Recent News
PRESS RELEASE (July 14, 2009)
NASECORE SEEKS ROLLBACK OF MERALCO RATES
The National Association of Electricity Consumers for Reforms (Nasecore) has asked the Court of Appeals to reverse an order of the Energy Regulatory Commission (ERC) allowing the Manila Electric Company (Meralco) to increase its electricity rates.
In a petition, Nasecore, through its president, Pete Ilagan, also asked the CA to order Meralco to roll back its electricity distribution charges from its present P1.2280 per kilowatt-hour to the previous rate of P1.083/kWh.
Nasecore petitioned the CA to order an “immediate refund” of the difference between the new Meralco rate and the provisional rate (P1.2227/kWh – P1.083kWh) which was initially collected during the May 2009 billing cycle.
Nasecore also asked the appellate court to declare as null and void the ERC’s May 29, 2008 decision and the subsequent ERC order on April 13, 2009 quashing all motions of the consumer group.
The “excess profits” of Meralco in the amount of P33,266,802,000.00 (billion) during the period 2003-2007 should also be refunded immediately, Nasecore said.
“It is the obligation of the ERC as mandated by law to protect the consumers from unjust and unreasonable rates,” the consumer group said. “It must also ensure transparency and reasonableness of its price.”
“It is worth stressing that six years after it qualifiedly approved the Meralco increase, the ERC has not reviewed the financial statements of Meralco to determine if the assumptions it used in granting the rate increase in 2003 is reasonable as far as the consumers are concerned,” lamented Nasecore.
Nasecore recalled that the SC allowed Meralco to increase its rates provisionally in 2003 dependent on Meralco ultimately proving through an audit, to be conducted by COA, that the said increase was justified.
“In short, Meralco, would be compelled to return to us the provisional increase it had collected through the years in the event that the audit finds the provisional increase to be without basis,” Ilagan averred.
The Nasecore also raised the question on whether or not the ERC should wait for the COA report relative to the audit it conducted on the books, records and accounts of Meralco for the years 2004 to 2007 to determine if the provisional rate being charged by Meralco to its customers is just and reasonable.
Nasecore noted that both the Supreme Court and the CA are in agreement that COA should audit the books and accounts of Meralco as held in Lualhati et al vs. Meralco (CA-GR SP No. 77559) dated July 22, 2004 and the subsequent Meralco’s appeal (Meralco vs. Lualhati, et al, G.R. Nos. 166769 and 166818).
Another question raised by Nasecore is whether or not the ERC should instead order moto propio a reduction of rate as mandated under the Epira law and the refund of the excess profits of Meralco in light of the petitioners’ findings based on Meralco’s financial statements.
Joining Nasecore in the appeal are the Federation of Village Associations (FOVA) and Federation of Las Pinas Village Associations (FOLVA) whose members are consumers of Meralco.