Tripura consumers are protesting rising electricity bills and seeking clarity from TSECL over fixed charges, prepaid deductions, load calculations and tariff rates. The 2026–27 TERC tariff order prescribes slab-wise energy charges, monthly fixed charges and maximum-demand monitoring, intensifying calls for transparent billing and clear explanations from the power utility.
Growing public resentment over electricity bills has begun to turn into protests, deputations and agitations across Tripura, with consumers demanding clear answers from the Tripura State Electricity Corporation Limited (TSECL) over allegedly abnormal bills, prepaid recharge deductions and the calculation of fixed charges. The mounting anger, increasingly visible on social media as well, has raised questions about whether consumers are being adequately informed about the tariff structure and the manner in which their bills are calculated.
The issue assumes significance in view of the latest tariff order of the Tripura Electricity Regulatory Commission (TERC) for 2026–27, effective from May 1 this year. While the tariff structure is prescribed by the regulator, consumers appear to be struggling to understand the different components that determine the final amount payable.
Under the current domestic tariff, the first 50 units are charged at ₹5.53 per unit, consumption from 51 to 150 units at ₹6.93, 151 to 300 units at ₹7.32 and consumption above 300 units at ₹8.52 per unit. The system is telescopic, meaning that a consumer entering a higher slab does not pay the highest applicable rate on all the units consumed.
For example, according to TERC’s own illustration, a consumer using 330 units would pay ₹277 for the first 50 units, ₹693 for the next 100, ₹1,098 for the following 150 and ₹255 for the remaining 30 units, making the total energy charge ₹2,323 before other applicable components.
There is also a special tariff of ₹4.63 per unit for domestic rural consumers whose consumption does not exceed 50 units during the billing period.
The fixed charge, meanwhile, is ₹70 per kW per month for ordinary domestic consumers. TERC has prescribed a specific method for determining the load for billing purposes. A connected load with a decimal below 0.5 kW is rounded down, while a decimal above 0.5 kW is rounded up, subject to a minimum billing of one kW.
This provision has become particularly relevant amid complaints from consumers that they are being billed for a higher load than their recorded sanctioned or connected load. For instance, if a consumer’s recorded connected load is 2.3 kW, the prescribed rounding mechanism would ordinarily result in billing on 2 kW, amounting to ₹140 as fixed charge. It would not, on the face of the tariff provision, automatically become 3 kW and ₹210. However, the actual bill and the load recorded by TSECL would have to be examined, as the contracted load can subsequently be restated on the basis of recorded Maximum Demand.
TERC has provided that where recorded Maximum Demand exceeds the contracted load for three consecutive months, the contracted load may be restated to the highest demand recorded during those three months. The Commission has also directed TSECL to monitor actual load and provide maximum-demand information on bills.
Another source of confusion is prepaid electricity. Consumers have taken to social media to complain that substantial amounts recharged into their accounts have translated into surprisingly low available balances or units. Some have claimed that even households using air-conditioners, pumps, geysers and other appliances have seen large deductions from their recharge amounts.
Such claims, however, cannot be assessed merely by comparing the recharge amount with the number of units received. TSECL’s prepaid system may also account for fixed charges, applicable Fuel and Power Purchase Price Adjustment Surcharge (FPPPAS), government taxes and duties and recovery of outstanding dues. TSECL’s prepaid smart-meter procedure provides for recovery of outstanding dues from prepaid balances.
The question of fixed charges being deducted more than once when a consumer makes two recharges in a month also requires an unequivocal clarification. The tariff order describes the fixed charge as a monthly charge of ₹70 per kW. TSECL should therefore explain publicly, with a worked example, precisely how fixed charges are treated when multiple prepaid recharges are made within the same billing month.
Consumers are also entitled to a three per cent rebate on the total bill if payment is made within five working days of bill generation. Delayed payment attracts a surcharge of two per cent per month or part thereof at simple interest.
Importantly, the present tariff is the outcome of the regulatory process undertaken by TERC. TSECL had sought a separate regulatory surcharge to recover its revenue gap, but the Commission did not approve that proposal. Instead, the approved revenue gap was addressed through rationalisation of fixed and energy charges.
