Energreen reacts - 7

Let’s take an intermission from the thrust of last Wednesday’s discussion to address a point that Energreen Power Development and Management presented in its advertisement of Feb 16, specifically which once again tried to explain with academic discussion without presenting specific figures as to its capitalization. It still fails to answer a direct simple inquiry. Instead it went around with a lot of verbiage with misleading comparisons that only dig its own hole.

It says that it was “legally born for a project in another island” and that its “equity investments have been infused into it and an official increase in capital stock is being sought from the SEC. Belaboring the issue on its birth capital is like questioning that a person was naked when he was born.”

So now Energreen admits that it is still seeking authority from the SEC to officially increase its capital stock and yet has already received new, infused capital. Which should come first – an authority to increase capital stock or additional capital first even before it is granted such authority by the SEC? It appears then that Energreen was infused with additional capital without authority. More than this questionable unauthorized increased capitalization is a tacit admission that its capital stock has not been increased since it was legally born and in fact it is still asking for SEC permission.

To use its own figure of speech, the naked corporation, Energreen is still trying to get clothed, the reason that until now it has not come out with a categorical answer – the actual capital stock as it stands in SEC. That it is still seeking authority means simply its capital stock has not been increased since it was legally born. It remains naked.

Why is Energreen afraid to give a categorical answer, specific amount of its capital stock? Okay, it “immediately corrected” the claim of the objectors that its capital stock is P100,000. But it begs the question. Why is Energreen merely saying “its capital is much more at P280 million” without giving the exact amount? “Much more” can be any number. After several claims of “more” and “much more” Energreen failed to give the exact amount although it claims all sorts of accounting and computerization and transparency. What is easier than giving the exact monetary figure? Methinks the real amount may be disastrous.

If we belabor its nakedness since birth, it is because it appears that Energreen is like the emperor in the story who tried to make his subjects believe he had the best of clothes only to parade in his underwear.

I think that Energreen is confusing people about its own capitalization or just trying to get off the hook of its own making. In the same advertisement (Feb 16, p. 10) Energreen said its paid in capital is “more than P280 million” which was invested in its partner Central Negros Power Reliability Inc. and it amounted to P250 million as of December 31, 2014.” This is for the claimed 26MW power plant.

On the same day ad, page 11, Energreen said that CENPRI has an authorized capital stock of P315 million for the 18.9MW plant. Since Energreen is said to own 60 percent of CENPRI then its stocks in CENPRI should be P189 million. Is this merely a subscribed stock or paid in?

Doesn’t this seem odd? CENPRI has a claimed capital stock of P315 million for 18.9MW compared to Energreen, its majority owner which has only, as claimed, P280 million for a 26MW.

Anyway let’s wait some more for Energreen to get out of the web it wore, to paraphrase Shakespeare.

The news last Feb 18 says that the Utilities Consumers Alliance of Negros filed a motion before the Energy Regulatory Commission “to recall its November 10, 2014 order granting provisional authority and eventually deny the request of Central Negros Electric Cooperative and Energreen Power Development and Management for provisional authority.” According to Energreen (its ad of Feb 11) this provisional authority “only establishes the Tariff when Energreen starts delivering power under the contract.”

The news further said that in its contract with Energreen, Ceneco stated that its contract with the NPC and PSALM “will expire on December 25, 2014 so there is a need to produce a replacement power standby on December 26 from Energreen’s 19MW project.”

The question is: where is Energreen’s power plant to provide Ceneco with replacement power by December 26?

The answer is obvious from Energreen’s published photographs. Let’s continue tomorrow.*

back to top