Nasecore bats for power rate hike refund

A consumer group on Friday bared its plan to file with the Energy Regulatory Commission (ERC) an appeal for a refund of the 13.27 centavos per kilowatt-hour rate increase the consumers have been paying since 2004. The National Association of Electricity Consumers for Reforms (Nasecore) considered the petition for a refund after the Supreme Court junked on Thursday ERC's decision in 2004 that allowed the Manila Electric Company (Meralco) to increase its generation rates. In a ruling issued Thursday, the Supreme Court said the regulatory body and the Meralco committed a "fatal" error by enforcing the rate adjustment without prior publication in a national daily. The high court argued that publication and comment requirements are meant to protect public interest in regard to the rates and services of electric utilities and other providers of electric power, to ensure transparent and reasonable prices and full public accountability. Recognizing the merit of the petition filed by Nasecore, the Federation of Village Associations and the Federation of Las Piñas Homeowners Associations, the high court ruled that the enforcement of the power rate adjustment was erroneous. The 14 magistrates of the high tribunal unanimously approved the decision. However, the court did not state if a refund should be given to Meralco consumers. Meanwhile, ERC chairman Rodolfo Albano said Friday it would ask the high court to reconsider its decision because "it was as if we have been assessed that we erroneously carried out our responsibilities." Albano told GMA News that the rate adjustment was merely the power distributor's move to recover advanced payments it made to the National Power Corporation and the independent power producers for the electricity it would later distribute to consumers. Thus, Albano claimed, the rate adjustment was not actually a price increase, saying the government allows under-recovery collections due to rising fuel costs. On the other hand, Meralco contested the requirement of prior publication because, it said, such would subject their petition to "a long and tedious process" for a simple attempt to recover advanced payments. -GMANEWS.TV, with a report from inq7.net