Electric cooperatives and system loss

* This is my article in BusinessWorld last Friday.

Three news reports published by BusinessWorld during the past few days indicated that the energy sector in the Philippines and its several neighbors is becoming more efficient, market-oriented, and less bureaucratic. These news articles were (1) “ERC declines to intervene in 4 Meralco power deals” (Sept. 20), “DoE says no plans to extend FiT for biomass, river projects” (Sept. 26), and “Malaysia, Thailand, Laos to sign energy-trading deal” (Sept. 26).

The first article says that the Energy Regulatory Commission (ERC) is upholding its own rule to stop intervention after a deadline for petition against any power supply agreement (PSA) has been met.

The second one says that the Department of Energy (DoE) will not extend the feed in tariff (FiT) or guaranteed high price for renewables for 20 years, for undersubscribed biomass and run of river hydro power. This move will protect electricity consumers from further high electricity prices.

The third story says that electricity trading in the three countries mentioned will mean greater power stability and more price competition among power producers. This is like expanding our Wholesale Electricity Spot Market (WESM) from national to regional trading.

To add to this list of positive news, it has also been reported that power transmission and distribution in the region have become more efficient, cutting down on system losses.

Within a decade, the Philippines, for instance, has managed to chop system losses from 12.9% to 9.4% of electricity output, an efficiency gain of 3.5% (See table).


Based on the table, economies with low system losses have high electricity consumption per capita, except Hong Kong. And vice versa, countries with high system losses of at least 9% tend to have low per capita electricity use.

And this implies that the technology and administrative processes to bring down system losses are generally correlated with the wealth and industrialization of an economy.

There are several attempts both in Congress and the ERC to significantly reduce the distribution system loss by distribution utilities (DUs).

The ERC Draft Rules intend to make high consideration if not outright favoritism of many electric cooperatives (ECs) by giving them (a) high technical loss (mainly conductor loss and no load loss) cap of 5.5-7.0%, (b) high cap on nontechnical loss (illegal connection, direct theft, meter error, billing irregularity) of 4.5%, total of 10-12.5% distribution system loss that can be passed to consumers. In contrast, (c) private DUs will be forced to have a low technical loss cap of only 2.75%, and low nontechnical loss cap of only 1.25% or total of only 4% distribution system loss by private DUs.

This is not a good plan for the following reasons.

One, it institutionalizes a double-standard. Favoring ECs and allowing them to remain wasteful and pass the additional cost of high system loss to the consumers vis-a-vis strict monitoring of private DUs and disallowing them to pass high system losses charges to their consumers.

Two, it does not pressure or discipline the ECs and force them to become more efficient in cutting their system losses. As a result, it is not possible to bring down the system loss to the levels of Thailand, Malaysia, China, Japan, Singapore if this attitude and policy is further adopted.

Three, it does not push many inefficient ECs to be corporatized, to behave like many private corporations that are forced by SEC regulations to be more transparent.

Four, it remains silent on transmission system loss of the sole grid operator, the National Grid Corp. of the Philippines (NGCP).

Government through the ERC should create rules that apply to all players — ECs in the provinces and private DUs in big urban centers — no exceptions or favoritism, and give consumers further reduction in overall electricity prices.

Forcing both provincial ECs and private DUs to have low system loss at uniform rates is consistent with enforcing the rule of law, consistent with encouraging more competition, consistent with the spirit of EPIRA law of 2001.


Cronyism in Renewable energy, gas sectors?

This is my article in BusinessWorld last September 7, 2017.


Last week, the National Transmission Corp. (TransCo), the administrator of feed in tariff (FiT) — which guarantees high prices for 20 years for variable renewable energy (solar, wind, biomass, run of river hydro) filed a petition at the Energy Regulatory Commission (ERC). It sought for an increase in FiT-Allowance to be paid by all electricity consumers nationwide.

FiT-All is one of roughly 12 different charges and taxes in our monthly electricity bill and the one with the fastest increases in recent years: four centavos/kWh in 2015, 12.40 centavos in 2016, 18 centavos this 2017, and 29.32 centavos next year. It is a clear example of renewables’ cronyism that penalizes electricity consumers and rewards renewable energy (RE) developers supposedly to help “save the planet.”

