Former public utilities minister Marvin Gonzales has challenged the legality of the Government’s planned electricity surcharge on residential customers, arguing that the measure conflicts with the legislation governing utility-rate regulation in Trinidad and Tobago.
Speaking at a post-Budget news conference on Tuesday, October 13, the Arouca/Maloney MP urged electricity customers to challenge the decision. The proposed surcharge, announced by Finance Minister Davendranath Tancoo during the presentation of the 2027 National Budget, would add five cents per kilowatt-hour for residential consumption above 3,000 kilowatt-hours.
The Government has said approximately 90 per cent of households would remain below the consumption threshold. The dispute centres on whether the administration can introduce the additional charge without following the regulatory framework established under the Regulated Industries Commission Act.
Gonzales argued that the Regulated Industries Commission, or RIC, rather than the Government acting on its own, has the legal authority to regulate utility rates. He referred to the process followed during his tenure as public utilities minister, saying the commission’s recommendations were delivered to the ministry before being considered by Cabinet.
Under that arrangement, Gonzales said, Cabinet could decide whether to accept, reject or vary the commission’s proposals. He maintained that the new surcharge amounted to executive interference in electricity rates and contravened the established legal structure.
Electricity pricing has previously been a point of contention between the Government and the RIC. In August 2025, Public Utilities Minister Barry Padarath announced that Cabinet had formally rejected the commission’s recommendations for electricity-rate increases.
Those earlier recommendations proposed increases ranging from 15 per cent to 64 per cent for residential customers and from 51 per cent to 63 per cent for commercial customers. They followed a review of electricity rates and were subject to public consultation before any changes could be implemented.
Gonzales cited that regulatory process as evidence that utility rates should not be changed through executive action outside the framework established by law. He accused the administration of disregarding the RIC Act and called on affected customers to take steps to challenge the surcharge’s legality.
His statements represent a legal objection to the Government’s proposal; the reported account does not establish that a court has ruled on the surcharge or that its implementation has been stopped. The legal question raised by Gonzales therefore remains distinct from the Government’s stated policy and the proposed charge itself.
The immediate issue for residential customers is whether the surcharge will proceed as announced and whether a formal legal challenge will follow. Any definitive determination of its legality would require consideration of the applicable legislation and the relevant legal process.