Filipinos have every right to worry about electricity prices. So when the government awards large energy projects that consumers will ultimately pay for, the public deserves clear answers: Are these projects needed? Are the rates fair? Was the process properly reviewed? Are consumers protected?
These are the right questions, and a recent story on the third Green Energy Auction (GEA-3) deserves credit for raising them. To be clear, this is one report from one media outlet, not a groundswell of public accusation. But because a single story can influence how the public reads an entire auction, its framing is very important. Questioning the process is journalism. Insinuating collusion is an accusation that demands proof, not pattern-matching.
The Department of Energy is currently implementing a 10-year GEA program that will offer at least 25 gigawatts of additional renewable energy capacity through annual competitive auctions beginning this year, with project deliveries starting next year and running through 2035. It aims to expand the country’s renewable energy portfolio, strengthen long-term power supply reliability, and support national targets of 35 percent renewable energy share by 2030 and 50 percent by 2040.
GEA 3 covers renewable energy technologies that are not eligible for feed-in tariff incentives, such as geothermal energy, impounding hydropower and pumped-storage hydropower.
Only three geothermal plants qualified for the 100-MW procurement target, while only three bidders participated in one pumped-storage hydropower lot.
Collusion has a precise meaning: companies secretly agreeing to fix prices, rig bids, or divide the market. It is not proven by similar prices alone, nor by the fact that only a few big companies joined.
The Philippine Competition Act prohibits per se anti-competitive agreements between or among competitors in the form of bid rigging, among others. Bid rigging, an agreement between or among competitors, refers to fixing bid prices at an auction, or in any form of bidding, including cover bidding, bid suppression, bid rotation, market allocation and other analogous practices of bid manipulation.
The law is clear: there must be an agreement among competitors to fix their bid prices. Otherwise, there is no big rigging.
The Energy Regulatory Commission (ERC) was right to point out that price offers near the reserve price should be read in the context of a thin market, not automatically treated as anti-competitive conduct. Where only a handful of players have the projects, financing and risk appetite to bid, offers will naturally drift toward the allowed ceiling. That may expose a flaw in the auction’s design. It does not, by itself, mean companies acted improperly.
The ERC rejected allegations that developers colluded during the third round of the GEA, saying bids clustered near the reserve price because of limited competition rather than anti-competitive behavior.
The commission also emphasized that competition laws require evidence of explicit coordination or concerted action, not simply bids submitted near the reserve price.
It defended its review of the action, saying it scrutinized the bids and adjusted those that exceeded reasonable cost benchmarks, rather than simply accepting the developers’ submissions.
It likewise pointed out that while limited bidder participation raised legitimate concerns about auction design, such issues should be addressed through future reforms rather than by attributing anti-competitive conduct to developers without evidence.
Why are there few bidders is simple. These are not ventures just anyone can undertake. Pumped-storage hydropower, the centerpiece of the contested awards, works like a huge battery: water is pumped uphill when power is abundant and released to generate electricity when demand peaks. It stabilizes the grid and makes room for more solar and wind.
But building it requires suitable sites, environmental approvals, transmission connections and years of development before any return is earned. So the question cannot simply be why big companies won. The better question is: who else can build projects of this size, on the timelines the country needs? If the government waits for a crowded field of bidders until shortages arrive, it will be too late.
None of this means developers deserve a blank check. Regulators must review rates strictly, developers must justify their costs, and any real evidence of coordination should be investigated and punished. But demonizing the few players capable of building this infrastructure will not lower a single electricity bill.
If the real problem is thin competition, the fix lies in design, not accusation. Future auctions can attract more bidders through better lot sizes, timelines and disclosures. And if the country needs these projects for energy security, the government should soften their cost to consumers – maybe through concessional financing, tax incentives, or targeted subsidies – so the transition does not fall unfairly on families already struggling with high bills.
The harder questions, in fact, belong not to the bidders or to the current ERC, but to the commission’s former leadership.
The auction was designed, evaluated and formally endorsed on its watch. If flaws in the design were already known then, the public deserves an accounting: what was flagged, what was accepted and why the process proceeded.
It is not fair to criticize the outcome now without explaining the decisions made when the matter was still under review – and it is even less fair to lay those decisions at the door of the current commission, which inherited them and has at least engaged the criticism openly.
It is fair to question the auction’s design, the level of competition and the strength of consumer protection. It is not fair to turn a large energy project into a collusion story without evidence.
Clean energy will not be free, and grid reliability will require investment. The Philippines needs cleaner, more reliable power. Getting there means fixing the rules, protecting consumers and holding both developers and past regulators accountable.
It does not mean making scapegoats of the builders the country still needs.
For comments, email at maryannreyesphilstar@gmail.com