IN an effort to abort further losses by Casureco I that wallow with its managerial failures at the expense of member-consumers it has failed to protect, the Energy Regulatory Commission (ERC) in ERC Case No.2005-012 MC dated January 17, 2005 ordered the local power cooperative to answer in 15 days why no administrative and/or criminal sanctions should be filed against the Libmanan-based power cooperative.


The liability occurred when Casureco I charged its customers with zero consumption the amount using a 15kwh multiplier rather than a metering charge of P5.00 per meter every month in violation of Republic Act No. 9136, the ERB pointed out.

REVEALING STORIES
In the documents obtained by the Bicol Mail, the alleged irregular implementation by Casureco I of Unbundled Rates Pursuant to the Provisions of Republic Act No. 9136 was brought to the attention of the ERC by a certain Amado R. Gaor, member-consumer of the cooperative, on February 5, 2004, who happened to have 2 extension connections with zero balances.

Gaor, who claimed that his condition was shared by other customers, was charged P612.34 from October 2003 to April 2004 contrary to Electric Power Industry Reform Act (EPIRA LAW) of 2001which the ERC concurred.

He added that their problem now after the ERC order is to get refunds for they are afraid that the same thing may happen as in the case of the contributions totaling P3,043,130 asked of consumers when the electric cooperative proposed to register with CDA as full-fledged cooperative in 2002.

It was learned that the CDA proposal did not materialize and the money was not returned back to the consumers.

Meanwhile, even though those affected by the corrections made by the ERC were happy, they were likewise caught by surprise when the Commission directed respondent Casureco I to explain under oath “why no administrative penalty should be imposed upon it, and/or criminal action instituted against it for the aforesaid violation.”

They ask why should a government agency after finding a culprit ask him to give reasons why he should not be charged accordingly? And the nature of the infringement involves a Republic Act?

Noting disenchantment with public offices and their Casureco I management they openly suspect to be in cahoots with, a group of concerned citizens is foist to bring their grievance and the cooperative’s imbroglio to Malacañang, informed sources told the Bicol Mail.

TALE OF TAPES
In the June 9 issue of the Bicol Mail, it carried the irregularities of Casureco I uncovered by the NEA auditing team covering the cooperative’s operation from October 1, 1999 to March 31, 2004.

The cooperative was made to explain, justify and to provide action plans in connection with the NEA findings.

Casureco I gave the requirements without its board’s confirmation to the electrification administration, Dir. Veronica B. Cruz of the Electric Cooperative Audit Department explained.

She said that the justifications, explanations and action plans did not satisfy many of the audit recommendations.

Cruz stressed that the board of directors and the management of Casureco I should pay attention to the following: immediate cost-cutting measures should be instituted by the management and prudent use of fund must be exercised; subsidy fund received by the coop must be used only for its intended purposes; materials delivered to the coop without necessary documents must not be accepted otherwise person who received or authorized the receipt of materials must be held accountable; canvass/bidding from at least 3 suppliers must be conducted including the hiring of outside services as programmers; all board resolutions must have prior approval from NEA Central Office; the finance manager should learn to delegate the preparation of Bank Reconciliation Statements; all completed constructions with as- built staking sheets must be immediately closed to proper plant accounts; discrepancy of over P25 million in Consumers Accounts receivable must be immediately accounted for; granting of personal cash advances must be stopped; proper disciplinary action in accordance with the coop’s Code of Ethics must be meted out to employees incurring shortages/unremitted collections; management should request from NEA a licensed copy of the engineering analysis software; the coop should continue the inspection and verification multiplier being used by its industrial and commercial consumers; and, the activities to tackle the disconnected, dormant and reconnected accounts of the coop should have target dates.

As of presstime, Casureco I had scheduled at Gainza town on June 26, this year, a general membership meeting to approve a resolution for Casureco I to enter into an Investment Management Contract (IMC) which venture was covered by the Bicol Mail report last June 16 issue.

It might be recalled that the entry to an IMC is a last-ditch stand to save an electric cooperative, according to Castilla which was authorized by the Department of Energy to study losing coops in the country numbering 30.

In the actualization of the contract to last for ten years would require the removal of all officers in the coop except those of the board of directors, Castilla emphasized.