The decision by the 7th Panel of the TRF-1 (Federal Regional Court of the 1st Region) that alters the calculation of compensation for the RBSE (Basic Network of the Existing System) provoked an immediate reaction from energy transmission companies and increased the sector's concern about possible regulatory, tariff, and financial impacts.
Abrate (Brazilian Association of Electric Power Transmission Companies) stated that it is awaiting the publication of the court ruling to define the next steps, but reiterated that it will act in defense of legal and regulatory certainty.
The entity's president, Talita Porto, stated that there are doubts about the effective scope of the decision and that the association will analyze the content of the ruling before any action. The court decision, issued last Tuesday (26), was interpreted in the sector as a setback for transmission companies that have amounts to receive related to RBSE compensation.
What did the TRF-1 decide?
The court has ruled for changes in the calculation of compensation paid to transmission companies for the renewal of concessions for old transmission lines. The decision annuls the remuneration related to the companies' cost of equity and establishes a recalculation of the amount due.
Furthermore, the court suspended the collection of the financial component deemed undue starting from the 2026-2027 tariff cycle. Currently, the total amount associated with RBSE compensation amounts to R$ 62 billion in 2017 values. Of this amount, approximately R$ 11 billion would still remain to be paid until 2028, according to the current rules.
The ruling also raises concerns because it could have an impact on the next adjustment of the RAP (Annual Permitted Revenue), the remuneration for transmission companies defined annually by... ANEEL (National Electric Energy Agency). The values for the new 2026-2027 tariff cycle should be approved by the regulator next month, taking effect from July.
Agents coordinate.
Following the trial, representatives from Abrate, the Attorney General's Office (AGU), and the company itself... ANEEL They began discussing legal alternatives to try to annul or suspend the effects of the decision. The Agency's Director-General, Sandoval Feitosa, stated that the agency was still evaluating the impacts of the decision and awaiting formal notification for legal interpretation of the ruling.
According to the report presented in the document, the Attorney General's Office (AGU) can only issue an enforceable opinion after the publication of the court ruling, a step considered necessary for the eventual regulatory compliance with the decision. Even so, the process remains subject to appeal. The concern of the stakeholders is that a change in the flow of compensation payments will have a financial impact on the transmission companies that are still accounting for future revenues associated with the RBSE (Brazilian Network for Energy Sector).
Developments
Companies in the electricity sector with receivables related to RBSE released statements to the market following the decision of the TRF-1 (Regional Federal Court of the 1st Region). These include Axia (formerly Eletrobras), ISA Brasil Energia, and Cemig (Companhia Energética de Minas Gerais), as well as companies such as Copel (Companhia Paranaense de Energia), Celg (Companhia Energética de Goiás), and CEEE (Câmara de Comercialização de Energia Elétrica).
In a relevant fact, ISA Brasil Energia informed that it continues to monitor the issue with its legal advisors and awaits the publication of the judgment for a detailed analysis of the decision's content and procedural aspects. The company also highlighted that the judgment is still subject to appeal. The lawsuits related to the matter had been filed in mid-2017 and had been without significant movement since 2020.
dispute history
The controversy surrounding RBSE's compensation dates back to the enactment of Provisional Measure 579/2012, during the Dilma Rousseff administration. This measure allowed for the early renewal of electricity generation and transmission concessions and opened a discussion about existing assets that had not yet been fully amortized by the transmission companies.
From that point on, a long regulatory and legal dispute began regarding the methodology for calculating the compensation owed to companies. ANEEL The methodology for determining the amount of compensation was approved in June 2025. Subsequently, the matter was also analyzed by the TCU (Federal Court of Accounts), in a process that was archived this month.
The TCU even conducted investigations with the Ministry of Mines and Energy (MME) and... ANEEL to assess the basis of the calculation, the impacts on the economic and financial balance of the renewed contracts, and the tariff effects for consumers.
The case was initially overseen by retired Justice Aroldo Cedraz, who validated the methodology adopted. Subsequently, the analysis was passed to Justice Bruno Dantas, who expressed discomfort with the fact that the judgment was taking place more than a decade after the enactment of Provisional Measure 579 and years after the regulation of indemnities.
According to Dantas, the exact value of the compensations was still unknown at the time the contract amendments were signed, which would have hindered more objective technical analyses of the economic advantages of the concession renewals. Despite these reservations, the minister voted to shelve the case at the TCU (Federal Court of Accounts).
all the content of Canal Solar is protected by copyright law, and partial or total reproduction of this site in any medium is expressly prohibited. If you are interested in collaborating or reusing part of our material, please contact us by email: redacao@canalsolar.com.br.
