decision erc case no. 2001-740(erbcaseno.+2000-154)

7/25/2019 Decision ERC Case No. 2001-740(ERBCaseNo.+2000-154)

1/30

WILLIAM L. CHAN,

Complainant,

- versus -

MANILA ELECTRIC COMPANY

(MERALCO),

Respondent.

)( - - - - ~- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - )(

ERC CASE NO. 2001-743

(ERB CASE NO. 2000-154)

D 0 C,&liil T IiD

Date: ,~.t;~~..~.,~~!5~ : ' V L l


2/30

)( ~ - - - )( ~ : V L l

ERC Case No. 2001-743 (ERB Case No. 2000-154)

DECISION/September 14,2015

Page 2 of 28

This is the underlying reason why a public utility is

required to exercise utmost care and diligence in dealings

with its customers. To paraphrase the principle laid down

by the Supreme Court, apublic utility has dominance over

its market and its customers. Thus, in the regulation

thereof, the State considers the serious consequences

and hardships that a customer may stand to suffer uponservice disconnection as well as his relatively weak

bargaining position as against apublic utility.2

Conversely, a person who, under threat of service

disconnection, was made to settle excessive charges,

must be afforded the full protection of

the laws. Thus, themaxim: Nemo cum alterius detrimento protest (No

person should unjustly enrich himself at the expense

ofanother).


3/30



Pag e 3 o f 28 .

3. Upon approval of Mr. Chan's application for the supply of

electric power for his ice plant [Service Identification No.

(SIN) 800633901], MERALCO installed the necessary

electrical equipment. Among these are Active Electric

Meter with No. 701 GE00067 and Reactive Electric Meter

with No. 701 DQAD16. Both electric meters were installed

outside the premises of his ice plant;

4. On November 16, 1998, Mr. Chan discovered that one of

his kWh meters was missing and immediately reported

the same to MERALCO. This discovery was made when

he noticed that his monthly energy consumption was

consistently pegged at 165,240 kWh. for three (3)consecutive months, particularly, the billing in the periods

of August 11, 1998 to September 11, 1998, September

11, 1998 to October 12, 1998, and October 12, 1998 to

November 11, 1998. He concluded that MERALCO billed

him based on assumed reading He manifested that the


4/30



Page 4 of 28

9. Unsatisfied with the explanations given by MERALCO, he

instituted the foregoing complaints to recover, among

others, the total amount of PhP2,086,479.45, broken

down as follows:

Sep tembe r 11 , 1998 t o Oc tobe r 12 , 1998

Oc tobe r 12 ,1998 t o Novembe r 11 , 1998 *

Oc tobe r 12 , 1998 t o Novem be r 11 , 1998

Per iod

Augus t 11 , 1998 t o Sep tembe r 11 , 1998

N o v e m b e r 1 1 , 19 9 8 to D e c e m b e r 1 1 , 1 9 9 8

541 ,877 .P a id o n O c to b e r 23, 1998, Fu ll P a m e

548 ,656 .P a i d o n O c to b e r 3 0 ,1998, F ull P a m e

389 ,559 .Pa id on Janua 18, 1999, 70% o fPhP 556 ,513 .90

335 ,549 .Fu ll P a me n t - Ma ch in e V a lid a tio

101 ,202 .P i d M 26 1999 F ll P


5/30



Page 5 of 28

" Terms and Conditions of Service

x xx.

Customer Liability:

In the event of loss of, or damage to

property of the Company through misuse or

negligence on the part of the Customer or his

employees or household members, the cost of

the necessary repairs or replacement thereof

shall be paid to the Company by theCustomer.

Customers will be held responsible for

tampering, interfering with, or breaking of


6/30



Page 6 of 28

Payments:

Bills will be rendered by the Company to

the Customer monthly in accordance with the

applicable rate schedule. Said bills are

payable to collectors or at the main or branch

offices of the Company or its authorized bankswithin ten (10) days after the regular reading

date of the electric meters. The word "month"

as used herein and in the rate schedule is

hereby defined to be the elapsed time

between two succeeding meter readings

approximately thirty (30) days apart. In theevent of the stoppage or the failure by any

meter to register the full amount of energy

consumed, the Customer shall be billed for

such period on an estimated consumption

based upon his use of energy in a similar


7/30



Page 7 of 28

12. Based on the foregoing provisions, MERALCO contended

that it has the contractual and legal right to disconnect

electric service for the default of its customers to pay its

regular bills or adjusted bills in those cases where the

meter stopped or failed to register the full amount of

electric energy consumed by Mr. Chan;

