The Supreme Court ruled that the Energy Regulatory Commission (ERC) must ensure that electricity rates are set in the “least cost manner.” This decision voids the ERC’s adoption of current or replacement costs for valuing Manila Electric Company’s (MERALCO) assets. The case is remanded to the ERC to determine a fair asset valuation and guidelines for passing expenses to consumers, ensuring rates reflect the actual cost of providing electricity. The ruling seeks to protect consumers from excessive charges by ensuring that only necessary and prudent costs are included in rate calculations, adhering to the Electric Power Industry Reform Act of 2001 (EPIRA).
Power to the People: Can MERALCO’s Costs Justify Consumer Rates?
The National Association of Electricity Consumers for Reforms, Inc. (NASECORE) challenged the ERC’s approval of MERALCO’s unbundled rates, arguing that they were excessive and not based on a thorough audit. The case originated from a previous Supreme Court decision directing the ERC to request the Commission on Audit (COA) to conduct a complete audit of MERALCO’s books. NASECORE contended that MERALCO’s operating expenses, such as employee pensions, and certain properties included in the rate base were not recoverable from consumers. The central legal question was whether the ERC properly considered the COA’s findings and whether MERALCO’s costs were justified in setting consumer rates.
The Supreme Court partly granted NASECORE’s petition, emphasizing the importance of the COA’s role in auditing public utilities. Citing Section 38 of the Government Auditing Code of the Philippines, the Court affirmed the COA’s authority to examine the books and records of public utilities to ensure fair rates. This authority was previously highlighted in MERALCO v. Lualhati, where the Court directed the ERC to seek COA’s assistance. The goal is to ensure that rate increases are reasonable and justified, protecting consumers from unfair charges.
The Court acknowledged that while a prior COA audit is not mandatory for rate-fixing, the ERC must consider the COA’s findings in determining just and reasonable rates. The regulation of public utility rates is an exercise of the State’s police power, balancing the interests of investors and consumers. The traditional rate formula, R = O + (V-D)r, where R is total revenue requirement, O is operating expenses, V is gross value of property, D is depreciation, and r is the rate of return, was identified as the framework for determining just rates.
At the heart of the matter was whether the ERC erred in not adopting the COA’s recommendations regarding operating expenses and the valuation of MERALCO’s rate base. The COA had questioned the inclusion of certain operating expenses, such as excessive employee benefits, and properties like the MERALCO Theater and Museum in the rate base. According to the COA, these costs should not be charged to consumers as they are not necessary for providing adequate electricity service.
The ERC, however, argued that the COA’s disallowances were based on principles inconsistent with the approved rate-making methodology. The ERC emphasized that for purposes of determining the utility’s rate base, the present or market value of its properties should be considered. In its decision, the Supreme Court agreed with the COA that consumers should not bear the burden of unnecessary expenses. The Court directed the ERC to establish parameters for determining which expenses can be passed on to consumers.
Building on this principle, the Court addressed the valuation of MERALCO’s regulatory asset base, emphasizing the “least cost manner” standard mandated by the Electric Power Industry Reform Act of 2001 (EPIRA). Section 23 of EPIRA obligates distribution utilities to supply electricity in the least costly way possible. This requires a prudent and reasonable approach to economic costs, promoting efficiency and preventing excessive charges to consumers. The Court found that the ERC’s adoption of current or replacement cost valuation violated this statutory mandate.
The Court reviewed different valuation methods, including historical cost, present cost, and reproduction cost theories. It also examined the shift from the Return on Rate Base (RORB) to the Performance-Based Regulation (PBR) methodology. The PBR methodology, which forecasts costs and expenses, aims to incentivize utilities to be more efficient and reliable. Despite these modern methodologies, the Court stressed that under both RORB and PBR, the rate base should be revalued based on current or replacement costs, optimized over a specified planning horizon.
The Supreme Court referenced international practices and past decisions to illustrate the complexities of asset valuation. The Court cited Republic of the Philippines v. Medina, emphasizing that the present or market value theory aligns with consistent jurisdictional practices. The Court also discussed the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Federal Power Commission v. Hope Natural Gas Co., which underscored that the result, not the method, is controlling in rate-making. The Court noted that while the U.S. has largely moved towards historical cost valuation, Europe employs both historical and current cost methodologies.
This decision carries significant implications for electricity consumers. The Court’s ruling emphasizes the need for a balanced approach to asset valuation, ensuring that rates are fair and reasonable. The directive to the ERC to determine parameters for allowable expenses aims to prevent consumers from being charged for costs that are not directly related to electricity distribution. By prioritizing the “least cost manner” standard, the Supreme Court seeks to protect consumers from excessive charges and promote efficiency in the electricity sector.
FAQs
| What was the key issue in this case? | The key issue was whether the ERC properly considered COA’s findings in approving MERALCO’s electricity rates and whether the rates were determined in the “least cost manner” as required by law. |
| What did the Supreme Court decide? | The Supreme Court partially granted the petition, voiding the ERC’s adoption of current or replacement costs for valuing MERALCO’s assets and remanding the case to the ERC for further determination. |
| What is the “least cost manner” standard? | The “least cost manner” standard, mandated by EPIRA, requires distribution utilities to supply electricity to consumers at the lowest possible cost, promoting efficiency and preventing excessive charges. |
| What is the role of the COA in this case? | The COA is authorized to audit the books and records of public utilities like MERALCO to ensure that the rates charged to consumers are fair and reasonable, based on prudent and necessary costs. |
| What is the difference between RORB and PBR methodologies? | RORB (Return on Rate Base) uses historical cost base, while PBR (Performance-Based Regulation) uses a forward forecast of costs over a regulatory period to set rates. |
| What is the significance of asset valuation in rate-setting? | Asset valuation determines the rate base, which is the value of the property that a utility is entitled to earn a return on. Fair valuation ensures that rates are neither confiscatory nor excessive. |
| What types of expenses were questioned in this case? | Expenses such as employee pensions, benefits, and properties like the MERALCO Theater and Museum were questioned as to whether they should be included in the costs charged to consumers. |
| What are the next steps following this decision? | The case is remanded to the ERC, which must re-evaluate MERALCO’s asset base and determine which expenses can be passed on to consumers, ensuring compliance with the “least cost manner” standard. |
In conclusion, the Supreme Court’s decision emphasizes the importance of fair and reasonable electricity rates, protecting consumers from excessive charges. By mandating a re-evaluation of MERALCO’s asset valuation and expenses, the Court seeks to ensure that electricity is provided in the “least cost manner.” This ruling serves as a reminder to regulatory bodies and public utilities of their responsibility to balance investor interests with the need to protect consumers from unfair and excessive rates.
For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.
Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF ELECTRICITY CONSUMERS FOR REFORMS, INC. vs. ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION, G.R. No. 226443, October 08, 2019