Published August 21, 2017, 10:00 PM By Myrna M.
Velasco
Breaking power utilities’ service dominance
is all up in the agenda of the Department of Energy (DOE) as it is now
seriously considering to bring down power retail competition threshold to 500
kilowatts in the remedial measures it is set to craft for the Retail
Competition and Open Access (RCOA) policy.
Such direction is being contemplated
upon in one of the two Department Circulars that the DOE is set to issue to
‘cure the perceived defects’ of the earlier rules on the electricity sector’s
competitive retail regime.
As indicated by Energy Undersecretary
Felix William Fuentebella, the threshold level for contestability will be
brought down to 750 kilowatts and eventually to 500kW – which entails then that
commercial end-users and households with massive electricity usage may already
be covered.
Retail competition in the
restructured power sector is currently stuck at 1.0 megawatt following the
temporary restraining order of the Supreme Court on the questionable rules of
the RCOA policy.
Nevertheless, Fuentebella noted that
the energy department would be ‘curing these challenged RCOA provisions’ in
their planned policy-setting via issuance of specific Circulars.
One circular will prescribe
“voluntary scheme” of power retail competition; he said, while the other
Circular will tackle the participation of local retail electricity suppliers
(L-RES) of distribution utilities, like that of the Manila Electric Company,
other private DUs and electric cooperatives.
“We will have two Department
Circulars. One circular will look into the ‘voluntariness’ of being
contestable customer and then you can go back into being a captive one,” the
energy official stressed, apparently referring to the switching option that
customers in the RCOA could still resort to.
In addition, he said, the other policy
plan of DOE will be to allow the L-RES of DUs, but with him qualifying that
these power utilities should not be engaging in cross-subsidization of their
costs across customer segments.
For example, he cited that a DU
could be tempted passing on higher costs to its captive customers when cost of
supply procurement would be high; or could also be done in terms of savings.
Essentially, he noted, that should not be allowed.
“One circular will be for qualifying
local RES, provided they do not pass-on cost to their captive customers –
because that would be unfair practice,” Fuentebella said. Captive customers are
those that cannot exercise power of choice yet in their electricity supply
preference and service options.
For allowing the L-RES of DUs to be
back in the fold of retail competition, Fuentebella emphasized that they shall
be setting stringent conditions, so the question of “fairness” as raised in
cases filed at the Courts can be squarely addressed.
“We have to state the conditions
why. So if they overcome these conditions, we will allow them. But it will be a
‘China Wall’ type of running it,” he said.
It must be recalled that such had
been one of the contentious and tricky provisions that had been the subject of
legal skirmish raised against retail competition in the power industry.
No comments:
Post a Comment