13. MERALCO further contended that the use of estimated

consumption in cases where the meter fails to register the

actual consumption is contractually and legally

permissible as long as it is based on a similar period of

like use. It is submitted that the use of a prior

consumption reading on subsequent billing periods iscovered by the above provision and falls under the phrase

"similar period of like use";

14 On its part MERALCO summarized the payments made


8/30



Page 8 of 28

15. Thus, MERALCO prayed that the complaints filed by Mr.

Chan be dismissed for lack of merit and that then ERB

recognize the adjusted billings assessed and rendered for

the periods September 11, 1998 to October 11, 1998,

October 12, 1998 to November 11, 1998 and November

11, 1998 to December 11, 1998.

Upon the filing of Mr. Chan's "Letter-Complaint" on May 26,

1999, several conferences were held between him and MERALCO

but no amicable settlement was reached. Thus, the initial hearing

was scheduled on September 18, 2000.

During the September 18, 2000 pre-hearing conference, Mr.Chan and MERALCO failed to appear despite due notice. In view

thereof, said hearing was reset to October 16, 2000.

At th O t b 16 2000 h i f M Ch d


9/30



Page 9 of 28

At the continuation of the pre-hearing conference on June 21,

2001, MERALCO presented Ms. Conchita Bolos from. its Power

Billing Department, who explained the basis used in the computation

of Mr. Chan's differential billings. Thereafter, Mr. Chan moved for a

reconsideration of the said computations and requested that the

same be based on the ice plant's consumptions for the previous

months up to the period in question. MERALCO, on the other hand,agreed to present its engineer at the next hearing to enlighten Mr.

Chan with regard to reactive power, to present his billing history,

detailed computation of his differential billings and his re-billings as

well as to verify the name of MERALCO's personnel who conducted

the meter reading on his meter.

At the July 10, 2001 pre-hearing conference, MERALCO

presented Engr. Edgar B. Caras, who explained the basis for the

computation of Mr. Chan's differential billings. On the other hand, Mr.

Chan reiterated his allegation that his meter was removed since

A t 1998 S id ll ti d i d b MERALCO


10/30


DECISION/September 14,2015Page 10 of 28 .

At the May 13, 2002 hearing, Ms. Chan was presented as

witness to corroborate Mr. Chan's testimony relative to the

inspections conducted by several personnel of MERALCO.

MERALCO objected to the presentation of the said witness on the

ground that she was being presented to testify on alleged matters

which were not included in the amended complaint. Nevertheless,

the Commission allowed Ms. Chan to testify subject to the issuanceof a ruling on the matter. In connection therewith, MERALCO

manifested its continuing objection to the presentation of the said

witness and declined to conduct its cross-examination until after the

Commission has ruled on its objection.

On May 22, 2002, the Commission issued an Order denyingMERALCO's objection during the May 13, 2002 hearing for lack of

merit.

During the October 7 2002 hearing Mr Chan and MERALCO


11/30



Page 11 of 28

During the July 28, 2004 hearing, only Mr. Chan appeared. As

a result of the unexplained absence of MERALCO, he moved that the

direct testimony as well as the documents identified by Mr.

Valderrama be stricken from the records. Said motion was noted.

At the continuation of the hearing on September 21, 2004

where Mr. Chan was supposed to cross-examine Mr. Valderrama, heasked for the original bill that the witness agreed to bring with him to

the hearing. However, said witness gave a different set of

documents.

As a result, Mr. Chan moved that the testimony of said witness

and the documents he identified during his direct testimony beexpunged from the records. On the other hand, MERALCO

requested that it be given a period of five (5) days within which to file

its comment thereon. Said request was granted.


12/30


DECISION/September 14, 2015

Page 12 of 28

On October 26, 2005, the Commission issued an Order striking

out from the records MERALCO's comments to the motion to strike

testimony of Mr. Valderrama as well as its Exhibits "4", "4-A" , "5", "5-

A', "6", "6-A', "7" and "7-A" and the portion of the said witness'

testimony pertaining to the documents generated from its Customer

Management System.

