By Francis Allan L. Angelo
As the Iloilo Electric Cooperative II (Ileco II) grapples with its ongoing identity crisis and financial challenges, one can’t help but reflect on the broader implications of what it means to be a cooperative in today’s economic landscape.
Engulfed in a reality where financial stability is at odds with cooperative principles, Ileco II’s narrative is a sobering case study of the conundrum faced by many cooperative endeavors in the Philippines.
Founded with a mandate to serve its members, Ileco II’s journey from rural electrification pioneer to an infrastructure-focused entity highlights a shift in priorities necessitated by evolving demands. However, this shift has come with financial strings attached.
Operating under a cooperative label, Ileco II has been caught in a financial bind that is both paradoxical and precarious.
With a three-year capital expenditure budget set at a minimum of P200 million, the organization’s ambitious plans, including the activation and upgrading of substations and negotiating embedded solar power supplies, reflect a commitment to progress and modernization. Yet, such advancements come at a significant cost—one that the cooperative’s financial model, reliant on NEA’s backing, is ill-equipped to support in the long term without forsaking its cooperative ethos.
At the heart of Ileco II’s predicament lies the inability to issue dividends to its members—a cornerstone of cooperative identity. By not registering with the CDA and thereby not being a genuine cooperative, Ileco II sidesteps the capital buildup necessary for such disbursements, leaving it in a perpetual state of quasi-cooperativism. This stance not only impacts the cooperative’s financial flexibility but also raises questions about its accountability to member-consumers.
As Ileco II stands at a crossroads once more, asking its members to weigh in on its future direction, the choice presented is stark: remain under NEA’s supervision, with the associated financial support but limited autonomy, or transition to a CDA-registered cooperative, gaining independence at the risk of financial vulnerability.
This referendum is not simply about choosing a regulatory body. It is a decision about Ileco II’s core identity and the values it wishes to uphold. Should it decide to become a full-fledged cooperative, the organization must prepare to navigate a future where planning and sustainability will rely heavily on its own ingenuity and financial acumen, free from NEA’s subsidy but burdened with the responsibility of self-sufficiency.
The situation of Ileco II reflects a broader dialogue on the viability of cooperatives in the energy sector, where financial stability is often at odds with the participatory and distributive principles of cooperativism. As such, the cooperative’s decision will not only determine its trajectory but will also signal to other cooperatives the possible futures that await them.
In this regard, Ileco II’s quandary is more than a financial conundrum; it is a litmus test for the survival of cooperatives within an economic system that increasingly demands financial robustness while clinging to the ideal of member-centric governance.
***
The narrative of Ileco II mirrors the larger story of development and identity within the cooperative sector. The cooperative’s financial and managerial tightrope walk showcases the challenging balancing act between self-sufficiency and reliance on external support.
As Ileco II re-evaluates its direction—whether to remain tethered to the National Electrification Administration (NEA) or to assert full autonomy as a genuine cooperative under the Cooperative Development Authority (CDA)—a third path emerges, one less traversed but potentially transformative: the avenue of strategic joint ventures and partnerships.
This alternative route diverges from the binary choice of NEA dependency or solitary CDA empowerment. It hints at a synthesis of resources and expertise through collaboration with external entities. Joint ventures could provide Ileco II with capital infusion and technological innovation without the full relinquishment of NEA support or the risks of going it alone. Partnerships with private entities in renewable energy projects, for instance, could propel Ileco II towards sustainability and growth while maintaining its cooperative values.
Entering into strategic alliances could mitigate the financial pressures that have so far hindered Ileco II from distributing dividends to its members. Such collaborations could unlock new revenue streams and operational efficiencies, bridging the financial chasm that has expanded over decades. By leveraging private sector dynamism and public sector stability, Ileco II could create a robust model for infrastructure development that aligns with its cooperative principles.
This third way does not come without its complexities. It would require Ileco II to navigate the intricacies of partnership agreements, maintain a level of autonomy, and ensure that cooperative members’ interests remain at the forefront. The cooperative would need to tread carefully, establishing clear governance structures and ensuring these ventures align with the long-term vision of member-consumers.
As Ileco II ponders its future—NEA’s backing, CDA’s independence, or the innovative path of joint ventures—it stands at a pivotal moment that will define not only its destiny but also serve as a precedent for other cooperatives grappling with similar issues. This is an opportunity for Ileco II to model how a cooperative can maintain its ethos while embracing progressive business practices.
Ileco II’s quest for a sustainable future—one that serves its members and enables it to deliver on its mandate of providing reliable electricity—will undoubtedly be watched closely. The cooperative’s journey could either affirm the traditional cooperative model or redefine it, signaling a new era where cooperatives are not just participants but pioneers in their fields through inventive partnerships and collaborations.
The decision that lies before the members of Ileco II is not just about choosing a regulator or a registration status; it’s about setting the stage for what a modern, progressive cooperative can achieve in an era of financial constraints and boundless opportunities for innovation. Whatever path Ileco II chooses, it will indubitably carve a narrative that will inform the cooperative movement for years to come.
