The Manila Electric Company (Meralco) dispelled reports that it allegedly overcharged customers by P7 billion in 2004 and 2007. 

Meralco President & COO Jose P. de Jesus said, “We maintain that we did not overcharge. Our unbundled rates were duly approved by the Energy Regulatory Commission (ERC) in 2003 after extensive evaluation by the commission of the property we use and the expenses we incur in providing electricity service.”  

Meralco Vice President and Utility Economics Head Ivanna de la Peña added that, “Only actual costs incurred and assets ‘used and useful’ in delivering service in the year 2000 were incorporated in the ERC-approved unbundled rates. The rates were not adjusted for any incremental costs/assets after 2000. Thus, none of these incremental costs were passed on to consumers.” Year 2000 was the test year for the rate unbundling applications of all distribution utilities

De la Peña  added, “So if we charged only those that had been allowed, how could we be accused of overcharging when we did not pass-on to our customers the so-called disallowed items in the first place?”

These statements were in reaction to an earlier Commission on Audit (COA) report claiming that the utility committed overcharging by including unnecessary expenses, property and equipment in its rate adjustment approved by the ERC in 2003.

The COA, in its report, stated that its findings were merely recommendatory to the ERC. The ERC remains the sole arbiter to decide on the issue. It will be recalled that the competence of the ERC to rule on these technical matters was upheld by the Supreme Court. 

Meralco President Jose de Jesus assured the public that the Meralco board of directors and its officials, both past and present, have always exercised prudence in their decisions, particularly with regard to those that directly affect customers. “Besides,” de Jesus added, “Meralco is a heavily regulated company, such that nothing gets implemented without the prior approval of the regulators.”

De Jesus also cautioned against premature judgment and speculations which could unduly raise consumer expectations for a refund.