SAN Miguel Corp. (SMC) filed an application with the Energy Regulatory Commission (ERC) to recover P34 billion from Manila Electric Co. (Meralco) consumers, following a Supreme Court ruling in favor of its rate hike petition.
The Supreme Court last year rejected a final appeal by the ERC against a rate hike petition filed by SMC subsidiaries and Meralco.
The high court’s decision upheld a Court of Appeals ruling that affirmed SMC’s right to invoke a “change in circumstance” clause in its power supply agreements (PSAs) with Meralco.
ERC chairperson Monalisa Dimalanta told reporters Thursday that SMC had filed two separate motions with the ERC.
“They want us to execute the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals decision, collecting P5 billion for that period of change in circumstance. And then, they’ve also filed a second motion for the subsequent period. I think the first period was March to May. The subsequent period is June to December if I’m not mistaken. And then they are claiming P29 billion in collection,” Dimalanta said.
She said the SMC motions were “still under evaluation.”
“Well, increases can happen. I mean, changes in PPA [power purchase agreement], PSA rates can happen as we know, because of fuel primarily, because that’s an uncontrolled portion of the PSA. That’s why we need to evaluate,” she said.
“If the increase is justified, allowed under the contract, and there’s really basis for the cost, the actual amounts claimed, then we can allow for the increase and then we manage the impact by deferring, extending the period of collection. That’s how we’re able to manage,” she said.
She said the ERC needed to evaluate the basis of SMC’s filing, including supporting documents.
Dimalanta said that while the courts had issued their ruling, “I’m sure they do not expect us to just approve a blank check without supporting documents.”
“So we need to make sure that all the requirements are met,” Dimalanta said.
The Supreme Court’s First Division, through its legal counsel, rejected the ERC’s motion for reconsideration on an earlier decision and its request for a temporary restraining order or writ of preliminary injunction.
The case stemmed from the ERC’s decision to deny SMC-Meralco’s request for a rate hike, citing a lack of legal and factual basis. SMC appealed the decision to the Court of Appeals, which overturned the ERC’s ruling. The ERC then took the matter to the Supreme Court.