f : "' , .... ,_.

"
.,,:,,. . ._i ... ...
6Y. ___ _
Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT JAN 20 PM I: 48
Manila
EN BANC
Bayan Muna Representatives NERI
JAVIER COLMENARES and
CARLOS ISAGANI ZARATE,
Gabriela Women's Party
Representatives LUZ ILAGAN and
EMMI DE JESUS, Act Teachers
Party-List Representative
ANTONIO TINIO and Kabataan
Party-List Representatives TERRY
RIDON,
Petitioners,
-versus-
ENERGY REGULATORY
COMMISSION and MANILA
ELECTRIC COMPANY,
Respondents.
x------------------------------------------x
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF
ELECTRIC CONSUMERS FOR
REFORMS, represented by
Petronila L. Ilagan, FEDERATION
OF VILLAGE ASSOCIATIONS,
represented by Siegfried A. Veloso,
FEDERATION OF LAS PINAS
HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION ,
represented by Bonifacio Dazo, and
RODRIGO C. DOMINGO, JR.,
Petitioners,
-versus-
G.R. No. 210245
G.R. No. 210255
MANILA ELECTRIC COMPANY,
ENERGY REGULATORY
COMMISSION and, DEPARTMENT
OF ENERGY,
Respondents.
:x------------------------------------------:x
CONSOLIDATED COMMENT
Third-Party Respondent NATIONAL GRID CORPORATION
OF THE PHILIPPINES (NGCP), by counsel, and in compliance
with this Honorable Supreme Court's 10 January 2014 Order,
respectfully submits its Consolidated Comment to the Petitions in
G.R. No. 210245 and 210255, and the Counter-Petition of Manila
Electric Company (MERALCO):
PREFATORY STATEMENT
"One of the landmark pieces of legislation enacted by
Congress in recent years is the EPIRA. It established a new policy,
legal structure and regulatory framework for the electric power
industry. The new thrust is to tap private capital for the expansion
and improvement of the industry as the large government debt and
the highly capital-intensive character of the industry itself have long
been acknowledged as the critical constraints to the program. To
attract private investment, largely foreign, the jaded structure of the
industry had to be addressed. While the generation and
transmission sectors were centralized and monopolistic, the
distribution side was fragmented with over 130 utilities, mostly
small and uneconomic. The pervasive flaws have caused a low
utilization of existing generation capacity; extremely high and
uncompetitive power rates; poor quality of service to consumers;
dismal to forgettable performance of the government power sector;
high system losses; and an inability to develop a Clear strategy for
overcoming these shortcomings.
"Thus, the EPIRA provides a framework for the restructuring
of the industry, including the privatization of the assets of the
National Power Corporation (NPC), the transition to a competitive
structure, and the delineation of the roles of various government
agencies and the private entities. The law ordains the division of
the industry into four (4) distinct sectors, namely: generation,
transmission, distribution and supply.
2
"Corollarily, the NPC generating plants have to privatize and
its transmission business spun off and privatized thereafter."
1
BRIEF STATEMENT OF FACTS
1. On 8 June 2001, the Eleventh (11th) Congress of the
Republic of the Philippines enacted into law Republic Act No. 9136,
otherwise known as the Electric Power Industry Reform Act
(EPIRA) with the goal of restructuring the electric power industry
and privatization of the assets of the National Power Corporation
(NPC).
2
It established a new policy, legal structure and regulatory
framework for the electric power industry.
3
2. Pursuant to Section 8 of the EPIRA, the National
Transmission Corporation (TRANSCO) was created to assume the
transmission function of NPC. The EPIRA also provided a
framework for the privatization of TRANSCO. Under Section 49 of
the EPIRA, the Power Sector Assets and Liabilities Management
Corporation (PSALM) was also created to manage the orderly sale,
disposition, and privatization of NPC generation assets, real estate
and other disposable assets, and IPP contracts with the objective
of liquidating all NPC financial obligations and stranded contract
costs in an optimal manner.
4
PSALM was also mandated under
Section 21 of the EPIRA to plan and award in open competitive
bidding the privatization of the operation of the transmission
facilities, including grid interconnections and ancillary services of
TRANSCO to a qualified party.
3. Hence, in 2008, the National Grid Corporation of the
Philippines, a private company operating as a public utility was
awarded the concession contract to assume the power
transmission function of TRANSCO. Consequently, on 1 December
2008, the Fourteenth (14th) Congress through R.A. No. 9511
5
granted NGCP a congressional franchise to "operate, manage and
maintain, and in connection therewith, to engage in the business of
conveying or transmitting electricity through high voltage back-
1
Freedom from Debt Coalition v. Energy Regulatory Commission, G.R. No.
161113, 15June2004;
2
Enrique U. Betoy vs. The Board of Directors of the National Power
Corporation, G.R. Nos. 156556-57, 4 October 2011;
3
Id
4
~ c t i o n 50, EPIRA;
5
An Act Granting the National Grid Corporation of the Philippines a Franchise
to Engage in the Business of Conveying or Transmitting Electricity through
High Voltage Back-Bone System of Interconnected Transmission Lines,
Substations and Related Facilities, and for other Purposes;
3
bone system of interconnected transmission lines, substations and
related facilities, system operations, and other activities that are
necessary to support the safe and reliable operation of the
transmission system and to construct, install, finance, manage,
improve, expand, operate, maintain, rehabilitate repair and
refurbish the present nationwide transmission system of the
Republic of the Philippines, The Grantee shall continue to operate
and maintain the subtransmission system which have not been
disposed by TRANSCO".
6
4. On 15 January 2009, NGCP assumed the authority and
responsibility of TRANSCO for the planning, construction,
centralized operation and maintenance of the transmission
facilities, and procurement of ancillary services.
5. On 9 March 2009, NGCP was also granted its
Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity (CPCN) by the
Energy Regulatory Commission (ERC).
6. NGCP is a public utility. Its transmission charges are
filed and approved by the ERC pursuant Section 19 of the EPIRA
in relation to Paragraph (f), Section 43 of the same law which
provides:
"SEC. 43. Functions of the ERG. - The ERG shall
promote competition, encourage market development,
ensure customer choice and penalize abuse of market
power in the restructured electricity industry. In
appropriate cases, the ERG is authorized to issue
cease and desist order after due notice and hearing.
Towards this end, it shall be responsible for the
following key functions in the restructured industry:
xxx
"(f) In the public interest, establish and
enforce a methodology for setting transmission
and distribution wheeling rates and retail rates for
the captive market of a distribution utility, taking
into account all relevant considerations, including
the efficiency or inefficiency of the regulated
entities. The rates must be such as to allow the
recovery of just and reasonable costs and a
6
Section 1, R.A. No. 9511;
4
reasonable return on rate base (RORB) to enable the
entity to operate viably. The ERG may adopt
alternative forms of internationally-accepted rate-
setting methodology as it may deem appropriate. The
rate-setting methodology so adopted and applied must
ensure a reasonable price of electricity. The rates
prescribed shall be non-discriminatory. To achieve this
objective and to ensure the complete removal of cross
subsidies, the cap on the recoverable rate of system
losses prescribed in Section 10 of Republic Act No.
7832, is hereby amended and shall be replaced by
caps which shall be determined by the ERG based on
load density, sales mix, cost of service, delivery
voltage and other technical considerations it may
promulgate. The ERG shall determine such form or
rate-setting methodology, which shall promote
efficiency. x x x"
7. Hence, in order to recover the costs necessary to
provide transmission services and to sustain its full operational
strength, NGCP bills its customers transmission charges based on
reasonable rates duly approved by the ERC after undergoing
series of publications and hearings.
8. On 17 October 2012, NGCP filed before the ERC its
annual rate verification for the year 2013 (MAR
2013
) docketed as
ERC Case No. 2012-109RC
7
. Said Application contains NGCP's
proposed Maximum Allowable Revenue (MAR) or revenue cap for
the year 2013 and the corresponding rate translation for its System
Operator (SO) charge, Metering Service Provider (MSP) charge,
and Power Delivery Services (PDS) charge for the ERC's approval
to be charged and levied to NGCP's transmission customers
(distribution utilities/electric cooperatives and directly connected
large/industrial customers).
9. In compliance with the ERC's jurisdictional requirement
under the ERC Rules of Practice and Procedure, the MAR
2013
Application was published in the newspaper of general circulation
and was also served to the different local government units. The
Notice of Hearing issued by the ERC dated 23 October 2012 was
1
In The Matter of the Application for the Approval of the Maximum Allowable
Revenue for the Calendar Year 2013 and the Performance Incentive Scheme
in Accordance with the Alternative Form of Rate Setting Methodology Under
the Rules for Setting the Transmission Wheeling Rates, with Prayer for
Provisional Authority;
5
also published once a week for two (2) consecutive weeks in two
(2) newspapers of general circulation. Furthermore, said
Application undergone public hearings in Luzon, Visayas, and
Mindanao.
10. On 17 December 2012, the ERC issued an Order fixing
the SO, MSP, and PDS charges that NGCP. can charge its
customers for the year 2013. Unlike the charges imposed by
generators which is based on energy (kilowatt hour or kWh)
consumed by the consumer and priced at Peso per kilowatt hour
(P/kWh), NGCP charges its customer in the following manner:
1. PDS Charge - Peso per kilowatt-month (P/kW-mo.)
11. SO Charge - Peso per kilowatt-month (P/kW-mo.)
111. MSP Charge - Peso per month/voltage level
11. On 11 November 2013, the operation of the
Malampaya Natural Gas was shut down as it underwent its
scheduled preventive maintenance. The shutdown lasted until 10
December 2013 or for a total of thirty (30) days.
12. On 5 December 2013, MERALCO wrote the ERC
requesting for clearance and authority to: (i) collect a generation
charge of P7.90 per kwh in its December 2013 billings to its
customers; and (ii) defer to February 2014 the recovery of
P3Billion, representing a portion of the generation costs for the
supply month of November 2013 not passed on to customers in
December 2013, subject to inclusion of the appropriate carrying
charge.
13. In response to the letter of MERALCO, on 9 December
2013, in ERC Case No. 2013-092MC
8
, ERC granted MERALCO
the authority to implement a staggered collection of its generation
cost for the November 2013 power supply.
14. On 19 December 2013, the Party-List Representatives
of Bayan Muna, Gabriela Women's, Act Teachers, and Kabataan
Party Lists filed a Petition against ERC and MERALCO before the
Supreme Court docketed as G.R. No. 210245. In their Petition,
