The discussion surrounding the repetitive theme 986 of the Superior Court of Justice (STJ) regarding the inclusion of transmission system usage (TUST) and distribution system usage (TUSD) tariffs in the ICMS calculation base on electricity bills is of great relevance not only legally but also economically. This discussion transcends the legal realm, directly impacting the economy, both in terms of state fiscal revenue and the costs for consumers and businesses.
The possibility of excluding the TUST and TUSD tariffs from the ICMS calculation base could represent a substantial reduction in state revenues. Given the size and importance of the electricity sector, this revenue decrease could reach billions of reais, significantly affecting state budgets. Such a scenario would require states to review their fiscal policies, potentially leading to tax reforms or cuts in expenses to offset the revenue loss.
On the other hand, for consumers, especially residential ones, the reduction in electricity bills resulting from the exclusion of these tariffs from the ICMS calculation base could mean considerable financial relief. The exact impact would vary according to each state’s ICMS rates and individual energy consumption, but, generally, a decrease in monthly costs is expected.
For the business sector, particularly industries that are large energy consumers, the reduction in electricity costs could be a significant factor in lowering operational expenses. This reduction could, in turn, increase the competitiveness of these companies, potentially lowering the price of products and services offered to the final consumer. Moreover, the reduction in the tax burden on electricity could stimulate investments in sectors that heavily rely on energy, promoting economic development, particularly in industrial areas.
The pending final decision by the STJ creates a scenario of uncertainty for both businesses and state governments. This uncertainty affects fiscal and budgetary planning, influencing how states prepare for tax collection and how companies plan their cost-cutting strategies.
Legal uncertainty generates what is known as higher “transaction costs.” Businesses and consumers find themselves in limbo, unable to make informed and efficient decisions due to the ambiguity about the final cost of electricity. For businesses, particularly those for whom energy is a significant input, this can affect planning and risk management, leading to more cautious or even delayed investment decisions. This behavior can result in reduced market efficiency and resource allocation.
Additionally, legal uncertainty can influence market expectations, leading to price adjustments. For instance, if the market anticipates that the final decision will reduce energy costs, this could be priced in advance in future contracts or investment decisions. However, if the decision contradicts expectations, there will be a sudden and potentially disruptive adjustment.
From this, we extract the importance of legal predictability and stability for the proper functioning of the economy. Prolonged legal uncertainty can undermine confidence in the stability of the legal and regulatory system, which is fundamental for attracting investments and for sustainable economic growth. Businesses rely on a stable legal framework to plan their long-term operations, and uncertainty can discourage investment and innovation.
Therefore, the resolution of repetitive theme 986 by the STJ is not just a matter of legal interpretation, but also a crucial factor for economic stability and legal predictability. A clear and well-grounded decision can help reduce uncertainty, facilitate economic planning, and create a more favorable environment for investment and economic development.