In the same Order, MERALCO was directed to submit its formal

offer of evidence within fifteen (15) days from receipt thereof.

On February 6, 2006, MERALCO filed a "Partial Motion for

Reconsideration of the Order Dated October 26, 2005",

On March 9, 2006, Mr. Chan filed his "Comment/Opposition (To

Respondent's Partial Motion for Reconsideration Dated February 6,

2006)".


13/30



Page 13 of 28

On September 5, 2011, MERALCO filed a "Manifestation

Withdrawing Intention to File Certiorari with Formal Offer of Exhibits".

On October 3, 2011, Mr. Chan filed his "Comment/Objection to

Respondent's Offer of Evidence".

On January 23, 2013, the Commission issued an Order

directing MERALCO to submit, within five (5) days from receipt

thereof, certified true copies of Ms. Chan's Electric Bills (Service

Identification No. 800633901-9) for the periods July 10, 1995 to

December 12, 1995, July 10, 1996 to December 12, 1996, July 10,

1997 to December 12, 1997, and April 10, 1998 to December 12,1998.

Relative thereto, on March 6, 2013, MERALCO submitted its


14/30



Page 14 of 28

DISCUSSION

With the admission that MERALCO consistently billed Mr. Chan

with a monthly energy consumption of 165,240 kWh for the periods

August 11, 1998 to September 11,1998, September 11, 1998 toOctober 12, 1998, and October 12, 1998 to November 11, 19983

without actual meter reading, and MERALCO's new kWh meter was

defectively installed and its meter reading was used for the period

November 20 to 26, 19984, and the determination that Mr. Chan fully

and excessively paid under protest his electricity bills for the disputed

periods, the primordial issue that has to be resolved is whether Mr.

Chan is entitled to a total refund ofPhP2, 086,479. 45.

Undeniably, Mr. Chan consumed electricity when he operated

his ice plant during those periods~ sans actual meter reading.


15/30



Page 15 of 28

One of the kWh meters (kWh1) installed in the subject

establishment is intended to monitor the monthly energy consumption

and demand of the customer while the other one (kWh2), with phase-

shifting transformers, is intended to monitor the monthly power factor

of the customer. The monthly energy consumption is determined

directly through the kWh1 meter readings while the power factor is

computed accordingly using the general formulae shown below. Thecomputation requires RkVAh reading, which is retrieved from the

kWh2 meter, and the energy consumption (kWh readings), which is

monitored by the kWh1 meter.

!

Formula 1 I Qr = (2 x qr) - Pr

~3-----

I Formula 2 I pf = cos

I

[ tan -1

(~)] I


16/30



Page 16 of 28

The missing meter is the kWh1 meter which monitors and

reflects the monthly energy consumption of Mr. Chan. He manifested

that the charges imposed by MERALCO, which was based on

estimated energy consumption, is unacceptable considering that the

ice plant's production decreased during those periods and the fact

that the estimated energy consumption was higher than his averagemonthly consumption.

On November 20, 1998, MERALCO installed a new kWh meter.

Incidentally, on November 26, 1998, it was discovered that the

installation of the new kWh meter was defective. On even date,

MERALCO made the necessary adjustments to rectify the installationdefects.

Despite Mr. Chan's protest, he still paid the corresponding


17/30



Page 17 of 28

"x x x. In the event of stoppage or the failure of any

meter to register the full amount of energy consumed, the

customer shall be billed for such period on an estimated

consumption based upon his average use of energy for

the immediately preceding six-month period of like use or

the registration of a check meter subject to the

approval of the Board, except when the utility and thecustomer do not agree on such bill, in which case,

the Board shall resolve the same." (Emphasis

Supplied)

MERALCO submitted two (2) data records of Mr. Chan's

monthly consumption, namely: the Meter Reading Report and theBilling Record6, as summarized in the table below. It can be

observed that there is a discrepancy in the data presented in both

reports, particularly, the period of September 11, 1998 to November

11, 1998. The discrepancy bolstered the claim of Mr. Chan that the

kWh t l d i i id i th t th


18/30



Page 18 of 28

Table 1. Summary of the Submitted MERALCO Records

MERALCO Mete r Read ing Report MERALCO Bi ll ing Record

No. Reading kWh1 meter kWh2 meter (RkVAh) kWh1 meter (kWh) kWh2 meter (RkVA

Date Readings Difference DemandReadings Difference

(kWh) (kW h) (kW ) Difference Readings R e ad in g s D if fe re n

1 0 1/1 0/9 7 1140 - 2.26 9643 - - - -

2 0 2/1 1/9 7 1909 76 9 2.12 10120 477 - - - 3 0 3/1 1/9 7 2564 655 2.12 10541 42 1 - - -

