Let the science speak

Established under the Tax Reform for Acceleration and Inclusion (TRAIN) Law, the fuel marking program serves as the country’s frontline defense against the entry of smuggled fuel by introducing microscopic chemical markers into taxed petroleum products.

Lausanne, Switzerland-based SICPA SA currently serves as the program’s primary technology provider, providing its unique forensic markers into refined and imported petroleum products such as gasoline, diesel and kerosene after duties and taxes are paid as a way to combat smuggling and misdeclaration which deprive the country of much-needed revenues.

If there are safety concerns about SICPA’s markers, government should answer the allegations with what the technical records show.

SICPA markers were registered and accepted by relevant Philippine authorities before implementation. Its RUM 011 marker, in particular, was registered by the Department of Energy as a fuel additive in accordance with the Clean Air Act.

The Department of Environment and Natural Resources, meanwhile, certified that the marker’s chemical components are listed in the Philippine Inventory of Chemicals and Chemical Substances and are not regulated under the Priority Chemical List or a Chemical Control Order.

There is also laboratory evidence. Fuel samples were reportedly tested by top tier inspection Laboratory in Germany using ISO 15597, a widely recognized international standard for determining halogen content in petroleum products and related materials. The reported results showed no detectable halogens in either unmarked fuel or fuel samples containing SICPA marker families.

But standards and laboratory results should never end the inquiry. They should start it. What samples were tested? Under what conditions? What parameters were measured? What were the detection limits? And can the findings be independently reproduced? What happens when marked fuel is actually burned?

I was informed that the Swiss company commissioned independent laboratory and real-world emissions testing under actual operating conditions, including combustion analysis, to examine what happens when marked fuel passes through an engine during hours of use. After all, laboratory analysis of the marker alone cannot provide the full picture.

This is why the assessment went beyond the marker’s chemical composition. SICPA marker systems underwent such testing in the United Kingdom and Germany, conducted by renowned independent laboratories, including Socotec UK and Eurofins Germany, under the scientific supervision of recognized air-quality expert Dr. Roger Brown. The results showed no differences in fuel characteristics, vehicle performance or emissions between marked and unmarked fuels.

If other fuel-marker technologies are being proposed as alternatives, have their markers undergone comparable real-world combustion and emissions testing? If so, those results should be placed on the table. If not, regulators should ask why.

That is not about limiting competition, but about ensuring that every technology considered for a program affecting billions of liters of fuel is assessed against the same rigorous scientific standards.

The same level of scrutiny should naturally apply to SICPA, with its conclusions assessed against the methodology, test conditions, samples, parameters measured, data collected and results obtained.

Transparency is therefore critical. SICPA technical information about its markers, including testing procedures and methodologies, is publicly available through its websites, giving regulators, scientists and other stakeholders an opportunity to examine the basis of the company’s safety and environmental claims.

SICPA has also cited EU REACH registration and certifications concerning compliance with the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants. The company markers underwent physicochemical, toxicological and ecotoxicological assessments by recognized independent laboratories to be approved by the EU’s highly stringent chemical framework.

Government therefore has two responsibilities: protect the integrity of the fuel supply chain and take credible safety or environmental concerns seriously. If reliable evidence establishes an unidentified risk, regulators should act. If allegations do not withstand technical examination, that conclusion should likewise rest on evidence, not rhetoric.

The debate should ultimately be settled where it belongs: in the evidence. Test the claim. Examine the methodology. Compare the results. Verify the data. And let the science speak.

New business model

Our power lines were built for one-way traffic.

In the 25 years since the Electric Power Industry Reform Act was enacted, the job of the electricity distribution company was easy to explain. It brought electricity from the power plants to the users, measured how much electricity is consumed and then sends a bill every month.

It is no longer that simple nowadays. Many homes now have solar panels on the roof that send extra electricity back into the same line that brings power to the house, and more families are starting to charge electric cars or motorcycles at night. One house makes little difference, but when a whole street does it, the wires outside start carrying traffic in both directions, much like a one-way road that suddenly has cars coming from both sides without a single traffic light.

Meralco chief operating officer Ronnie Aperocho explained that the industry must move from the traditional utility model into the distribution system operator model, and modernize and digitalize the grid.

In short, the power company can no longer just deliver electricity and read meters; it has to act more like a traffic manager, watching what is flowing through the wires in real time and keeping it balanced so that the transformer on your post does not overload and your lights do not go out.

That kind of work is impossible with a meter that someone reads once a month. It needs smarter meters and sensors on the lines that report back instantly, so problems are spotted and fixed faster, and this unseen equipment is what lets a neighborhood full of rooftop solar work safely.

He made another point every household should think about: “Affordability cannot come at the expense of reliability.” For years, the main question in power policy has been what is cheapest, which is understandable when every peso on the bill counts. But electricity that is cheap on paper is no bargain if it keeps getting cut, because families then pay in terms of spoiled food, lost work and damaged appliances.

This should not mean handing the power companies a blank cheque. If power lines are to be treated as essential national infrastructure, like roads and bridges, then every peso spent on them should be explained openly and judged by results that ordinary households can see: fewer brownouts, shorter ones and faster approval for families who want to put up solar panels. The regulator and the electric cooperatives were at that same table, and this is the right time for all of them to update the rules for the way Filipinos now use electricity.

For comments, email at [email protected]