“WHILE WE were greatly surprised by the recent decision of the Energy Regulatory Commission as regards our Motion for Reconsideration, we fully respect it.
Since our official mandate is to distribute
power to our consumers in our respective franchise areas, the generation cost
that we collect as a “pass-through charge” from our customers all goes to the
power producers.
With all due respect to ERC, we believe that
the Commission misappreciated the facts of the case and hence, we will
seek all available remedies accorded to us by law.
On our part, we will remain steadfast in
assuring each of our consumers with quality service at all times.”
SFELAPCO SPEAKS WITH A FORKED TONGUE
in the statement it issued following the order of the Energy Regulatory
Commission denying its motion for reconsideration of the March 3, 2023 decision
of the commission exacting penalties and ordering a refund of overcharges the
power distributor collected in multiple
violations of Sec. 1, Article VI Guidelines for the Recovery of Cost for the Generation
Component of Distribution Utilities Rates and RA 9136 (An Act Ordering Reforms
in the Electric Power Industry) and ERC Rules and Regulations.
If SFELAPCO so respects the decision,
as it claims, why can’t it just follow what the ERC order lawfully prescribes,
to wit:
PAY the
imposed penalty of P21,600,000 as directed in the March 3 decision. ERC
stressing that such penalty “was already due last March 3 and must be
immediately complied with.”
REFUND
the other charges amounting to P654,394,381.84 within the next billing
cycle from receipt of the order.
REFUND
the imposed generation charges in excess of DU (distribution utility) load- weighted average NPC-TOU (time of use) rate for the period of Jan. 2013-Dec.
2022 in the amount of P1,769,924,493.39 starting the next billing cycle from
receipt of the order spread out in 12 billing cycles.
For a total of P2,445,918,875.23 only.
Much too much?
A paltry really, considering the number of
years that SFELAPCO had been raking it in, ripping its captive consumers’
pockets. Just take that 10-year period SFELAPCO collected imposed excessive
generation charges. One can only weep, rant and rage, rage, rage.
Invoking respect for ERC again, SFELAPCO said
it believed the commission “misappreciated the facts of the case.” Hence, its
legal right to “seek all available remedies.”
The only misappreciation of the facts here is
of, for, and by SFELAPCO.
The ERC decision to deny SFELAPCO’s
motion for consideration is grounded not only on solid legal arguments but –
more so, for the benefit of anyone who can think – on sound reason. Writ in
stone, so to speak:
1.
Defenses not pleaded in the answer are
deemed waived.
2.
Refund is not a penalty, but is a
natural consequence of a finding of violation on the part of SFELAPCO which
resulted to the overcharging of consumers.
3.
The pass-through nature of the
collected unapproved generation charges does not exculpate SFELAPCO from its
violations.
4.
SFELAPCO’s act of charging its consumers
of unapproved generation charges without any form of verification belied its
argument that its implementation is for consumer protection.
5.
SFELAPCO’s argument favors APRI
(Aboitiz Power Resources Inc.), its supplier and deviates from its claim of protecting
its consumers.
6.
There is nothing in the Commission’s
decision in ERC Case No. 2014-041 CF that provides for automatic extension of
PSA (power supply agreement).
7.
Non-approval of previously filed
pleadings does not equate to approval.
8.
SFELAPCO’s inclusion of the DAA (deferred
accounting adjustment) and FBHC (financial benefits to host communities) in its
load-weighted average NPC-TOU rates is without basis under the rules of the
Commission.
9.
Absent an approval PSA that provides
WESM (wholesale electricity spot market) charges to be collected, there is no
basis for these charges to be collected from consumers.
10. SFELAPCO failed
in its duty to ensure least cost of supply to its captive consumers.
The ten points predicated by legal – and
scholarly – substantiations that rendered all counter-arguments advanced by
SFELAPCO “without merit, nothing but empty claim, absurd, untenable,
misplaced.” Hence, without any cogent reason SFELAPCO offered the ERC denial of
the MR.
Further, the ERC order impacted upon SFELAPCO
that filing an MR “did not prevent the Decision from being executory sans stay
order from the ERC” and that the instant Order (of June 1, 2023) shall be
executory despite any appeal to higher courts, unless an injunction and/or
restraining order is issued in accordance with Sec 78 of EPIRA (Electric Power
Industry Reform Act of 2001).”
Yes, SFELAPCO, you can seek your available
remedies accorded by law, but you have to pay. Now.
Finally, a stern warning: Continued refusal to comply with the ERC Decision
of March 3, 2023 and the instant Order of June 1, 2023 within the prescribed
period therein shall compel the commission to refer to the DOJ for possible
filing of criminal action against the board of directors and officers of
SFELAPCO pursuant to Section 46 of EPIRA.
And crime does not pay, SFELAPCO.
VICTORY. City of San Fernando Mayor Vilma Balle-Caluag, the initiator of actions against the perceived abuses of SFELAPCO, holds copy of the ERC order. Contributed photo
