IT has been a while, almost exactly two years, as a matter of fact, since the National Association of Electric Consumers for Reform Inc. (Nasecore) has been in the news, so give me a moment to dig into my archives and see how I described the group the last time.
Ah, yes, here it is, from Sept. 8, 2024: “... one of those insufferable, self-appointed organizations posing as consumer advocates even though no one asked or wants them to.” In hindsight, that was actually rather mild.
The issue at that time was then-Ombudsman Samuel Martires’ acting on a nearly year-old complaint filed before his office by Nasecore against then-Energy Regulatory Commission (ERC) chairman Monalisa Dimalanta, which resulted in her “preventive suspension” for about two months until Martires realized the case was BS and rescinded his order.
The complaint was specifically about the ERC’s alleged failure to act on five vexatious petitions filed by Nasecore demanding that the ERC turn over documents related to rate calculations and approvals for Meralco. This material was mostly already available as appendices to various ERC orders and decisions, and where it was not, the ERC had no legal obligation or even the authority to release it, nor did Nasecore have any legal personality to demand it.
Evidently not having learned anything from that experience, Nasecore clawed its way back into the spotlight again this week, filing a complaint against ERC Chairman and CEO Nino Juan, and the other four commissioners — Floresinda Baldo-Digal, Marko Fuentes, Amante Liberato and Paris Real — over line-rental charges included in the generation charge in consumers’ bills. To be clear, the complaint does not necessarily allege wrongdoing on the part of the ERC, at least as it has been reported in the news. Instead, Nasecore petitioned the Ombudsman to open an investigation to determine whether the ERC has legal authority to address the matter of line-rental charges, requesting a forensic audit to determine whether charges should be recalculated and refunded to consumers, and to lodge administrative or criminal charges if those investigations show those are warranted.
However, copies of several letters that I have obtained, which are part of an extended exchange of correspondence between the ERC and Nasecore dating back to at least May (although the ones that were snared by my web begin on July 6), indicate that Nasecore is again pursuing the same sinister strategy of legal extortion that failed so spectacularly in the complaint against ex-ERC chairman Dimalanta.
I am not going to get into the whole topic of line-rental again, because it would take up too much space; you may refer to my columns of Aug. 9 and Aug. 16 for a more expansive explanation. Essentially, line rental is an additional charge, settled through the Wholesale Electricity Spot Market (WESM) and rolled into the generation charge from generators to distributors, that occurs largely due to line congestion. It affects distributors in the Visayas more than other parts of the country, since the Visayas has a deficit in generation capacity and has to import a great deal of energy from Mindanao and Luzon.
The ERC had received complaints from electric cooperatives in Region 8 (Eastern Visayas) that line rental charges seemed excessive, and that the management of refunds (or occasionally, additional bills) by the WESM was inconsistent. The WESM then filed a petition with the ERC seeking approval to revise its formula for what is called the net settlement surplus (NSS) as a means of addressing the complaints from the Region 8 suppliers, but in the course of analyzing the problem, the ERC discovered that it was not the NSS formula but rather the market’s dispatch optimization program and the prices it generated that was the problem. Thus, on or about Aug. 13, the ERC issued an order suspending the collection of line rental charges where those are created by interisland line congestion, and initiated a recalculation of line rental components, along with an independent audit of charges dating back to 2021 to determine what, if any, refund or cost recovery might be required.
In other words, Nasecore has just run to the Ombudsman to demand that ERC do exactly what it just did, three weeks ago, in a manner that has the force of law. That by itself just makes Nasecore look like a bunch of dumbasses. However, the letters exchanged with the ERC reveal the group to be not just dumbasses, but pretentious, arrogant bullies. Its letter to the commission on July 6 gave 13 separate demands, which more or less all boiled down to “provide us documentation to prove, to our satisfaction, that line rental charges are legal in line with the Epira (Electric Power Industry Reform Act of 2001), and that the ERC has authority to address them.” At the end of the letter was a bald threat: If you do not provide us this documentation, we will take legal action against you, up to and including filing a case before the Ombudsman.
ERC’s response to that on July 13 was perfect, although I can understand where it would have made the Nasecore people see red, and proceed with their spurious petition to the Ombudsman. “... the Commission’s issuances, verifications and regulatory determinations [rest] on law, on its duly promulgated rules of procedure, and on the record before it,” the letter said, “not on the tenor, self-imposed deadlines or characterizations of any single stakeholder, no matter how well-intentioned its advocacy may be.”
The letter went on to emphasize (in bold type), “The recurring suggestion that the Commission’s regulatory actions may be criminally or administratively actionable unless Nasecore’s own specifications are satisfied within the period it unilaterally sets does not reflect an accurate understanding of the Commission’s quasi-judicial and quasi-legislative functions, and is not a mode of engagement befitting the working relationship the Commission has otherwise maintained with consumer groups, including Nasecore.”
Not getting the message, Nasecore doubled down with another set of demands — though reducing the number from 13 to five — in a letter dated July 16. The ERC responded to this one on Aug. 4, essentially telling Nasecore to read and understand English from its previous responses, and go find something useful to do for a change.
From my perspective, consumer advocacy is very important, and should be included in policy and regulatory affairs. However, there needs to be credibility, understanding of how the system works, and willingness to work with opposite parties within the legal framework. Who does Nasecore think it is that rules should be bent or broken to satisfy its pretension of being a quasi-official agency? It is unfortunate that there is no real law in this country to punish malicious, nuisance legal cases; if there were, all of the people in this particular group better run and hide.
ben.kritz@manilatimes.net
Bluesky: @benkritz.bsky.social
Website: www.badmannersgunclub.com
