For years, discussions about the long-overdue rate reset for regulated energy entities like the National Grid Corporation of the Philippines (NGCP) and Manila Electric Company (Meralco) have dragged on without resolution.
The lack of a completed rate reset has long been attributed to regulatory inaction. Yet, specific figures continue to shift the blame toward the regulated entities themselves rather than the regulatory body responsible for ensuring compliance.
At the heart of this issue is former Energy Regulatory Commission (ERC) Commissioner Alfredo Non, whose tenure saw zero progress in the rate reset process for an entire decade. His recent public remarks attacking the ERC and regulated entities are both hypocritical and profoundly frustrating—especially coming from someone who held oversight power yet failed to exercise it effectively.
The role of ERC in the rate reset delay
The ERC is the primary regulatory body ensuring that energy companies like NGCP and Meralco comply with fair pricing mechanisms. The rate reset is crucial in determining the justifiable rates these companies can charge based on their capital spending, infrastructure improvements, and services provided.
Without regular resets, pricing structures become outdated, potentially leading to unjust consumer charges or insufficient funding for necessary energy projects.
Despite this critical function, the ERC failed to conduct a rate reset for over 10 years. This delay cannot be blamed on NGCP or Meralco; instead, it was the ERC’s responsibility to enforce regulatory timelines, penalize non-compliance, and ensure the system remained fair and transparent.
Alfredo Non’s complicity in the delay
Former Commissioner Alfredo Non served in the ERC for seven years, during which the regulatory inaction peaked. While he now portrays himself as an independent critic, conveniently blaming regulated entities and his former office, it was under his watch that the backlog in rate resets accumulated.
Worse, Non was appointed Officer-in-Charge (OIC) of the ERC in 2015 when then-Chairperson Zenaida Ducut went on leave. As OIC, he was granted explicit oversight of regulatory matters—including NGCP and Meralco’s compliance. Yet, nothing happened.
Six years after leaving his post, Non has resurfaced with outlandish accusations, claiming that regulated entities must issue more refunds. But these so-called “errors” he points to stem from his failure to act when he had the power to correct them. Instead of acknowledging his shortcomings, he has launched a self-serving crusade, throwing accusations left and right in a desperate bid for relevance.
Non’s convenient amnesia and double standards
One of the most glaring contradictions in Non’s statements is his repeated claim that he had no oversight power because ERC decisions were collegial. However, as previously mentioned, he was OIC in 2015 and had direct regulatory oversight over these entities. He cannot simply wash his hands of responsibility while at the same time attacking others for inaction.
Additionally, if he genuinely believed that errors in rate-setting occurred before his tenure, why didn’t he take steps to correct them while he was in office for seven long years? Instead, he now sits in retirement, collecting a ₱350,000 monthly pension while bashing the agency that continues to fund his livelihood.
It is one thing to express a dissenting opinion; it is another to conveniently rewrite history to appear as though he were an innocent bystander rather than an active participant in regulatory failure.
A politicized attack?
The recent House of Representatives hearing was nothing short of appalling. Instead of holding the right people accountable, some lawmakers gave Non a platform to grandstand, further politicizing an already messy situation. It raises serious questions about the true motivations behind these attacks.
Is this about genuine concern for rate-setting transparency, or is this an orchestrated attempt to divert attention from the ERC’s progress in addressing past regulatory failures? Because unlike in Non’s time, the current ERC leadership is finally taking concrete steps to fix the backlog he helped create.
Suppose confident lawmakers genuinely wish to serve the public interest. In that case, they should focus on improving energy regulations moving forward rather than giving airtime to a former commissioner with a questionable track record.
Holding the right people accountable
At this point, Non’s statements hold little weight. His lack of credibility is evident, and his bitterness toward the regulated entities is misplaced. Under his leadership, the ERC failed to act—and consumers paid the price.
If he genuinely cared about energy regulation, he would have done his job when he could. Instead, he neglected his mandate, let a decade pass without a rate reset, and is now suddenly eager to criticize.
The real takeaway from this issue is simple: Regulators must be held accountable for their failures, not the entities they were supposed to regulate.
Non’s hypocrisy should serve as a lesson to future regulators—public service is about doing the job when it matters, not rewriting history after failing to deliver.
