Law No. 15.269/2025, which consolidates the so-called Electricity Sector Reform, cannot and should not be analyzed in isolation. Its true impact is only revealed when considered in conjunction with tax reform, especially with the new consumption tax system, which profoundly alters the economic logic of energy contracts in Brazil.
For medium and large companies, this regulatory convergence represents much more than regulatory adjustments: it is a structural redefinition of risks, costs, and energy strategies.
The reform of the electricity sector is not only sectoral, it is also economic, since Law 15.269/2025 redesigns central pillars of the Brazilian electricity sector, with direct repercussions on various business models (self-production by equivalence; long-term contracts: PPA, CCEAR, CCVEs); management of sector charges; exposure to the free market and also directly affects the legal security of investments in generation and intensive energy consumption.
What many companies have not yet realized is that these regulatory changes are directly related to the new tax architecture, especially with regard to the formation of the final price of energy.
Today, electricity is no longer just a regulated input; it has become a strategic vector for tax and contractual planning.
The Tax Reform changes the "invisible cost" of energy, for example: with the creation of the IBS and CBS, electricity becomes part of a tax system based on: full non-cumulativeness; broad financial credit; incidence at the destination and gradual elimination of special regimes.
In practice, this means that the traditional energy contracting model may cease to be the most efficient, even if the price per MWh appears to be competitive.
Companies that fail to review their contracts and consumption structures may lose significant tax credits, suffer an indirect increase in the tax burden, compromise operating margins, and above all, assume unnecessary regulatory risks.
The convergence between Law 15.269 / 2025 The Tax Reform creates critical areas that require an integrated legal interpretation. In the self-production and equalization model, the new regulatory framework for self-production, when combined with destination-based taxation and the use of credits, can completely alter the economic viability of projects structured in recent years.
Regarding legacy contracts, those signed under the previous tax logic may become unbalanced, requiring: revision of economic clauses; rebalancing mechanisms; and regulatory and fiscal risk analysis.
The expansion and maturation of the free energy market, coupled with the new tax system, require sophisticated legal planning, otherwise a cost-saving strategy could turn into a hidden liability.
Energy is now a matter for the board and not just the operational sector: analyzing the two reforms from a purely technical perspective is no longer sufficient, since an integrated understanding of the two reforms has direct impacts on the company's organizational structure, from tax planning and corporate structure to strategic contracts, regulatory compliance, and even the valuation of assets and projects.
Companies that treat energy merely as a "bill to pay" are taking silent risks that will only surface when it's too late—whether through audits, contract disputes, or loss of competitiveness. For this reason, the following question is crucial: it's not about "keeping up with the law," but about anticipating effects, redesigning contracts, and protecting business decisions with a high financial impact.
The combination of Law 15.269/2025 and the Tax Reform creates a new map of risks and opportunities in the electricity sector. Companies that understand this intersection before the market does will have a competitive advantage, legal certainty, and economic efficiency.
Companies that understand this scenario sooner will make better decisions regarding their operational model, and those that fail to grasp this path will inevitably pay more—in taxes, litigation, or poorly structured decisions. A strategic review of energy contracts is the best approach to be analyzed in conjunction with tax considerations, because: energy is strategy, regulation is decision-making power.
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.