Petitioners questioned, among others, the increase in the
generation cost for November 2013. On 20 December 2013, a
8
In the Matter of the Implementation by the Manila Electric Company of the
Generation Rate Adjustment under Resolution No. 16, Series of 2009 for the
Supply Period of November to December 2013;
6
similar petition was filed by NASECORE against ERC, DOE, and
MERALCO docketed as G.R. No. 201255. In its Petition,
NASECORE assailed, among others, the automatic adjustment of
generation cost. The two Petitions were later consolidated by the
Supreme Court considering the similarity of the issue raised by the
Petitioners.
15. On 9 January 2013, MERALCO filed a Consolidated
Comment dated 8 January 2014 and Counter Petition against
NGCP and several power industry participants from the generation
sector.
16. In the Order of the Supreme Court dated 10 January
2014, MERALCO's Counter-Petition is treated as in the nature of a
Third-Party Complaint, and granted MERALCO's prayer to include
NGCP, among others, as Third-Party Respondent. In the same
Order, NGCP was directed to file and serve a COMMENT on the
Petitions and Counter-Petition by personal service no later than 20
January 2014.
17. Hence, this Consolidated Comment to the Petitions and
Comment (by way of Answer) to the Counter-Petition of
MERALCO.
DISCUSSION
(AS TO THE PETITIONS UNDER
G.R. NO. 210245 AND G.R. NO. 210255)
18. A perusal of the two (2) Petitions would readily show
that the issues raised by the Petitioners may be summarized as
follows:
a. The approval by the ERC based in its 9
December 2013 letter/Order of the staggered huge
generation rate increases based on MERALCO's 5
December 2013 letter is a violation of customers' right to due
process as it failed to comply with Section 4 (e) Rule 3 of the
EPIRA IRR
9
.
9
Any application or petition for rate adjustment or for any relief affecting the
consumers must be verified, and accompanied with an acknowledgement of
receipt of a copy thereof by the LGU Legislative Body of the locality where the
applicant or petitioner principally operates together with the certification of the
notice of publication thereof in a newspaper of general circulation in the same
locality.
7
b. The 9 December 2013 letter of ERC approving
the staggered huge generation rate increases is in violation
of Section 43
10
of the EPIRA on ERC's mandate to protect
the public from anti-competitive practices and abuse of
market behaviour of industry players.
c. Section 6
11
and 29
12
of the EPIRA declaring that
power generation 1s beyond ERC regulation are
unconstitutional.
The ERC may grant provisionally or deny the relief prayed for not later than
seventy five (75) calendar days from the filing of the application or petition,
based on the same and the supporting documents attached thereto and such
comments or pleadings the consumers or the LGU concerned may have filed
within thirty (30) calendar days from receipt of a copy of the application or
petition or from the publication thereof as the case may be.
Thereafter, the ERC shall conduct a formal hearing on the application or
petition, giving proper notices to all parties concerned, with at least one public
hearing in the affected locality, and shall decide the matter on the merits not
later than twelve (12) months from the issuance of the aforementioned
provisional order.
This Section 4(e) shall not apply to those applications or petitions already filed
as of 26 December 2001 in compliance with Section 36 of the Act.
10
The ERC shall promote competition, encourage market development, ensure
customer choice and penalize abuse of market power in the restructured
electricity industry. In appropriate cases, the ERC is authorized to issue cease
and desist order after due notice and hearing. Towards this end, it shall be
responsible for the following key functions in the restuctured industry: xxx
(s) Inspect, on its own or through duly authorized
representatives, the premises, books of accounts and records of any
person or entity at any time, in the exercise of its quasi-judicial power
for purposes of determining the existence of any anti-competitive
behavior and/or market power abuse and any violation of rules and
regulations issued by the ERC;
11
Generation of electric power, a business affected with public interest, shall
be competitive and open.
xxx xxx xxx
Any law to the contrary notwithstanding, power generation shall not be
considered a public utility operation. For this purpose, any person or entity
engaged or which shall engage in power generation and supply of electricity
shall not be required to secure a national franchise.
12
The supply sector is a business affected with public interest. Except for
distribution utilities and electric cooperatives with respect to their existing
8
d. The Automatic Generation Rate Adjustment
(AGRA) Rules is null and void due to violation of due
process.
19. Suffice it to say that that the above-mentioned
allegations do not specifically pertain to transmission charges. The
arguments and issues raised in the two (2) subject petitions, in
nature, relates to the automatic increases of generation charges
which are passed on the end-consumers without being the subject
of rate application filed before the ERC.
i. The transmission sector
under the EPIRA is a
regulated common
electricity carrier business,
subject to the ratemaking
powers of the ERC.
20. The transmission sector is a highly regulated industry
whose operation, revenues and charges are fixed and supervised
by the ERC. It is bound by the restrictions that the said regulatory
body may impose, specifically on its transmission charges.
21. The regulation of NGCP is expressly provided in the
EPIRA. Section 7 of the EPIRA provides that: the transmission of
electric power shall be regulated common electricity carrier
business, subject to the ratemaking powers of the ERC. It was
reiterated in Section 2 paragraph (yy) of the same law that:
Transmission Charge refers to the regulated cost or charges for the
use of a transmission system which may include the availment of
franchise areas, all suppliers of electricity to the contestable market shall
require a license from the ERC.
xxx xxx xxx
Any law to the contrary notwithstanding, supply of electricity to the contestable
market shall not be considered a public utility operation.
For this purpose, any person or entity which shall engage in the supply of
electricity to the contestable market shall not be required to secure a national
franchise. The prices to be charged by suppliers for the supply of
electricity to the contestable market shall not be subject to regulation by
the ERC.
9
ancillary services. And again in Section 19 of the same law: The
transmission charges of the TRANSCO shall be filed with and
approved by the ERG pursuant to Paragraph (f) of Section 43
hereof.
22. To facilitate the regulation of NGCP, Section 43 of the
EPIRA mandated the ERC to: "In the public interest, establish and
enforce a methodology for setting transmission and distribution
wheeling rates and retail rates for the captive market of a
distribution utility, taking into account all relevant considerations,
including the efficiency or inefficiency of the regulated entities."
23. Thus, ERC adopted internationally accepted
methodologies for the regulation of transmission wheeling charges
and revenues through the implementation of the: (i) Rules for
Setting the Transmission Wheeling Rates (RTWR); and the Open
Access Transmission Service (OATS) Rules, among others.
24. These regulatory laws are used by the ERC to regulate
and fix the power rates to be charged by NGCP to its customers.
ii. The transmission charges
are all approved by the ERC
in accordance with the
EPIRA and its Implementing
Rules and Regulations
(EPIRA IRR).
25. As discussed above, the EPIRA was enacted to
restructure the electric power industry in the Philippines. One of the
significant reorganization introduced by the EPIRA is the
organization of the four (4) diverse sectors in the power industry,
namely:
(i) Generation;
(ii) Transmission;
(iii) Distribution; and
(iv) Supply.
26. The disposition of transmission business is that it is a
separate and distinct entity from the other sectors as cross
ownership with any sector is strictly prohibited in the EPIRA. NGCP
cannot in any manner be an affiliate with any generation company
10
or distribution utility in accordance with Paragraph 2, Section 45
of the EPIRA, viz:
"No generation company, distribution utility, or its
respective subsidiary or affiliate or stockholder or
official of a generation company or distribution utility, or
other entity engaged in generating and supplying
electricity specified by ERG within the fourth civil
degree of consanguinity or affinity, shall be allowed to
hold any interest, directly or indirectly, in
TRANSCO or its concessionaire." (Emphasis
supplied)
27. Further, the transmission charges are separated or
unbundled from the charges imposed by other sectors pursuant to
Section 36 of the EPIRA, viz:
"Section 36: Unbundling of Rates and Functions.
"Within six (6) months from the effectivity of this
Act, NPG shall file with the ERG its revised rates. The
rates of NPG shall be unbundled between transmission
and generation rates and the rates shall reflect the
respective costs of providing each service. Inter-grid
and intra-grid cross subsidies for both the transmission
and the generation rates shall be removed in
accordance with this Act."
28. To fully understand the nature and mandate of the vital
sectors of the power industry in the Philippines, the EPIRA
describes them as follows:
a. The GENERATION sector
13
refers to the
generation of electric power, a business affected with public
interest, shall be competitive and open. It is a business
affected by public interest but not considered as a public
utility and its generation rates are not subject to the
regulatory powers of ERC.
b. The TRANSMISSION sector refers to the
National Grid Corporation of the Philippines that assumed the
transmission assets of TRANSCO. It is responsible for the
13
Section 6, EPIRA;
11
planning, construction and central operation and
maintenance on the high voltage transmission facilities
including purchase of the required ancillary services. NGCP
is a regulated entity, its transmission wheeling rates are
based on formula, rates and charges duly approved by the
ERC.
c. The DISTRIBUTION sector
14
refers to the
distribution of electricity to end-users shall be a regulated
common carrier business requiring a national franchise.
d. The SUPPLY sector
15
, on the other hand, refers
to the business affected with public interest. Except for
distribution utilities and electric cooperatives with respect to
their existing franchise areas, all suppliers of electricity to the
contestable market shall require a license from the ERC.
29. The transmission charges are divided into five (5)
components. They are defined under the OATS Rules promulgated
by the ERC, as follows :
Power Delivery Service
(PDS)
System Operator (SO)
Metering Service
Provider (MSP)
14
Section 22, EPIRA;
15
Section 29, EPIRA;
The Power Delivery Service Charges
recover that proportion of the
transmission provider's [NGCP] annual
revenue requirement approved by ERC
under the TWRG [RTWR] that is
associated with the cost of conveying
electricity to or from connection points
