Pages

Showing posts with label electric power reform. Show all posts
Showing posts with label electric power reform. Show all posts

Tuesday, April 28, 2009

Dangerously tweaking the EPIRA

The Senate might be treading on tenuous, dangerous grounds when it approved yesterday on third and final reading proposed revisions to Republic Act 9136 or the Electric Power Industry Reform Act (EPIRA).

On a vote of 16 to 3, the Senate passed Senate Bill 2121 which seeks to amend two important provisions of the EPIRA. These amendments are (1) scrapping the provisions that pass on to consumers stranded debts, or unpaid financial obligations; and so-called “stranded costs”; and (2) lowering the threshold percentage level of power assets privatization to 50% from the current 70%.

What are the possible ramifications of these amendments?

Stranded contract costs refer to the excess in contracted cost of electricity agreed on between an independent power producer and the National Power Corporation (NPC), the erstwhile operator of the transmission grid, over the actual selling price in the market of contracted energy. This can arise, for example, when NPC cannot sell the contracted amount of power due to some reasons such as low actual demand or prolonged breakdown in transmission facilities.

The stranded contract cost which applies to all distribution facilities was also scrapped “in order to reflect the true cost of power and avoid additional burden to consumers.”

In other words, according to Senate President Juan Ponce Enrile, if Napocor and the distribution utilities committed errors in contracting electricity costs, they will have to answer for their lapses in judgment. Let their economics be damned. Forget their target internal rate of return or cost of money.

If only the conditions were as simple as that.

Stranded costs are not the machinations of an evil mind. Big power projects have long gestation periods and entail huge capital outlay. For such a project to be viable, there has to be some guarantee that a portion of the output at least has an assured buyer even before the project proponents lays down the first cornerstone. The form could be either a “take-or-pay” provision or a guaranteed price and adjustments.

There are also technical limitations on the amount of power that can be generated. A 20-MW rated turbine running on geothermal steam could not be operated below a minimum output threshold. In a similar way, a high transmission line cannot carry a load below some limit.

During the previous opaque and monopolistic power regime of Napocor, such guarantees could be easily built in into the contract hammered under very amicable circumstances at the expense of the final consumers.

But even if there is no explicit passing on of the costs to the consumers, the generation costs would somehow appear as operating costs. Failure of the generating company to book such costs as expenses could spell the viability (or lack of it) of the project at the outset.

The amendment may dissuade would-be investors from putting up sorely needed additional capacity in the near future.

The other amendment—lowering the privatization threshold to 50%--could have far more dangerous implications. The rationale is that, with the lower threshold, the “open access regime” wherein big consumers can actually choose their source of power would immediately kick in. This is because the actual level of privatization has already been pegged at 57%.

The fatal downside is that Napocor will no longer have to sell its remaining power assets, and thus continue to exert dominance over electricity prices. This would also fell in the hands of the Napocor insiders who seem to be consciously delaying the privatization process for reasons we can only speculate. With this scenario, the open access would ring hollow.

For the investors who have already put up money on the basis of the original EPIRA provisions, they would have to adopt with increased difficulty should the bill be passed into law. Those who are waiting in the wings would have to go back to the drawing board and their financial spreadsheets and assess the changed circumstances. They might back out altogether.

Changing rules in midstream have been the bane of investors. This is why the various foreign chambers of commerce, which represent foreign investors, have been adamant about changing the rules of engagement in the din of battle.

The world economic order is already is disarray and highly uncertain. Investors would like to see some of the uncertainly addressed to by not changing the rules of the game.

Tweaking the EPIRA this time may not deliver the benefits the law is supposed to give. On the contrary, the results could be devastating to the industry and the country.

We just hope that our esteemed senators are actually concerned at the hapless consumers and not looking misty-eyed at the forthcoming 2010 elections.


Bookmark and Share

Tuesday, April 14, 2009

Electricity prices to go up again

Here we go again.

Expect to receive electric shock from your power bill starting as early as your next bill when the Energy Regulatory Commission has reportedly given the National Power Corporation (NPC) a go signal to increase its generation rates.

Reports said that the increase in NPC’s basic charge would be 46.82 centavos per kilowatt hour for Luzon, P1.15 /kwh for the Visayas and 71.47 centavos for Mindanao.

Part of that cost will be automatically passed on to the ultimate consumers. That’s you and me.

As usual, there will be howls of protest, and the electricity distributors like Meralco, VECO and Davao Light and Power would bear the brunt of consumer anger since these agencies are the one sending us the dreaded bills. For sure, inefficiencies of these distributors—not mentioning the poorly run electric cooperatives—add to the final bill and any improvement to their operations might help lower that.

But if you look closely at your Meralco (or VECO) bill, the generation cost eats up about 50 % of the total while the distribution cost accounts for about 25%. Any significant reduction to the power bill can only be realized if the generation component of the whole power train can be lowered.

It has been pointed time and again that the Philippines has the highest power generation cost in Asia and one of the highest in the world. Any effort at reducing power costs should start at dissecting the causes of high power generation costs.

