A week from now, President Marcos returns to the SONA podium for what is essentially the home stretch of his term. Expect the usual familiar themes, predictable applause, and perhaps a standing ovation from the gallery. Most likely, we will also hear another replay of the greatest hit on the administration's energy playlist: the promise that electricity rates will become cheaper.

Today, the scorecard tells a far different story from the promises made at the presidential rostrum. Filipino consumers remain trapped between two painful realities: electricity rates climbing to record highs that compete for Asia’s top spot, and a power system repeatedly flashing warning signs of instability.

These real-life experiences become even more glaring when measured against the Department of Energy’s (DOE) confident projection at the start of the year: that the country would avoid supply disruptions and keep yellow and red alerts at bay. Consumers, however, experienced the exact reverse—recurring grid alerts, persistent strained supply that resulted in rotating blackouts, and deepening uncertainty over the power sector’s future.

Yellow alerts are not just technical jargon buried in energy reports; they are blazing distress signals from a power system running dangerously close to its limits. With the Visayas grid experiencing these alerts for nearly two months, the situation cannot be brushed aside as a routine industry hiccup. Left ignored, these ominous indicators risk escalating into a full-blown power crisis—one that could become the catastrophic final chapter of the Marcos administration.

At this stage, consumers and broader industry stakeholders are pointing to deeper cracks within the DOE, ranging from questionable planning and policy execution to concerns over leadership direction. The uncomfortable question now confronting the sector is this: is the country following a flawed energy roadmap, or is the strategy being managed by officials who have yet to prove they actually know their jobs?

After all the commitments made in previous SONAs, what meaningful gains have consumers actually received? The answer is painfully clear: almost none! Instead of relief, the public faces a heavier burden: skyrocketing electricity bills and a power grid operating at its breaking point.

If this is the benchmark for progress and the country’s march toward upper middle-income status, then the energy sector is delivering a troubling verdict.

In his first SONA in 2022, President Marcos laid down a simple but powerful equation for economic growth, declaring that a “fundamental requirement for growth and increased employment will be the availability of cheap, reliable energy. This even comes under the category of ‘ease of doing business’ if we are to attract investors - both local and foreign - to set up shop here in the Philippines.”

Renewable energy (RE) became the administration’s flagship solution, while investment commitments secured during presidential foreign trips were celebrated as major wins. But beyond the handshakes, photo opportunities, and billion-dollar announcements lies the real test: did these commitments translate into operating projects on the ground? Plainly speaking, media headlines do not power the grid. Pledges remain meaningless without timely execution and measurable results.

Alongside promises of affordable electricity and a more dependable grid, President Marcos has also repeatedly touted another major goal: 100 percent household electrification before the end of his term. But even that target is failing to stand the test of time.

In his 2023 SONA, President Marcos highlighted the completion of the Mindanao-Visayas Interconnection Project as a milestone that brought the country closer to a unified national grid, suggesting it would help lower electricity rates. The President claimed the “One Grid, One Market will enable more efficient transfers and more competitive pricing of electricity throughout the country.”

By his 2024 SONA, the President sharpened his energy message into a clearer promise, directly confronting the two issues that matter most to consumers: a power supply they can depend on and electricity bills they can actually afford.

He stressed: “as energy projects get completed and new investments pour into the sector, we expect our nation’s power supply to increase at a steady pace to meet our growing demand in the next few years. Nonetheless, we are continuously diagnosing and urgently addressing power shortages, as well as the systemic causes of blackouts in unserved and underserved areas.”

To make that declaration resonate more directly with ordinary Filipinos, President Marcos delivered the message in Tagalog—the language of everyday household concerns and consumer frustrations:

“Batid nating lahat na ang presyo ng kuryente dito sa ating bansa ay mataas. Kaya patuloy tayo sa pagdagdag ng mga imprastraktura ng kuryente na magpapababa ng presyo ng kalaunan.” (We all know that the price of electricity in our country is high. That is why we continue to build and expand power infrastructure that will eventually help bring down electricity prices.)

The President further made a direct commitment to consumer protection, assuring Filipinos that the government would guarantee reasonable and just electricity charges: “Tinitiyak din nating makatarungan ang paniningil sa mga konsyumer.” (We also ensure that consumers are charged fairly).

Given the gravity of the challenges, he even asserted: “Hinihiling ko sa Kongreso na pagtulungan na natin ito, alang-alang sa kapakanan ng mga Pilipino. Sa taas ng presyo ng kuryente sa bansa, nahihirapan hindi lamang ang mga negosyante; kundi lalo na ang taumbayan." (I ask Congress to work with us on this, for the sake of the welfare of the Filipino people. With the high cost of electricity in the country, it is not only business owners who are struggling, but most especially ordinary Filipinos.)