and is payable by Generation Customers
and Load Customers. F Al 1. 1
The System Operator Charge (SOC)
recovers that portion of the Transmission
Provider's Maximum Annual Revenue
Cap, and any other costs approved by
ERC, that are associated with the cost of
S stem 0 eration. F All 1.1
The Metering Service Provider Charge
recovers that portion of the Transmission
Provider's Maximum Annual Revenue
Cap, and any other cost approved by the
ERC, that are associated with the cost of
meterin services. [F(Alll)1.1
12
Connection Charge
and Residual
Subtransmission
Charge (CC/RSTC)
Ancillary Services (AS)
The Connection Charge recovers the
reasonable costs, as defined in Section
1.6.3 of the TWRG, associated with
connecting the Transmission Customers'
Facilities to the Transmission Provider's
facilities. [F(AIV)1.1]
The Residual Sub-transmission Charge
recovers the reasonable costs, as defined
in Section 1.6.3 of the TWRG, associated
with sub-transmission assets that is not
otherwise recovered through the
Connection Charge [F(AV)5.1]
This is a pass through charge, allocated
for the payment of its obligation with the
AS providers
The diagram below shows the composition of NGCP's transmission
charges:
The approval process for the
PDS. SO and MSP Charges.
30. The PDS, SO and MSP charges are determined and
approved by the ERC through different regulatory reset
applications as well as annual rate verification.
31. Pursuant to Sections 19 and 43(f) of the EPIRA, the
ERC promulgated the "Rules for Setting Transmission Wheeling
Rates for 2003 to around 2027 (RTWR)". It sets the methodology,
pricing principles, the regulatory reset and annual rate verification
adjustment processes and the performance targets. These data will
be used for the setting of NGCP's transmission wheeling rates.
13
32. Under the RTWR, NGCP must undergo a regulatory
reset process every five (5) years, and an annual rate verification.
33. At present, NGCP is on its Third (3rd) regulatory period
covering calendar years 2011-2015. For the information of the
Honorable Supreme Court, the ERC has substantially complied
with the regulatory reset and procedural due processes provided in
the RTWR, as explained below:
33.1 On 16 February 2009, ERC published an Issues
Paper. After consultation meetings on the Issues Paper with
different power industry participants, the ERC issue its
Position Paper dated 9 September 2009 that contains its final
view on the regulatory reset process and the requirement for
NGCP to submit its application for a regulatory reset review,
including all the data, reports, forecasts and information
required therefor under the RTWR.
33.2 Pursuant thereto, on 18 December 2009, NGCP
filed its reset application (Reset Application) for the approval
of its Maximum Allowable Revenue docketed as ERC Case
No. 2009-1 BORC.
33.3 In its Initial Order dated 21 December 2009, the
ERC invited all parties having interest in the Reset
Application to participate in the reset process. On different
dates, the Manila Electric Company (MERALCO) and
different consumer groups filed their petitions for intervention.
33.4 During NGCP's presentation of evidence,
numerous whole day hearings were conducted. NGCP
presented nineteen (19) witnesses to testify on the data,
reports, forecasts and information submitted by NGCP
pursuant to the RTWR and position paper. All intervenors
were allowed to cross-examine all witnesses.
33.5 On 15 June 2010, NGCP filed its formal offer of
exhibits, and on different dates, the intervenors filed their
respective comments. The ERC admitted all the documentary
evidence offered as relevant and material to the resolution of
the application.
14
33.6 Pursuant to Article 7.1.7 of the RTWR, the ERC
on 15 July 2010 issued its initial evaluation on the Reset
Application through the issuance of the Draft Determination
(DD). The ERC invited all interested parties to comment on
NGCP's DD. A public consultation was conducted to solicit
comments on the DD on 17 August 2010 in Cebu City, 18
August 2010 in Pasig City and 20 August 2010 in Davao City.
33. 7 Thereafter, after hearing the different views
during the public consultation and evaluation of the written
comments of interested parties, ERC issued a Decision dated
22 November 2010 and the NGCP's Final Determination (FD)
for calendar year 2011-2015. The FD enumerated the
unsmoothed maximum allowed revenue that NGCP must
recover during calendar years 2011 until 2015.
34. However, before NGCP could translate the approved
maximum allowable revenue into transmission charges, NGCP files
annual rate verification application. This is done through the filing
of another rate application on or before the 1th day of October of
every year to validate the maximum allowable revenue (MAR) of
NGCP for the immediately succedding regulatory year. The MAR
already covers the PDS, SO and MSP charges. This rate
application also undergoes the rigors of publication and extensive
full blown trial and hearing pursuant to Rule 3, Section 4 (e) of the
EPIRA IRR to provide the public end consumers an opportunity to
evaluate the application.
35. For instance, in the evidentiary hearings in NGCP's
MAR
2013
Application filed on 17 October 2012, intervenors were
also given the full opportunity to cross-examine NGCP's witnesses
and adequate means to evaluate documentary exhibits presented.
36. In its Order dated 17 December 2012, the ERC
approved and fixed NGCP's MAR
2013
in the amount of
PhP44,567.18Mn Million, including the translated PDS, SO and
MSP charges. The MAR
2013
remain the same throughout the year
2013, including the month of November 2013.
15
The approval process for the
CC/RS TC.
37. The CC/RSTC are those associated with the use by the
transmission customer of the transmission facility categorized as
connection and subtransmission assets.
38. Under Section 1.6.3 of the Rules for Setting
Transmission Wheeling Rates (RTWR) and Annex IV, Module F of
the Open Access Transmission Service (OATS) Rules, NGCP is
required to file a separate rate application for the recovery of the
reasonable cost incurred in providing efficient sub-transmission
services from its customers.
39. Thus, in November each year, NGCP files an
application for the approval of its proposed CC/RSTC. Similar to
NGCP's filing of its annual rate verification, the evaluation of
CC/RSTC proposals undergoes series of publications and hearings
pursuant to Rule 3, Section 4 (e) of the EPIRA IRR to provide the
public end consumers an opportunity to evaluate the application.
40. At present, NGCP still bills its customers the CC/RSTC
using the ERC approved 2009 CC/RSTC level pursuant to the
ERC's Consolidated Decision dated 6 July 2011 in ERC Case No.
2008-066RC and ERC Case No. 2009-153RC. This means that the
CC/RSTC imposed and levied to NGCP customers remained the
same and have not changed from 2009 up to present.
The approval process for the AS
Charges.
41. On the other hand, AS charges are associated with the
procurement by NGCP of ancillary services. These services are
necessary to support the transmission of capacity and energy from
resources to loads while maintaining reliable operation of the
transmission system in accordance with good utility practice and
the Grid Code.
16
Such services are essential in ensuring reliability
in the operation of the transmission system and resultantly, in the
reliability of the electricity supply in the Luzon, Visayas and
Mindanao grids.
16
Section 4b, EPIRA;
16
42. In the ERC Order dated 9 March 2006 in ERC Case
No. 2002-253, the ERC approved Ancillary Services Procurement
Plan ("ASPP") which directed TRANSCO to file a separate
application for the approval of the Ancillary Services-Cost
Recovery Mechanism ("AS-CRM").
43. In the Decision dated 3 October 2007 in ERC Case No.
2006-049RC, the ERC approved the AS-CRM on the condition that
all contracts for the procurement of ancillary services shall be
submitted to this Honorable Commission for approval.
44. Since December 2012, NGCP has contracted Ancillary
Services Procurement Agreement (ASPA) with qualified AS
providers with the lowest possible rate for the benefit of the
consumer. In the negotiation for the AS rates, NGCP used
methodology called the "New Built" approach. It uses the cost that
would have been incurred in building a new plant that could provide
the required ancillary services. This structure has already
benefitted the consumers by reducing AS charges by thirty to forty
percent (30-40%) from the rates prior to 2012. NGCP has already
disregarded the "opportunity cost" previously adopted in former
ASP As.
45. Similar to the other transmission charges, the approval
of AS charges undergo rigors and expense of publications and a
full blown trial pursuant to Rule 3, Section 4 (e) of the EPIRA IRR
to provide the public end consumers an opportunity to evaluate the
application.
46. At present, the AS charges are all approved by the
ERC.
47. Base on the foregoing, it is clear that the NGCP
charges imposed upon its customers and even ~ h transmission
charges billed to MERALCO for the month of November 2013
obtained the prior approval by the ERC after undergoing series of
publications and hearings. More importantly, these approved
charges remain the same all throughout the year 2013 until new
charges were approved by the ERC for the year 2014 after
undergoing the same requirements of publications and hearings.
48. Indubitably, there are no "automatic rate increases"
insofar as the transmission charges of NGCP are concerned.
17
49. It should be stressed that unlike generation companies
which invariably have variable cost attributable to fuel purchases
which causes the varying generation cost depending on the prices
of fuel, NGCP has no variable cost and therefore, its transmission
charges remain fixed for the entire year.
NGCP cannot collude with MERALCO
or any generation company.
50. As will be noted from the allegations in the petitions and
counter petition, there is no allegation of collusion by NGCP with
the generation and distribution sector for the generation rate
increase. This is because NGCP is mandated under the EPIRA to
maintain a frontier of independence from other power industry
participants. NGCP is not allowed to hold any interest, directly or
indirectly, in any generation company of distribution utility.
51. As discussed above, NGCP is the successor-in-interest
of TRANSCO and assumed the following duties and
responsibilities:
"Section 9: Functions and Responsibilities.
"Upon the effectivity of this Act, the TRANSCO
shall have the following functions and responsibilities:
"a. Act as the system operator of the
nationwide electrical transmission and subtransmission
system, to be transferred to it by NPC;
"b. Provide open and non-discriminatory
access to its transmission system to all electricity
users;
"c. Ensure and maintain the reliability,
adequacy, security, stability and integrity of the
nationwide electrical grid in accordance with the
performance standards for the operations and
maintenance of the grid, as set forth in a Grid Code to
be adopted and promulgated by the ERG within six (6)
months from the effectivity of this Act;
"d. Improve and expand its transmission
facilities, consistent with the Grid Code and the
Transmission Development Plan (TOP) to be
18
promulgated pursuant to this Act, to adequately serve
generation compames, distribution utilities and