4 04/11/97 3363 79 9 2.16 11033 492 - - - 5 0 5/1 2/9 7 4422 1,059 2.00 11633 600 - - - 6 0 6/1 1/9 7 5530 1,108 2 .07 12415 78 2 - - - 7 07111/97 6556 1,026 2.11 13112 697 - . - 8 0 8/1 2/9 7 7696 1,140 1.99 13976 86 4 - - - 9 0 9/1 1/9 7 8695 999 1.99 14858 882 - - - 1 0 1 0/1 3/9 7 9914 1,219 1 .99 15943 1,085 - - -

1 1 1 1/1 2/9 7 10377 46 3 1.96 16345 402 - - -

12 12/11/97 10916 539 2.16 16851 50 6 - . -

1 3 0 1/1 2/9 8 11661 74 5 2 .15 17449 59 8 11661 - 17449 14 02/11/98 12391 730 2.14 18059 610 12391 730 18059 1 5 0 3/1 2/9 8 13260 869 2.12 18813 754 13260 86 9 18813 1 6 0 4/1 3/9 8 14249 989 2.07 19686 873 14249 989 19686


19/30



Page 19 of 28

There was evident negligence on the part of MERALCO

considering that it did not replace the missing meter when it

conducted its regular monthly meter reading. Had it addressed the

matter immediately, the unregistered consumption should have been

one billing cycle only and the disputed unregistered energy

consumption should have been limited. Thus, it may be fair enough

that the disputed unregistered consumption should be based on thelowest monthly energy consumption within three (3) months upon

replacing the missing kiloWatt-hour (kWh) meter considering that the

prolonged period of unregistered consumption is not due to the fault

of Mr. Chan.

Nevertheless, the energy consumption or the reading of kWh1meter could be determined using the registered consumption

retrieved from kWh2 meter.

The determination of the power factor is correlated and


20/30



Page 20 of 28

The basic principle of the above analyses is that the active

energy (kWh) or PT consumed is directly proportional with the

reactive energy (kVARh) or the QT consumed provided that power

factor is constant. An increase in the reactive energy consumption

QT (it is more accurate to say that the power factor is more or less

constant) shall also increase the active energy consumption PT, and

vice versa.

By adopting the lowest/worst power factor (simulation 1) with an

energy consumption of 320,014.57 kWh, it was determined that

MERALCO had excessively billed Mr. Chan for the entire disputed

months by 302,785.43 kWh. MERALCO excessively billed Mr. Chan

with an estimated total energy consumption of 622,800.00 kWh and

made him pay under protest the corresponding bill of

PhP2,020,727.83. Mr. Chan is therefore, rightfully entitled to a refund

from MERALCO.


21/30


DECISION/Septemb er 14,2015

Page 21 of 28

With the approval of the Billing Adjustment and the

determination of the actual amount to be refunded, the Commission is

now constrained to resolve the incidental issue of whether Mr. Chan

is entitled to a cost of money for the entire period which MERALCO

erroneously withheld his money.

The Commission believes that, having already fully and

excessively paid his electricity bills for the September 11, 1998 to

November 26, 1998 billing periods, Mr. Chan already incurred an

opportunity cost of the money he used to advance and pay his

electricity bills. The applicable rate to determine Mr. Chan's legal

interest rate should be six percent (6%) per annum, as embodied inArticle 2209 of the Civil Code of the Philippines, to wit:

"If the obligation consists in the payment of a sum of

mone and the debtor inc rs in dela the indemnit for


22/30



Page 22 of 28

interest due shall itself earn legal interest from

the time it is judicially demanded. In the

absence of stipulation, the rate of interest

shalt be 12%per annum to be computed from

default, i.e., from judicial or extrajudicial

demand under and subject to the provisions of

Article 1169

of the Civil Code.

2. When an obligation, not constituting a loan

or forbearance of money. is breached, an

interest on the amount of damages

awarded may be imposed at the discretion

of the court at the rate of 6% per annum.

