By Josua Mata, Sentro secretary general
The Energy Regulatory Commission (ERC) exists to protect electricity consumers. But who holds the regulator accountable when its own delays and decisions leave consumers questioning whether they have been paying more than they should?
Consider Meralco’s distribution rates. They went without a formal rate reset from 2011 until 2026 — a gap of more than a decade that the ERC itself has acknowledged. During this period, the regulatory process failed to deliver the regular review needed to ensure that rates reflected justified costs and reasonable returns.
The consequences demand scrutiny. In 2022, the ERC ordered Meralco to refund P21.77 billion covering excess collections over several years. In 2025, it authorized another refund scheme of nearly P20 billion for a subsequent period. Further refunds followed in 2026.
These orders demonstrate that over-collections have not been merely theoretical. They raise a fundamental question: Why did consumers have to wait years for these corrections, and what safeguards failed to prevent the accumulation of such substantial amounts?
Former ERC commissioner Alfredo Non’s computations estimate potential over-recoveries of P150 billion to P160 billion from 2012 to 2025. This estimate requires independent verification. But it deserves a comprehensive audit, not dismissal or piecemeal resolution.
The ERC has now approved a lower distribution rate than Meralco requested, cutting its proposed four-year revenue requirement by P190 billion, or 36 percent. That reduction is significant. But rejecting part of a utility’s application does not resolve questions about past collections or explain the years without a formal rate reset.
The ERC cannot be the final judge of its own performance. Its decisions, calculations and regulatory delays must be open to independent scrutiny. Consumers need an effective mechanism to challenge decisions, demand explanations and hold the commission accountable.
We need simpler rate-setting rules, transparent calculations, timely reviews and an independent oversight mechanism for the ERC itself. Refunds must be completed promptly, and any claims of further over-recoveries must be independently examined.
Ultimately, we must also reconsider the Electric Power Industry Reform Act (EPIRA). More than two decades after its enactment, persistent concerns about electricity prices, market concentration and regulatory accountability demand a fundamental reassessment of the framework.
A regulator entrusted with protecting the public must itself be accountable to the public. If consumers cannot scrutinize the watchdog, who protects them when the watchdog fails?