Showing posts with label GOCCs. Show all posts
Showing posts with label GOCCs. Show all posts

Friday, March 25, 2016

BWorld 51, WESM as market-oriented, PEMC as bureaucracy-oriented

* This is my article in BusinessWorld last March 23, 2016.


Power generation in the Philippines generally kept up with its ASEAN neighbors in the 1980s up to the early 1990s. By 2000, power capacity in many of our neighbors have doubled or tripled while the Philippines’ has less than doubled. By 2010, Indonesia, Thailand, Malaysia, and Vietnam have kept doubling or tripling their power generation levels in just one decade while the Philippines’ has expanded by only 50%.
  
The figures for China and South Korea are similar, doubling or tripling power capacity every decade. It is not possible to sustain high economic growth without high and stable electricity supply for households and companies.


High power production means high or fast growth in power consumption per capita. Or the reverse, slow power capacity expansion means low consumption per capita, and this is what happened in the Philippines. Until 2000, our per capita consumption was higher than Indonesia and Vietnam, and only one-third that of Thailand. By 2010, things turned around: ours were lower than those in Indonesia and Vietnam and only one-fourth of Thailand. Cambodia is catching up with four times expansion of power capacity in just one decade from 2000 to 2010. 


Note that the Electric Power Industry Reform Act (EPIRA) was enacted in 2001. The law has deregulated and demonopolized power generation where before, Napocor was the single power producer and owner of power transmission nationwide.

So has EPIRA restricted power generation or has the law saved the industry from atrophy? Based on previous columns on the energy sector, various government bureaucracies, local and national, are major contributors to a soured business climate in power generation. Securing nearly 200 different permits and signatures from different agencies over a period of 2-5 years before one can start real power plant construction is no joke.

Power generation companies (gencos) secure bilateral supply contracts with different distribution utilities (DUs) and electric cooperatives (ECs). DUs and ECs are considered as “utilities” and hence, are described as natural monopolies. Zero competition allowed, they just need to secure a Congressional franchise for 25 years, an arrangement that can be renewed.

Outside the contracted power, gencos have extra capacity to produce and sell. DUs too need extra capacity during peak hours on weekdays, or during the hot months of March to May, during fiesta season in many cities and municipalities, and so on.

For such uncontracted power, both gencos and DUs go to the Wholesale Electricity Spot Market (WESM) to buy and sell electricity. The lead time for spot pricing is not one week or one day but only few hours before electricity supply need to be expanded or curtailed.

WESM is governed and administered by the Philippine Electricity Market Corporation (PEMC). It is a weird body because EPIRA of 2001 says there should be an Independent Market Operator (IMO) that should administer WESM, but PEMC has become a bloated government bureaucracy pretending to be a private bureaucracy.

PEMC Board is a 16-man body chaired by the Department of energy (DoE) Secretary plus 15 Directors: 4 from gencos (2 from government, PSALM and NPC, and 2 private), 4 from DUs (2 from ECs and 2 non-ECs), 4 independent of the power industry, 1 from WESM customers including suppliers, 1 from the National Grid Corporation of the Philippines (NGCP) representing the system operator and Transco, and 1 from market operator represented by PEMC itself.

I was able to secure the transcript of three Committee hearings of the Senate Committee on Energy (October and December 2015, and January 2016) headed by Sen. Serge OsmeƱa, thanks to his staff Vina.

From those transcripts and related readings, I gather these eight questionable or weird things in the PEMC Board and WESM.

First, PEMC is supposed to be an IMO yet there are several government officials sitting on its Board, including the DoE Secretary and representatives from the Power Sector Assets and Liabilities Management Corporation (PSALM) and the National Power Corporation (NPC). The NGCP is a private corporation but it is representing a government corporation, Transco. Then there are advisers to the Board, two of whom are from government, a DoE Undersecretary and the National Electrification Administration (NEA).

Second, the actual power production of PSALM and NPC are small, almost negligible from the genco mix of Meralco for instance, yet they are almost permanent members of the Board.

Third, those 4 independent directors and the consumer representative (5 total) are all appointed by the DoE Secretary and hence, should be friendly to the government.

Fourth, PEMC is regulated by the Energy Regulatory Commission (ERC) which is under the administrative control of the DoE Secretary. So the Secretary heads an agency that is regulated by a government body that is under the Office of the Secretary.

