OPINION: Who actually gets access to cheaper electricity?

Why Starbucks gets to negotiate cheaper power while small businesses cannot

When Starbucks entered into an agreement with Meralco’s MPower to supply electricity to 60 of its stores in Metro Manila, the move was positioned as part of its broader push for operational efficiency and sustainability across its network.

The arrangement falls under the government’s Retail Aggregation Program, a mechanism within the Retail Competition and Open Access framework that allows multiple electricity end-users to combine their demand and choose a competitive supplier. In this case, Starbucks consolidated the load of 60 branches, amounting to more than 3 megawatts, under a single aggregated setup.

For a large network like Starbucks, which operates more than 500 stores nationwide, the structure is relatively straightforward. Consolidated demand meets eligibility thresholds, administrative requirements are centralized, and the switch translates into potential cost savings alongside existing efficiency measures such as energy-efficient lighting, improved air-conditioning systems, and waste management initiatives.

The company has said it is already seeing initial savings since transitioning.

Structural, not national

The design of retail aggregation relies heavily on coordination. While it is technically open to eligible electricity users who can combine demand, participation requires a level of organizational capacity that is easier to achieve for large, multi-branch operators than for small, standalone businesses.

In practice, this creates a gap between what the policy enables and who is able to use it. A large chain can bundle demand and unlock more competitive pricing. A single-store operator, or even a loose group of small businesses without a formal aggregation structure, is far less likely to navigate the same process.

The result is not exclusion by rule, but uneven uptake. The framework promotes flexibility and “customer choice,” but the ability to exercise that choice depends on scale, coordination, and access to technical and administrative support.

This is not a question of foreign versus local brands. Any Philippine company with a comparable footprint would be able to participate under the same conditions. The distinction is structural rather than national.

The policy is functioning as intended. The more difficult question is whether the benefits it unlocks are distributed in a way that smaller businesses can realistically access—or whether participation, in practice, still tilts toward those who are already large enough to organize it.

A proposed ready-made fix

One possible direction is to make participation less dependent on scale and technical capacity by allowing more “ready-made” aggregation structures for smaller users. 

Instead of requiring individual businesses to independently organize contracts, metering arrangements, and supplier coordination, participation could be simplified through pre-arranged groupings—such as accredited business associations, commercial district clusters, or utility-facilitated bundles that MSMEs can opt into.

In theory, this would keep the system intact while reducing the barrier between eligibility and actual participation.