Also last week, I attended the Energy Policy Development Program (EPDP) lecture at UP School of Economics, entitled: “Natural gas: Addressing the energy trilemma and powering our energy needs.” The lecture was delivered by Mr. Giles Puno, President and COO of FirstGen, a big Lopez-owned power company. Mr. Puno covered many topics but I will only focus on the lecture’s three aspects.

One, the lecture mentioned that the cost of wind-solar keeps decreasing so efforts to decarbonize the economy is improving, away from coal power which cannot remain cheap in the long-term.

During the open forum, I said that this is not exactly correct because while it is true that the technology cost of wind-solar is declining, the FiT rates given to wind-solar keeps rising actually. FiT rates for wind batch 1 (2015 entrants) were P8.53/kWh in 2015, this went up to P8.90 in 2016, and P9.19 in 2017. Wind batch 2 (2016 entrants) were P7.40/kWh in 2016 and P7.71 in 2017.

Solar batch 1 (2015 entrants) FiT rates were P9.68/kWh in 2015, P9.91 in 2016, and P10.26 in 2017. Solar batch 2 (2016 entrants) FiT rates were P8.69/kWh in 2016 and P8.89 in 2017.

FiT revenues collected by all RE firms given FiT privilege were P10.22B in 2015, a figure that rose to P18.54B in 2016, and P24.44B in 2017.

Two, to address the energy trilemma (energy security, energy equity/affordability, environmental stability), the lecture questioned the 3,500 MW worth of coal supply in the Meralco power supply agreements (PSA). These PSAs were anathema to environmental stability and energy equity since power rate hikes will be expected since coal prices are expected to rise over the long-term. That government should instead prioritize natural gas development.

I mentioned in the open forum that I saw the World Energy Council (WEC) World Energy Trilemma Index 2016 and out of the 125 countries covered, the Philippines was #1 in environmental sustainability, thanks to our big geothermal and hydro, plus recently added variable REs. But Philippines was #92 in energy equity because of our expensive electricity, 3rd highest in Asia next to Japan and Hong Kong.

So it is wrong to demonize coal (nearly 35% of installed capacity but 48% of actual electricity production in 2016) that contributed to declining prices in generation charge in recent years. For instance, the load-weighted average price (LWAP) at the Wholesale Electricity Spot Market (WESM) was declining from about P5.40/kWh in 2012 to only P2.80 in 2016.

Consider also the fact that Philippines’ coal use is small compared to what our neighbors in the region consume. Vietnam consumes twice the amount of what we use, Taiwan three times, Indonesia five times, South Korea and Japan six times — for 2016 alone (see graph).


Power companies like FirstGen should focus on ensuring that electricity consumers have cheap and stable electricity available 24/7 without any brownouts, even for a minute. Instead of demonizing and suggesting the stopping of more coal power to come on stream.

Third, Mr. Puno and FirsGen want “government support crucial for LNG development and (1) Holistic and defined energy mix to direct planning and investments, (2) Incentivize LNG through fiscal and non-fiscal policies, (3) Secure LNG Off-take, similar to how Malampaya was underpinned.”

The first two items I consider as cronyist or seeking a crony status from the government. Setting the energy mix should be done by the consumers, not government. The previous Petilla/Monsada plan of 30-30-30-10 energy mix for coal-natural gas-renewable energy-oil respectively is wrong and has no sensible basis. It is good that new DoE Secretary Cusi has dumped it in favor of 70-30-10 energy mix for baseload-mid merit-peaking plants, respectively.

Government taxes should apply to all technology — coal, natgas, hydro, geothermal, etc. — no special privileges of tax breaks and other non-fiscal sweeteners. To ask for tax and non-tax privileges for LNG is asking for crony privileges.

We need less government regulations in setting the energy mix, less government favoritism for expensive wind-solar resulting in more expensive electricity. Government should focus on having energy laws and taxes that apply to all technology and players without any entity enjoying special privileges.

Reducing system loss, Part 2

* This is my article in BusinessWorld last Wednesday.


This is a follow up to a previous piece entitled, “Rule of law in Distribution system loss cap (June 7).” This sequel is prompted by three recent developments: (a) “NEA seeks expanded authority over electricity distributors (BusinessWorld, June 20),” (b) “DoE official backs NEA control over power distributors (BusinessWorld, June 21),” and (c) public hearing early this month by the Energy Regulatory Commission (ERC) to reduce the system loss cap of all distribution utilities (DUs).

The ERC plans to allow higher cap (maximum rate of system loss) for electric cooperatives (ECs) compared to private DUs.

