CALABANGA, CSur – Peeved by the slow pace allegedly being accorded by concerned government agencies after winning the case against Camarines Sur II Electric Cooperative (Casureco II) for overcharged power bills, the Casureco II Consumers Movement, thru its president, Dr. Domingo C. Yu, last week wrote the Office of the Ombudsman in Quezon City to express its dismay over the delayed refund.

        It should be recalled that last June 8, 2005 acting on the complaint filed by Yu’s group, the Energy Regulatory Commission (ERC) in an en banc decision ordered the Naga City-based electric cooperative “to refund the amount of Twenty One Million Six Thousand Eight Hundred Fifty Eight Pesos and Ninety-Three Centavos (Php21,006,858.93) at the rate of Php0.112/kWh for fourteen (14) months or until such time that the full amount have been refunded to its customers, effective on the next billing cycle from receipt hereof.”

        Records of the case show that last March 2005, Casureco II requested the Energy Regulatory Commission to approve its application for power rate increase amounting to P0.25 per kWh for a period of 12 months “to recoup an under-recovery in generation cost amounting to P38,287,456.41 plus a carrying charge of P2,060,075.45” from September 2003 to October 2004.

        Upon evaluation, ERC discovered that instead of alleged under-recovery, Casureco II actually had an over-recovery of P21,006,858.93 which amount the ERC directed Casureco II the refund to its 80,000-strong member-consumers by deducting from their ensuing power bills the amount of P11.12 per kWh for 14 months.

        Casureco II, however, appealed the ERC decision.

        According to Yu, this is now the 20th month since the ERC order was handed down and the eventual motion for reconsideration filed by the power coop which stayed the decision for refund.

        With Casureco II’s pending unacted appeal, Yu said the power coop was in effect allowed “to immorally, illegally and unjustly retain about P1.5M per month as additional income” for the coop at the expense of the member-consumers.

        Yu lamented that such situation would be perpetuated for as long as the concerned government agency does not act with reasonable speed on the case that the power-consumers won.

        In November 2006, Yu wrote the Office of the Ombudsman to advise the ERC to immediately resolve the motion for reconsideration filed by Casureco II in order to pave the way for the refund.

        Still, the case dragged on, according to Yu, after the Ombudsman, thru Resident Ombudsman Cezar M. Tirol II, simply endorsed Yu’s letter to ERC Chairman Rodolfo Albano.

        Tirol said because it did not want to infringe on the independence of ERC as a quasi-judicial regulatory body because the matter is within the ambit of the ERC to act on.

        Section 41 of R.A. 9136 provides that “the ERC shall handle consumer complaints and ensure the adequate promotion of consumer interests.”