Remove one layer of taxation from an already inflated bill
Em meio a uma das piores secas da história recente do Brasil, o presidente Jair Bolsonaro anunciou que o governo federal estuda proibir os estados de cobrar ICMS sobre as bandeiras tarifárias de energia elétrica — sobretaxas criadas para cobrir o custo de usinas termelétricas acionadas pela escassez hídrica. O gesto, apresentado como defesa do consumidor, revela uma tensão mais profunda entre os entes federativos sobre quem deve arcar com o peso fiscal das crises nacionais. Num país onde a energia elétrica chega à mesa do jantar como conta a pagar, a disputa tributária entre Brasília e os governadores torna-se, também, uma questão de justiça cotidiana.
- A seca histórica esvaziou os reservatórios e acionou a bandeira vermelha, encarecendo as contas de luz de milhões de brasileiros já pressionados pela inflação.
- Bolsonaro acusou os governadores de aproveitar a crise para arrecadar mais, cobrando ICMS sobre uma sobretaxa que já era, em si, uma resposta emergencial ao colapso hídrico.
- O presidente omitiu que a Petrobras — empresa controlada pelo governo federal — havia reajustado o gás de cozinha em 35% no mesmo ano, contradizendo a narrativa de que o problema estava apenas nos estados.
- A proposta de vedar o ICMS sobre as bandeiras tarifárias abriria uma nova frente de conflito federativo, reduzindo receitas estaduais num momento em que a seca já pressionava os orçamentos locais.
- O desfecho permanecia incerto: a medida ainda precisaria chegar ao Congresso, mas Bolsonaro havia transformado a questão num teste político sobre quem os governadores realmente representam.
O Brasil enfrentava uma das piores secas de sua história, e os efeitos chegavam às casas na forma de contas de luz mais altas. Com os reservatórios das hidrelétricas em níveis críticos, o sistema elétrico acionou a bandeira tarifária vermelha — uma sobretaxa para custear o funcionamento das termelétricas de reserva. O impacto nas famílias era imediato e concreto.
Numa cerimônia em meados de agosto, o presidente Jair Bolsonaro foi além da pauta do dia — a autorização para venda direta de etanol nos postos — e anunciou que o governo estudava proibir os estados de cobrar ICMS sobre essas sobretaxas de energia. A lógica era simples: retirar uma camada de tributação de uma conta já inflada pela crise.
Bolsonaro enquadrou a proposta como um ato de transparência e justiça. Segundo ele, os governadores estavam aproveitando uma calamidade nacional para arrecadar mais, enquanto o governo federal já havia reduzido tributos federais sobre combustíveis. Mas o argumento tinha lacunas visíveis: a Petrobras, controlada pela União, havia reajustado o gás de cozinha em 35% ao longo daquele ano — uma decisão federal, não estadual.
A proposta não era inédita. Bolsonaro já havia enviado ao Congresso um projeto para limitar a tributação estadual sobre combustíveis, e a crise energética lhe dava novo fôlego político. Se aprovada, a medida reduziria as receitas dos estados num momento delicado, enquanto posicionava o governo federal como protetor do consumidor. O caminho até o Congresso ainda era incerto, mas a mensagem estava dada: a disputa sobre quem paga a conta da crise havia se tornado, também, uma disputa sobre quem governa o Brasil.
Brazil was in the grip of one of its worst droughts in recorded history, and the consequences were showing up on kitchen tables across the country. The power grid, starved for water to feed its hydroelectric plants, had triggered what's known as the red flag tariff—a surcharge added to every electricity bill to cover the cost of running backup thermal generators. It was expensive, and it was hitting households hard.
On a Wednesday in mid-August, President Jair Bolsonaro stood at a ceremony signing off on a provisional measure that would allow ethanol to be sold directly at gas stations. But his remarks that day ranged far beyond fuel policy. He announced that the federal government was studying a proposal to ban state governments from charging ICMS—a state-level sales tax—on top of those electricity surcharges. The idea was straightforward: remove one layer of taxation from an already inflated bill.
Bolsonaro framed the move as a matter of fairness and transparency. He criticized state governors for what he saw as opportunistic taxation, layering their own levies onto a cost that was already a consequence of national crisis. The president insisted that Brazilians deserved to know exactly who was responsible for the prices they were paying. In his telling, the federal government had already done its part by reducing federal taxes on fuel. The problem, he suggested, lay with the states.
But the picture was more complicated than the president's framing allowed. Yes, state governments were collecting ICMS on the tariff surcharge. That was technically legal under Brazil's tax structure. Yet Bolsonaro's argument glossed over another significant factor: Petrobras, the state-controlled oil company, had raised the price of cooking gas by 35 percent over the course of that year alone. That increase had nothing to do with state taxation. It reflected decisions made at the federal level, by a company the federal government controlled.
Bolsonaro was not new to this argument. He had already sent Congress a proposal aimed at limiting how states could tax fuel purchases, and he was doubling down on that push. The cooking gas price hike gave him fresh ammunition. He wanted the public to understand that state governments, not federal policy, were the culprit behind rising costs.
The proposal to ban ICMS on electricity surcharges represented a shift in how the tax burden might be distributed between federal and state authorities. If it passed, states would lose revenue at a moment when the drought was already straining budgets and creating pressure to maintain essential services. The federal government, meanwhile, would be positioned as the defender of consumers. Whether the proposal would actually reach Congress, and what form it might take if it did, remained unclear. But Bolsonaro had signaled his intention to make it happen, and he had made it a test of where governors stood on the question of who should bear the cost of crisis.
Notable Quotes
The population needs to know who is responsible for rising prices— President Jair Bolsonaro
The Hearth Conversation Another angle on the story
Why does Bolsonaro focus so heavily on state taxation when the drought itself is the root cause of the surcharge?
Because it lets him separate the crisis—which is a natural disaster, hard to blame anyone for—from the policy response, which he can control the narrative around. He gets to look like he's protecting people while pointing fingers elsewhere.
But if Petrobras raised cooking gas prices by 35 percent, isn't that a federal decision too?
Exactly. That's the tension in his argument. He's blaming states for layering taxes onto problems, but the federal government through Petrobras is creating some of those problems in the first place. He's trying to have it both ways.
What happens to state governments if this proposal passes?
They lose a revenue stream at the worst possible time. States are already under pressure from the drought. Losing ICMS on tariff surcharges means less money for services, or they have to find it elsewhere.
Is this just about electricity, or is it part of a larger strategy?
It's part of a pattern. He's already pushed Congress on ICMS for fuel. This is another move in the same direction—reducing what states can tax, centralizing the narrative around federal benevolence. It's about power as much as policy.
Do consumers actually benefit if this passes?
In theory, yes—their bills would be slightly lower. But the money has to come from somewhere. If states can't collect it, they either cut services or raise other taxes. The relief might be real, but it's not free.