suppliers requmng transmission service and/or
ancillary services through the transmission system:
Provided, That TRANSCO shall submit any plan for
expansion or improvement of its facilities for approval
by the ERG;
"e. Subject to technical constraints, the grid
operator of the TRANSCO shall provide central
dispatch of all generation facilities connected, directly
or indirectly, to the transmission system in accordance
with the dispatch schedule submitted by the market
operator, taking into account outstanding bilateral
contracts; and
"f TRANSCO shall undertake the preparation
of the TOP.
52. Based on the foregoing, NGCP's primary mandate is to
preserve the reliability and integrity of the high-voltage
transmission highway in the Philippines and . to ensure that
sufficient electricity flows within. Although, it is required to provide
the central dispatch of all generation facilities based on the merit
order table (MOT) issued by the Philippine Electicity Spot Market
operator (PEMC, it cannot be said to have participated in any act of
collusion. The MOT is submitted by the PEMC to NGCP to serve
as the schedule of dispatch of the generation plants for a particular
time interval to meet the demand. The MOT merely provides for the
list of power plants cleared by the market for dispatch and does not
contain the bid prices of the generators, nor the market clearing
price.
53. Based on the foregoing, NGCP has no means of
colluding with the generation companies. In particular, NGCP has
nothing to do with the bid prices of the generators during the
Malampaya shutdown. Again, NGCP's function is merely to assure
the reliability and security of transmission highways.
COMMENT TO MERALCO'S COUNTER-PETITION
(BY WAY OF ANSWER)
54. NGCP reiterates and repleads the allegations
mentioned above.
19
55. For the month November 2013 under Power Bill No.
8000004971, NGCP billed MERALCO the ERC approved
transmission charges in the amount of PhP2.029Bn. However,
MERALCO merely paid NGCP the amount of PhP1 .911 Bn and
deferred the payment of PhP111.38Mn. MERALCO in its letter to
NGCP dated 23 December 2013 explained that the partial payment
was made pursuant to the 23 December 2013 Temporary
Restraining Order (TRO) issued by the Supreme Court which
allegedly also enjoined the collection of "other pass through
charges, including the related transmission charges."
56. Despite full knowledge of the regulatory framework of
the power industry, MERALCO in complete bad faith deliberately
concluded that NGCP's transmission charges are included in the
TRO.
I.
ADMISSIONS
57. NGCP admits paragraph 6.10 but only in so far as
MERALCO deferred payment of PhP111.40Mn for NGCP's
November 2013 billing; and
58. NGCP admits paragraph 6.12.10 of the Counter-
Petition but only in so far as NGCP is a transmission company and
the system operator granted a franchise to operate, manage and
expand the electric transmission business of the Philippines.
II.
SPECIFIC DENIALS
59. NGCP specifically DENIES the allegations in
paragraphs 6.1 to 6.14 for lack of knowledge to form a belief as to
the truth or falsity thereof considering that the allegations contained
therein pertain to facts and transactions between and among
petitioners, MERALCO and other generation companies, to which
NGCP is not privy.
60. NGCP specifically DENIES the allegation in 6.12.1 O
that it is the system operator of the WESM. The truth of the matter
is that pursuant to Section 9 of the EPIRA, NGCP is the system
operator of the nationwide electrical transmission and
subtransmission system.
20
Ill.
SPECIAL AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
61. NGCP respectfully restates and repleads the
allegations mentioned above insofar as they may be relevant and
material hereunder.
62. As discussed above, on 9 January 2.013, MERALCO
filed a Consolidated Comment dated 8 January 2014 to the two (2)
Petitions, and a Counter-Petition against NGCP and several power
industry participants from the generation sector.
63. Essentially, the main issue in MERALCO's Counter-
Petition is whether NGCP is an indispensable party that would
stand to be injured by the outcome of the two (2) Petitions.
64. At the outset, it must be stressed that. a perusal of the
TRO issued by the Honorable Supreme Court on 23 December
2013 reveals that it only enjoined the following:
(i) The ERC, its agents, representatives, or persons
acting in its place and stead, from implementing its
December 9, 2013 Order and acting further on the letter-
request of MERALCO dated 5 December 2013; and
(ii) MERALCO, its agents, representatives, or
persons acting in its place and stead, from increasing the
rates it charges to its consumers based on the matters it
raised in its 5 December 2013 letter.
65. The 5 December 2013 letter of MERALCO to ERC
mentioned in the TRO merely pertains to the request of MERALCO
for authority on the following:
(1) Collect a generation charge of P7.90 per kwh in
its December 2013 billings to its customers; and
(2) Defer to February 2014 the recovery of P3 Billion,
representing a portion of the generation costs for the supply
month of November 2013 not passed on to customers in
December 2013, subject to inclusion of the appropriate
carrying charge.
66. Based on the foregoing, the TRO issued by the
Supreme Court is limited to the generation charges and does not
21
include NGCP's "transmission charges" or "other pass-through
charges".
67. This being so, it is very clear that NGCP is not an
indispensable party in this case.
68. Rule 3, Section 7 of the 1997 Rules of Court states:
"Section 7. Compulsory joinder of
indispensable parties - Parties-in-interest without
whom no final determination can be had of an action
shall be joined either as plaintiffs or defendants".
69. The Honorable Supreme Court in Boston Equity
Resources, Inc. vs. Court Of Appeals, et al G.R. No. 173946
June 19, 2013 citing Lagunilla v. Velasco, G.R. No. 169276, 16
June 2009, ruled that:
"An indispensable party is one who has such an
interest in the controversy or subject matter of a case
that a final adjudication cannot be made in his or her
absence, without injuring or affecting that interest. He
or she is a party who has not only an interest in the
subject matter of the controversy, but 'an interest of
such nature that a final decree cannot be made without
affecting that interest or leaving the controversy in
such a condition that its final determination may be
wholly inconsistent with equity and good conscience. It
has also been considered that an indispensable party
is a person in whose absence there cannot be a
determination between the parties already before the
court which is effective, complete or equitable.'
Further, an indispensable party is one who must be
included in an action before it may properly proceed."
70. Applying the foregoing pronouncements to the case at
bar, it is clear that NGCP is not an indispensable party, neither a
necessary party to the two (2) subject petitions for the simple
reason that the allegations therein and MERALCO's counter
petition do not specifically pertain to transmission charges. The
arguments and issues raised by the Petitioners and MERALCO, in
nature, relate only to the automatic increases of generation
charges which are passed on the end-consumers without being the
subject of rate application filed before the ERG.
22
71. It bears repreating that there is nothing in the NGCP
power bill that pertains to generation charges that may be covered
by the TRO. Therefore, there is absolutely no basis for
MERALCO's to include NGCP as third-party respondent in these
Petitions.
72. It is very clear that the baseless arguments advanced
by MERALCO are just mere afterthought. MERALCO desperate
attempt to include NGCP as an indispensable party by simply
including the phrase "other pass through adjustments or charges"
every time that the term "generation cost" is mentioned.
73. It is also NOT correct for MERALCO to state that the
transmission charges contributed to the increase of generation cost
and other related charges as mention in paragraph 6.10 of its
Counter-Petition.
7 4. As exhaustively discussed above, NGCP's maximum
allowable revenue is fixed annually, and the transmission charges
and generation charges are separate and unbundled. Thus, the
transmission charges do not have any effect on the generation
charges imposed by the generation companies, and vice versa.
75. As mentioned above, the evaluation of every
application of transmission charges undergo the rigors of
publication and expenses of a full blown trial pursuant to Rule 3,
Section 4 (e) of the EPIRA IRR to provide the public end
consumers an opportunity to evaluate the application. After the
ERC approves the maximum allowable revenue of NGCP, it is
translated into transmission charges through its allocation to the
Luzon, Visayas and Mindanao grid customers based on the
specific customer's demand meter registration in kW-month for a
given month. Any increase in demand (kW) or energy (kWh)
registered in the transmission system would not have any effect on
the revenue of NGCP.
76. These charges are billed by NGCP separate from the
generation charges imposed by the generation companies. There
is no way that NGCP could increase of affect the generation
charges.
23
CONCLUDING STATEMENT
77. The following are the pertinent and necessary facts for
the solution of the issue raised against NGCP:
a. NGCP is not an indispensable party.
b. NGCP was dragged into the case based on the
false conclusion of MERALCO that transmission charges are
included in the TRO.
c. The 5 December 2013 letter of MERALCO, 9
December 2013 Order of the ERC and the 23 December
2013 TRO of the Honorable Supreme Court merely mention
of generation charges.
d. The transmission charges are based on demand
of a customer imposed by NGCP. On the other hand,
generation charges are based on actual consumption of
electricity imposed by generation companies that provided
the power. These separate charges are unbundled in
MERALCO's power bill to its end consumers. Thus, it is
impossible for the transmission charges in any way affect or
increase generation charges.
e. NGCP is a regulated entity. Thus, it transmission
power charges are all approved by the ERC after the rigors
and expenses of a full blown trial pursuant to Rule 3, Section
4 (e) of the EPIRA IRR to provide the public end consumers
an opportunity to evaluate the application.
f. NGCP has no means of colluding with the
generation companies. NGCP has nothing to do with the
generation charges imposed by the generation companies
upon generation customers. Its function is merely to assure
that the transmission highways are reliable and secured.
PRAYER
WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is respectfully prayed
that the Petitions and Counter-Petition be dismissed against
NGCP.
24
NGCP prays other equitable relief.
Quezon City for Pasig City, 17 January 2014.
Office of the General Counsel
NATIONAL GRID CORPORATION OF THE PHILIPPINES
NGCP Building, Quezon Avenue corner
By:
BIR Road, Diliman, Quezon City
rdbaldovino@ngcp.ph
02.981.2768
c=/s0
LUIS MANUEL U. BUGAYONG
PTR No. 9032666 I 01.02.2014 I Quezon City
IBP Lifetime No. 010191/RSM
MCLE Compliance No. IV-0006555
Roll of Attorneys No. 38002
P.CON
PTR No. 32660 I 01.02. zon City
IBP Lifetime No. 04995/ RSM
MCLE Compliance No. IV-0006558
Roll of Attorneys No. 40065

