BUSINESSMEN and residents of Iloilo City fear that the inaction of Panay Electric Co. (PECO) on their complaints shows that the company is “resigned” to its demise, and therefore is unwilling to refund overcharged customers. The company has to be wily to hold on to refundable deposits received from electricity consumers.
PECO should have yielded its role as the sole power-distribution franchise in Iloilo City to MORE Electric and Power Corp. (MORE Power), the new congressional franchisee by operation of law (RA 11212) signed by President Rodrigo Duterte on Feb. 14, 2019. Unfortunately, charges and counter-charges in court have only succeeded in delaying the PECO-to-MORE turnover.
No doubt PECO’s management knows that its continuous operation months after the expiration of its franchise rests on a temporary certificate of public convenience and necessity (CPCN) issued by the Energy Regulatory Commission (ERC). If it were confident of recovering its power-distribution franchise in Iloilo City, it would not slack in rendering business as usual.
But it is not unusual that it disconnects lines, collects “reconnection” fees, and refuses to refund overpayments and bill deposits on demand. This writer would like to cite confirmed cases:
Rolando Dy Buco, as president of San Gregorio Homeowners’ Subdivision in La Paz, Iloilo City, told this writer that he had gone to PECO’s office to complain about their bloated bill of P12,000 in one month for a few bulbs of street lights, which was more than triple their usual bill. Instead of correcting the error, however, the office asked him to pay the amount on monthly installment within one year.
“That’s highway robbery in broad daylight,” Dy Buco told me. “And so there can never be a feeling of love lost between PECO and our affected homeowners.”
Henning Blegvad, a Danish emigrant who resides at Fil-Estate Subdivision, wrote to say that he and his wife Melanie had many times visited PECO’s office to claim their “substantial” bill deposit. All that they had received so far is a vague “promise to pay”.
Let us refresh ourselves with a provision in the Magna Carta for Residential Electricity Consumers as promulgated by the ERC, pursuant to Section 41 of Republic Act No. 9136, otherwise known as the Electric Power Industry Reform Act (EPIRA). As stated in the Magna Carta, a bill deposit required from power customers should be equivalent to the estimated billing for one month to guarantee payment of an overdue bill. This deposit, however, is refundable on demand to customers who have completed three consecutive years with no arrears.
In the event the power provider quits, to quote Article 7 of the Magna Carta, the consumer “shall be refunded within one month from the termination of service provided all bills have been paid.”
Aurora Alerta Lim, a retired educator at Central Philippine University, deposited P200,000 in 2015 for installation of a 50-Kilovolt transformer, concrete post, primary lines, etc. Her monthly billings have been erratic, from the usual P5,000 to an unusual P17,000. Like the three aforementioned “victims,” she lamented that her appeal for refund had been ignored.
The refund of deposits upon completion of three years of electrification rests on the calculation that, by then, the electric meters, other materials and services used would have been paid for, since they are embedded in the monthly billings.
The three non-refunded claimants of refundable deposits mentioned above are a drop in the ocean of thousands of similar others held hostage by an outgoing service provider.
What if PECO “evaporates” as soon as MORE Power takes over?
This corner has no answer. (hvego31@gmail.com/PN)
