The Social Action Center of Bacolod City on Nov. 7 filed supplemental information to the motion for reconsiderationit had earlier filed before the Energy Regulatory Commission, asking ittoreverse its order to collect P232 million in “unnominated contract quantities” from the consumer-members of Central Negros Electric Cooperative.
ERC, earlier denied the motion to dismiss filed by SAC and granted applicants KEPCO SPC Power Corporation (KSPC) and Ceneco authority to collect from the member-consumers the amount of P232,010,090.
In its motion for reconsideration dated Oct. 4, SAC asked ERC to issue an order setting aside the assailed decision dated June 27 approving the application, and for a new decision to be issued dismissing the case.
Vicente Petierre, legal counsel for intervenors SAC, yesterday said the contract should have been rescinded from the very start because this involves electricity which was not generated and ordered, yet it was passed on to the consumers, which is unfair.
He also pointed out that the supplemental agreement to the power sales contract, which was signed on July 29, 2011, has a retroactive effect because ERC ordered that the amount be collected from the consumers from July 26, 2011.
In its supplemental to the Motion for Reconsideration, the intervenors said the contract,which is disadvantageous to the consumers, covers 10 years and will end on May 31, 2021.There is no assurance that from Nov. 26, 2013 to May 31, 2021, there will be no additional application to be filed relative to the existing one.
With the apparent financial burden to the member-consumers, they cannot find wisdom in the decision when it was clearly admitted by applicant KSPC in its compliance that, “It did not generate the unnominated capacity,” they said.
The member-consumers were not consulted by Ceneco before it entered into a contract with KSPC. The electric cooperative did not also conduct a study or public hearing when it entered into the contract, theyadded.
The intervenors also said the president and CEO of KSPC, who signed the supplemental agreement,has not been authorized by the corporation or the board to sign it. The representative of Cenecowho signed the contrat did not also have authority from the Ceneco Board.
Applicants in this case are harping on the point that they (intervenors) failed to present their witnesses. If the important matters were already raised during the cross-examination and there was tacit admittance, there is no need to present any witness, they said.
Meanwhile, Petierre said they welcome the move of Bacolod Rep. Greg Gasataya to request for the public hearing on the P232 million unnominated contract quantities conducted in Bacolod.
They want the hearing held in Bacolod because it would be very expensive for them to travel to Manila. They also want a congressional inquiry conducted on the matter, he said.*CGS
back to top