Despite thorough explan-ation from the Bohol Light Company, Inc. (BLCI), a city councilor stood pat on accusing that BLCI over-charged rates to its consumers. In a privileged speech, Councilor Bebiano Inting, chair of the Committee on Justice and Human Rights of the City Council, insisted that “BLCI is lying and is advertently misleading because their motion for clarification was for the prayer for recovery of the difference from the final judgment against their provisional authority which in their self-serving computation amounted to P0.0941/kWh collectible for a period of seven months, and if the metering system charge was inadvertently omitted in the final rate schedule”.

Inting cited that what the Energy Regulatory Commission (ERC) decision authorized BLCI to recover was “only P0.0547 per kWh for a period of 12 months effective on the next billing cycle upon receipt of the order” promulgated on July 7, 2008. On this, Inting urged the concerned committee to hasten the inquiry and initiate possible institution of any charge “before the proper judicial arm of government”. The councilor said he just wanted to protect the constituents and consumers against “a willful deviation from truth in order to perpetuate their enrichment at the expense of the general public”. “Let us all remember that this is a continuing offense and every time we pay BLCI its erroneous billing, we customers of BLCI are deprived of our hard-earned money which could have been put to better use,” Inting pointed out.

The councilor explained that even “without admitting they are allowed to collect the metering charge on a P/kWh basis, it is applicable for a delivery service of single phase, 60 hertz at a standard secondary voltage, which in our system is 220 volts”. He also questioned why BLCI require residential users in areas where there is low voltage to install their own transformers, hinting that it's the obligation of BLCI. Inting also raised an issue on BLCI's computation on systems loss which he believed was pegged more than the 9.5-percent cap allowed by ERC to all private utility providers, citing the absence of the cost of electricity that BLCI provides for their operation in their audited financial statement.

He said ERC Resolution 17 requires it to be charged as part of the operational cost under maintenance and operating expenses. Engr. Noel Alingig, BLCI general manager, had earlier clarified that BLCI is not overcharging rates to its valued consumers contrary to reports that quoted Inting's allegations that the power distribution company is imposing extra charges which are not authorized by the regulatory body. Alingig already explained that BLCI operates under the close supervision and guidance of ERC that gives assurance that the company abides by its decisions, rules and regulations, that it imposed upon us. The issue stemmed from Inting's allegation that BLCI has overcharged its consumers when it collected P0.2075 per kilowatt hour (kwh) for metering charge without the blessing of ERC to the extent of demanding BLCI to refund its consumers for the overcharged amount and urged the City Prosecutor to immediately file criminal charges against the electric company and its officers with corresponding number of counts in as many billings gathered from consumers.

Alingig, however, clarified that the P0.2075 per kilowatt hour metering charge that BLCI is imposing on its consumers was duly authorized by the ERC in its order dated July 7, 2008. Alingig said the authority to collect the subject metering charge was inadvertently omitted in the dispositive portion of the ERC decision on the company's rate unbundling application dated March 27, 2008. This omission prompted BLCI to file a Motion for Clarification on April 17, 2008 and the decision for which eventually gave the power distribution utility the approval to collect said metering charge from its residential consumers. Moreover, Alingig had already clarified earlier that BLCI never charged its consumers any system loss beyond the 9.5-percent cap set by ERC. Also, Alingig had already explained earlier that based on the guidelines set by ERC, the Total Percentage System Loss is based on the Actual System Loss or System Loss Cap of 9.5 percent, whichever is lower plus the Actual Company Use Cap of one percent, whichever is lower. Moreover, there is a Gross-up Factor to be applied to the Total percentage of System Loss in the computation of the System Loss Rate as defined in the same guidelines. The Guidelines for the Automatic Adjustment of Generation Rates and System Loss Rates by Distribution Utilities can be downloaded at the ERC website: www.erc.gov.ph, Alingig explained. But Inting insisted on his allegations.