No interest, however, shall be adjudged on

unliquidated claims or damages except when

or until the demand can be established with

reasonable certainty. Accordingly. where the

demand is established with reasonable


23/30



Page 23 of 28

Summarized below is the breakdown of the total amount to berefunded by MERALCO to Mr. Chan:

Amount Paid, PhP

Less: A roved Billin

Difference, PhP

Plus: Legal Interest, PhP

I Total Amount to be Refunded, PhP

2,020,727.83

1,069,411.87

951,315.96

913,263.32

11,864,579.28 I

In computing the total amount of PhP1,864,579.28, the

Commission used the following formula:

A=Px(1 +rt )

Where:


24/30



Page 24 of 28

This authority of the Commission to impose interest for the use

of money emanates from its so-called incidental powers. As

discussed by the Supreme Court in C. T. Torres Enterprises,

Incorporated vs. The Hon. Romeo J. Hibionada, Efren Diongon, and

Pleasantville Development Corporation8, it was held that:

'The argument that only courts of justice can

adjudicate claims resoluble under the provisions of the

Civil Code is out of step with ..the fast-changing times.

There are hundreds of administrative bodies now

performing this function by virtue of a valid authorization

from the legislature. This quasi-judicial function, as it iscalled, is exercised by them as an incident of the principal

power entrusted to them of regulating certain activities

falling under their particular expertise.


25/30



Page 25 of 28

all incidental power, right or privilege. This is so because the greaterincludes the lesser, expressed in the maxim, in eo plus sit, simper

inest et minus.9

Thus, when an administrative agency or body is conferred

quasi-judicial functions, all controversies relating to the subject matter

pertaining to its specialization are deemed to be included within itsjurisdiction since the law does not sanction a split of jurisdiction.1o

Finally, it bears stressing that, MERALCO, as a public utility

imbued with public interest, is expected to discharge its functions with

utmost care and diligence. The utmost care and diligence required of

MERALCO necessitates such great degree of prudence on its part, andfailure to exercise the diligence required means that MERALCO was at fault

and negligent in the performance of its obligation.11

Pr dence dictates that MERALCO taking into consideration


26/30



Page 26 of 28

thereto), meters and other apparatus which may be required for

the proper measurement of and protection to its service.12

Again, considering the technical skills and expertise involved in

the installation of kWh meters, MERALCO is expected to ensure that

the same is properly installed. Unfort.unately, such was not the case

in the subject complaints. MERALCO should have employed utmostdiligence necessary to warrant that the newly installed kWh meter in

Mr. Chan's ice plant is operating under normal condition as any

defect, either in the meter or installation thereof, cannot easily be

detected by Mr. Chan, more so, by an ordinary consumer.

What is unfathomable is that, despite Mr. Chan havingexcessively paid his electricity bills for the disputed billing periods,

MERALCO imposed threats of service disconnection for its

subsequent billing adjustments for the same billing periods. The

foregoing circumstances are clear manifestations that MERALCO


27/30



Page 27 of 28

Thus, a penalty of One Hundred Thousand Pesos

(PhP100,000.00) is hereby imposed against it pursuant to Section 5,

Article 11/of Resolution NO.3, Series of 2009 on the Guidelines to

Govern the Imposition of Administrative Sanctions in the Forms of

Fines and Penalties pursuant to Section 46 of Republic Act No. 9136,

otherwise known as the Electric Power Industry Reform Act of 2001or the EPIRA13. MERALCO is directed to REMIT the said amount,

either in cash or in check, in the name of the Energy Regulatory

Commission (ERC), within fifteen (15) days from receipt hereof.

SO ORDERED.

Pasig City, September 14, 2015.


28/30



Page 28 of 28

Copy Furnished:

1. Mr. William Chan

Complainant

No. 537 Arnaiz Avenue, Pasay City .