PTR No. 9032 61 I 1.02.14 I Quezon City
IBP Lifetime No. 04 14/ Misamis Oriental
MCLE Compliance No. IV-0006559
Roll of Attorneys No. 45707

PTR No. 90 56 I 01.02.14 I Quezon 'City
I ifetime No. 010195/ RSM
LE Compliance No. IV-0006565
Roll of Attorneys No. 50672
25
Copy furnished by personal service:
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY .,
Office of the Secretar; i
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
c/o Secretary Carlos Jericho L. Petilla
Energy Center, Rizal Drive
Bonifacio Global City, Taguig City
fO)r 1!1.
l1=J L::JU v l.'.::J l_lJ! !
l
By: \IM- q,c>1a.-.. l
_ OTS No. I
MASINLOC POWER PARTNERS CO. LTD
18/F Bench Tower, 30th Street corner Rizal Drive
Bonifacio Global City
THERMA LUZON, INC.
NAC Tower, 32"d Street
Bonifacio Global City, Taguig
AP RENEWABLES, INC.
15/F NAC Tower, 32"d Street
Bonifacio Global City, Taguig City
...
&or.: - = .........
26
Atty. RENE A. V. SAGUISAG
Counsel for Petitioners in G.R. No. 210255
4045 Bigasan St., Brgy. Palanan
Makati City
Atty. NELSON A. LOYOLA
Counsel for Petitioners in G.R. No. 210255
Suite 201 Carreon Building
2746 Zenaida St., Brgy. Poblacion
Makati City
The SOLICITOR GENERAL
134 Amorsolo St., Legaspi Village
Makati City 1229

