With the collaboration of Jonas de Almeida Rodrigues and Pedro Felício Corrêa de Araújo
The new regulation for pole sharing, approved by ANEEL The decision, enacted on December 2, 2025, within the scope of Process No. 48500.902691/2024-57, is the result of a thorough regulatory debate.
The dissenting opinion of Director Agnes Maria de Aragão da Costa was the instrument that set the tone for the final decision, prioritizing balance and legality over a generalized imposition.
Director Agnes highlighted at the beginning of her analysis the supervening Decree No. 12.068/2024, which deals with the extension of distribution concessions and introduced new guidelines for sharing, requiring a re-analysis of the entire previous regulatory process.
The critical issue: no to compulsory transfer and in defense of affordable tariffs.
The most relevant point of the vote is the rejection of the rule that made it mandatory to transfer the commercial exploitation of the infrastructure to a third party, the "telephone operator". In her dissenting opinion, the Director argued that imposing this transfer in a compulsory manner was out of step with the regulatory framework of the electricity sector.
The utility pole, being an essential and indivisible asset of energy distribution, generates ancillary revenues that, under the Price Cap model, should be passed on to the consumer, guaranteeing affordable tariffs. Compulsory transfer decoupled this revenue from the tariff regime, threatening the interests of the end energy consumer.
The dissenting opinion made it clear that the role of ANEEL The goal is to protect this interest by limiting the role of the "pole operator" to being a strategic option for the distributor or a regulatory sanction, imposed only in cases of mismanagement or proven public interest.
The focus is on security and organization.
Beyond the economic aspect, the vote gave special attention to operational safety and infrastructure organization. The new rule imposes clear and measurable goals, such as the development of a Priority Pole Regularization Plan and the requirement that distributors and telecommunications companies act to identify and remove irregular cables. The Director emphasized that the removal of idle or unidentified assets is crucial for the safety and lifespan of the assets, requiring firm action, with the costs of this activity considered in the pricing methodology.
The Search for a Fair Price: The Public Consultation is Back
The next chapter in this story is defining how much distributors can actually charge for the attachment point. ANEEL It determined the opening of the second phase of Public Consultation No. 73/2021 precisely to finalize the new reference value.
It is important to emphasize that ANEEL It will not impose a contractual price. It will define a regulatory ceiling — a value that needs to be strictly cost-oriented, to ensure neutrality and prevent market abuses.
The final decision on this point illustrates the Agency's caution in building a solution based on technical expertise and broad discussion:
"to establish, conditional upon the signing of the joint REN (Resolution) by ANEEL and ANATEL, the second phase of Public Consultation No. 73/2021, for a period of 60 days, with a view to gathering subsidies and additional contributions regarding the proposed methodology for defining the regulated price for sharing the attachment points of electricity poles, as set forth in Technical Note No. 106/2023.” (Vote-View of Director Agnes Maria de Aragão da Costa, 02/12/2025)
This decision reinforces the pursuit of a value that guarantees transparency and competitive neutrality between sectors, fulfilling the dual role of ANEELTo ensure the quality of energy services and promote non-discriminatory access to telecommunications infrastructure.
With the approval, the process now moves on to ANATEL, marking the end of a long regulatory dispute and the beginning of a new phase that promises more organization, security, and balance between the interests of energy and telecommunications in the country.
Because it is relevant in the judiciary of Minas Gerais (and Brazil)
In the Judiciary, the biggest source of conflict regarding pole sharing has been the divergent interpretation of Joint Resolution No. 004/2014 (Aneel/Anatel). Although its reference price is only indicative, it has come to be used as if it were a mandatory value.
What was intended to be a guideline price sparked a wave of lawsuits aimed at revising contracts formed based on the distributors' actual costs.
The result is well-known: hundreds of lawsuits alleging excessive burden simply because the contractual price differs from the reference value, ignoring the fact that, under the current legal model (article 73, sole paragraph, of the General Telecommunications Law), infrastructure sharing has always been governed by contractual freedom and equal negotiation.
This distortion obscures the essential elements of price formation—operation, maintenance, investment, depreciation, and tax burden—and creates a direct risk to affordable tariffs, since artificially reduced prices end up putting pressure on the public energy service.
The new decision of ANEELThe decision, reinforced by the dissenting opinion of Director Agnes Costa, tends to put the system back on track. By reaffirming that the reference price is not mandatory and that any regulatory value must be technically cost-oriented, the Agency corrects precisely the premise that fueled years of litigation. With the reopening of Public Consultation No. 73/2021, the regulatory framework advances towards a clearer, more transparent model aligned with the operational reality of the sector.
Thus, for the judiciary of Minas Gerais (and Brazil), the new regulation represents a chance to significantly reduce the volume of litigation and restore the legal certainty of contracts, returning to the sharing of utility poles the logic that should always prevail: contractual freedom, economic sustainability, and protection for the energy consumer.
The opinions and information expressed are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily represent the official position of the author. Canal Solar.
