Let PECO and MORE Power conciliate

AMID the uncertainty effected by the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic, it irks us power consumers in Iloilo City that Panay Electric Co. (PECO) could not abide by the law (Republic Act 11212) granting MORE Electric and Power Corp. (MORE Power) the new 25-year power-distribution franchise.

The law passed by Congress on Dec, 11, 2018 and approved by President Rodrigo Duterte on Feb. 14, 2019 empowered MORE Power to convey electric power in Iloilo City.

Its franchise having expired on Jan. 19, 2019 yet, PECO has no legal ground questioning the constitutionality of that law, according to the Feb. 28, 2020 decision of Judge Emerald Requina-Contreras of the lloilo Regional Trial Court (RTC) Branch 23.

That decision serving PECO a writ of possession effected the transfer of the distribution system to the new franchisee “to protect the public interest of the people of Iloilo City and its businesses, and to ensure the uninterrupted supply of electricity.”

The transition from PECO to MORE Power could have gone mutually beneficial had the former recognized the two provisions of RA 11212.  Section 10 provides PECO a “just compensation” to be offered by the new player. MORE Power has offered to pay P481,842,450.

Moreover, Section 17 would have paved a smooth transition within two years, during which PECO would continue to operate “until the establishment or acquisition by the grantee of its own distribution system.”

The ruling of another Regional Trial Court (RTC) in Mandaluyong City declaring RA 11212 “unconstitutional” is good for nothing because the Supreme Court (SC) has voided through a temporary restraining order.

As long as the SC itself does not declare a law “unconstitutional,” it stays.

PECO’s unwillingness to cooperate with the Iloilo RTC would not prevent the latter from ruling on the offered “just compensation”; it is an integral part of the extradition proceedings.

PECO claims that a belated addendum appended by the Iloilo RTC to the writ of possession ordered its personnel to take back the operation of the distribution system. While that would have been contradictory to the expropriation decision, such an exigency applied to former PECO personnel who had already signed an employment contract with MORE Power effective February 28, 2020. Judge Contreras merely wanted an assurance of continuous power supply as called for by the transition provision.

Of the 142 employees in MORE Power’s workforce, 62 are transferees from PECO. The additional newcomers include 10 technicians and five engineers. All of them are now “regular,” enjoying security of tenure.

Why did PECO ask MORE Power to refrain from collecting payment from 65,000 city households in the same that it would also do so in view of the ongoing enhanced community quarantine (ECQ)?

Since its last authorized billing was for the month of February 2020, PECO must have collected in full already. But MORE Power would indeed delay collection in compliance with the directive of the Energy Regulatory Commission (ERC). Therefore, the distribution utility has granted a 40-day grace period within which consumers may postpone payment up to May 14.

If PECO was trying to create an impression that it could still contest MORE Power’s franchise due to lack of a certificate of public convenience and necessity (CPCN), the records  show that it was PECO’s provisional CPCN that the ERC canceled on March 5, 2020.

On the same day, the ERC issued a CPCN to MORE Power after verifying the latter’s technical capability to serve.

Therefore, the only way to go is for the “former” and the “present” to give peace a chance. (hvego31@gmail.com/PN)