That is the message of Gil Quiniones, CEO of Commonwealth Edison in Chicago, in an Oct. 18 interview on the Energy Empire podcast. His argument deserves a hearing in Manila because the Philippine utility business model still rewards building more rather than using existing assets well.
Gil is probably the highest-ranking power executive of Filipino descent in the U.S. today.
With ineffective power system planning, some of our transmission and distribution projects may be more speculative than necessary.
The Mindoro interconnection is an example of such speculative investments that force current consumers to bear the costs.
In contrast, Quinones’ first move was not to order new substations. The utility demanded deposits and letters of credit from applicants. This removed speculative requests and kept only the real ones.
His second move was to pilot a project installing rooftop solar panels and batteries in about 50 low-income households.
Efficiency over expansion
The Brattle Group’s March 2026 study, The Untapped Grid, makes the same point: put new loads where spare capacity exists, shift consumption to uncongested hours, and shave the peak.
The peak is the key. A grid is sized for a few hundred extreme hours a year and sits partly idle the rest of the time. Consumers paid for that idle capacity.
The Energy Regulatory Commission (ERC) already implements performance-based regulation (PBR) for National Grid Corporation of the Philippines (NGCP) and distribution utilities (DUs), so these reforms would not necessarily require a new law.
Although I don’t agree with the PBR methodology, with it being there, what can we do?
Key measures
First, ensure NGCP and the DUs publish utilization data, including peak-to-average ratios, feeder and substation headroom, and capacity constraints. Although hosting capacity per transformer is already being required today, the suggested data set must be made public.
Second, require a least-cost assessment before approving major network capital expenditures (CAPEX). The ERC already considers whether batteries, rooftop solar, demand response, or feeder switching can deliver the same benefits at a lower cost.
However, a consistent, industry-wide requirement is needed to specify when alternatives must be assessed, how their costs and reliability should be compared, and which results must be disclosed.
Third, add three indicators into the PBR scorecard: asset utilization, independently verified avoided CAPEX, and inflation-adjusted distribution cost per kilowatt-hour (kWh).
A larger regulatory asset base should no longer be treated as an indicator of better performance.
Fourth, compensate consumers who install rooftop solar and battery energy storage systems (BESS) for verified peak demand reduction, congestion relief, and deferred infrastructure investments.
Savings and risk
Retail competition makes this particularly timely. A commercial customer consuming 100,000 kWh a month could save roughly P110,000 monthly through a combination of cheaper generation, rooftop solar, batteries, and demand management, after accounting for equipment costs.
A word of caution: Higher utilization does not automatically mean cheaper electricity. Additional demand during peak hours, or solar generation that reduces electricity sales without lowering the network’s fixed costs, could shift costs onto other consumers.
The principle remains: Before we ask Filipino consumers to pay for more infrastructure, we should first prove that the infrastructure they have already paid for cannot do the job. —Ed: Corrie S. Narisma
A power industry expert with over 40 years in experience as chief executive officer in firms ranging from banking, power, and advisory services.
