THE Social Action Center (SAC) of the Diocese of Bacolod urged the officials of Central Negros Electric Cooperative (Ceneco) to stop the implementation of the P0.0817 per-kilowatt-hour (kWh) additional monthly charges to power consumers.
Fr. Chris Gonzales, head of SAC, said Wednesday, June 6, that they still have a pending motion for reconsideration (MR) filed before the Office of the Energy and Regulatory (ERC) on its ruling related to the supplemental agreement between Kepco-SPC Power Corporation (KSPC) and Ceneco.
He said Ceneco started collecting the additional charges from the month of April in spite of their pending MR.
"We should oppose this because this is an additional burden to us," he added.
The ERC earlier approved the application filed in 2013 for the approval and confirmation of the load factor-based pricing scheme on a monthly reconciliation of the unaccepted contract quantity of the agreement Ceneco and Kepco-Salcon Power Corporation with the motion for the issuance of provisional authority.
The order, dated June 27, 2017, stated that Ceneco is directed to pay KSPC for the recovery of the unpaid unaccepted contract quantity from July 26, 2011, to November 25, 2013, in the total amount of P232,010,090.
Ceneco is authorized to recover from its consumers the amount of P232 million at a monthly rate of P0.0817 per kWh for a period of 50 months or until such time that the full amount has been recovered, the order further stated.
On October 4, 2017, the SAC filed its appeal before the ERC.
On October 17, 2017, majority of the members of Ceneco Board of Directors also affirmed the earlier move to put on hold the collection of P232-million worth of additional charges pending the clarification from the ERC.
In her response to the query of Ceneco General Manager Suplicio Lagarde dated on February 12, 2018, ERC chairperson and Chief Executive Officer Agnes Devanadera said the decisions of the commission in any application filed before it is effective pending the resolution of any motion for reconsideration, unless otherwise ordered by the Commission Section 3, Rule 23 of the ERC's Rules of Practice and Procedure pertinently provides that the filling of an MR shall stop the running of the 15-day period in Section 5 of Rule 22 and prevent the final order, resolution or decision of the commission from becoming final and inappealable.
However, unless otherwise ordered by the commission, such filing shall not prevent the final order, resolution or decision from becoming effective, as the same shall be effective upon the date specified therein or upon the lapse of the 15 day period as the case may be.
"It is clear therefore from the foregoing that the decision rendered by the commission takes effect upon the date specified therein or upon the lapse of the 15-day period from receipt of the copy thereof where no MR has been filed. In the instant case, the commission has not issued any order preventing the subject decision from becoming effective pending the resolution of the MR filed by Sac and Romeo Lavilla," Devanadera added.
Gonzales said this is only an opinion of Devanadera and not a final order of the ERC, so why they need to implement it now.
He said the Board of Directors should explain it to the public because they were elected to protect the interest of the consumers.
"We are hoping that they will protect the interest of the consumers, and they should explain this to us," he added.
SAC legal counsel Vicente Petierre III said they will file their pleadings next week to the office of ERC relative to Ceneco's implementation of additional charges.
"Ceneco inquired with the ERC for the clarification of its order and Devanadera only explain the Section 3, Rule 23 of the ERC, but it is not a final order of the ERC and it is only her opinion. The ERC did not order the Ceneco to collect it now," he said.
So why they should implement it now since there is no final order yet from the ERC regarding of the MR? Petierre asked.
Petierre said for humanitarian reconsideration, Ceneco should explain this additional charge to the consumers.
Petierre noted that the intervenor SAC and the member-consumers have the right to strongly disagree on the ERC decision because the contract was signed on July 29, 2011, by the respective applicants, yet the decision June 27, 2017, direct the deduction from the member-consumers starting July 26, 2011.
"The contract allegedly took effect on July 29, 2011, and notarized on August 5, 2011, but the assailed decision says the payment should start from July 26, 2011. It means the assailed decision has retroactive effect to the consumers. The member-consumers were made to be paid of something not yet delivered, but also not yet approved by the Honorable Commission," Petierre said.
Lagarde earlier said they are only obeying the ERC's decision and doing what is legal and right.
The SAC is also hopeful that the City Government will hold a forum with the Ceneco Board of Directors to explain these additional charges, and they will also hold a meeting with the priests in the city.
For his part, Mayor Evelio Leonardia said he is now trying to get all sides of the agencies involved to clarify the matter.
"As a matter of position, of course, we do not want that to happen to give burden to our people, but in the end, we will have to do what is legal, and what is bad to the people is a bad policy," he said.
The mayor said he started to talk with the key people of Ceneco to resolve the matter.
