Lagarde responds

The press release and advertisements of Ceneco to correct the allegations of its terminated general manager, Sulpicio Lagarde, Jr dubbed his claims as “maliciously and deceptively computed based on his twisted concept and computation with ill-intent to mislead consumers with his self-righteous motivation and hidden agenda and not in accordance with the Energy Regulatory Commission (ERC) order on its provisional authority granted to CENECO and FDCUI in the implementation of Electric Power Purchased Agreement which also included a Load Factor based formula.”

Ceneco did not only respond to Lagarde's charge of overpricing, but it also resorted to what debaters would call ad hominem argument. Attacking the person of Lagarde does not speak well of Ceneco's statements. It does not matter who composed it but the language is uncalled for, unnecessary and demeaning. Ceneco could just have answered the points raised by Lagarde without resorting to personalities.

As I write I don't know whether Lagarde has furnished other media outlets of his response to the Ceneco presentations, but his email to me says he sent copies to the Energy Regulatory Commission, the National Electrification Administration, the Department of Energy and the Presidential Action Center in Malacañang.

The Ceneco statement was technical, albeit seething with anger and reeking with spite, thus was hardly understood by ordinary members of the cooperative. If the purpose of Ceneco is to obfuscate by muddling the issue with technicalities, it has succeeded perfectly.

On the other hand, understandably, Lagarde's responses are similar as he debunks point by point Lapore's claims. However the less technically prepared, as most Ceneco members are, cannot appreciate their value as intended. In various paragraphs he accused Arnel Lapore and the Board of Directors of malice. When he dispatched each explanation of Lapore with his own computation and conclusion, Lagarde also predicates his arguments with claims that the actions of Lapore and the board arose from malice. It seems a tit for tat.

Their positions are technically loaded and since Lagarde has already submitted his opposition to the petition of Lapore and the FDCUI before the ERC, let us leave them there. The experts in ERC will surely be able to determine who is right.

But let us go to the meat of the issue that is easy for members to understand. I hope the two parties will explain in clear and simple English since the questions are also simple and in plain English. The questions are addressed to both Lagarde and Lapore.

Both came out with a formula of how rates to be charged to consumers are determined. Ceneco has different bases; Lagarde has his own. In this case they are either both correct or both wrong. What is the real basis? Lagarde says Lapore and company are keeping the data secret but finally came out with a computation. Which of the formulas used by Lapore and Lagarde is correct? Both appeared to be calling each other incompetent. Who is right?

The ERC approved only P4.8766 per kWh but after computation based on its formula with this and that add-ons Ceneco came out with a higher rate. Was this higher rate approved by ERC?

Why did Ceneco enter into a contract with FDCUI for more power when it had already contracted with several energy suppliers thus exceeded its requirement? The result is that Ceneco had plenty of unused power that we have to pay whether we use it or not.

In fact we have plenty of unused power from Kepco and this company is also demanding payment for power we never enjoyed because Ceneco did not use it. Ceneco had more than it needed. But I will deal with this later on, since several documents had come my way.

Who should pay for the unused power since the Ceneco board apparently miscalculated or knew beforehand that we had enough power? In fact, the power Ceneco contracted with Energreen has not yet entered into the power lines of Ceneco for some problems that Energreen is having in its request for connection with the national power grid.

If this over-subscription is due to a disadvantageous contract, should not the Ceneco board pay for it?

Did FDCUI sell to another power company the power that ought to be given to Ceneco but did not? It does not need a lot of explanation to answer this question. It needs only a yes” or a “no”. If FCDUI sold the power due to failure of Ceneco to use it, for how much did it earn?

Let's just pause for replies.*

back to top