NASECORE Urges DOE–NEA Action to Shield Consumers from Renewed WESM Price Spikes
The National Association of Electricity Consumers for Reforms, Inc. (NASECORE) has formally called on the Department of Energy (DOE) to take immediate supervisory and corrective action amid renewed spikes in Wholesale Electricity Spot Market (WESM) prices in the Visayas and Mindanao, warning that ongoing procedural delays are once again exposing millions of consumers to avoidable and excessive electricity costs.
In a letter dated 12 January 2026, addressed to Energy Secretary Sharon S. Garin in her dual capacity as DOE Secretary and Chairperson of the NEA Board, NASECORE highlighted how delays in the review and approval of Emergency Power Supply Agreements (EPSAs) and Competitive Selection Process (CSP) Terms of Reference (TORs) are forcing electric cooperatives (ECs) to rely heavily on volatile WESM purchases—directly to the detriment of captive consumers.
Why This Matters to Consumers?
According to reports from EC General Managers in the Visayas and Mindanao, applications for EPSAs remain stalled at the National Electrification Administration (NEA) due to the absence of clear timelines and defined processing periods. While regulatory oversight is necessary, the lack of time-bound action has had real-world consequences:
- Prolonged exposure of ECs to volatile WESM prices
- Higher power costs passed on to consumers
- Disproportionate impact on cooperative-served areas, where consumers have no alternative suppliers
NASECORE emphasized that EPSAs are emergency, interim tools, not substitutes for transparent, least-cost procurement through CSP. Yet regulatory delays are effectively pushing ECs into repeated emergency sourcing, undermining both consumer protection and long-term market discipline.
ERC Has Already Warned About This Risk
In its 1 July 2024 Order (ERC Case No. 2024-017 MC), the Energy Regulatory Commission (ERC) explicitly found that WESM prices during periods of market stress were “unusually high, unreasonable, and exorbitant,” posing direct and material harm to consumers.
The ERC further recognized that:
- Many ECs in the Visayas and Mindanao rely on WESM for 20%–50% of their power requirements
- Prolonged WESM dependence magnifies price shocks
- Extraordinary price volatility is a proper subject of regulatory intervention, not something consumers should be left to absorb
Despite these findings, the same risk conditions are now re-emerging.
NASECORE’s Call to the DOE
NASECORE underscored that NEA is an attached agency of the DOE, and that during periods of market stress, regulatory coordination must function as a safeguard—not a bottleneck.
To prevent further consumer harm, NASECORE urged the DOE to issue urgent written guidance or directives clarifying:
- NEA’s role in EPSA and CSP TOR reviews, including whether its review is recommendatory or mandatory relative to ERC approval;
- Definitive processes and maximum timelines for NEA evaluation of:
- EPSA TORs; and
- CSP TORs; and
- Interim consumer-protective measures during elevated WESM prices, such as:
- Allowing parallel ERC processing of EPSAs while NEA review is ongoing; and/or
- Granting time-bound, provisional authority for EPSAs, subject to safeguards and mandatory transition to CSP-approved power supply agreements.
Importantly, NASECORE stressed that these measures are not intended to weaken CSP requirements, but to prevent procedural delays from forcing consumers into repeated emergency procurement at excessive prices.
Urgency and Next Steps
Given the immediate and measurable impact of renewed WESM price spikes, NASECORE requested a DOE response within five (5) to seven (7) working days, noting that every day of delay translates into higher power costs borne by consumers—particularly in EC-served areas.
A copy of the letter was also furnished to the Office of the President, for information and possible executive intervention should administrative coordination fail to protect the public interest.
NASECORE’s Position
Electricity consumers should not pay the price for regulatory deadlock.
NASECORE reiterates that least-cost power, transparency, and consumer protection are not optional policy goals—they are mandates under the EPIRA and existing ERC rulings. Government agencies must act with urgency and coordination to ensure that market volatility does not become a recurring burden on Filipino households.