Jarius Bondoc (The Philippine
Star) - September 17, 2018 - 12:00am
A small new company that will
electrify a puny 40,000 homes in 12 scattered towns has the entire power
industry in uproar.
The reason is in the congressional
franchise that Solar Para Sa Bayan (SPSB) Corp. is seeking. Mini-grids are to
be set up for the un-served far-flung barrios. At long last those isolated
communities can be modernized and connected to the rest of the world, through
cheap clean energy.
But the way the congressional bill
is worded, SPSB will be a mega-franchise. It can enter into all aspects of
power: generation, transmission, distribution and supply. That violates the
2002 Electricity Power Industry Reform Act (EPIRA), which forbids multi-role giants.
Under the EPIRA, no generator may go into distribution or vice versa. The
Philippine Electric Plant Owners Association is grumbling. Unlike them, SPSB
never won any competitive bidding to produce power.
SPSB can operate outside its
franchise area. Despite its application, it is not to be limited to the
hinterlands of Mindoro, Palawan, Masbate, Cagayan, and Aurora. That would put
it in direct competition with provincial electricity cooperatives that already
have local franchises. The Philippine Rural Electric Cooperatives Association
is up in arms. SPSB would also duplicate the function of the national grid.
SPSB can opt to not use solar. That
angers even renewable energy technologists, equipment makers, and home
suppliers. Against SPSB are industry groupings: Philippine Solar and Storage
Energy Alliance, Renewable Energy Association of the Philippines, Confederation
of Solar Developers of the Philippines, Center for Renewable Energy and
Sustainable Technology, and Organization of Socialized and Economic Housing
Developers of the Philippines.
SPSB will enjoy tax breaks and
exclusions from universal charges that all other industry players must pay. It
will even be exempt from rate and service quality control by the Energy
Regulatory Commission. Yet it will not have any franchise obligation to the
areas to be energized. Other companies are tied to strict deliverables under
their service contracts. They decry unequal protection of law, a breach of the
Constitution.
SPSB is a subsidiary of Solar
Philippines, Southeast Asia’s largest solar energy provider. It may be small at
present, but the mega-franchise can enable it to eat up other players.
It can become a monopoly.
Unrestrained by rules of competition and regulatory oversight, and with no
social duty, it will be one of a kind. That is the fear in the industry.
Behind SPSB and Solar Philippines is
energy entrepreneur Lean Leviste. He ventured into clean energy on influence of
his mother, environmentalist senator Loren Legarda.
Allegedly the SPSB franchise is
being railroaded. Congressmen complained that only one committee hearing was
held. Instead of being allowed to speak, concerned companies and industry
organizations merely were told to submit position papers. Four days later
SPSB’s franchise was endorsed for floor deliberations, to start this week.
Fifteen majority and minority
lawmakers have asked for return to the committee for further evaluation:
Ricardo Belmonte, Virgilio Lacson, Teodoro Montoro, Michael Romero, Enrico
Pineda, Arnel Ty, Sabiniano Canama, Joselito Atienza, Ron Salo, Ciriaco
Calalang, Carlos Roman Uybarreta, Salvador Belaro, Benhur Salimbangon, Manuel
Dalope, and Milagros Aquino-Magsaysay.
Rep. Arthur Yap, principal bill
author, denies any undue haste. Two three-hour-long hearings were held, he
maintains: “Everyone was given a chance to comment.” He twits the 15 colleagues
for belated opposition to the bill.
News reports say, however, that the
second hearing was a closed-door executive session of the committee members.
Even then, Leviste allegedly was invited to join the exclusive meeting.
Leviste avows that SPSB aims “not to
make the most profit but to serve the most number of people” – 200,000 barrio
folk. He twits the power industry’s closed tendency to competition, saying: “We
believe consumers should be given new choices for better service at lower cost,
especially if it means zero government subsidies and does not prejudice the
non-exclusive right of anyone else to offer even better options to consumers.
If the mere specter of competition inspires electric utilities to improve their
services, that is an affirmation of the need for healthy competition.”
No comments:
Post a Comment