ERC clarifies differential billing of utilities

The Energy Regulatory Commission (ERC) issued a clarification on the Implementing Rules and Regulations of R.A. 7832, otherwise known as the “Anti-Electricity and Electric Transmission Lines/Materials Pilferage Act of 1994”.

The Commission clarified, in particular, pertinent provisions on differential billing as cited in Section 5 of Rule VII of the IRR of the said Act.

Differential billing is the amount to be charged to the person concerned for the unbilled electricity illegally consumed by him.

The clarification was made in the light of complaints filed with the Commission’s Consumer Affairs Service (CAS) on the manner by which MERALCO computes the complainant’s differential billing for the alleged violation of RA 7832, particularly with respect to the period of recovery by the said distribution utility.

ERC explained that, if prior to the date of discovery and within a one (1) year period, there was a change of meter, change of seal or reconnection, or replacement of parts, or it can be determined that there was an abrupt or abnormal drop in consumption, the period to be recovered for purposes of the differential billing should be reckoned from the time when the said changes, inspection or reconnection occurred. This may result in a less than a year period of recovery.

The regulator further said that if the concerned consumer presents indubitable and adequate proof that the occurrence of the illegal use of electricity occurred less than a year, then for purposes of calculating the differential billing, the recoverable period should start from the occurrence of the illegal use up to the time of apprehension.

“To allow the recovery of a period of one (1) year when there is sufficient evidence to show that the illegal use of electricity is less than one (1) year is tantamount to unjust enrichment on the part of Meralco,” ERC Chairman Manuel R. Sanchez said. “Equity and fair play dictate that an aggrieved party may be allowed to recover only his actual loss,” he added.

ERC also cited the rule of statutory construction that a statute should be construed in such a way as to avoid absurdity. If the words of a statute are susceptible to more than one meaning, the absurdity of the result of one construction is a strong argument against its adoption and in favor of such sensible interpretation as will avoid such result (Chartered Bank of India vs. Imperial, 48 Phil. 931; People vs. Revilla, 59 Phil. 236).

October 10 , 2003