posted July 07, 2016 at 11:50 pm by Alena Mae S. Flores
The Energy Regulatory Commission
said Thursday it asked the Supreme Court to decide on a case filed by power
retailer Manila Electric Co. that aims to suspend the implementation of retail
competition and open access.
ERC said the Office of the Solicitor
General filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition with the Supreme Court
raising the case filed by Meralco before the Pasig regional trial court.
“We filed a petition before the SC
last Tuesday, raising the assumption of jurisdiction of the trial court over
the Meralco case and its issuance of a restraining order,” ERC spokesperson
Rexie Digal said.
Pasig RTC branch 157 earlier issued
a 20-day temporary restraining order in favor of Meralco, suspending the
implementation of RCOA.
The regional trial court said in a
decision that based on the documents presented, Meralco established compliance
to the requisite requirements in support of the grant of the TRO.
“Thus, the petitioner’s prayer for
temporary restraining order is hereby granted and the same is hereby issued
enjoying the DoE [Department of Energy] from implementing and enforcing the DoE
circular DC 2015-06-0010 and the ERC from implementing and enforcing its ERC
Resolution No. 10 Series of 2016 and ERC Resolution No. 11 Series of 2016,” the
lower court said.
Both circulars prohibited
distribution utilities such as Meralco from engaging in the supply business,
imposed market and other restrictions and required mandatory contestability.
Meralco asked the court on May 27 to
issue a temporary restraining order and subsequently a writ of preliminary
injunction. Meralco said permitting the implementation of the said issuances
would violate the rights of the company and the other distribution firms and
cause them to suffer “irreparable injury.”
ERC earlier said Meralco “had all
the chance and opportunity to mitigate probable losses by virtue of the
implementation of the RCOA.”
The regulator said Meralco knew
since 2006 of the imminent transition from the captive market to the
contestable market where customers could choose their own suppliers as these
underwent public consultations.
ERC said the obvious consequence of
the migration of the customers “is the change in the amount of profits it
[Meralco] will earn, which by the way is not guaranteed even under its
franchise.”
It said Meralco had sufficient time
to set up its own retail electricity supplier-distribution utility affiliate.
ERC said Meralco was not prevented from putting up its own retail electricity
supplier and as a distribution utility it would still continue to participate in
the contestable market as supplier of last resort.
The regulator said Meralco
would also not be affected by the 30-percent market cap, the initial threshold
imposed by ERC.
MPower, Meralco’s retail electricity
supplier, currently supplies 18 percent of the contestable market and ERC said
it still had room to grow before reaching the cap.
ERC said Meralco also failed to show
that it would suffer irreparable damage from the issuances.
ERC chairman Jose Vicente Salazar
earlier said he was hoping that “Meralco will rethink its current position
against RCOA, which gives consumers the power to choose their own suppliers.
“We can no longer set back gains of
the power sector. It can only move forward and the direction is clearly that of
competition,” Salazar said.
Salazar said he found no strong
reason “for Meralco to block a mechanism which would be good for the retail
customer base in its present service area.”
Salazar said RCOA marked a major
milestone in the country’s bid to make electricity rates more affordable to
end-users.
“RCOA is designed to change the
current situation where customers do not have the choice as to who will supply
their power requirements and are dependent on utilities designated purely on
the basis of geographical territory,” Salazar said.
No comments:
Post a Comment