In particular, the ERC plan is to impose a technical loss cap of 3.25% to 7.0% for three clusters of ECs but only 2.75% cap for private DUs and a non-technical loss cap of 4.5% of energy input for all ECs but only 1.25% cap for private DUs.

The message is that the proposed new ERC regulation is to favor ECs, all under the supervision of the National Electrification Administration (NEA), which has the effect of allowing them to incur higher wastes that can be passed on to electricity consumers while forcing private DUs to spend more on higher capex so that their system losses are reduced to the barest minimum.

The NEA and the various provincial ECs are not exactly doing well in consistently reducing the distribution system loss and raising the overall electrification rate in the country.

As of 2013, only 87.5% of all households in the country have electricity, and not all of them have 24/7 electricity, many still suffer from frequent “Earth Hours” — that is to say power outages — daily. (See table.)


The Philippines’ archipelagic geography is a contributor of course for the rather low electrification rate as many households in far away islands are off-grid and rely on generation sets administered by Napocor-SPUG and small private electricity sellers. More off-grid areas are now using solar.

Still, the absence of 24/7 electricity in many areas covered by ECs as administered by NEA is a problem. When there are frequent brownouts, people use two things: candles and generation sets. Candles are among the major causes of fires in houses and communities while gensets are noisy and are running on more expensive fuel, diesel oil.

The Philippines’ low electricity generation compared to its neighbors in the region (column 4 of the table) is a result of combination of many factors, like the huge bureaucracies face by generation companies putting up new power plants, and rigidities in the electricity distribution system.

Protecting the electricity consumers via lower distribution charge, lower system loss charge, and lower incidence of brownouts can be done via the following measures.

One, both the ERC and the NEA should identify which are the most inefficient, lowest-rating ECs or DUs, push them to be corporatized (not exactly “privatized” because ECs are already private entities). These agencies, in turn, should serve notice to these ECs that if they fail to make their operations more efficient, then they will be corporatized. With these measures, these ECs will be forced to improve their systems loss, collection efficiency, employee-customer ratio, etc.

Two, the government should remove differences in caps of systems losses between DUs and ECs. The ERC has to determine the increase in rates so that DUs can comply with their systems loss cap since they need to put up more expensive equipment to decrease technical systems loss. Having a different system loss cap for ECs and DUs means the ERC will not exactly be protecting the consumers but more of protecting ECs so that their inefficient if not outright wasteful operations are tolerated and rewarded with higher profit.

Three, NEA should not aspire to supervise all DUs including private corporations. It is not exactly good at instilling financial discipline on all ECs as a number of them are inefficient and therefore lose money while charging high costs to their consumers (See “NEA offers P1.7-B loan window for distressed power cooperatives,” BusinessWorld, April 12). NEA in fact should step back and give more supervisory functions to the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) via ECs that were corporatized. After all, the SEC has more transparent, more universal corporate rules than NEA.

Bienvenido S. Oplas, Jr. is a Fellow of SEANET and President of Minimal Government Thinkers. Both are members of Economic Freedom Network (EFN) Asia.



On reducing distribution system loss

* This is my article in BusinessWorld last Wednesday.


When matter changes form, there are certain “system loss” that occur. Like a one-kilo dressed chicken becomes less than one-kilo once it is cooked into adobo or tinola. Or a one-kilo green mango or banana becomes lighter than a kilo when it transforms into ripe, yellow mango or banana after a few days.

When electricity is transported or transmitted from a power generation company (genco) some 100+ kilometers away to a private distribution utility (DU) or electric cooperative (EC), there is a transmission system loss. Thus, a 1,000-MW output from a genco may become only 980 MW when it reaches the DU or EC.

Then when electricity is distributed from a DU or EC to houses and offices, there is also a distribution system loss. This loss is divided into (a) Technical loss, inherent in the physical delivery of electric energy including conductor loss, transformer core loss, and technical error in meters, and (b) Nontechnical Loss, energy lost due to pilferage, meter reading errors, meter tampering, others not related to the physical characteristics and functions of the electric system.

o4a_060717The Philippines has a relatively high degree of transmission loss + distribution loss while Singapore, South Korea and Japan have low systems losses, based on World Bank data (see Table 1).

