With the collaboration of Heber Galarce
The solar sector would do wrong to treat the regulatory movement that has opened up in [year] as a routine adjustment. ANEELWhat is currently under public consultation is not merely a technical tweak. The package addresses combating unauthorized changes to MMGD (Multi-Management Data), systemic restrictions for new connections, greater operational flexibility, and improvements to the Surplus Management Plan, with a 45-day period for contributions.
Combating genuinely irregular conduct is legitimate and necessary. No one serious in the sector defends clandestine power expansion, registration falsification, or artificial splitting to unduly preserve regulatory benefits. The critical point is another: the risk that repression of irregular cases will be used to impose a more restrictive environment on regular MMGD (Multi-Generation Distribution), which connected and invested under the existing rules.
The ruling provides sufficient grounds for this warning. It mentions mandatory audits by distributors, prioritizing mini-generation and cases with the greatest discrepancy between the authorized power and the power actually injected into the grid.
It also allows for greater regulatory clarity regarding the suspension of supply or disconnection of generation, simplification of connection denial in regions already considered unviable by the ONS (National System Operator), and a review of the concept of installed capacity applicable to distributed generation (DG) photovoltaics. This is not trivial. It is a discussion with potential impact on access, permanence, and predictability of the sector.
The technical basis supporting this shift also requires caution. The vote records an assessment by the ONS (National System Operator) according to which there would be a significant component of distributed generation (DG) not fully reflected in the registration databases, with an estimated magnitude between 6,3 GW and 7,8 GW on average, with equivalent installed capacity between 11,8 GW and 14,6 GW. However, the same text expressly acknowledges that this does not represent definitive causal proof, but rather a strong indication to be addressed institutionally.
This is precisely where the debate needs to become more serious. Aggregate evidence cannot be transformed into generalized suspicion about an entire universe of regular consumers and entrepreneurs. Sectoral statistics serve to open investigations, improve registration, calibrate oversight, and discuss regulatory alternatives. They are not, on their own, sufficient to justify a leap towards a harsher regime for all distributed generation.
The risk, therefore, is not of an outright ban. The risk is of gradually creating an environment of regulatory restriction. First, audits are expanded. Then, concepts are tightened. Next, connection denials are simplified in certain areas.
Subsequently, the scope for operational interventions increases. Individually, each measure may seem defensible. Taken together, they can reduce confidence in distributed solar energy as a legitimate instrument for energy expansion.
This approach would be misguided for three reasons. The first is technical. The bottlenecks in the Brazilian electrical system did not originate at the consumer's expense. They result from network constraints, expansion delays, difficulty in coordinating planning and operation, and insufficient flexibility instruments. The vote itself, moreover, addresses the temporary connection of power plants due to systemic relevance and improvements to the Surplus Management Plan, which shows that the issue is not limited to the distributed generation end.
The second reason is economic. Distributed generation has mobilized private capital, brought investment to the interior of the country, reduced the tariff exposure of consumers, and strengthened a national chain of integrators, distributors, manufacturers, financiers, and service providers. Signaling that this environment could become more restrictive, more uncertain, and more subject to broad reinterpretations affects the entire chain, not just those operating irregularly.
The third is institutional. Legal certainty is not a sectoral benefit; it is a prerequisite for any serious energy transition. The country cannot convey to the market the message that an entire segment can be framed by statistics, aggregate inference, or regulatory simplification, without sufficient individualization, methodological transparency, and an adequate transition.
The correct path is different. It is to rigorously separate the illicit from the licit. It is to fully disclose the data and premises that underpin the ONS's concerns. It is to conduct a robust regulatory impact analysis. It is to test gradual solutions. It is to prioritize reliable registration, storage, demand response, and better operational coordination. And it is to preserve the distinction between those who violated the rules and those who invested in good faith within the existing framework.
The solar sector should support the enforcement of regulations against irregularities. But it must, with equal firmness, react to any formulation that transforms regulated solar energy into a new frontier of regulatory containment. Brazil needs to correct distortions without stifling one of the vectors that has most expanded access, investment, and decentralization in the electrical system.
You may also be interested:
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.