Then, in his 2025 SONA, the President once again placed the country's power woes under the spotlight. But this time, he shifted from broad promises to a pointed accusation, singling out a specific power company he held responsible for brownouts in an island grid. To some extent, the move signaled a tougher stance on accountability.

Nevertheless, with more severe pressure on the country’s power supply today and skyrocketing electric bills igniting consumer revolt, why has Malacañang remained largely silent? There have been repeated power plant outages, but where is that same urgency and accountability when the problem is no longer confined to one company or one island?

Is accountability in the power sector being applied equally, or has it become selective depending on who is involved? In an industry where massive outages affect millions, responsibility must not be determined by political proximity; it must be measured by performance, compliance, and the impact on the public.

At its core, President Marcos' energy promise has been anchored around a multi-pronged formula for cheaper electricity: build more power plants (especially RE facilities); strengthen the transmission network; revisit policies and rules under the Electric Power Industry Reform Act (EPIRA); expand support for vulnerable consumers; and promote alternatives like rooftop solar through net metering.

But if the country's current energy investment direction and awarded power supply contracts are any indication, the red flags are already waving. Instead of leaving behind a stronger, more affordable power sector, the Marcos regime risks leaving a lasting imprint of higher electricity bills and a looming power crisis.

Even the much-touted wave of RE investments is hitting major hurdles in execution and oversight. Instead of quickly adding new capacity to the grid, some industry observers reckon that certain players may be treating these green energy projects as mere land deals or instruments for contractual handoffs—a chase for quick profits instead of delivering the additional electricity the country urgently needs. Meanwhile, delays in multiple Green Energy Auction (GEA) projects are adding to concerns that the promised RE boom is moving significantly slower than advertised.

Mr. President, Filipino consumers are making a plea born out of pure frustration: do not let your administration's energy legacy be a country burdened by unaffordable electricity, stranded costs, and an avoidable power crisis. The switches may still turn on for now, but the consequences of costly policy mistakes by your energy officials could linger in the dark long after your term ends.

Recent headlines exposed the true scale of the power sector’s reliability problem. The DOE issued show cause orders (SCOs) to 175 generation companies (164 on-grid and 11 off-grid) for repeated forced outages, capacity deratings, and failure to comply with required annual self-assessment reports covering the March 2025 to March 2026 period.

In the orders issued by Energy Secretary Sharon Garin, the DOE demanded that power companies explain their performance failures and account for their inability to deliver committed capacities. Up to that point, the DOE’s action appeared both appropriate and justified—a necessary display of regulatory muscle to remind power generators that failing to deliver committed capacity carries consequences, especially when consumers are the ones paying the price.

However, that accountability push quickly hit a wall. In a subsequent press conference, Garin revealed that more than 120 power producers simply ignored the department’s show cause orders. The defiance prompted her to issue a stronger warning: generators that refuse to comply with directives could face the revocation of their operating licenses.

This is where the energy secretary’s threat hit a major legal roadblock. The authority to issue and revoke Certificates of Compliance (CoCs)—the very approvals that allow power plants to operate—does not belong to the DOE. It belongs to the Energy Regulatory Commission (ERC). The hard reality is that these prospective sanctions crossed regulatory boundaries, as the power to impose punitive actions rests entirely with an independent agency.

Any disciplinary measure against power generators must follow the legal safeguards, reliability standards, and regulatory processes governing the cancellation of their licenses. Coordination between the DOE and ERC is essential, but effective energy leadership requires more than issuing aggressive directives; it warrants a clear understanding of where each agency’s jurisdiction begins and ends.

Unfortunately for Secretary Garin, the episode exposed a critical weakness. Her legal advisers should know that regulatory authority is only as strong as the juridical foundation supporting it. The resistance from these power companies may not merely be an act of defiance; it likely reflects their stance that the DOE’s actions lack legal teeth. Without clear authority and a solid legal footing, even the loudest enforcement threat collapses under scrutiny.

So, here is Energy 101 for whoever sits in the Secretary’s chair next: before attempting to fix the country’s power problems, first understand the limits of your own power. In the energy sector, good intentions may light the way, but they cannot operate the machine—especially if you are pressing buttons on a control panel that doesn't belong to you.

Dispatches from an (un)happy inbox: The comments to my last two columns came in waves: some supportive, others skeptical, and many demanding answers. These voices matter, and many of them will shape the conversations in my columns ahead. Watch this space.