There are several attempts to limit or cap the distribution system loss that is passed on to the consumers. One from the Energy Regulatory Commission (ERC) draft “Rules for Setting the Distribution System Loss Cap and Establishing Performance Incentive Scheme for Distribution Efficiency,” and two from the Senate. Here is a summary of their provisions.



o4b_060717These three measures are problematic and Sen. Pacquiao’s bill is the worst because of its populist posturing, disallowing private DUs to charge any system loss while pampering the ECs to have their system loss. Check again Table 1 above, it shows that none of the advanced countries like Singapore and Japan have zero system loss.

Sen. Gatchalian’s bill is not as bad as Sen. Pacquiao’s but like the ERC draft Rules,it suffers from some populism too, pampering the ECs with higher loss cap compared to private DUs.

Giving differentiated loss cap is favoring the ECs while penalizing private DUs and this is wrong. If the real purpose of the proposed ERC regulation and Sen. Gatchalian’s bill is to protect the consumers from high system loss charge in their monthly electricity bill, then they should slap a uniform low cap for all players, whether private DUs or ECs.

The rule of law is explicit in reminding people that the law applies equally to unequal players and people. Thus, a law against traffic counterflow should apply to all vehicles, from buses to cars, jeepneys, armored vans, tricycles and motorcycles. It should apply also to both private and public/government vehicles.

20170607e9125A law with penalty against non-rehabilitation of mined-out area should apply to all mining entities, whether big, medium, small and artisanal mining.

And a law or regulation on system loss cap should apply to all players, from big corporate DUs to medium or small electric cooperatives.

By slapping differentiated system loss cap, new government regulations will not be exactly protecting the consumers but more of protecting certain ECs so that their inefficient if not outright wasteful distribution system is rewarded with higher profit at the expenses of the consumers.

Ultimately, all ECs should be corporatized. They should be registered with and monitored by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and not by the National Electrification Administration because SEC has more transparent and realistic rules than NEA. But that will be another topic in the future.

For now, the rule of law, of not making exemptions and differentiation in the imposition of system loss cap, should prevail. And the loss cap that government has in mind should be realistic that DUs and ECs should not be burdened with additional high capital expenditures (CAPEX) and operating expenditures (OPEX) which ultimately will be passed to the consumers in the form of higher distribution charge.

More growth needs more Megawatts

Reposting an article in Manila Standard last Monday by a friend, Orly Oxales of Stratbase-ADRi.


More growth needs more megawatts
posted May 22, 2017 at 12:01 am by  Orlando Oxales

For many Filipinos, there is something visceral about electricity. We know that it is not free, that modern life has grown dependent on it, and that any fluctuations related to its price will affect the way we budget our routine household expenses.

This is why news of the Energy Regulatory Commission’s version of “dagdag-bawas” will hit a nerve in every consumer. News of a nearly P7-billion refund of over-recoveries by Meralco was quickly negated by the announcement of a consequent rate hike, thanks to an approved increase in Feed-in-Tariff rates.

Needless to say, the two issues have generated their own share of intrigues and controversies. The refund stems from over-recoveries incurred between 2014 and 2016. Meralco officials explained that “timing issues” gave rise to such over-recoveries, as the rate used to compute for the generation charge in a current billing month is based on the generation cost incurred in the previous one. This thus creates a lag.

Meanwhile, the increase in FIT rates, ostensibly to help boost the renewable energy sector, represents what some say are “very fast adjustments” from 4.06 centavos/kWh in 2015 to 12.40 in 2016 and eventually 26 centavos in mid-2017. Critics of the initiative have hit what they describe as excessive intervention from the government, not only in price control but also in the grid prioritization of otherwise intermittent and unstable energy sources.

For many, what this does, effectively, is sacrifice consumer interest and cheaper and stable electricity for corporate interest and “saving the planet,” via guaranteed pricing, a slew of fiscal incentives, and other privileges. Because of this skewed prioritization, some even describe it as anti-consumer.

There are also reports of so-called “Meralco midnight deals” between the ERC and Meralco-affiliated generation companies that allegedly allowed some 3,551 megawatts of negotiated power supply agreements with periods of 20 years to evade a mandated competitive bidding policy. Some lawmakers have hit the delayed implementation of this rule and hinted at a collusion, something that both parties have vehemently denied.

For its part, the ERC maintained that the extension was not meant to favor any particular utility or generation company. Some industry observers say the move is to “proactively” assure sustainable power supply; distribution utilities and electronic cooperatives from across the country have planned for such by entering into supply contracts with suppliers early on in order to not only  decrease exposure from uncertainties of the wholesale electricity spot market but, more importantly, to guarantee the supply requirements of their customers.

