First of three parts
A SQUABBLE over what is supposed to be a temporary power supply agreement for the electric cooperative (EC) serving the small island province of Catanduanes has exposed a number of troubling questions about the apparent authoritarian overreach of the National Electrification Administration (NEA), the agency tasked with supervising the nation’s ECs. Caught in the middle are the 62,000 customers of the First Catanduanes Electric Cooperative (Ficelco), who, like customers at every EC, are constantly referred to as “consumer-member-owners,” but have little control over whether or not they will have reliable, affordable power.
The trouble apparently started in March or April of this year, when it became apparent that Ficelco would lose part of its electricity supply in a matter of weeks. Catanduanes has a demand of about 24 megawatts (MW), and like many smaller ECs, has struggled with finding long-term supply through the legally mandated competitive selection process (CSP). In such cases where completing a CSP and securing a long-term supply agreement is delayed, the EC has to resort to an emergency power supply agreement (EPSA). In Ficelco’s case, it had one with Sunwest Water & Electric Co. (Suweco), which provided 5 MW of reliable supply through six diesel generator sets. That agreement, however, was set to expire on May 15. According to the local Catanduanes news at the time, the NEA urged Ficelco to negotiate for an extension of the EPSA until a new EPSA with another supplier could be finalized, although one would think the Ficelco board and management probably did not need to be told to do that.
In any event, Suweco refused to extend the EPSA, and exited the story. Although Suweco has not commented publicly on the situation since, what happened from that point on could lead one to conclude that the company simply decided to disentangle itself from a headache-inducing situation, because the story becomes rather murky after this.
On May 14, just a day before the expiration of the EPSA with Suweco, the Catanduanes Tribune reported that a site adjacent to Ficelco’s headquarters had been prepared for the installation of an 8MW diesel genset to be provided by Cebu-based Vivant Corp. as part of a new EPSA. The news story noted that the Ficelco’s board of directors had approved Vivant’s proposal “by a tiebreaker,” following the recommendation of a technical committee. This followed Ficelco’s call for bids for an EPSA, which attracted two bidders, Vivant, or rather a subsidiary not identified in the news story; and SC Megaworld Construction and Development Corp., owned by former Catanduanes representative Hector Sanchez.
The description of the two bidders in the Catanduanes Tribune article is interesting, because the local paper has been accused of being heavily biased in its reporting on the story, which stretched across three articles that I was able to find (May 14, May 21 and June 6). In the first article (May 14), the paper wrote:
“A check of S.C. Megaworld’s website shows that it is mostly engaged in construction of buildings and related structures, although it claims to have completed several solar rooftop projects for malls in Central Visayas.
“In contrast, the Cebu-based Vivant is deemed a key player in the power industry and is actively involved in power generation, distribution and retail electricity supply in the country, with particular focus on SPUG (Small Power Utilities Group) areas like Catanduanes.
“Through 11 subsidiaries and associate companies, Vivant operates the 47-MW bunker-fuel power plant in Palawan serving the local cooperative, a 23-MW power plant in Bantayan Island, and a 24-MW plant in Busuanga island, among others.
“In 2023, it acquired for P395 million the San Ildefonso Alternative Energy Corp. in Bulacan, which runs a 22-MW solar power plant in a 24-hectare site.
“The company also holds a 40 percent equity stake in Samal Solar Renewable Energy Corp. and its 53-MW solar power plant that went into commercial operation in August 2025.
“According to a source, the Sanchez company’s proposals contained only general descriptions and did not contain specifics of its plan to supply the 6 megawatts needed to replace the contribution of Suweco’s EPSA 1 gensets.
“On the other hand, Vivant reportedly offered to field modular gensets capable of generating 8 megawatts of electricity, enough to address expected deficiencies in the grid this summer.”
If one did not have additional information, the natural conclusion would be that Ficelco’s leadership made the prudent choice of an established energy company over an upstart whose real business was general construction, and which could not offer anything better than vague plans about how it would meet the co-op’s needs. Hell, even I would think that, if this news was all I had to go on; Vivant is moderately well-known, and has a good, or at least an uncontroversial reputation, whereas the other bidder is a company I’ve never heard of, run by a local politician who served one term in Congress (2019-2022) and lost his reelection bid.
Thus, it would seem completely reasonable, based on the Cataduanes Tribune’s reporting, that Ficelco would choose Vivant — or specifically, the “Vivant subsidiary” not identified in the first of the three news stories — over SC Megaworld, even though the latter offered a somewhat lower fuel cost component in its bid, which the report said would amount to a P1.60 per kilowatt-hour (kWh) lower rate to consumers. The slightly higher rate would seem a small price to pay for a better guarantee of sufficient, reliable electricity.
Fortunately, or unfortunately depending on your point of view, there is additional information, much of it gathered by the consumer advocacy group Partners for Affordable and Reliable Electricity (PARE), and some of it gleaned from other sources. While PARE was quite careful to identify the unsubstantiated or unconfirmed information in its findings, what could be fact-checked passed muster, and paints a very different picture than the sanitized news from Catanduanes or any of the entities involved presents. It is a glaring illustration of a system for managing and monitoring ECs that is completely and perhaps irretrievably broken, operating according to invisible rules in apparent contravention of existing laws and regulations.
To be continued
Bluesky: @benkritz.bsky.social
Website: www.badmannersgunclub.com