Level playing field in energy

From among the many franchise bills pending before the 17th Congress, the proposed Solar Para sa Bayan Corp. (SPSBC) submitted for approval became literally the most hotly debated legislative measure. What a seemingly innocuous franchise bill turned out controversial after certain members of the House of Representatives took note of supposed provisions that gives its proponents exclusive rights to operate the un-served rural electric grids.

But when both chambers of Congress adjourned sessions last week for their one-month break, the proposed “mega” franchise for a solar power firm owned by Sen. Loren Legarda’s son Leandro Leviste got pushed at the backburner.

House Bill (HB) 8179 seeks to grant Leviste’s SPSBC a franchise “to construct, install, establish, operate, and maintain distributable power technologies and mini-grid systems throughout the Philippines to improve access to sustainable energy.” SPBC is a subsidiary of Leviste’s Solar Philippines, whose media statements claim it will sell electricity as low as P2.34/kwh. The SPBC now operates in Paluan, Mindoro Occidental, an area not served by the main power grid of Luzon.   

Bohol Rep. Arthur Yap is the author and principal sponsor of HB 8179. It was endorsed for House plenary approval after the August 29 public hearing of the bill at the House committee on legislative franchises chaired by Palawan Rep. Franz Alvarez. But certain House lawmakers suddenly turned suspicious on how fast it got through their legislative mills.

This was as if other pet bills in Congress didn’t get same fast-tracking?

Party-list Representatives Lito Atienza of Buhay, Michael Romero of 1-Pacman, leftist lawmakers, and other opponents of the franchise bill frustrated efforts by Yap and other proponents of HB 8179 to have the measure taken up at plenary. Atienza, Romero and 12 other colleagues initiated House Resolution No. 2182 to opposed the bill, citing the committee on franchises held only one hearing last Aug. 29 and allegedly “railroaded” the measure’s approval on Sept. 3.

In the same House Resolution, they scored some provisions of HB 8179, which “are patently unconstitutional and/or contrary to Republic Act No. 9136, or the Electric Power Industry Reform Act (EPIRA) of 2001.”

By the language of the bill, Romero argued, the Leviste firm’s subsidiary could become a “super monopoly allowed to operate in all areas of the power industry in violation of the Constitution and EPIRA.” 

Atienza, for his part, complained that the position papers submitted by stakeholders were dated on or after the day the committee approved the bill. The position paper of Meralco is dated Sept. 3, while that of 19 distribution utilities is dated Sept. 5. “Clearly, these stakeholders were not heard,” Atienza deplored.

One of the stakeholders group, Philippine Solar and Storage Energy Alliance (PSSEA) expressed fears Leviste’s firm may be charging its electricity customers at rates five times higher than the level that HB 8179 presents to the public. PSSEA president Maria Theresa Capellan pointed specifically to the cost of electricity in Paluan as way above what Leviste declared in public. 

Capellan noted with concern the proposed super franchise does not contain any requirement for Leviste’s company to actually provide electricity to any areas at all. But the bill in its present form, she warned, gives it blanket authorization to engage in the generation, distribution, and supply of solar energy mini-grids, with no government oversight or consumer protections.  

The proposed franchise further allows SPBC to use public spaces and invoke eminent domain or the right to expropriate private property for use of its facilities, Capellan added.  

“We reiterate our position that, instead of giving SPBC a super franchise, Congress should pass a law creating a regulatory framework for all mini-grids and micro-grids to operate on an equal footing. Under this alternative proposal, any obligations and incentives for mini-grid and micro-grid projects should apply to all qualified entities,” PSSEA explained their position.

 Yap, however, vehemently denied there was railroading. He said the proposed franchise grant would not create a monopoly and would provide cheaper and better electric power service to communities throughout the country. In fact, during that House public hearing, national government agencies led by the Department of Energy (DOE) posed no objection to the proposed franchise.

DOE assistant secretary Gerardo Erquiza told the House public hearing: “We must invite the private sector into rural electrification. We have a subsidy system, and it has always been the government in the forefront. If there is an option that is no cost to the government, that would be very good.”

Leviste himself strongly took exceptions to the claims against his solar power firm. “The text of the bill speaks for itself: It is non-exclusive, encourages others to apply for the same, and aims to end the existing monopolies on electricity, because we believe consumers deserve new choices for better service at lower cost. It also incurs zero cost to government, and eliminates the need for billions in subsidies to existing utilities.” He assuaged the lawmakers his Solar Para Sa Bayan only targets areas where consumers complain about electricity.

In a Pulse Asia survey done in June this year, the Solar ng Bayan noted results indicated 82% of Filipinos favor having new options for electric service providers. It quoted Pulse Asia Director Ana Maria Tabunda who surmised that the survey results found 60% of Filipinos are dissatisfied with electric prices and 89% of Filipinos favor increasing the use of renewable energy.

It’s not a question of whether or not Filipinos – through their representatives in Congress – support the use of more environment-friendly source of electric power. Rather, the debate is the level playing field for all players in the energy business. Thus, these arguments would enlighten the lawmakers to re-draft HB 8179 to make it more beneficial, especially to electric consumers at large.