Consumer advocates say emergency powers not required for power crises

The Power for People Coalition (P4P) on Wednesday opposed any measure granting emergency powers to the President during a power crisis, citing experience with the Electric Power Crisis Act of 1993, which brought in the high prices suffered by consumers.

P4P issued its opposition in response to the proposal of the Department of Energy to include emergency powers to the President in amendments to the Electric Power Industry Reform Act or EPIRA.
“While it is a good thing to be ready for emergencies, we don’t see how emergency powers can be a solution in the current state of our power system today. The DOE is proposing shortcuts when the problems that lead to our power supply woes are staring it in the face like the perennial yet barely penalized shutdowns of coal and other fossil fuel power plants, the outdatedness of our grid, and our reliance on imported fuel supply. It makes more sense for the government to confront these. Emergency powers are not necessary because we should not be having power crises in the first place,” said Gerry Arances, P4P Convenor.

The DOE recommendation comes in the aftermath of another round of red and yellow alerts that affected households in Luzon. According to the group, the government should prioritize the development of indigenous renewable energy sources to promote energy security, as is mandated by already existing laws like the Renewable Energy Act of 2008.

“We have more than enough renewable energy potential to power the national grid several times over. We have crises year after year because the DOE continues to promote fossil fuels as our source of energy when these fuels are imported and are highly unreliable. Their inflexible and centralized nature also makes power users vulnerable to transmission problems. We will never have energy security so long as the DOE does not stop promoting fossil fuels,” Arances added. The energy consumer advocate is concerned that relying on emergency powers would allow DOE to evade the responsibility of planning and implementing an energy roadmap that would give the country affordable electricity in the long term.

“Emergency powers are a cop-out. Even if used properly, it does not address the root causes of our annual power crisis. And so far, our history shows that the use of emergency powers just forces consumers to swallow higher electricity prices or lose electricity, as seen in the guarantees to independent power producers during the Ramos administration,” said Arances.

“P4P is consistent in its position. We campaigned against proposals to give PNoy emergency powers to solve the power crisis during his administration, as it was going to be used to bypass social and environmental safeguards for more fossil fuel plants, hence more imported energy that is expensive, unreliable, and damaging to the environment,” added Arances.

Republic Act 7648, or the Electric Crisis Act of 1993, was credited with solving the widespread blackouts of the 1990s, but at the cost of much higher electricity bills, as power producers were given government guarantees of profit at consumer expense.

“There is a lack of comprehensive long-term planning in our government. Every administration is after a quick solution to claim its legacy. President Marcos should break this trend. Tapping renewable energy directly, skipping the current policy of promoting gas as a bridge fuel, would help solve our current power issues while eliminating future crises. We will no longer depend on the volatile world market for our energy, saving our financial resources and achieving energy security as the mandate of the DOE requires,” said Arances.