2. Heffron Esguerra Dy and De Jesus Law Offices

Counsel for the Complainant

Unit 706, Tycoon Center,

Pearl Drive, Pasig City

3. Manila Electric Company (MERALCO)

Respondent

Lopez Building

MERALCO Compound

Orligas Avenue, Pasig c~


29/30

SUMMARY OF DATA AND DISPUTED ENERGY CONSUMPTION COMPUTATION

I No Data IntegrityI

ANN

1 12-Jan-1998 1 11-Feb-1998 12-Mar-1998 13-Apr-1998 l1-May-1998 ll -Jun-1998 10-Jul-1998 l l-Au!l -1998 1 l l-Sep-1998 I ll -D ec-1998 1 15-M

Actual Meter 1Meter 1 IActive Energy (KWh) 1 116611 12391 13260 14249 15222 16350 17454 1 88261 202031 1

Readings 1Meter 2 Iq-reading (RKVAh) 1 174491 18059 18813 19686 20542 21532 22496 2 37021 249201 260561

C f 1Meter 1 IActive Energy (KWh) 1 1 730.00 1 869.00 I 989.00 1 973.00 1 1,128.00 I 1,104. 00 1,372. 00 1 1,377. 00 1 Ionsump Ion .

1 610.00 1 873.00 1 856.00 1 990.00 1 1,206.00 I 1,218.00 1 1,136.00 1I Meter 2 Iq-readmg (RKVAh) I 754.00 964.00

I with mulitplier of 120 (x120) I direct reading

Meter 1 IActive Energy (KWh) 1 I 8 7 ,6 00 .0 0 1 1 04 ,2 80 .0 0 1 18 ,6 80 .0 0 I 116,760.00 1 13 5, 36 0. 00 1 1 32 ,4 80 .0 0 1 1 64 ,6 40 .0 0 1 1 65 ,2 40 .0 0 I 4 19 ,3 92 .0 0 IActual

1 with mulitplier of 120 (x120)Consumption

Meter 2 Iq-reading (RKVAh) 1 1 73,200.00 I 90,480.00 I 104,760.00 I 102,720.00 1 118,800.00 I 115,680.00 1 144,720.00 1 146,160.00 I 136,320.00 1 2

Notes: 1) New meter was installed replacing the missing Meter 1 on Nov. 20, 1998 however, said new meter was found defective on Nov. 26, 1998, thus, integrity of KWh data during said period is in question;

2) The new meter replacing Meter 1 is direct reading or it does not require any multiplier;

3) Meter 2 was continuosly used and data was recorded even after replacing Meter 1; and

4) - consumotion based on MERALCO's etimates.

1 12-Jan-1998 1 11-Feb-1998 I 12-Mar-1998 1 13-Apr-1998 1 11-May-1998 1 l1-Jun-1998 I 10-Jul-1998 I l 1-Au!l-1998 I 11-5ep-1998 I l l -D ec-1998 I 15-M

Reactive Energy 1 1 3 3, 948 .2 0 1 4 4, 271 .22 1 5 2, 44 6. 50 1 51,199.42 1 5 9, 02 8. 29 1 5 7, 088 .3 9 1 7 2, 053 .31 1 73 ,36 9. 67 I 1

Power Factor I pf (%)1 1 93.24%1 92.05%1 91.47%1 91.58% 1 91.66%1 91. 84%1 91. 61%1 91.40%1 1Computation for

Total Active Energy Consumption (KWh) for the period of Jan 12, 1998 to Aug 11, 1998 1 859,800.00 1Power Factor

Total Reactive Energy Consumption (KVARh) for the period of Jan 12, 1998 to Aug 11, 1998 1 370,035.33 1

Simulation 1: ILowest Power Factor for the period of Jan 12, 1998 to Aug 11, 1998 I 91.47%1

Simulation 2: IAvraae. Power Factor for the period of Jan 12, 1998 to Aua 11, 1998 1 91.85%1

SIMULATION 1: I l l-Aug-1998 11-Dec-1998

~ctual a-readina (RKVAh) 1 23,702 26,056

KWh consumption ~ctual q-reading wi mull. (x120) - (RKVAh) 1 2,844,240.00 3,126,720.00

of the disputed ~ ct ual T ot al q -r ea din g ( Au g 1 1, 1 99 8 t o De c 11 , 19 98 ) 28 2, 48 0. 00

period using the Lowest Power Fact or (Jan 12, 1998 to Aug 11, 199811 91.47%

lowest power 4-month KWh Consumption (Aug 11, 1998 to Dec 11, 1998) 320,014.57factor of the entire Monthly KWh Consumption (Aug 11, 1998 to Dec 11, 1998) 80,003.64