Fifth, all the income of PEMC and WESM is collected from the gencos, especially private gencos, and the private gencos have only two seats. No collection from DUs, from independent Directors, from consumers, from system operator and market operator. The ERC and DoE get a certain percentage from the total WESM revenues.

Sixth, PEMC is pretending to be a private corporation when in reality it is a government-owned and controlled corporation (GOCC). By virtue of its being DoE Secretary-controlled, the presence of several government corporations and agencies in the Board, it is a government-owned bureaucracy pretending to be a private bureaucracy.

Seventh, being a GOCC pretending to be a private corporation, part of its collections or revenues are being used by the DoE and ERC for their respective regulatory and policy formulation functions. PEMC budget is also approved by the ERC, then PEMC should be audited by the Commission on Audit but currently, private auditing firms do the job.

And eighth, gencos pay for all the market fees at WESM and they are subject to price control via primary and secondary price caps. Their peaking plants need to charge higher on those few hours they run to compensate for many hours a day that they are not running and still make a profit, and pay more market fees yet they are restricted from doing this via price control.

So if you are a genco and you are subject to these kinds of policy distortions and bureaucratic interventions at WESM -- and paying for all of it -- that creates another layer of disincentive to do business.

And that will further put some brakes on an otherwise huge demand for fast and high generation capacity so we can catch up with our neighbors like Vietnam and Indonesia. In this age of ASEAN economic integration, energy-intensive sectors can put up their manufacturing companies in cheaper-energy countries like Indonesia, Vietnam, Cambodia, and Thailand, then export to the Philippines at zero tariff. Also, energy-intensive services like hotels (lights, aircon and elevators running 24/7) and tourism can expand faster in cheaper-energy countries than in expensive-energy countries like the Philippines.

We need less government interventions and distortions in the energy sector. It is among the important prerequisites for the Philippines to grow faster and create more jobs and businesses to the people.

Bienvenido S. Oplas, Jr. is the head of Minimal Government Thinkers, a Fellow of the South East Asia Network for Development (SEANET), and a member of the Economic Freedom Network (EFN) Asia. All three entities support the philosophy of classical liberalism in politics and economics.
minimalgovernment@gmail.com
------------- 

See also:
BWorld 34, Solar power and supply instability, December 24, 2015 
BWorld 39, Coal and renewables complement each other, January 26, 2016
BWorld 43, More on WESM, PEMC and DOE, February 14, 2016
BWorld 47, Renewable energy and the illusion of merit order effect, March 06, 2016
BWorld 49, John Locke and Jovito Salonga, March 18, 2016

BWorld 50, Adam Smith and Jovito Salonga, March 21, 2016

Sunday, February 07, 2016

Privatization 12: PH government corporations sold, retained as of 2007

I just found a hard copy of my paper presented at the 1st Pacific Rim Policy Exchange, held at Sheraton Waikiki Hotel, Hawaii, in late May 2007 or nearly 9 years ago. The event was jointly sponsored by the Americans for Tax Reforms (ATR), Property Rights Alliance (PRA), International Policy Network (IPN), Grassroot Institute Hawaii (GIH), and a Japanese foundation.

Below is the 5-pages Annex of my paper, the list of PH GOCCs and GFIs. Those that were fully privatized, those that were retained.


Hundreds of government corporations, typical 70s and 80s model of "state as saviour, planner, businessman" model. From agriculture to manufacturing, energy, shipping, banking, there were hundreds of government corporations.



One big problem in government for taxpayers -- once a government agency, a bureau or department or corporation or university, etc. is created, they almost always become permanent. If they lose money (very often they do), no problem for them because the DOF and Congress will simply set aside and appropriate money to bail them out.


Sunday, August 25, 2013

Fat Free Econ 46: On Pork Barrel Aboition

* This is my article today in interaksyoncom.
----------

MANILA - From Countrywide Development Fund (CDF) to Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF) and now a reformed pork that has yet to be named. The legislators' pork barrel is not truly abolished but only reformed. 

The pork barrel system can truly be eliminated, but that would mean a significant shrinking of the Executive branch -- in budget, subsidies, size of the bureaucracy and regulatory powers. Because an activist and really independent legislature will disallow unnecessary spending. Are the people ready for this scenario?

