The Energy Regulatory Commission (ERC) is being urged to reject any higher cost emergency power supply agreement (EPSA) that power utility giant Manila Electric Company (Meralco) had underwritten with other power suppliers, primarily the capacity procured from the Dinginin coal-fired power plant. In a statement to the media, former Congressman and Infrawatch PH Convenor Terry Ridon noted that "under any circumstance, the ERC should reject any emergency power supply agreement in the Meralco franchise area which is higher than last year’s rejected San Miguel-Meralco price proposal of P6.0691 per kWh." Since the Ilijan plant of South Premiere Power Corporation (SPPC) of the San Miguel group stopped supplying power to Meralco in December, as anchored on the injunctive relief rendered by the Court of Appeals, the most notable EPSA that the utility firm had entered into was with GNPower Dinginin, a joint venture between Aboitiz Power and AC Energy Holdings of the Ayala group. “While the rejected price proposal was around 34.8-percent higher than the original terminated PSA, the recently lapsed second EPSA with the Aboitiz Group was 89.4-percent higher than the terminated PSA at P8.5250 per kWh,” Ridon emphasized. He stressed “to allow the continuation of such exorbitant rates in prospective EPSAs amounts to criminal negligence of the Commission’s duty to ensure the least cost of electricity to consumers.” When the ERC denied the P0.30 per kWh rate hike application of San Miguel’s SPPC subsidiary in October, the main justification given by the regulatory body was for it avoiding increase in the electric bills of consumers – because that has been the promise and battle cry being advocated by the Marcos administration. It is within that precept then that the regulatory powers of the ERC is being challenged now – for it to maintain its stance that it shall not allow higher cost EPSAs to cause financial pain in the pockets of consumers. Ridon argued “the generation firms have no basis to impose higher rates at this time, as global coal prices have already returned to normal levels, with prices dropping around sixty-percent from last year’s highs.” The former lawmaker underscored that “ the rejected price proposal was made at a time of unprecedented coal prices, selling as high as $457.8 per ton,” while noting that “the price of coal today hovers merely at around $180 per ton.” Taking cue from that then, Ridon asserted that “any rate higher than the rejected price proposal should be outrightly rejected by the ERC, not only because it is their duty to enforce the least cost, but also because the current market environment cannot serve as a basis for higher rates.” He further stated “the Commission will effectively facilitate profiteering if it allows generation firms to impose higher rates despite lower operating costs compared to last year’s price fluctuations.” Ridon added “the public will not accept price proposals higher than the price proposal in the rejected petition…if the ERC entertains price proposals significantly higher than the price proposal in the rejected joint petition, it will have failed to ensure the least cost to consumers, which is one of the most fundamental principles in energy regulation.” He expounded that the ERC decision similarly compelled Meralco to procure higher volumes from the Wholesale Electricity Spot Market (WESM), that in turn, had resulted in higher electricity rates on the bills of consumers. Ridon contended that “with unabated inflation and stunted incomes, energy regulators should explain to the public how can these elevated rates constitute as the least cost to consumers.”