The Energy Regulatory Commission (ERC) said Sunday it denied motions from various parties seeking to reconsider Manila Electric Co.’s approved actual weighted average tariff (AWAT), which led to a P21.7-billion refund to consumers.
The ERC, in a 3-2 vote, issued an order on June 14, 2024, denying motions for reconsideration (MRs) filed in July 2022 by the National Association of Electricity Consumers for Reforms Inc. and Romeo Junia. It also denied a motion for partial reconsideration and clarificatory judgment filed by former ERC Commissioner Alfredo Non Jr.
The motions sought to reconsider the June 2022 decision and dismissal of the case, arguing it was contrary to the aims of the ERC’s rules for setting distribution wheeling rates (RDWR) and the Electric Power Industry Reform Act (EPIRA).
The ERC found no merit in the contentions made in the motions, saying it exercised its general rate-setting authority and power to act on applications under EPIRA in approving Meralco’s AWAT application.
The case involved ERC case No. 2020-043 RC, where Meralco filed an application for issuance for provisional authority for the confirmation of the true-up calculation of its AWAT vis-a-vis the ERC approved average rate implemented for the lapsed regulatory years.
The ERC said that without any definite rate-setting rules to govern the subsequent regulatory period for all entry groups under the Performance Based Regulation (PBR), the lapsed regulatory years continue to expand for all private distribution utilities (PDUs), where no applicable rate was set, for about 7 years for the first entry group in which Meralco is included.
“When Meralco filed its AWAT Application with the Commission, it had to act and decide on the said application,” the commission said.
The ERC said that with its decision, it was able to address the long-drawn-out lapsed period of Meralco’s regulatory reset cognizant of its intricacies and the need to ultimately put the lapsed period to a closure.
ERC chairperson Monalisa Dimalanta dissented the majority’s decision and argued that dismissing the motions prevents the ERC from correcting mistakes and deprives consumers of their right to transparent and reasonable pricing.