A disturbing experience at ERC

Electricity consumers have long been questioning whether the Energy Regulatory Commission (ERC) is promoting the interest of consumers and not only that of big utilities, especially Meralco. My recent experience in what I believe was a simple process of filing our petition in the ERC docket office was very disturbing and showed that the ERC not only makes rules that are anticonsumer, but will not even allow consumers’ viewpoints in the regulatory door for appropriate, respectful, obligatory and entitled consideration and due process.

It was a disturbing experience for me. Our consumer advocacy group, Matuwid na Singil sa Kuryente Consumer Alliance Inc., in collaboration with many cause-oriented groups and concerned citizens, has filed the first petition for a rule change at the ERC, for it to pass a resolution mandating the holding of open competitive bidding of bilateral power supply contracts instead of monopolizing them and negotiating the price and terms with its affiliates and sister companies.

We prepared the petition, followed the ERC’s rules of practice and procedure, and meticulously completed the required supporting documents. We expected the submission and docketing of the petition with the ERC’s records division to take just three minutes. I was surprised that the ERC’s records section refused to accept our petition “for lack of substance.” That’s right! A records clerk was essentially making a decision to shoot down a petition of the consumers, and refusing to record and recognize it, much less schedule it for study and hearing! I was sent to the technical division, then to the legal division of the ERC. They kept telling me our petition lacked substance and that they can’t accept it. I explained that they should just receive it, and allow the commission to decide on our petition. I even challenged them to certify to the effect that they were refusing to accept the same, and at that point, they might have realized I was determined to have the petition received because when I said that, they began to act as if they were only concerned with consumers. Their words were clear: Sayang, mababasura lang naman ito for lack of substance.

This experience showed that the ERC bureaucracy is structurally, procedurally, and perhaps culturally, biased against the interest of the consumers. They are forgetting that the Electric Power Industry Reform Act mandated the ERC to look after consumer interest.

I argued that the duty of the records and docket section is only ministerial and they have no authority to essentially pass judgment on the merits and substance of the petition, especially from the consumer groups. Even for us who have seen this kind of government apathy and taxpayer letdown, to see this kind of callous practice, and to see it up close and personal, is still bone chilling. How can they even come close to protecting us when they display so much bias and will not even allow us in the door?

It took more than an hour of internal deliberations (and maybe some clearances from the vested interests?) and steadfast argument on our part, before the ERC’s records section finally did what they were supposed to do: receive and record the consumers’ petition for a rule change.

—AYA JALLORINA, executive director,
Matuwid na Singil sa Kuryente Consumer Alliance Inc., aya.msk14org@gmail.com