By Herbert Vego
THE intermittent power outages that hit the entire district of Mandurriao and portions of Jaro, Iloilo City on Saturday night (10:00) until Sunday morning (08:48) naturally enraged the residents who vented their ire through the social media against either MORE Electric and Power Corp. (MORE Power) or Panay Electric Co. (PECO).
MORE Power is the city’s new power distribution franchisee, succeeding PECO whose legislative franchise expired on February 19, 2019.
PECO had applied for franchise renewal but was disapproved.
The 96-year-old former franchisee questioned the constitutionality of the law (RA 11212) awarding to MORE Power the next 25-year franchise.
No less than Mayor Jerry P. Treñas, in an interview over the radio program Tribuna sang Banwa on Aksyon Radyo last Sunday, revealed that his family had been awakened by the brownouts.
As hosts of the program, Neri Camiña and I told the mayor that MORE Power spokesman Jonathan Cabrera had aired his suspicion that some people might have sabotaged a feeder of the Mandurriao substation to whip up public indignation against the new distribution utility.
“If they already have any suspect,” Treñas told us, “let them seek the help of the NBI [National Bureau of Investigation] to probe the incident.”
Cabrera named no suspect. But assuming the sabotage angle to be true, who stands to benefit from the harmful act?
Second, how would harming the city residents benefit the saboteurs?
The mayor’s suggestion is of paramount importance because worse power outages could ensue unless the perpetrators fall.
As reported by this newspaper on Monday, MORE Power’s response team had discovered a “detached primarily line” as the initial cause of the brownout, followed by trip-offs caused by an overheated connector and two damaged suspension insulators.
The team found those simultaneous faults unusual and “mysterious”.
If truth be told, PECO relies merely on the assurance of its lawyers that the Supreme Court may yet render “unconstitutional” the expropriation by MORE Power of its facilities.
Assuming without admitting that to be tenable, PECO would still be unable to reclaim the facilities in the absence of franchise from Congress and certificate of public convenience and necessity (CPCN) from the Energy Regulatory Commission (ERC).
There is no sense in agitating two party-list representatives — Sonny Lagon of Ako Bisaya and Joseph Stephen Paduano of Abang Lingkod – to call for an investigation of the brownouts in Iloilo City.
As non-Ilonggos who have no first-hand knowledge of our city’s energy problems, why would these strangers be so “concerned”?
They seem to imply that they know better than the Iloilo City congresswoman, Julienne “Jam-jam” Baronda, who once delivered a privilege speech extolling the PECO-to-MORE change.
“Being a native of Iloilo City,” said Baronda, “I have seen the highs and lows of PECO’s service. I have seen and heard the Ilonggos’ lamentations. Ninety-six years is a long time and is more than enough opportunity to perfect one’s act.”
Congress had junked the application of PECO for renewal of franchise in response to 1800-plus complaints from dissatisfied consumers over erroneous billings, poor customer service, overcharging, fire-prone leaning poles, “spaghetti” wirings, wrong readings and power pilferages leading to system’s loss chargeable to paying subscribers.
It would, therefore, be irrational for party-list representatives Lagon and Paduano to expect the Energy Regulatory Commission (ERC) to demonize MORE Power because ERC knows that the new franchisee had merely taken over the dilapidated distribution system.
ERC knows that it is precisely because of that “inherited” defect that the new franchisee has set aside P1.8 billion for the upgrading of the five substations within three years, according to MORE Power’s President Roel Z. Castro.
Why would PECO wish its successor to fail?
There is a provision in the franchise law (RA 11212) which PECO probably hopes to turn into its advantage, Section 11, which deems MORE Power’s 25-year franchise “revoked in the event that the grantee fails to operate continuously for two years.”
That would allow PECO to re-apply for a new franchise.
But why would the House committee on legislative franchises even recycle what it had already junked?
