Still waiting for PECO to go

WHEN Panay Electric Co. (PECO) lost its 25-year franchise to distribute electricity in Iloilo City upon expiration on Jan. 19 this year, we begged for a smooth turnover of that responsibility to its successor, MORE Electric and Power Corp. (MORE Power). By then, Congress had passed House Bill 8302 granting the new franchise to MORE Power.

On Feb. 14, 2019, President Rodrigo Duterte signed into law Republic Act 11212, Section 17 of which provides that “Panay Electric Co. (PECO) shall in the interim be authorized to operate the existing distribution system within the franchise area until the establishment or acquisition by the grantee of its own distribution system and its complete transition towards full operations.”

It has been almost six months since then, but PECO has not yielded yet, having filed a court case questioning the constitutionality of the expropriation proceedings that would facilitate turnover of its facilities to MORE Power.

MORE Power argues that it is authorized to sequester the distribution facilities of PECO which – according to MORE Power president Roel Z. Castro – have already been paid by the power users.

Section 10 of RA 11212 empowers the government to expropriate a utility or to delegate that power to a private group: “The grantee may acquire such private property as is actually necessary for the realization of the purposes for which this franchise is granted, including but not limited to poles, wires, cables, transformers… Provided, that proper expropriation proceedings shall have been instituted and just compensation paid.”

A pending favorable decision on MORE Power’s application for writ of possession – pending before the Regional Trial Court (RTC-Iloilo Branch 37) – would end the impasse.

The recent resignation of PECO’s assistant vice president for operations Randy Pastolero has spawned speculations that he is already resigned to the inevitability of PECO-to-MORE turnover; and that he would seek employment with the new player. As of now, more or less 10 “ex-PECOns” constitute a portion of the first batch of MORE Power employees.

In a text message to this writer, however, Pastolero denied having transferred to MORE Power.

Since Pastolero is known for his friendly ways, it is possible that he would have liked to help anxious PECO customers with complaints if he were in the position to act on their problems with the company.

To reiterate what this writer had already written about, Merlyn Bayombong Pomperada of Landheights Subdivision, Villa Arevalo, came home from vacation abroad, only to find her power line “disconnected”. She paid her overdue account, hoping to be “reconnected”. To her dismay, she was asked to pay a second deposit of P8,662. She paid that one on May 21, 2019 but has not been reconnected until now, forcing her to live in her second home in San Jose, Antique.

Wynne Mary Frial of Sto. Niño Subdivision, Arevalo asked PECO to refund her bill deposit of P16,191 but to no avail. Not even when she reminded PECO personnel that one of their electric posts occupies a space inside her front yard free of charge.

The bill deposit representing one month of the estimated bill is supposedly refundable on demand after three years of continuous usage, according to Article 23 of the “Magna Carta for Residential Electricity Consumers.”

Henning Blegvad, a Danish visitor residing at Fil-Estate Subdivision, went to PECO’s office three times for his bill refund but got nothing.

Couturier Hector “Totong” Gellangarin received a second demand for an P18,000 bill that he had already paid for.

“Maayo lang may resibo ako,” he sighed. (hvego31@gmail.com/PN)

1 COMMENT

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here