Published May 17, 2017, 10:00 PM By Myrna M.
Velasco
The Energy Regulatory Commission
(ERC) assured yesterday that there will be no change in the P6.9 billion
refund that it directed Manila Electric Company (Meralco) to enforce, as well
as on the three-month pass-on period.
But the regulatory body has still
not given exact timeframe on the payback – that in essence is still placing
consumers in a whirlpool when it comes to their anticipation of immediate
financial relief in their electric bills.
The regulatory body previously
indicated that the estimated P0.7541 per kilowatt hour (kwh) refund will be due
in the consumers’ bills this June, but there is no exact pronouncement on that
in the May 17 press statement of the Commission.
ERC Officer-in-Charge Alfredo J.
Non, however, reiterated “there was no change in the amount to be refunded nor
scheduled period thereof.”
He explained “we just have to follow
some legal procedures to ensure that the ERC’s Order (or refund of) is robust
and legally defensible, considering the 90-day preventive suspension issued by
the Office of the President to Chairman Jose Vicente Salazar.”
The Commission admitted that it
deliberated and decided on the case en banc on May 2, but with Salazar’s
suspension on May 4, it stressed that the promulgation of their draft order on
the refund stalled.
The regulatory body similarly
explained why the Commission’s own press release was stealthily taken down from
the ERC website just days after deliberations on the Meralco refund verdict.
ERC pointed out that “in the normal
course of procedure, while an order is still being drafted, any press release
regarding the disposition of the case is premature because the ERC
Commissioners still need to affix their signatures thereon.”
In the past, however, the Commission
adopted the practice of giving pronouncements to the media on its decision even
prior to the promulgation of its actual ruling – examples have been approvals
on the capital expenditures (capex) of Meralco and the National Grid
Corporation of the Philippines (NGCP), anchoring such on how the Supreme Court
has also been treating some decisions on cases of national interest.
Still, the ERC argued that
“supervening event (on its Chairman’s suspension) constrained the Commission to
reconfirm the order so that the same could be promulgated.”
Given that, it noted that it slated
a special Commission meeting on May 11 to already reconfirm its earlier
decision.
It cited two procedural challenges
in the ruling though, but has not forthrightly stated if these will delay the
actual implementation process of the refund – one is on the fact that Salazar
could no longer sign in their decision; and second, that a public hearing is
required within 30 days from the issuance of the order.
No comments:
Post a Comment