It’s crunch time on fuel surcharge fee

The Commonwealth Utilities Corp. board of directors will decide today whether or not to implement the proposed fuel surcharge amid public opposition and government efforts to bail consumers out of the additional fee.

CUC chair Francisco Q. Guerrero stressed on Wednesday the importance of making a decision before Nov. 29, especially if the utility firm wants to implement the fuel surcharge this calendar year.

A new issue of the monthly Commonwealth Register will be published on Monday. If the CUC board does not give its go-signal before then, the proposed fuel surcharge regulations (which were published last month) would not be included for adoption and therefore could not be implemented.

If this happens, CUC will not have a chance to publish the adopted regulations until another issue of the Commonwealth Register is put out in late December. Further, once the notice of adoption is published, CUC will have to wait another 10 days before it can implement the fuel surcharge.

Under this scenario, it is likely that the whole process would not be completed until January 2005.

Since the law prohibits CUC from adjusting the fuel surcharge during the first calendar year of implementation, customers would be assured that they would not be charged more than 3.5 cents per kwh for the entire 2005.

On Wednesday, the CUC board members agreed to hold another meeting at 2pm Friday to finally decide on the proposed fuel surcharge.

Guerrero, along with vice chair Herman Sablan and treasurer Allen Perez, maintained that time is running out on the fuel surcharge issue.

“I think everyone understands the seriousness of our cash flow situation. There are only so many areas we can cut back on….At this point, we have to take the worst-case scenario: What if no one comes to our rescue?” Perez said.

However, board member Velma Ann Palacios said it may be too soon to make a decision.

She said CUC has not done enough to convince the public how much it needs the 3.5-cent fuel surcharge. She pointed out that, while the public was able to come up with numerous cost-cutting measures for CUC’s consideration, the utility firm itself seems to lack an alternative action plan to solve its problems.

“I feel we’re just sitting back and letting others find the solution to problems,” Palacios said.

Newly confirmed CUC board member Martin Mendiola also expressed reservation about making a decision on the fuel surcharge proposal. All the information he has got so far about the fuel surcharge comes from the media, he said.

“This is a very serious issue that will impact even our own pocket. I understand we have a fiduciary responsibility to keep the solvency of the corporation, but we can’t hastily make a decision,” Mendiola said.

For his part, board member Joe Torres agreed that CUC must make a decision, instead of allowing the time to simply lapse.

Nevertheless, he insisted that the CUC administration should present different action plans under various scenarios such as a possible government subsidy, among other things.