{"id":158300,"date":"2025-07-26T02:08:19","date_gmt":"2025-07-26T02:08:19","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/teknomers.com\/en\/the-collection-of-the-safety-fee-in-energy-bills-in-the-cauca-valley-is-not-proceeding-as-the-state-council-has-declared-it-void\/"},"modified":"2025-07-26T02:08:21","modified_gmt":"2025-07-26T02:08:21","slug":"the-collection-of-the-safety-fee-in-energy-bills-in-the-cauca-valley-is-not-proceeding-as-the-state-council-has-declared-it-void","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/teknomers.com\/en\/the-collection-of-the-safety-fee-in-energy-bills-in-the-cauca-valley-is-not-proceeding-as-the-state-council-has-declared-it-void\/","title":{"rendered":"The collection of the safety fee in energy bills in the Cauca Valley is not proceeding as the State Council has declared it void."},"content":{"rendered":"\n
\n

State Council Nullifies Charge on Electricity Bills in Valle del Cauca<\/h2>\n<\/div>\n
\n <\/picture>
The collection to the security rate was approved by the Departmental Assembly – Credit Metropolitan Police of Bogot\u00e1<\/figcaption><\/div>\n

The State Council<\/strong> of Colombia has declared void the controversial charge known as the citizen security<\/strong> and coexistence fee that was being applied as a surcharge on electricity bills in the Valle del Cauca<\/strong> department. This ruling specifically exempts the first three income strata, thereby impacting residents of stratum four and above.<\/p>\n

This important decision aligns with an earlier ruling made by counselors Oswaldo Giraldo L\u00f3pez and Germ\u00e1n Osorio Cifuentes on July 17, 2025<\/strong>, which directly affects Ordinance 425<\/strong> issued on August 1, 2016<\/strong> by the Departmental Assembly of Valle del Cauca. The ordinance established additional charges on energy consumption rates starting from stratum four, arguing that these funds were necessary for the Territorial Account Fund<\/strong> aimed at citizen safety and coexistence.<\/p>\n

\n \"The\n <\/picture>
The plaintiff argued that the collection of a rate must save a direct relationship with the service effectively provided to the taxpayer – Credit Illustrative Image Infobae<\/figcaption><\/div>\n

According to the State Council<\/strong>, the collections amounted to 1%<\/strong> for stratum four, 2%<\/strong> for strata five and six, and 1.7%<\/strong> for commercial and industrial users. The lawsuit was initiated by Juana Elo\u00edsa Cata\u00f1o Mu\u00f1oz<\/strong> in conjunction with Emcali<\/strong>, the municipal utility companies of Cali. Their claim highlighted that the ordinance infringed upon Article 338 of the Political Constitution<\/strong> by imposing a fee that did not directly contribute to covering the costs of electricity but was instead intended for financing services aimed at citizen security.<\/p>\n

The plaintiff emphasized that any charge levied should establish a direct relationship with the services provided, making it unlawful to utilize energy consumption as a taxable basis for unrelated services. Cata\u00f1o Mu\u00f1oz stated, “The ordinance violates the constitutional and jurisprudential principles that govern fees as a tax species,” indicating that the service was undefined and the charges unjustified concerning real costs.<\/p>\n

\n \"The\n <\/picture>
The collection was made from stratum four – Credit Leonardo Mu\u00f1oz\/Efe<\/figcaption><\/div>\n

In their ruling, the State Council<\/strong> ruled in favor of the plaintiff\u2019s arguments, concluding that the Departmental Assembly<\/strong> lacked the authority to impose such a measure. The High Court emphasized that taxes linked to public utilities, such as electric energy, should be utilized exclusively for recovering the associated costs. This essentially prohibits the use of these funds for unrelated services, such as security.<\/p>\n

Furthermore, the council noted that the management of public service tariffs falls under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Energy and Gas Regulation Commission (CREG)<\/strong>, as per Law 142 of 1994<\/strong>. By declaring the Ordinance as exceeding the assembly\u2019s powers, the State Council effectively revoked a previous decision by the Administrative Court of Valle del Cauca<\/strong>, which had only annulled a singular article of the ordinance.<\/p>\n

The Department of Valle del Cauca<\/strong> had previously defended the ordinance, asserting that it was acting under the legal framework provided by Law 418 of 1997<\/strong>, which allows fees to be imposed for the purpose of financing citizen security measures. They also contended that the fee did not alter the electrical rate itself but merely utilized energy billing as a procedural tool for collection.<\/p>\n

The State Council’s judgment clearly states that this practice not only infringes on the equitable relationship that should exist between the proposed service and its corresponding charge but also violates fundamental tax principles. They categorically deemed the collection of this fee as inconsistent with legislative integrity.<\/p>\n

This recent ruling underscores a pressing issue in Colombia regarding public utility fees and their rightful allocation, shedding light on the balance between necessary public services and the legal frameworks that govern them, ensuring that consumers are only charged for services they actually receive.<\/p>\n

This is the complete document of the ruling:<\/b><\/p>\n

\n https:\/\/drive.google.com\/file\/d\/1RUB4QNL1EZeMJ7x5U1T8JX9Hh1T7Jqj8\/preview" width="640" height="480" allow="autoplay<\/a>\n<\/p>\n


\n
General News – 2<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

State Council Nullifies Charge on Electricity Bills in Valle del Cauca The collection to the security rate was approved by the Departmental Assembly – Credit Metropolitan Police of Bogot\u00e1 The State Council of Colombia has declared void the controversial charge known as the citizen security and coexistence fee that was being applied as a surcharge […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":158302,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[4],"tags":[7868,36789,3097,39549,2279,14087,2791,57,2132,1371,14424,3371,5,1826,11057,9263],"class_list":["post-158300","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-mazagine","tag-bills","tag-cauca","tag-collection","tag-colombian-pesos","tag-council","tag-currency","tag-declared","tag-energy","tag-fee","tag-money","tag-proceeding","tag-safety","tag-state","tag-tickets","tag-valley","tag-void"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/teknomers.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/158300","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/teknomers.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/teknomers.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/teknomers.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/teknomers.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=158300"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/teknomers.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/158300\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/teknomers.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/158302"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/teknomers.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=158300"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/teknomers.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=158300"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/teknomers.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=158300"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}