lf\ 1590 ENERGY CORPORATION
; 2 O JAN 2014 Unit 107 First Midland Office Condominium Building
, Gamboa Street, Legaspi Village Makati
P,rn
..... -- ------sE'M-CALACA POWER CORPORATION
2/F DMCI Plaza Building
2281 Don Chino Roces Extension
Brgy. Magallanes, Makati City

I . . . ., , ....... . ., .
NELSON ;\. LOYOLA
C: ":.S)OCJ.ATE5
POWER SECTOR ASSE
CORPORATION R .---lo _EO !
ih Floor Bankmer Building JAN
2 0 2014
'
6756 Ayala Avenue, Makati City
TRANS-ASIA POWER

'i?:-_ -t.
11th Floor PHINMA Plaza / / D
1
'
1
f Q
39 Plaza Drive, Rockwell Center '()/-?JJ-/ '-f !.. / ;CDOtvt'
Makati City 1200 et.JRy L.f
STA. CLARA NORTHERN RENEWABLES
ORPORATION
L. 0 JAN 201
4
nit 107, 1st Midland Office Condominium Building
Gamboa Street, Legaspi Village
:k,_ fi) Makati City
---r--u---- ----QUEZON POWER (PHILS.) LTD. CO.
62 H. dela Costa, Mauban
Quezon Province
c/o Atty. Joshua Gilbert F. Paraiso
12/F VGP Center
6722 Ayala Avenue
Makati City 1226, Philippines
GENERAL
27
ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION
Pacific Centre Building
San Miguel Avenue, Pasig City
MANILA ELECTRIC COMPANY
-------;\ Lopez Building, Ortigas Avenue, Pasig City
.,,.
..:D PHILIPPINE ELECTRICITY MARKET CORPORATION
o. nu_ 0 9th and 18th Floor, Robinsons Equitable Tower
l--1 . c
b ADB Avenue, Ort1gas enter
r- D Pasig City 1600
l!J I ..;r"' lo- -
0 I ,_
(";(. ---. r-1 1.:;::l
;1 ;: c::> .
1
nlf IRST GAS POWER CORPORATION J

1
C'J t:-J X> /F Benpres Building
... (\_., h)g xchange Road cor. MERALCO Avenue
t \... --. rtigas Center, Pasig City
r1 n
..u,

':&:
::s..
UTH PREMIERE POWER CORPORATION
8 Building, MERALCO Avenue corner General Lim Street
igas Center, Pasig
SAN MIGUEL CORPORATION
808 Building, MERALCO Avenue corner General Lim Street
Ortigas Center, Pasig
FGP CORPORATION
3/F Benpres Building
Exchange Road cor. MERALCO Avenue
Ortigas Center, Pasig City
J
BAC-MAN ENERGY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION/ ]
BAC-MAN GEOTHERMAL, INC.
38/F One Corporate Centre
Julia Vargas corner MERALCO Avenue
Ortigas Center, Pasig City -
FIRST GEN HYDRO POWER CORPORATION J
3/F Benpres Building
Exchange Road corner MERALCO Avenue
Ortigas Center, Pasig City
GNPOWER MARIVELES COAL PLANT LTD. CO.
1905 Orient Square Building
Don Francisco Ortigas Jr. Road
Ortigas Center, Pasig City
PANASIA ENERGY HOLDINGS, INC.
2nd Floor 808 Building
MERALCO Avenue, Pasig City 1600
1
1
11:. .
PHILIPPINE STOCK EXCHANGE CEN : ... - - . I t
ORTIGAS PASIG CITY ..;J -- -

STRATEGIC POWER DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
2nd Floor, 808 Building /
MERALCO Avenue corner General Lim Street V'J\J\
0
l..'. ..UV
San Antonio Village, Pasig City 1600 \ \rJ..r
28
Atty. MARIA CRISTINA P. YAMBOT
Counsel for Petitioners in G.R. No. 210245
45 K-ih St., Brgy. West Kamias
Quezon City
Atty. RONNIE B. RODILLAS
Counsel for Petitioners in G.R. No. 210255
137 Libis Gochico St., Circumferential Road 3
Caloocan City
THERMA MOBILE, INCORPORATED
Ground Floor, Philippine Fisheries Development
Authority Complex Building
Navotas, Metro Manila