As to be expected, the loudest reaction to the impending rate increases comes from the business community which is already reeling from the effects of the worldwide financial crisis which is fast becoming into a severe economic downturn.

The Philippine Chamber of Commerce and Industry together with most foreign chambers are in unison in its clamor for lower power rates to make their business globally competitive. Specifically, the business community wants something to be done about the extended value added tax (E-VAT) on power and the royalty on natural gas.

To be sure, our financial managers will be reluctant to roll back the E-VAT rates as the fund generated from this measure has generally kept up the country afloat in the midst of crisis. Tinkering of the E-VAT would have more damaging effects financially in the long run. Value-added taxes are progressive; the more you consume, the more taxes you pay.

And if you reduce the E-VAT on power—who would prevent you from arguing that the taxes on basic telecommunications, water, basic goods, etc., should also be lowered? Think of the catastrophic consequences on basic services if government revenues are suddenly reduced.

Lest it would be misconstrued, this corner is against high and unreasonable taxes. But putting the blame mainly on E-VAT for power sidesteps the issue. The main issue is the inherent cause of generating power here is just too high.

Yes, the royalty tax on natural gas should go. This would be in line with the practice of many countries to encourage the development of their own natural resources. Don’t also forget the various local taxes (the LGU share for example) that add up to cost. What about realty taxes which could add up to millions?

But what really holds up the power generation cost is the uncompetitive industry structure we still have. Despite the EPIRA, the government through the NPC still controls some 70% of generation.

It also helps if our planners understand why out neighbours like Vietnam, China and Malaysia could generate power at a fraction of the cost we need.

We have passed the Renewable Energy Law which ought to foster more investment in the power sector—but where is the set of implementing rules and regulations to guide investors?

To really foster real competition, the government through the Power Sector Assets and Liabilities Management Corporation (PSALM) should fast-track the privatization of power assets. With the given conditions of its remaining power assets like the coal and geothermal power plants, PSALM should not expect investors to bid on them at the price PSALM wants. It can even do away with an unreasonable base price and just let the market dictates the price of these assets.

Disposing of these assets now at a “loss” may in fact augur well for the country moving forward.

And, who knows, the price of power generation might actually come down due to the natural market forces.



Bookmark and Share

Saturday, June 7, 2008

Flogging the country

By J R Ruaya

It can't be!

The almost surreal scene could have come straight from a scary movie wherein our supposedly esteemed senators took turns in exorcising the foreign demons during a hearing on the supposed intervention of the Joint Foreign Chambers (JFC) on the legislative processes of the country. The JFC had been invited appear before the Senate after it has written to president Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo regarding its concerns on the moves of the legislative chamber to amend the EPIRA, the electric power reform act.

Led by veteran legislator Juan Ponce-Enrile, the senators take turns at lashing out at Hubert D'Aboville, president of the European Chamber of Commerce of the Philippines, who appeared as the spokesman of the JFC, for "intrusion into the domain of policy" of the Philippines.

Every time, D'Aboville tried to read the statement of the JFC, Enrile cut him off, insisting that he name the “legislators” the foreign business group, in their letter to Arroyo, said had made “unwarranted accusations against bedrock principles accepted in progressive countries around the world.”

This time, Enrile may have outdone Miriam Defensor-Santiago, chair of the senate energy committee, in spewing out tetrodoxin to perceived trespassers into their domain. She merely lectured the Frenchman on legislative processes and pointblankly told him when to and not to speak. She said later that the hearing injected a "sense of modesty" among the JFC members.

Enrile even dared foreign investors to leave the country if they do not respect its institutions.

“You may be a Frenchman, but you cannot outthink a Filipino,” the angry senator told D'Aboville.

To which D'Aboville replied: “I know sir. My wife is a Filipina. I live it on a daily basis.”

Pity the poor Frenchman. His wife would have made profuse apologies in behalf of her elected legislators. I myself, would like to hide under the mattress due to shame for what the senators did and said to the JFC members.

The crucifixion of the Frenchman is indicative of how we treat our guest-investors in this country. Those that are here are thinking of relocating to more pleasant environments, and those that are still looking in are having second thoughts. Those who have already left may have sighed a relief.

The list of those who have left for various reasons including our inhospitable environment is too long, and is growing longer by day. In the energy sector, the latest to bail out was Saudi Aramco. Prior to that, there was Union Fenosa, CalEnergy, Mirant, Reykjavik Energy Invest. Parcel delivery giants UPS and FedEx are moving out or drastically scaling down their operations. The less unlucky like Hanjin, ZTE, IMPSA, Fraport, etc. have already been condemned to hell.

After the bruising hearing, D'Aboville, ever the courteous Frenchman-guest, put up a brave face, even telling reporters that, as far as he is concerned, what he went through wouldn't affect foreign investments in the country. He did point out that Vietnam received $15-billion foreign investments compared to the Philippines' paltry $2.5 billion last year.

Those foreign investors that didn't speak merely voted with their feet.

All this time we proclaim we need them.

Oh, my, these senators are continually flogging this country.