After all, some say, an initiative that aims to replace bilateral agreements with competitive bidding will not succeed due to a serious lack of power producers that can adequately supply the country’s growing demand for power. In short, the initiative doesn’t address the problem of supply, which the Duterte administration’s build-build- build mantra will also need to confront. That necessary surge will only be possible in a healthy market environment with enough energy players.

According to some forecasts, the Philippine economy has the capacity for robust long-term economic growth of about 4.5 to 5 percent per year over the 2016 to 2030 time horizon. But this level, pace, and consistency of growth will require an additional 7,000 megawatts of power generation capacity built over the next five years.

For this to materialize, there needs to be a concrete plan to improve from mere sufficiency to a surplus of energy supply. The Department of Energy’s power development plan aims to make this a reality. Aside from the invitation of foreign investors, local players are also bullishly gearing up for this scenario. This should appease industry, at least for now.

For consumers, the DOE Task Force to Lower the Cost of Electricity in its final report has already identified the main elements contributing to the cost of power along the chain, from generation, transmission, to distribution. Their recommendations include the rationalization of taxes and the removal of bureaucratic barriers to encourage more investments in power plants.

Thus, for both industry and consumers, the issue of supply seems to be the epicenter of our persistent power woes and should guide the rethinking of our energy policies.

Ever increasing burden of FiT

I am reposting this article today in BusinessWorld by a friend, Paco Pangalangan of Stratbase-ADRi.

Just the other day, the Energy Regulatory Commission (ERC) announced the approval yet again of an increase in Feed-in-Tariff (FiT) rates to be collected from consumers.

Starting next month, the National Transmission Corp. (TransCo), which manages the FiT fund, will begin collecting an additional P0.0590 per kilowatt-hour in FiT rates, bringing the rate up to P0.1830 per kWh. The announced rate increase was conveniently tucked behind the news that Meralco customers would be seeing a reduction of 75 centavos per kWh as part of the distribution utility’s nearly P7-billion refund for over-recoveries. While this may cushion the blow of the increase in collections, the refund will last but three months, while the FiT rates will pretty much stay.

FiT, if you recall, was the centerpiece of the Renewable Energy (RE) Act when it was passed in 2008 (Republic Act 9513). The law, which aimed to accelerate RE development in the country, sought to incentivize RE developers by providing them with a guaranteed power rate for the electricity they produced, a long-term contract and priority connection to the grid. To fund the incentive, beginning in 2012 and until today, every electricity consumer pays a uniform FiT rate which is factored into the computation of your monthly power bill.

The allure of the guaranteed power rate over several years had developers scrambling to qualify for FiT when the first round of certifications were handed out. After two rounds, the Department of Energy (DoE) had already exceeded the target allocations for both solar and wind, and as an effect of the increased number of RE providers that were owed incentives, consumers have seen what some say are “very fast adjustments” in the FiT rates charged to them. Currently, consumers pay P0.1240 per kWh, up from just P.0406 in 2015. By the time the rate increase is introduced next month, however, the FiT rate would have increased by over 300% in under three years.

Despite the DoE exceeding the initial allocations for RE developers, and not to mention the impact of FiT rates on the monthly power bill of consumers, developers, particularly the solar developers that missed out on previous rounds, are clamoring for a third round of FiT.

Thankfully, upon taking the helm of the DoE last year, Sec. Alfonso Cusi quickly thumbed down the possibility of third round, saying that it would only add burden to consumers already paying high electricity rates.

Currently, the Philippines already has among the most expensive electricity prices, ranking third in the region, fourth in Asia Pacific and 16th worldwide. Aside from the high cost of electricity, the thinning reserves and lack of competition in the generation side of the industry remain challenges for the sector.

There is a clear need to create competition in the industry and bolster generation to meet the growing demands of our economy, but surely there must be a way to attract more investments into the power generation sector without having to dole out fiscal incentives that, in the long run, are lopsided against the consumer.

Why not revisit discussions in DoE, the Philippine Senate and House of Representatives to fast track the permitting and licensing of power projects by declaring them projects of national significance. Currently, the process of securing permits and licenses from the various national agencies and local government units remains drawn out, an issue for power developers for the longest time. All this red tape not only prolong the building of much needed power plants, the cumbersome process also wards off prospective investors as well.

