service. As of now, a contestable
customer is defined as one whose average electricity usage is at least 1 MW per
month; between now and the end of June 2018, that ceiling will be progressively
lowered to 500 kW, which means the contestable market will grow to hundreds of
thousands of customers.
The significance of being a
‘contestable customer’ is that it permits one to choose an electric supplier,
as opposed to a smaller ‘captive customer,’ who is obliged to purchase supply
from the distributor for the franchise area.
Under the contestable market
framework, eligible customers in Meralco’s vast franchise area can choose from
a number of electric suppliers. They could very well choose Meralco, because
nothing about the arrangement diminishes Meralco’s access to the market; all it
does is remove Meralco’s franchise-based monopoly and forces the company to
compete with other suppliers.
Resistance to that loss of privilege
is the obvious subtext in Meralco’s complaint to the court, and in both a legal
and logical sense, the argument is completely wrong. But this is nothing new
for Meralco; the company has for years adopted a strategy of fiercely defending
its territory. The other, somewhat earlier major reform, the Competitive
Selection Process (CSP) also met with stiff resistance from the utility giant,
for reasons that clearly benefited it alone.
Under CSP, electric distributors
(like Meralco) are compelled to conduct a bidding process for the electricity
supply they purchase from the generation companies; prior to CSP, power supply
agreements were usually always simple negotiated contracts. Meralco, being a
huge customer, enjoys a distinct advantage, at least here in Luzon where most
of the country’s generating assets are concentrated, because for many
generators, Meralco is really the only customer they can serve. The company
argued strenuously against CSP, using every reason their army of attorneys
could muster, and were shot down at every turn (as just a side note, one of
those turns was a memorable exchange in an ERC public hearing between a Meralco
lawyer and the author, in which the latter emerged victorious).
The standard framework of a few
monopolistic giants providing basic utility services collapsed elsewhere in the
latter decades of the 20th century, catalyzed by the breakup of the Bell
Telephone empire in the US in 1982. Time moves a little slower here—our own
telecommunications industry is a monolith that is yet to be cracked—but the
trend has been gradually advancing since the embrace of privatization beginning
with the Ramos Administration. While some reasonable arguments can be made that
basic, vital utilities such as electricity and water should not be privatized,
it is a demonstrated fact that privatization, if more than one supplier is
involved, does lead to better pricing and better services in proportion to the
amount of competition permitted.
Pushing ahead with RCOA will lead to
improvements; they will probably not be as significant as most of the country’s
long-suffering electric consumers would hope to see, but it will be a start in
the right direction. Meralco, which already suffers from a rather dubious
public image, would be well-advised to start living in the 21st century, and
apply its enormous resources to being competitive rather than relying on
cooperative regulation to continue feeding it.
No comments:
Post a Comment