The President announced last Friday that he is abolishing PDAF. A reformed budget for legislators’ special fund will be set up subject to the following guidelines:

1.       Projects to be funded to come from a specific menu of qualified projects;
2.       Disallowed are soft projects: fertilizers, seeds, medicines, medical kits, dentures, funding for sports fest, training materials, and other such items;
3.       Disallowed are temporary infrastructure, dredging, de-silting, re-gravelling, or asphalt-overlay projects;
4.       Funds cannot be disbursed to NGOs and certain GOCCs, such as ZREC and NABCOR, both of which, along with others, will be abolished;
5.       Funds must be limited to the district or sector of the legislator who sponsored it;
6.       All items will be subject to open and competitive bidding, with all bid notices and awards posted on the Philippine Government Electronic Procurement System (PhilGEPS); and
7.       For transparency, each will be disclosed in the DBM and related agency websites, as well as the National Data Portal of the government.

This means legislators’ pork barrel system will continue but (a) limited to hard projects like new roads, (b) coursed through line departments, and (c) pass through competitive bidding.

Pork barrel a compromise

Legislators’ pork barrel is a compromise allowed by the President so the former would support certain spending and revenue-raising measures. Aside from the explicit pork barrel -- which is a separate item in the National Expenditure Program (NEP) -- there is also an implicit pork in the form of “budgetary insertion” by legislators. They can cut the proposed budget of certain agencies they do not like, then increase the budget of another agency that is friendly to them, with the implicit arrangement that the legislators, or even some Congressional staff, will get a portion or the entire amount of such hike in the agency's budget.

The national budget hit P1 trillion six years ago, while the P2 trillion is upon us this year. The P3 trillion budget will be reached in 2016 or 2017. The public debt stock is rising by around P400 billion a year. Interest payment is rising to P313 billion in 2012, P333 billion this year and P352 billion next year.

This expansion of public spending, borrowing and debt payment -- as well as new or higher taxes -- was made possible because the legislators had allowed it, because they have a "share" of that huge spending, through pork barrel and Congressional insertion. If we disallow the legislators their “share” or claim to the national budget, they will become activist and more independent minded, and they will disallow such uncontrolled expansion in spending, borrowing and taxation by the Executive branch.

Breeding grounds for cronyism, patronage

Many government-owned or controlled corporations (GOCCs) and government financial institutions (GFIs) are breeding grounds for cronyism and political patronage. Some big supporters and financiers in previous elections who cannot be given Cabinet positions are appointed as president or board directors in GOCCs and GFIs. For instance, the National Food Authority (NFA) is among the perennially losing GOCCs and deficit generators.

If these GOCCs are to be scrutinized by an activist and really independent Congress, most likely they will be stripped of their funds and privatized, or at least be significantly shrunk as they contribute more to losses and hence, more public borrowings or more taxes. To avoid this, legislators are given their own share of pork so they will allow continued waste and inefficiency in the Executive branch.

The Bottom up Budgetting (BuB) system or related schemes have allowed NGOs, people's organizations and civil society organizations (CSOs) to "insert" their own favorite projects, their own “pork" in the budget. It is P8 billion plus this year and P20 billion next year. LGUs too have their own projects inserted in the budget, on top of their IRA and locally-funded projects.

If legislators are to be true to their mandate to scrutinize and disapprove certain huge budgetary requests and endless subsidies, the national budget will shrink. But many people who clamor for "pork abolition" do not want that either. They want their own subsidies and pork retained or expanded while stripping legislators of their share in the loot.

"Freedom from debt" requires "freedom from borrowing"

Most people who demand a "spend-spend-spend" policy are not aware that previous overspending has resulted in over-borrowing, so the interest payment is a big penalty on the public. To get a P10 billion increase over the previous year's budget for the favorite department, people may jump with joy. But to pay P350 billion in interest on debt does not bother them.

We will never have "freedom from debt" unless we adopt the "freedom from borrowing" mentality. Public education among other social sectors are among the most inefficient and wasteful. When you provide books and education for the poor -- from elementary to college and even graduate studies -- the result should be productive people able to help themselves out of poverty. Only one generation of useful and effective spending and poverty should have been controlled many decades ago. But this never happened. The inefficient, wasteful and even corruption-laden service delivery was made possible, was never questioned or controlled by the Legislative branch because lawmakers benefited from such wasteful public spending.