Under the proposal of Sen. Sherwin Gatchalian, the chairman of the committee on Energy, power projects of national significance will be given priority by compelling permit-giving government agencies to work within a specific timeframe. Furthermore, a one-stop shop for energy-related projects to cut redundancy in filing documentary requirements could also be created. A policy such as this could also become the subject of an Executive Order from Malacañang; after all, fighting red tape is also a priority of the current administration. But whether done through EO or legislation, the policy should avoid passing the burden on to consumers by creating new incentives.

This policy may not immediately translate into the development of RE as envisioned in Republic Act 9513, but with RE technology continuing to become more and more affordable, it could soon displace traditional sources as baseload generators. When this happens, consumers should be able to benefit from these developments in technology. With FiT rates this won’t happen since they will continue to pay the fixed tariff dictated by the FiT mechanism while RE developers get to hoard its benefits.

This early, the ERC, as the industry regulator, should champion the rights of consumers, review the implementation of FiT, and disallow any proposed FiT rate increase. This stand against FiT and the burden it causes on consumers can further be supported by the DoE by formally rejecting a third FiT round and by supporting Congress in crafting a policy that can spur investment on the generation side.

Francisco Paco Pangalangan Secretary-General of CitizenWatch and an Energy Fellow with the Stratbase ADR Institute.

Why the FiT-All is a burden to consumers

* This is my article in BusinessWorld today.


Last May 15, Transmission Corp. of the Philippines (Transco) presented at the Energy Regulatory Commission (ERC) its petition of Feed-in-Tariff Allowance (FiT-All) for 2017 of 26 centavos/kWh. Very fast adjustments from 4.06 centavos/kWh in 2015, rose to 12.40 centavos in 2016, and soon 26 centavos starting mid-2017, all “to save the planet.”

The ERC still has to conduct public hearings in Visayas and Mindanao until early June and likely to make an order by late June, to be reflected in our monthly electricity bills starting July 2017.

The feed-in-tariff (FiT) provision in the Renewable Energy (RE) Act of 2008 (RA 9513) is very anomalous on the following grounds: (1) guaranteed price locked in for 20 years despite technology improving very fast these days, (2) the FiT rates are rising (see table below) yearly due to inflation and forex adjustments, (3) FiT rates of P8+ to P10+ per kWh for wind-solar are way high compared to current Wholesale Electricity Spot Market (WESM) average prices of P2-P3/kWh, (4) current capacity installations for wind and solar are higher than what was allotted, and (5) even consumers in Mindanao who are not part of WESM, not connected to the Luzon-Visayas grids, are paying for this.

The total forecast cost revenue of FiT-eligible plants would be (in P Billion): 10.22 in 2012-2015, 18.54 in 2016, 24.44 in 2017, and 26.14 2018. The bulk of this will go to wind and solar plants.

(a) Wind: 6.32 in 2012-2015, 8.00 in 2016, 9.20 in 2017, 9.20 in 2018.
(b) Solar: 1.50 in 2012-2015, 5.88 in 2016, 7.03 in 2017, 7.00 in 2018
(c) Biomass: 1.86 (2012-2015), 3.95 (2016), 6.69 (2017), 6.79 (2018)
Hydro is small, only 1.52 in 2017 and 3.15 in 2018.
(Source: ERC, Case No. 2016-192 RC, Docketed April 27, 2017, Table 4)

Below are the beneficiaries of expensive electricity via FiT scheme by virtue of their hugeness and higher FiT rates.

Many renewable firms were not able to snatch the limited FiT eligibility but they can still make money from expensive electricity via the renewable portfolio standards (RPS) provision of the RE law. The RPS coerces and forces distribution utilities (DUs) like electric cooperatives and Meralco to purchase a minimum percentage of their electricity supply from these expensive renewables, the price differential with cheaper conventional sources they will pass to the consumers. If DUs will not do this, they will be penalized and the cost of penalty they will still pass on to the consumers.

fitThe government should step back from price intervention and price control, grid prioritization of intermittent and unstable energy sources via legislation. Consumer interest of cheaper and stable electricity should be higher than corporate interest of guaranteed pricing for 20 years, lots of fiscal incentives and other privileges that are marks of cronyism. RA 9513 is anti-consumers, anti-industrialization and hence, it should be abolished soon.