Pfc I'/ /i-OP!ll#S
1 /zcjiy
29
Annex "A-Verification"
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES)
CITY OF QUEZON ) S.S.
SECRETARY'S CERTIFICATE
I, KAREN S. ONG, of legal age, Filipino, and with office address at Power
Center, Quezon Avenue corner BIR Road, Diliman, Quezon City, Metro Manila, after
having been duly sworn in accordance with law, hereby certify that:
1. I am the Corporate Secretary of NATIONAL GRID CORPORATION OF THE
PHILIPPINES (the "Corporation"), a corporation duly organized and existing
under the laws of the Republic of the Philippines, with office address at
Power Center, Quezon Avenue corner BIR Road, Diliman, Quezon City,
Metro Manila;
2. The NGCP Board of Directors has approved and adopted the following
resolutions:
"NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, AS IT IS
HEREBY RESOLVED, that Office of the General Counsel of the
Corporation is hereby authorized to file necessary and appropriate
pleadings in the following cases now pending before the Supreme
Court:
'1. Bayan Muna Representatives Neri Javier
Colmenares and Carlos lsagani Zarate, Gabriela Women's
Party Representatives Luz Ilagan and Emmi De Jesus, Act
Teachers Party-List Representative Antonio Tinio, and
Kabataan Party-List Representative Terry Ridon versus
Energy Regulatory Commission and Manila Electric
Company, docketed as G.R. No. 210245; and
'2. National Association of Electric Consumers for
Reforms, represented by Petronila L. Ilagan, Federation of
Village Associations, represented by Siegfriedo A. Veloso,
Federation of Las Pinas Homeowners Associations,
represented by Bonifacio Dazo and Rodrigo C. Domingo, Jr.
versus Energy Regulatory Commission, Manila Electric
Company and the Department of Energy, docketed as G.R.
No. 210255';
"RESOLVED, FURTHER, that the Corporation is hereby
authorized to file necessary and appropriate pleadings against the
Secretary's Certificate - WC]c<P (]Joara }lutfwrity of tfie Office of tfze qenera[ Counse[ on :M'F.<RJILCO SC Cases
Page 12
Counter-Petition filed by the Manila Electric Company against the
Corporation;
"RESOLVED FURTHER, that Atty. Luis Manuel U.
Bugayong, be authorized to verify, prepare and file the necessary
pleadings in relation to the above-mentioned cases;
"RESOLVED, F/NALL Y, that Attys. Luis Manuel U.
Bugayong, Ronald Dylan P. Concepcion, Mark Anthony S. Actub
and Raycell D. Baldovino be authorized, as they are hereby
authorized to appear on behalf of the Corporation at any and all
stages of the proceedings and for this purpose:
'1. to do, perform and consider all such matters as may
be brought up during the proceedings, including but not limited
to, preliminary conference and oral arguments under Rules 48,
49 and 56 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, enter into an
amicable settlement, submit to alternative modes of dispute
resolution, enter into stipulations or admissions of facts or
documents, and to cause the dismissal of the case, etc.;
'2. to set, sign and deliver any and all pleadings,
motions, documents, papers and instruments, and to do such
other things as may aid in the prompt disposition of any of
above-stated actions."'
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set m y of January,
2014, in Quezon City, Metro Manila.
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO before me this 13
1
h day of January 2014 in
Quezon City, Metro Manila, affiant exhibiting to me her Passport No. EB1895567 issued
on 09 February 2011 in Manila.
Doc.No.!:'?;
Page No. ;
Book No. ;
Series of 2014.
GRAG S!N
IC
2014' I) c.
OCHCPO, GRD. , . UEZO ITY f-i.:. L
IBPNO. 915106/12-10-13,0UEZONC
1
.. v
PTR NO. 903238011-2-14, QUEZON CITY
ROLL OF ATTORNEYS N0.56070
MCLE NO. IV-D016194/4-10-13, QUEZON CITY
TIN NO- 243-085-918
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES )
Quezon City ) S. S.
VERIFICATION AND CERTIFICATION OF
NON-FORUM SHOPPING
I, LUIS MANUEL U. BUGAYONG, after having been duly sworn
to in accordance with law, hereby depose and state that:
1. I am the General Counsel of the National Grid Corporation
of the Philippines (NGCP);
2. I am duly authorized to sign this Verification and
Certification of Non-Forum Shopping for and in behalf of NGCP as
evidenced by the Secretary's Certificate, hereto attached as Annex "A-
Verification";
3. I have caused the preparation of the foregoing Consolidated
Comment;
4. I have read the foregoing Consolidated. Comment and I
attest that the allegations therein are true and correct of my personal
knowledge and based on authentic records;
5. I further attest that NGCP has not theretofore commenced
any action or filed any claim involving the same issues in any court,
tribunal or quasi-judicial agency and, to the best of my knowledge, no
such other action or claim is pending therein;
6. If I should thereafter learn that the same or similar action or
claim has been filed or is pending, I shall report that fact to the
Honorable Court within five (5) days there from.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto affixed my signature
this 1 ih day of January 2014, in Quezon City, Philippines.

Affiant
SUBSCRIBED AND
January 2014, affiant exhibited to me his Driv
019556 issued at Quezon City.
Doc
Page No. ;
Book No. ;
Series of 2014.
t;ty. RICO AGA'R.A
otary Public, A ointi:nent No. 070
Commission until 31 December 20 l 5
PTR No.9032599; 01-02-14; Quezon Cil'{
IBP LifecimE No. 08c:.,110; Bulacan
Roll of Attorney's No. 53664
MCLE Compliance No.IV-0006563; 7.04.12
Unit 305, J. Rosa Condominium
44 Matimtiman St., Teacher's Village .;:c,:;t
Diliman, Quezon City
Republic of the Philippines )
Quezon City ) S.S.
AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE
I, ALBERTO I. MAPA of legal age, with address at National Grid Corporation of the
Philippines, Quezon Ave., corner BIR Road, Diliman, Quezon City after having duly sworn in
accordance with law, hereby depose and state that on, I personally served a copy of the
Consolidated Comment in CA-G.R. No. 210245, entitled: Bayan Muna Representatives Neri
Javier Colmenares, et al v. Energy Regulatory Commission, et. al. and in G.R. No. 210255,
entitled: National Association of Electric Consumers for Reforms, Inc., et al vs. Manila Electric
Company, et al, pending.before the Supreme Court, to the following:
1. Atty. RENE A. V. SAGU/SAG
Counsel for Petitioners in G.R. No. 210255
4045 Bigasan St., Brgy. Palanan
Makati City
2. Atty. NELSON A. LOYOLA
Counsel for Petitioners in G.R. No. 210255
Suite 201 Carreon Building
2746 Zenaida St., Brgy. Poblacion
Makati City
3. The SOLICITOR GENERAL
134 Amorsolo St., Legaspi Village
Makati City 1229
4. 1590 ENERGY CORPORATION
Unit 107 First Midland Office Condominium Building
Gamboa Street, Legaspi Village Makati
5. SEM-CALACA POWER CORPORATION
2/F DMCI Plaza Building
2281 Don Chino Roces Extension
Brgy. Magallanes, Makati City
6. POWER SECTOR ASSETS & LIABILITIES MANAGEMENT CORPORATION
7th Floor Bankmer Building
6756 Ayala Avenue, Makati City
7. TRANS-ASIA POWER GENERATION CORPORATION
11th Floor PHINMA Plaza
39 Plaza Drive, Rockwell Center
Makati City 1200
8. VIVANT STA. CLARA NORTHERN RENEWABLES GENERAL CORPORATION
Unit 107, 1st Midland Office Condominium Building
Gamboa Street, Legaspi Village
Makati City
9. QUEZON POWER (PH/LS.) LTD. CO.
clo Atty. Joshua Gilbert F. Paraiso
12/F VGP Center
6722 Ayala Avenue
Makati City 1226, Philippines
I further declare that the documents hereto submitted electronically in
accordance with the Efficient use of Paper Rule is complete and true copy of the documents
filed with the Supreme Court.
AL
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO before me this 2
affiant exhibiting to me his Tax Identification No. 121120637
ry 2014 at Quezon City,
Doc.No.i
Page No.
Book No. ;
Series of 14.
ttWRICO R
otary Public, App trnent !\lo. 070
Commission until 31 December 20: ::;
PTR No.9032599; 01-02-P; Qu1?.zon Ci1::1
IBP Lifetime No. oghliCi;
Roll of !\i1), ;,-;:-,'4
MCLE Compliance NO.J\.1-\it<l;t:,;:)ti:); 7.0<1. 12
Unit 305, J. Rosa Cor
1
ooininlun
44 Matirntiman St., Teacher-'s co:::l
Dilimar1, Quezon City
Republic of the Philippines )
Quezon City ) S.S.
AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE
I, ROMELYN A. DOLOR of legal age, with address at National Grid Corporation of the
Philippines, Quezon Ave., corner BIR Road, Diliman, Quezon City after having duly sworn in
accordance with law, hereby depose and state that on, I personally served a copy of the
Consolidated Comment in CA-G.R. No. 210245, entitled: Bayan Muna Representatives Neri
Javier Colmenares, et al v. Energy Regulatory Commission, et. al. and in G.R. No. 210255,
entitled: National Association of Electric Consumers for Reforms, Inc., et al vs. Manila Electric
Company, et al, pending before the Supreme Court, to the following:
1. Atty. MARIA CRISTINA P. YAMBOT
Counsel for Petitioners in G.R. No. 210245
45 K-7th St., Brgy. West Kamias
Quezon City
2. Atty. RONNIE B. RODILLAS
Counsel for Petitioners in G. R. No. 210255
137 Libis Gochico St., Circumferential Road 3
Calooc.an City
3. THERMA MOBILE, INCORPORATED
Ground Floor, Philippine Fisheries Development
Authority Complex Building
Navotas, Metro Manila