With public anger now spreading beyond individual grievances and taking the form of organised protests, the immediate requirement is greater transparency. TSECL needs to explain the billing system in simple language, disclose the connected load and maximum demand recorded against each consumer, and clearly show every deduction from prepaid balances.
A technically correct tariff structure can still generate public distrust if consumers cannot understand their bills. At a time when electricity-related grievances are increasingly becoming a public issue across Tripura, TSECL’s ability to provide simple, transparent and convincing answers may be crucial to preventing the present resentment from developing into a wider crisis of confidence.
A transparent and convincing response could go a long way towards restoring public confidence. With public anger steadily building, failure to address the concerns may allow the issue to develop into a larger institutional credibility problem—and eventually find an echo at the ballot box.
The TERC order actually contains a directive that strengthens the consumer’s case for transparency.
The Commission says TSECL should:
- bill consumers according to actual load;
- regularly monitor MDI;
- ensure maximum-demand information is included in the bill.
That means a consumer should reasonably be able to see enough information on the bill to understand why a particular fixed charge has been imposed.
Recharging twice in a month?
The tariff order describes the fixed charge as ₹70/kW/month for ordinary domestic consumers.
That wording is significant.
It is a monthly fixed charge, not a “per recharge” charge.
Therefore, the allegation that a consumer is being charged the full fixed charge twice merely because two prepaid recharges were made in the same month should not be accepted without examining the actual prepaid billing mechanism and the consumer’s transaction statement.
TSECL’s prepaid smart-meter SOP says online recharge is available 24×7 and describes how balances, outstanding dues and consumption are handled.
This is an area where TSECL should publish a simple worked example:
“If a consumer recharges ₹1,000 twice in one month, how exactly are fixed charge, energy charge, FPPPAS, arrears and other deductions applied?”
Fixed charge is based on load
For ordinary domestic consumers, TERC has prescribed a fixed charge of: ₹70 per kW per month
The Commission specifically decided that fixed charges for domestic single-phase consumers should be calculated on load, rather than as a flat charge per connection.
And the FY 2026–27 tariff order contains a very specific rule for calculating the load:
For billing purposes, connected load is rounded to the next higher kW if the decimal is higher than 0.5, and to the nearest lower kW if the decimal is lower than 0.5, subject to a minimum billing of 1 kW.
The 2.3 kW controversy requires clarifications.
If a consumer’s actual connected load is 2.3 kW, then:
2.3 kW → rounded down to 2 kW
Therefore:
2 kW × ₹70 = ₹140 per month
It does not become ₹161 merely by calculating 2.3 × ₹70.
And, on the face of the TERC rule, it certainly does not automatically become 3 kW, because 2.3 is below 2.5.
The consumer’s bill must be examined to establish what TSECL has actually recorded as the connected/contracted load.
If the bill shows 3 kW, there may be a reason—such as a previously recorded load, load enhancement, or maximum-demand-based restatement. The allegation cannot simply be labelled “overcharging” without seeing those particulars.
TERC has expressly directed TSECL to bill consumers according to the actual load and monitor the Maximum Demand Indicator (MDI).
If a consumer’s recorded connected load is 2.3 kW, why is the fixed charge being calculated on 3 kW when the TERC order says decimals below 0.5 kW are to be rounded down?
That is a legitimate question requiring an answer.
TERC did not approve regulatory surcharge
TSECL had sought a one-time regulatory surcharge, proposing at least 70 paise per unit for certain consumption and ₹1 per unit for higher consumption, to help recover a revenue gap of around ₹1,709 crore.
TERC did not approve that regulatory surcharge.
Instead, the Commission decided to recover the approved revenue gap through rationalisation/revision of fixed and energy charges.
| Also Read: Tripura CM Chairs Meeting on Electricity and Smart City Works |
So if consumers are being told that the present tariff contains a separate “regulatory surcharge” for recovering TSECL’s accumulated deficit, that would need clarification.
| Also Read: CPI(M) Calls Rising Tripura Power Bills an ‘Organised Loot’ |