A corrupt and wasteful legislature can tolerate a corrupt and wasteful Executive branch. And many people -- ordinary citizens, businessmen, consultants, academics, etc -- have huge supply or consulting contracts with, or foreign aid-assisted projects implemented by the Executive branch.
---------- 

See also:


Tuesday, August 31, 2010

Privatization 5: Regulate Exec. Pay or Privatize Govt. Corporations?

The Senate of the Philippines is conducting a series of committee hearings and investigations on the executive pay and bonuses of certain government corporations. Their goal is to craft necessary legislation to regulate excessive pay and bonuses, if such thing will be needed, and limit the subsidies to losing corporations. I think there are other hidden objectives why the Senate is doing such kind of investigations.

Today, the favorite corporation is the Metropolitan Waterworks and Sewerage System (MWSS). Its website says its mission is "A world-class and financially stable corporation that efficiently and effectively manages its assets and resources and implements its projects." But today, it was reported in the Inquirer that "Water execs admit 25-month bonuses". Portions of the report said,

MWSS officer-in-charge Macra Cruz admitted that while their employees have been receiving 25 months worth of bonuses a year, the agency incurred about P3.5 million losses in 2008....

Before this, Drilon questioned the board chairman of the MWSS, Oscar Garcia, for receiving P5.4 million for attending 47 meetings in 2009 alone.
I think the Senators should focus their attention on privatizing most, if not all, government corporations in the next few years, rather than just regulating the pay, per diem and bonuses of Executives and appointed bureaucrats of thsoe corporations.

The main reason is the huge public debt and the high interest payment that the Philippine government, or rather us Filipino taxpayers, pay every year. This year, interest payment alone for both foreign and domestic debt by the national government alone will be P278 billion (US$ 6.18 billion at P45/$ exchange rate). Next year it will jump to P357 billion.

All government corporations are complacent. There is no threat of bankruptcy as there are always guarantees of subsidies and bail-out from Filipino taxpayers' money. All administrators and their "board of directors" are political appointees, meaning they have the backing of the highest political leaders of the country. And almost all government corporations are exempted from paying corporate income tax, even if small corporations like an ordinary bakeshop or internet shop are forced to part with 30 percent of their gross taxable income every year.

Some corporations are also exempted from slapping the value added tax (VAT) to their customers, like Pagcor. This is anomalous actually. Sick and dying patients have to bear with the 12% VAT on top of import tax on their essential drugs, but gamblers are exempted from paying VAT.

Corruption is a never-ending issue in the public sector, both in regular agencies and in government corporations. The above discussion just focuses on the fiscal aspect of the problem of debt and government corporations, not on the governance issue yet.
--------

I posted this blog entry to a friend's facebook status who posted the Inquirer report that caught my attention. A statist Filipino based in the US swooped down on my comments and argued that
when Henry Sy/SM, Lucio Tan/PAL games the system by refusing to provide workers comp/benefits then what is the next maneuvering, Nonoy? At least in a govt corporation[ esp those dealing with vital public services] the public has some recourse to demand transparency and accountability... you come up with the most ludicrous proposition...privatization, deregulation same nonsense that led to america's demise. I don't see taxes the way you do. I prefer the govt getting my money since it's maintaining my police, airport, water treatment system, social sec. medicare and a million other things that you and rightwingers don't see...

I replied the following:
We have zero tax burden with any of those corporations by Henry Sy, Lucio Tan and other "big capitalists". Our burden rests on the big government and their big abuses, big taxes. My question was very simple: What's your alternative to the huge interest payment that we taxpayers here in the Philippines endure: P278 B this year alone, another P357 B next year. We keep breaking our back just to pay interests while govt corporations keep getting subsidies and not even paying corp income tax?... some activists who love big govt are telling us that we should endure those shameless govt bureaucrats, that we should pay taxes left and right for interest payment alone, so long as we keep them as govt corporations and not entertain privatizing those subsidy-hungry corporations. What a shame.