year No. of Disputed Months (Aug. 11, 1998 to Dec. 11,1998) 4

SIMULATION 2:I 11-Aug-1998 11-D

~ctual a-read ina (RKVAh) 1 23,702

KWh consumption ~ctual q-reading wi mull. (x120) - (RKVAh) 1 2,844,240.00 3,12

of the disputed ~ctual Total q-reading (Aug 11, 1998 to Dec 11, 1998) 2

period using the ~ve. Power Factor (Jan 12, 1998 to Aug 11, 1998) I

average power ~-month KWh Consumption (Aug 11, 1998 to Dec 11, 1998) 323factor of the entire Monthly KWh Consumption (Aug 11, 1998 to Dec 11, 1998) 80

year No. of Disputed Months (Aug. 11, 1998 to Dec. 11,1998)

Pa


30/30

ANNEX

SUMMARY OF THE APPROVED CHARGES

~ Si mul at i on 1 I I Si mul at i on 2 I

W

I Monthly Energy (KWh) II 80,003.64I

W

I Monthly Energy (KWh) II 80,919.931ILoad Factor II 84.13%1 ILoad Factor II 84.13%1

Monthly Demand (KW) I .II 132.081

Monthly Demand (KW) I .

II 133.591MaXimumDemand MaXimumDemand

I Monthly Power Factor-(%) II 91.47%1 I Monthly Power Factor (%) II 91.85%1

-Basic Charges IIConsumption

I I Rates Amount. . .

. . . Energy (KWh) 80,003.64 1.92 153,606.99. . . XCo Demand (KW) 132.08 X 220.00 29,056.89Gl

rn Power Factor Adjustment 182,663.88 x -1.92% (3,507.15)0

Power Factor 91.47% . .. . .Cur renc y Ad just men t 179, 15 6. 73 4.24% 7,596.25. . . x

til PPA 80,003.64 x 0.957 76,563.49: : : : I Demand (KW) 132.08 x 220.00 29,056.890

z Power Factor Adjustment 182,663.88 x -1.92% (3,507.15)0

Power Factor 91.47% . .N

Currency Adjustment 179,156.73 4.58% 8,205.38. . . x. . . PPA 80,003.64 x 1.038 83,043.780

0

I Sub.total Amount I 270,405.89I-, . . . . -Basic Charges IIConsumotion I I Rates Amount. . .

. . .Energy (KWh) 80,003.64 x 1.92 153,606.99

U Demand (KW) 132.08 x 220.00 29,056.89GlC Power Factor Adjustment 182,663.88 x -3.12% (5,699.11)0

Power Factor 91.47% . .. . . Currency Adjustment 176,964.77 3.91% 6,919.32. . . x: > PPA 80,003.64 x 1.065 85,203.880

zI Sub-total Amount I 269,087.97I

, . . . . -

Basi c C ha ra es I I Consu mo ti on I I Rates Amount. . .

. . . Energy (KWh) 80,919.93 1.92 155,366.26. . . xCo Demand (KW) 133.59 x 220.00 29,389.67Gl

rn Power Factor Adjustment 184,755.93 x -1 .9 2% ( 3, 547 .3 1)0

Power Factor 91.85% . .. . .

Currency Adjustment 181,208.62 4.24% 7,683.25. . . xtil PPA 80,919.93 x 0.957 77,440.37: : : : I Demand (KW) 133.59 x 220.00 29,389.670

z Power Factor Adjustment 184,755.93 x -1.92% (3,547.31)0 Power Factor 91.85% . .N

Currency Adjustment 181,208.62 4.58% 8,299.35. . . x. . . PPA 80,919.93 x 1.038 83,994.880

0

I Sub.total Amount I 273,502.86I-. . . B asi c C ha rg es II Consu mpti on I I Rates Amount. . .

Energy (KWh) 80,919.93 x 1 .92 155,366.26U Demand (KW) 133.59 x 220.00 29,389.67GlC Power Factor Adiustment 184,755.93 x - 3. 12% (5 ,7 64. 39)0

Power Factor 91.85% . .. . . Currency Adjustment 178,991.55 3.91% 6,998.57. . . x: > PPA 80,919.93 x 1.065 86,179.720

zI Sub-total Amount I 272,169.84I

Grand Total Amount 1,069,411.871 Grand Total Amount 1,081,659.871

Pa

decision erc case no. 2001-740(erbcaseno.+2000-154)

Documents