DO
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO before me this
affiant exhibiting to me her Tax Identification No. 1514109

Page No.
Book No. ;
Series of 2014.
" tfy; RICO CAGARA
otary Public, Ap ntr:nent No. 070
Commission until 31December2015
PTR No. 9032599; 01-02-11; Que7.on City
IBP Lifetime No. 08600; Bulacan
Roll of Attornev's No. 53664
MCLE Compliance No.IV-0006563; 7. 04. l 2
Unit 305, J, Rosa Condomi.niurr, ,
44 Matimtiman St., Teacher's V1llayt:. 1::2st
Diliman, Quezon City
Republic of the Philippines )
Quezon City ) S.S.
AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE
I, KRIZ DIANE S. DIZON of legal age, with address at National Grid Corporation of the
Philippines, Quezon Ave., corner BIR Road, Diliman, Quezon City after having duly sworn in
accordance with law, hereby depose and state that on, I personally served a copy of the
Consolidated Comment in CA-G.R. No. 210245, entitled: Bayan Muna Representatives Neri
Javier Colmenares, et al v. Energy Regulatory Commission, et. al. and in G.R. No. 210255,
entitled: National Association of Electric Consumers for Reforms, Inc., et al vs. Manila Electric
Company, et al, pending before the Supreme Court, to the following:
1. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
clo Secretary Carlos Jericho L. Petilla
Energy Center; Rizal Drive
Bonifacio Global City, Taguig City
2. MASINLOC POWER PARTNERS CO. LTD
18/F Bench Tower, 30th Street corner Rizal Drive
Bonifacio Global City
3. THERMA LUZON, INC.
NAG Tower, 32nd Street
Bonifacio Global City, Tagu.ig
4. AP RENEWABLES, INC.
15/F NAG Tower, 32nd Street
Bonifacio Global City, Taguig City
5. SN ABOITIZ POWER - BENGUET, INC.
SN ABOITIZ POWER - MAGAT, INC.
10/F NAG Tower, 32nd Street
Bonifacio Global City, Taguig
KRIZ

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO before me this 20
affiant exhibiting to me her Tax Identification No. 401070477.

Page No.:E'-1 "!"/
Book No. ,
Series of 0 .
tty: RICO
tary Public, Ap 1ntment No. 070
omrnission until 31 December 2015
PTR No.9032599; 01-02-1'-i; Quezon City
IBP Lifetime No. og600; E'Jlacan
Roll of Attorney's i\lo. 53664
MCLE Compliance No.JV-0006563;7.04.12
Unit 305, J. Rosa Condominium
44 Matimtiman St., Teacher's Village East
Diliman, Quezon City
Republic of the Philippines )
Quezon City ) S.S.
AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE
I, RICHIEL B. BUMENLAG of legal age, with address at National Grid Corporation of
the Philippines, Quezon Ave., corner BIR Road, Diliman, Quezon City after having duly sworn in
accordance with law, hereby depose and state that on, I personally served a copy of the
Consolidated Comment in CA-G.R. No. 210245, entitled: Bayan Muna Representatives Neri
Javier Colmenares, et al v. Energy Regulatory Commission, et. al. and in G.R. No. 210255,
entitled: National Association of Electric Consumers for Reforms, Inc., et al vs. Manila Electric
Company, et al, pending before the Supreme Court, to the following:
1. ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION
Pacific Centre Building
San Miguel Avenue, Pasig City
2. MANILA ELECTRIC COMPANY
Lopez Building, Ortigas Avenue, Pasig City
3. PHILIPPINE ELECTRIC/TY MARKET CORPORATION
9th and 18th Floor, Robinsons Equitable Tower
ADB Avenue, Ortigas Center
Pasig City 1600
4. FIRST GAS POWER CORPORATION
3/F Benpres Building
Exchange Road cor. MERALCO Avenue
Ortigas Center, Pasig City
5. SOUTH PREMIERE POWER CORPORATION
808 Building, MERALCO Avenue corner General Lim Street
Ortigas Center, Pasig
6. SAN MIGUEL CORPORATION
808 Building, MERALCO Avenue corner General Lim Street
Ortigas Center, Pasig
7. FGP CORPORATION
3/F Benpres Building
Exchange Road cor. MERALCO Avenue
Ortigas Center, Pasig City
8. BAC-MAN ENERGY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION!
BAC-MAN GEOTHERMAL, INC.
38/F One Corporate Centre
Julia Vargas corner MERALCO Avenue
Ortigas Center, Pasig City
9. FIRST GEN HYDRO POWER CORPORATION
3/F Benpres Building
Exchange Road corner MERALCO Avenue
Ortigas Center, Pasig City
10. GNPOWER MAR/VELES COAL PLANT LTD. CO.
1905 Orient Square Building
Don Francisco Ortigas Jr. Road
Ortigas Center, Pasig City
11. PANAS/A ENERGY HOLDINGS, INC.
2nd Floor 808 Building
MERALCO Avenue, Pasig City 1600
12. STRATEGIC POWER DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
2nd Floor, 808 Building
MERALCO Avenue corner General Lim Street
San Antonio Village, Pasig City 1600

Affiant
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO before me this 20 Jan
affiant exhibiting to me her Tax Identification No. 270664944.
Doc. Nofli ;
Page No.
Book No. ;
Series of 2014.
1:',,lr.;1.:an
Roll of Atr:ornt"/<: "11, SJr164
MCLE Compliance No.J V-(H)U6563; 7.04 .12
Unit 305, J. Rosa Condominium
44 Matimtiman St., Teacher's Village East
Diliman# Quezon City