The problem of the ERC has always been the delays in decision-making. The ERC cannot take on essential manifestations or approvals, as the decision on which cases to prioritize is left solely to the chair, which could potentially lead to abuse of power.
There should be a more objective process of prioritizing which items to take up during ERC en banc meetings. Observers of the ERC can attest that many decisions have been delayed for years simply because the Commission never took up the issue or manifestation. The issue may lie on the fact that the chair also serves as the CEO.
ERC should be a collaborative body
If the powers to call for a meeting, set the agenda, and present the items for approval were split, then there would be a more balanced power check, reassuring all stakeholders.
Setting the agenda should be a shared responsibility among all commissioners. The ERC should be a collaborative body where everyone's views or opinions should be shared and discussed.
When all commissioners have a say in setting the agenda, it will ensure joint accountability that all commissioners will share. Today, commissioners tend to point to the chair as the source of delays in processing vital manifestations like rate setting. This sole authority of the chair can overwhelm the position to the point that delays will be inevitable.
Shared responsibility
The ERC should adopt what the judiciary system is currently doing—shared responsibility. Instead of bringing all issues to the ERC en banc, it should have a system where the other commissioners can adjudicate on cases.
The ERC should meet en banc when certain cases that will affect a broad consumer base, like transmission charges. It can also meet on appeals that petitioners will make from decisions made by individual commissioners. This shared responsibility will prevent the potential misuse of power and make all commissioners feel involved in the decision-making process.
This shared authority prevents the potential misuse of power and can lead to faster case processing before the ERC. By distributing the power to hear cases to all of the commissioners, we would have expanded the ERC's capacity. Past ERC administrations practiced a similar setup; the government should institutionalize this practice.
Dictatorial powers
It is wrong to give all powers to one person. Dictatorial powers would create many moral hazards for that person. A collegial body like the ERC should be that—a collaborative body. The ERC will be more transparent and efficient by sharing responsibilities and accountabilities.
Finally, amending the ERC's powers is like putting the cart before the horse. The government must address more fundamental problems in the power sector, including tariff issues, markets, and subsidies, before discussing the ERC.
A power industry expert with over 40 years in experience as chief executive officer in firms ranging from banking, power, and advisory services.
