7/24/2019 Nasecore v Erc Case Digest

1/2

Assign no. 2

NASECORE V. ERC

FACTS:

The Energy Regulatory Commission (ERC), reate! un!er the Electric Power Industry Reform Act of

2001 (E"#RA), use! to a$$ly the Return on Rate %ase (ROR%) metho! to !etermine the $ro$er amount a

!istri&ution utility (') may harge or the ser*ies it $ro*i!es. The ROR% sheme ha! &een the metho!

or om$uting allo+a&le eletriity harges in the "hili$$ines or !ea!es, &eore the onset o the E"#RA.

Setion - () o the E"#RA allo+s the ERC to shit rom the ROR% metho!ology to alternati*e orms o

internationally ae$te! ratesetting metho!ology, su&/et to multi$le on!itions. The ERC, through a

series o resolutions, a!o$te! the "erormane%ase! Regulation ("%R) metho! to set the allo+a&le rates

's may harge their ustomers. 0eralo, a ', a$$lie! or an inrease o its !istri&ution rate un!er the

"%R sheme !o1ete! as ERC Case No. 2345 RC (0A" 26ase) on 5 August 23. "etitioners

NASECORE, FO7VA, FOVA, an! Engineer Ro&ert F. 0allillin (0allillin) all ile! their o+n "etitions or

#nter*ention to o$$ose the a$$liation o 0eralo.

8o+e*er, ERC grante! the a$$liation !ue to the $etitioners9 ailure to a$$ear in the hearing. 8ene,

$etitioners see1 or a TRO.

#SSE: hethr or not $etition shall &e grante!;

8E7':

No. This Court in!s that the real moti*e &ehin! the iling o the $resent "etition is to o&tain an in!einite

TRO an! this, the Court annot ountenane. Setion 3, Rule 4< o the Rules o Court $ro*i!es the rules

or $ermanent in/untions, to +it:

Se. 3. When final injunction granted.=

# ater the trial o the ation it a$$ears that the a$$liant is entitle! to ha*e the at or

ats om$laine! o $ermanently en/oine!, the ourt shall grant a inal in/untion$er$etually restraining the $arty or $erson en/oine! rom the ommission or

ontinuane o the at or ats or onirming the $reliminary man!atory in/untion.

"etitioners assert that this Court shoul! issue a TRO &eause o the huge amount that +oul! un!uly

&ur!en the onsumers +ith the ontinue! a$$liation o the 0A"26rates. Aor!ing to $etitioners, >i

not staye!, the $resent inanial har!shi$s o .- million 0ERA7CO ustomers !ue to the glo&al

7/24/2019 Nasecore v Erc Case Digest

2/2

inanial melt!o+n an! the reent alamities in the ountry +ill surely urther +orsen.> "etitioners also

laim that there is an e?treme urgeny to seure a TRO, onsi!ering that the assaile! 'eision is

imme!iately e?eutory.

The $ur$ose o a TRO is to $re*ent a threatene! +rong an! to $rotet the $ro$erty or rights in*ol*e! rom

urther in/ury, until the issues an &e !etermine! ater a hearing on the merits. n!er Setion 4, Rule 4