BACOLOD City Councilor Caesar Distrito expressed opposition to the passing of the P232 million as unnominated contract quantities to the member-consumer of Central Negros Electric Cooperative (Ceneco).
“I am not in favor that Ceneco will collect the P232 million from member-consumers,” Distrito said Tuesday, October 10.
The Energy Regulatory Board (ERC) had 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 (KSPC) with motion for the issuance of provisional authority.
The order 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, 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 have been recovered, the order further stated.
The Social Action Center (SAC) had earlier filed a motion for reconsideration because the signatory of applicant Ceneco has no authority to sign the petition and failed to comply with the rule on certification of non-forum shopping.
Distrito said he is hopeful that the motion for reconsideration would be decided in favor of the consumers and the SAC.
“For me, if there is an unused power supply or the Ceneco officials made a mistake on their estimated power supply. That is their own negligence and they should pay it coming from their own income and not from the member-consumers," he said.
The councilor added it is unfairthat because of their failure the member-consumers will suffer.
Distrito asked Ceneco to wait for the final decision of the ERC on the motion for reconsideration of SAC.
Ceneco general manager Sulpicio Lagarde Jr. reiterated yesterday that consumers will pay P0.0817 per kWh starting this month.
“The pass-on charge to consumers could only be stopped if there is a temporary restraining order from the Court of Appeals,” he added.
Before the approval and authority from ERC came out, Lagarde said public hearings were held to give opportunity for the intervenors and oppositors to file their formal manifestation and opposition, but no one submitted, adding that the case is also published in the official website of the ERC.
“Ceneco filed the opposition to the differential billing of Kepco,” he said.
He said that Power Watch had a delayed reaction after the ERC gave the authority to KSPC and Ceneco to pass on to the consumers the differential billing from July 26, 2011 to November 25, 2013. (MAP/TDE)