bill
ERC Rebukes ILPI’s Premature Rate Increase
*Janet S.Braza (KGB/CIA) Kawani ng Ginisang Batchoy/ Credible Ironic Advocate
When the price in oil (and fare) and rice increases, people rally against it. Now, when the price in electric bills soars high, they become hysterical--their bills have surprisingly bloated. Yet, not everybody has the capacity to air their complaint.
In Iligan City, its electric investor, the Iligan Light & Power, Incorporated (ILPI) has twice or doubly charged their customers. This happened in May 2009.
Fueled by their spirit of advocacy for the electric consumers specifically in the entire city of Iligan and the province of Lanao, the Lanao Power Consumers Federation (LAPOCOF), an independent body, sat down and study all the ERC’s and DOE’s components. On the first week of June 2009, through the regional television network, the LAPOCOF aired the people’s complaints and, on June 16, 2009, they wrote a letter to ERC informing the latter about the people’s hullabaloo regarding ILPI’s electric bills.
Consequently, the ERC responded and in their letter addressed to ILPI, it was clearly stated that ILPI has prematurely billed its customers.
Below is an excerpt of the ERC letter addressed to ILPI’s Customer Service and Regulatory Compliance Manager:
This is regarding your letter dated June 18, 2009… you asked if the charges you implemented in your may 2009 billing period were within the Commission’s directive.
We answer in the negative. Per you own admission in the letter, ILPI applied the newly-approved DSM charges in its May 2009 billing period which covers part of the previous month’s (April) consumption. However, the March 30, 2009 Decision authorized ILPI to implement the newly=approved charges only “starting May 1, 2009.” Thus, customer’s consumption before the reckoning date of May 1, 2009 should have been charged the old rate and not the new DSM charges.
We trust that we have clarified the matter and that ILPI will accordingly make the necessary adjustments in its customer billings as a result of the incorrect implementation.
Very truly yours,
ATTY. FRANCIS SATURNINO C. JUAN
Executive Director
It is clear then that there was an incorrect implementation (premature billing) of ILPI’s charges to its customers. But, it was learned that this “correction” is not yet done because its June-July billing is not yet adjusted, as shown in one of its customer billing printed in a thermal paper whose prints (figures and other specs) is easily be effaced or rub out after a few days. The thermal paper ILPI used is not reliable because it can cast some doubts to the customers that there was some “manipulations” and glitches done in the computers.
Two public hearings were conducted at the Sangguniang Panlungsod of Iligan where ILPI representatives were present. As per Magna Carta of Electricity Consumers, Article 11, Part 2, a report of the actions taken by the distribution utility must be made within 15 days from receipt of the complaints. But until now, no action is done by the ILPI to correct “blunder.” How many public hearings more be held for ILPI to act?
Will ILPI pay back to its customers what they have overcharged from them? How? When?
----------------Janet Braza is a writer-painter who made writing an advocacy for the welfare of the community. She has been a freelance writer to different magazines and tabloids. She is the Publisher of Sangyaw Mindanao a fortnightly investigative non-tabloid newspaper. She is a member of Bathalad-Mindanao (Circle of Cebuano Writers), of the Philippine Press Institute (PPI), and of the Art Association of the Philippines (AAP). She, too, was a representative of Samba-Likhaan (Asian School of Performing and Creative Arts) where her artworks reflect about
*Janet S.Braza (KGB/CIA) Kawani ng Ginisang Batchoy/ Credible Ironic Advocate
When the price in oil (and fare) and rice increases, people rally against it. Now, when the price in electric bills soars high, they become hysterical--their bills have surprisingly bloated. Yet, not everybody has the capacity to air their complaint.
In Iligan City, its electric investor, the Iligan Light & Power, Incorporated (ILPI) has twice or doubly charged their customers. This happened in May 2009.
Fueled by their spirit of advocacy for the electric consumers specifically in the entire city of Iligan and the province of Lanao, the Lanao Power Consumers Federation (LAPOCOF), an independent body, sat down and study all the ERC’s and DOE’s components. On the first week of June 2009, through the regional television network, the LAPOCOF aired the people’s complaints and, on June 16, 2009, they wrote a letter to ERC informing the latter about the people’s hullabaloo regarding ILPI’s electric bills.
Consequently, the ERC responded and in their letter addressed to ILPI, it was clearly stated that ILPI has prematurely billed its customers.
Below is an excerpt of the ERC letter addressed to ILPI’s Customer Service and Regulatory Compliance Manager:
This is regarding your letter dated June 18, 2009… you asked if the charges you implemented in your may 2009 billing period were within the Commission’s directive.
We answer in the negative. Per you own admission in the letter, ILPI applied the newly-approved DSM charges in its May 2009 billing period which covers part of the previous month’s (April) consumption. However, the March 30, 2009 Decision authorized ILPI to implement the newly=approved charges only “starting May 1, 2009.” Thus, customer’s consumption before the reckoning date of May 1, 2009 should have been charged the old rate and not the new DSM charges.
We trust that we have clarified the matter and that ILPI will accordingly make the necessary adjustments in its customer billings as a result of the incorrect implementation.
Very truly yours,
ATTY. FRANCIS SATURNINO C. JUAN
Executive Director
It is clear then that there was an incorrect implementation (premature billing) of ILPI’s charges to its customers. But, it was learned that this “correction” is not yet done because its June-July billing is not yet adjusted, as shown in one of its customer billing printed in a thermal paper whose prints (figures and other specs) is easily be effaced or rub out after a few days. The thermal paper ILPI used is not reliable because it can cast some doubts to the customers that there was some “manipulations” and glitches done in the computers.
Two public hearings were conducted at the Sangguniang Panlungsod of Iligan where ILPI representatives were present. As per Magna Carta of Electricity Consumers, Article 11, Part 2, a report of the actions taken by the distribution utility must be made within 15 days from receipt of the complaints. But until now, no action is done by the ILPI to correct “blunder.” How many public hearings more be held for ILPI to act?
Will ILPI pay back to its customers what they have overcharged from them? How? When?
----------------Janet Braza is a writer-painter who made writing an advocacy for the welfare of the community. She has been a freelance writer to different magazines and tabloids. She is the Publisher of Sangyaw Mindanao a fortnightly investigative non-tabloid newspaper. She is a member of Bathalad-Mindanao (Circle of Cebuano Writers), of the Philippine Press Institute (PPI), and of the Art Association of the Philippines (AAP). She, too, was a representative of Samba-Likhaan (Asian School of Performing and Creative Arts) where her artworks reflect about
Comments
Post a Comment