The statis replied back:
your philosophy is WRONG, WRONG! WRONG! You argue for low taxes, deregulation and privatization in the guise of promoting the common good when what you are truly doing is concentrating more wealth into fewer and fewer hands. 8 yrs of BUSH/Cheney/Palin/Koch brothers is testament to that and it is taking heaven and earth to fix it. To the detriment of everyone else. again WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! get it???


Look, i am just as incensed as anyone reading this article... but the answer is not privatization but to make government accountable. Hey, just in case you haven't noticed. henry Sy controlls 80% of the local credit market...you want to stimulate
growth? work on that!!!

And I persisted,
Where is the ANSWER to my question earlier: What is your alternative to the huge interest payment that we taxpayers in the Philippines endure for those high interest payment, for those endless subsidies to those pampered govt corporations? where? where?
When cornered, statists normally become more defensive and cannot reply to simple questions that require definitive and explicit answer/s. That statist made my day for he/she voluntarily self-destructed.
-------

See also:

Thursday, August 05, 2010

Privatization 4: Utilizing Proceeds and Revenues

Proceeds or revenues from privatization of some government corporations -- like Fort Bonifacio and MWSS privatization, also future privatization -- should be used mainly to retire public debts, not to be used for new programs and subsidies that would not have been invented in the first place if the politicians and bureaucrats in a particular agency knew that any proceeds in privatization will not directly go to them.

The new adminstration should consider getting minimal new debts, or zero new loans to pay old loans. Instead, privatize quickly some of the 300+ government-owned and controlled corporations (GOCCs) and government financial institutions (GFIs) starting this year, and all proceeds should go to retiring public debts. The debts should go down quick, then debt service payment (principal + interest) will go down. Lower debt service payment, an automatic appropriation spending, will mean more money for more productive programs and projects of the government.

Some may wonder why the administration and monitoring of Fort Bonifacio privatization was given to the Bases Conversion Development Authority (BCDA). That body meant "bases conversion", referring to the former US military bases -- Clark in Pampanga, Subic in Zambales, John Hay in Baguio City, Camp O'donneil in Tarlac, etc.

Republic Act (RA) 7227, the law creating BCDA and defining where proceeds of privatizing military camps in Metro Manila should go has this provision http://www.chanrobles.com/republicactno7227.html:

Sec. 8, Funding Scheme, provided that of the proceeds from sale of military camps in Metro Manila:

a) 32.5% to finance the transfer of AFP camps and the construction of new camps...
b) 50% to finance the conversion and commercial uses of Clark and Subic...
c) 5% to finance the long-term housing loan of the homelss in MM, Angeles, Subic and other areas near the bases
d) balance (or 12.5%) to go to the Bureau of Treasury (BTr) to be appropriated by Congress "for the economic upliftment of the Filipino people."

In short, almost zero proceeds went to retire some of the public debts.

Picture on the left, the new Fort Bonifacio after privatization.

It is impossible then to use any privatization proceeds from future sale of military camps like Camp Atienza (4.9 has), part of Villarmor (37.9 has.), part of Fort Boni (224.9 has., on top of previously-privatized 498 has.), other small camps, without amending that law.

One may wonder why Clark and Subic, themselves have good privatizable or leasable assets, will swallow 50 percent of all proceeds of privatizing military camps? Who were the strong lobby groups then for that provision?

I believe that ALL government-owned and controlled corporations (GOCCs) and government financial institutions (GFIs) should go and be privatized someday. They do not fill in any "market failure" as there will always be private players who are more than willing to fill their shoes. On the contrary, their continued existence are clear examples of "government failure" -- many of those GOCCs are net recipients of subsidies, not net revenue contributors.
------

Meanwhile, I wrote this last June 24, 2010:

Deficit Woes, Why Not More Privatization?


eteriorating fiscal condition is the rule, not the exception, in many countries today, rich and poor; industrialized and industrializing.

The UK government and other European economies are in a particularly bad shape. The new government in UK is forced to take more drastic measures like spending cuts and tax hikes.

One news report said, "UK unveils severe 'unavoidable budget'", WSJ,

See the huge gap this year between expenditures and revenues.


VAT hike, capital gains tax hike, among others. I am wondering why privatization of some UK government corporations was not given sufficient consideration? Tax hikes scares people who create jobs.
-------

See also: