FIVE THINGS TO KNOW…

Short explainers published throughout the day.

1:18 PM7-minute read

ABOUT THE NEW SWS POVERTY NUMBERS

Self-rated poverty and food poverty declined in June, but the figures also show how many Filipino families remain under pressure and why lower household budgets do not necessarily mean life became cheaper.

Read the explainer →
2:02 PM11-minute read

ABOUT THE CHILDREN'S SOCIAL MEDIA SAFETY ACT

House Bill No. 9965 would bar children below 13 from having social media accounts, require parental consent for users aged 13 to 17, regulate platform algorithms, and impose fines reaching P50 million. It is still being deliberated in the House.

Read the explainer →
12:02 PM7-minute read

ABOUT THE SEALED BIR BOX

Marcos authorized the BIR to comply with the Senate subpoena. That did not open the records to the public or prove the unexplained-wealth allegation.

Read the explainer →

MCT READER PULSE · MCT-PULSE-2026-007

MCT READER SURVEY

House prosecutors are considering whether to stop presenting evidence on the bribery article against Vice President Sara Duterte and move directly to the unexplained-wealth charge. Do you agree with that strategy?Pinag-iisipan ng mga prosekutor ng Kamara kung ititigil ang paghaharap ng ebidensiya sa artikulo tungkol sa panunuhol at tututok sa kasong hindi maipaliwanag na yaman laban kay Bise Presidente Sara Duterte. Sang-ayon ka ba sa estratehiyang ito?

Some prosecutors want to move directly to the unexplained-wealth charge; others want to proceed with all four articles. No final decision had been announced when this survey opened. The question is about prosecution strategy, not guilt.

Background: The Philippine Star and Daily Tribune.

This is an informal survey of verified MCT readers who choose to participate. It is not nationally representative.

Open the shareable survey page →
View previous survey results →
Checking your reader session…

July 30, 2026 · 11:38 AM6-minute read

FIVE THINGS TO KNOW ABOUT THE SYSTEM-LOSS CHARGE

If consumers stop paying for system loss, who will shoulder the cost instead?

President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. drew one of the loudest reactions during his State of the Nation Address after calling for the removal of the system-loss charge from consumers’ electric bills.

Most people probably had the same reaction.

If electricity never reached my house, why am I paying for it?

It’s a fair question.

But once you ask it, another question quickly follows.

If consumers stop paying for system loss, who will?

The electricity that disappeared inside the power grid does not suddenly reappear because Congress removes one line from your electric bill. Someone still pays for that lost electricity. The debate is really about who should shoulder the cost.

Before Congress starts changing the law, here are five things worth knowing.

1

CONSUMERS PAY TODAY BECAUSE THE LAW ALLOWS IT

The system-loss charge was not created by Meralco.

It exists because Congress passed laws allowing distribution utilities and electric cooperatives to recover part of their system losses from consumers.

The policy began with Republic Act No. 7832 in 1994. When Congress later passed the Electric Power Industry Reform Act, or EPIRA, in 2001, the practice continued under the country’s restructured power industry.

Here’s how the system works.

Congress passed the law. The Energy Regulatory Commission (ERC) decides how much system loss utilities may charge consumers. Utilities can then include only the approved amount in customers’ electric bills.

The idea behind the policy was simple. No power distribution system delivers every unit of electricity it receives. Some electricity is always lost as it travels through wires, transformers, and other equipment.

Lawmakers, however, also placed limits on how much utilities could recover from consumers.

That raises the question Congress now has to answer.

Should consumers continue paying for even those unavoidable technical losses, or should utilities shoulder the entire cost themselves?

WHAT TO WATCH

Should consumers continue paying for unavoidable technical losses, or should utilities shoulder the entire cost themselves?

2

WHAT IS SYSTEM LOSS?

Not every unit of electricity bought by a distribution utility reaches homes and businesses.

Some power is naturally lost as heat while moving through wires, transformers, substations, and other equipment. Engineers call these technical losses.

Other losses happen for reasons that are much harder to defend, including electricity theft, illegal connections, faulty meters, billing errors, poor maintenance, and aging equipment.

Here’s an easy example.

A utility buys 100 units of electricity from a supplier. By the time customers receive their bills, only 95 units appear on their meters. The utility still paid for all 100 units.

Under today’s rules, the ERC allows part of that difference, up to a certain limit, to be recovered from consumers.

If losses go beyond that limit, the excess is generally expected to be absorbed by the utility instead of being passed on to customers.

That’s an important difference.

One issue lawmakers may eventually have to settle is whether unavoidable technical losses should continue to be treated differently from losses caused by theft, weak maintenance, faulty equipment, or poor management.

WHAT TO WATCH

Whether lawmakers keep treating unavoidable technical losses differently from losses caused by theft, weak maintenance, faulty equipment, or poor management.

3

THE PRESIDENT HAS NOT REMOVED THE CHARGE YET

The President’s SONA did not abolish the system-loss charge.

It announced the direction he wants lawmakers to take.

That does not change the law overnight.

Both the House of Representatives and the Senate still have to debate and pass a bill before consumers see any change on their electric bills.

Several questions also remain unanswered.

Will every type of system loss disappear from the bill?

Will only certain charges be removed?

Will privately owned utilities and electric cooperatives follow the same rules?

Will the changes happen immediately or over several years?

Those answers are not in the SONA.

They will come from whatever bill Congress eventually approves.

WHAT TO WATCH

The actual bill approved by Congress and whether the changes apply equally to private utilities and electric cooperatives.

4

REMOVING THE CHARGE DOES NOT REMOVE THE COST

This is where the discussion becomes more difficult.

Even if the words “system loss” disappear from your monthly bill, electricity will still be lost somewhere in the distribution system.

Power will continue to be lost as it passes through equipment.

Electricity theft may still happen.

Old infrastructure will still need repairs and replacement.

Changing the label on the bill does not change those realities.

Meralco has long maintained that it does not earn from the system-loss charge because the money covers electricity that entered its distribution system but could no longer be billed to individual customers.

Whether people agree with that explanation or not, one practical question remains.

If consumers stop paying, who takes over the cost?

Utilities could absorb it themselves.

Government could help smaller electric cooperatives.

Congress could create another way of sharing the expense.

Or regulators could later allow utilities to recover some of the cost through a different charge.

That is why people should pay attention to more than just one line disappearing from the bill.

The important question is whether the cost actually disappears, or simply shows up somewhere else.

WHAT TO WATCH

Whether the cost truly disappears from consumers’ bills or returns through another charge.

5

THE BIGGER GOAL SHOULD BE REDUCING THE LOSSES

Lower electric bills would certainly help consumers.

But lower bills alone will not solve the actual problem if the same amount of electricity continues to be lost every year.

Old equipment still needs replacing.

Meters still need to be more accurate.

Electricity theft still needs stronger enforcement.

Power lines still need regular upgrades and maintenance.

If lawmakers want lasting reform, they should spend as much time reducing these losses as deciding who pays for them.

That could mean tighter limits, more inspections, stronger action against electricity theft, faster replacement of aging equipment, improved metering, and clear goals for reducing system loss over time.

Otherwise, the debate simply becomes about moving the bill from one pocket to another while the amount of electricity being lost barely changes.

WHAT TO WATCH

Whether the final law sets clear goals and deadlines for reducing system loss over time.

BOTTOM LINE

President Marcos raised a question many consumers have probably asked themselves. Why should people pay for electricity that never reached their homes? It is a reasonable question. But removing the system-loss charge is only the first part of the conversation. Congress still has to decide who should shoulder the cost instead, how smaller electric cooperatives can continue operating, and whether the new law will actually reduce system loss instead of merely transferring the expense somewhere else. When the final bill reaches Malacañang, those may be the questions that matter most.

GOOGLE PREFERRED SOURCES

FOLLOW MCT ON GOOGLE

Google’s Preferred Sources feature lets you choose publications you want Google to prioritize for you. Select “Add to Preferred Sources” to make MCT easier to find in Top Stories and other eligible Google results. This does not subscribe you to email.

← Back to MCT home

LATEST COMMENTARY

View all commentary →

SUPPORT MCT

HELP KEEP INDEPENDENT POLITICAL WRITING GOING.

Morning Coffee Thoughts is reader-supported. Contributions help pay for research tools, hosting, and the work required to verify and explain each development.

Choose the monthly support amount you are comfortable with.Continue through PayPal
Send support through GCash or Maya0969 314 4839