Twenty-five years ago, the Philippines enacted the Electric Power Industry Reform Act (EPIRA) to dismantle the state-run utility monopoly, invite private investment, and stimulate the competition needed to solve a chronic power crisis. By most objective measures, the law succeeded in its primary goal: generation capacity has more than doubled, and the market structure provided the foundation for the grid we rely on today.

However, the energy landscape has changed drastically since 2001. As we reach the quarter-century mark of this landmark statute, the country finds itself at a critical juncture. The recent calls from President Marcos Jr. for immediate legislative action are not merely political rhetoric; they are a recognition that the "social contract" between electricity consumers and the power industry requires a significant update.

The most pressing item on this legislative agenda is the treatment of "systems loss" charges. Under the current framework of Section 43(f) of EPIRA, distribution utilities are permitted to pass a capped percentage of these losses—which include both inherent technical dissipation and, more controversially, non-technical losses like pilferage and administrative inefficiencies—directly to consumers. The public frustration is clear: Filipino households are essentially being billed for power that is lost before it ever reaches their appliances. As the President rightly articulated, it is difficult to justify why consumers should shoulder the financial burden for inefficiencies they have no power to control, a cost further compounded by the imposition of Value-Added Tax (VAT).

The push for reform brings us to a fundamental legal reality: administrative band-aids are no longer sufficient. Because these charges are codified within the statute of EPIRA, the Energy Regulatory Commission (ERC) cannot unilaterally erase them without risking legal challenges that could threaten the stability of the power sector. This is precisely why the role of Congress is indispensable.

We are already seeing the legislative machinery begin to turn. Proposals like House Bill No. 10306, which seeks to rationalize systems loss charges by capping them and explicitly prohibiting the pass-on of non-technical losses, represent the kind of granular, thoughtful policy intervention that the sector needs. Others, such as HB 10273, argue for a total abolition of these pass-through charges. These bills demonstrate that the legislature is beginning to grapple with the nuance of the law: distinguishing between the "technical" losses that are an inherent part of physics and grid operation, and the "non-technical" losses that are a symptom of operational weakness or theft.

Crucially, these amendments must be synchronized with a vision for the future. The President’s call for the Sariling Kuryente Act—which aims to simplify the installation of solar and battery storage systems—is the perfect companion to this reform. If we successfully amend EPIRA to lower costs by removing unfair charges, we must simultaneously empower households to participate in the energy supply chain themselves.

Reform is inherently a delicate balance. The energy sector requires the financial stability to maintain its infrastructure, but the public requires the affordability that a modern, efficient, and transparent market should provide. Amending EPIRA is not about punishing utilities; it is about realigning the law with today’s realities.

After 25 years, the EPIRA has served its purpose as an instrument of deregulation. Now, it must evolve into an instrument of consumer equity. By rationalizing systems loss charges and clearing the path for decentralized energy, Congress has the opportunity to turn the frustration of high electricity bills into a constructive, long-term solution for every Filipino household. ([email protected])