Failure to turn off street lights sends Manila power bill soaring
MANILA, Philippines—The city of Manila failed to follow a basic power-saving rule last year: turn off the lights when they are not needed.
This is one of the reasons the city’s electricity expenses in 2010 ballooned to P432.73 million, which is 40.33 percent higher than its 2009 electric bill, according to the Commission on Audit.
The COA said it had observed that street lights in most areas of the city remained turned on “day in and day out.”
This, it said, caused higher electricity charges as well as additional maintenance costs for the replacement of bulbs that got busted too soon.
But several other factors also contributed to the spike in electricity use, the COA pointed out. These included the construction of two additional hospitals in Manila, which it described as a “laudable investment on health services,” and the installation of additional lighting facilities.
But pilferage or illegal wiretapping of electricity also added to the higher electricity bill, COA said.
“Due to non-implementation of cost-saving measures and non-monitoring of consumption, the City incurred additional electricity costs which in turn resulted in the waste of funds,” it said.
In response to the COA findings, the Manila City Engineering office told the COA that the city was practicing power-saving measures in the different offices and departments, “as well as in the operation of street lights.”
The audit agency recommended that the Manila City Engineering Office and other concerned offices go after electricity thieves. It also reminded the local government that power cost-saving measures should be implemented in all offices, hospitals and other areas under Manila’s jurisdiction.
In 2009, Manila’s electricity consumption amounted to P308.36 million, while in 2008, it was P260.72 million.
Meanwhile, the COA also questioned the city government’s grant of P40.81 million worth of tax discounts to owners of business establishments that paid their business taxes, fees and other charges within an extension period.
The COA said the discount had no legal basis because it was not allowed in the city council resolution that extended the deadline for the filing and renewal of permits and the payment of business taxes and other fees.
During the extension period, the business owners were allowed to settle their business tax dues without penalty, surcharges or interest. But the COA said they should not have been given discounts.
It said the officials of the License Division of the City Treasurer’s Office failed to review the assessments made during the extension period, which resulted in errors in the computation of tax dues.
The city government reacted favorably to the COA findings, and told the agency that it would recover the uncollected income.
The COA also said that the License Division should be directed to include the amount of unpaid business taxes in the computation of the future tax obligations of the concerned business owners to recover the discounts granted to them.
