Coal plant proponent hit for deception
SUBIC BAY FREEPORT—The lawyer who represents environment advocates, residents and business locators opposing the construction of a 600-megawatt coal-fired power plant here has accused the project proponent of engaging in a “deceptive media campaign” to distort a recent ruling on the project by the Court of Appeals (CA).
Terry Ridon, Kabataan party-list president and lawyer of stakeholders who filed a writ of kalikasan against the project, said the appellate court, in a Jan. 30 decision, nullified the lease development agreement (LDA) and environmental compliance certificate (ECC) of the power plant of Redondo Peninsula Energy Inc. (RP Energy).
“[And yet] various media outlets came out with reports that made it seem like RP Energy can now continue building the coal plant. That’s not true,” he said.
RP Energy is the consortium of energy firms Meralco, Aboitiz and Taiwan Cogen.
Ridon, in a telephone interview, said reports that said the CA junked the writ of kalikasan were incomplete.
“You notice that they did not mention that the CA nullified their lease contract with the [Subic Bay Metropolitan Authority] and their ECC,” he said.
“They will be violating the law if they go on constructing the coal plant in Subic despite the CA decision,” he said.
He said the CA nullified the lease development contract and ECC because of lack of local government approval and National Commission on Indigenous Peoples’ certification and violation of ECC restrictions.
He said RP Energy may have been driven to feed inaccurate press statements “because [they have to convince] investors in the coal-fired power plant and the public that everything is okay with their project.”
“This project will be costly and it will need a huge amount of financing. They also have to get the approval of the communities that will be affected by the coal plant,” he said.
In a statement, RP Energy said the CA’s 15th Division issued the 101-page decision, which noted that the petitioners (groups opposing the project) “failed to prove that their right to a balanced and healthful ecology was violated or threatened with violation and that any damage would affect the lives of locals in two or more cities or provinces.”
“We presented overwhelming evidence that the power plant project will not cause any adverse environmental impact. It will utilize state-of-the-art technology and RP Energy took great care in complying with all the requirements for the issuance and amendments of the ECC, as required by the [Department of Environment and Natural Resources],” said lawyer George Aquino, counsel for RP Energy.
RP Energy noted that this is the first writ of kalikasan case against a power project and will most likely be a precedent for similar cases.
It quoted a “power industry insider” as saying that the decision is a relief for proponents of other planned power projects that were being threatened with similar cases.
Ridon confirmed that the CA did not issue a temporary environmental protection order (Tepo) because the power plant has yet to operate.
“The [Tepo] was not issued because the CA said the project was not operational yet so there’s no environmental damage yet,” he said.
However, Ridon said the nullification of the ECC and LDA meant that stakeholders of the free port who filed the writ of kalikasan “got what we were asking from the court.”
Asked how the SBMA would enforce the CA decision, SBMA Chair Roberto Garcia said the agency’s lawyers were “still working on it.”
On Jan. 25, the SBMA board of directors met but voted to defer discussions on proposals to build the plant under an amended lease development contract they approved for RP Energy early last month.
The original deal, which Garcia called “outrageous and highly disadvantageous to the government,” gave the agency only P1 million a year in revenue. On the other hand, the terms of the current deal subject of the board’s discussions on Jan. 25 would have given the government P200 million annually.
Ridon said the SBMA could continue negotiations with RP Energy “but construction should be stopped until a new LDA is [signed].”
“With the nullity, the construction has no legal basis to proceed, as all other SBMA permits are dependent upon the nullified LDA,” he said.
