Law 15.269 brings improvements to the sector, but reignites the risk of litigation, according to Lefosse.

The enactment of Law 15.269/2025, resulting from Provisional Measure 1304/2025, has opened a new field of uncertainty in the Brazilian electricity sector. According to lawyer Raphael Gomes, Energy partner at Lefosse Advogados, the final text "is broad, complex, and affects at least eleven structural aspects of the market." 

In an exclusive interview to Canal SolarHe points out that some vetoes bring progress, others create legal uncertainty, and some may trigger a new wave of litigation in the country.

At the heart of the dispute are three explosive issues: self-generation, curtailment, and access to tariff discounts, all with a direct impact on billion-dollar investments, digital infrastructure, data centers, and the energy transition itself.

One of the most significant vetoes, according to the lawyer, was the one that affected... §8 of Article 16-B, which restricted self-generation operations. Maintaining the section, he argues, would create a mismatch between the timelines for new power plants to become operational and the pace of digital infrastructure installation.

Government approves Provisional Measure 1304 with veto on reimbursement for solar and wind power generation.

“I have clients who were considering moving to other markets. A power plant takes two to four years to be completed; a data center is ready in a few months,” he says.

Gomes adds that the vetoed paragraph would harm the competitiveness of the green hydrogen industry, which is currently dependent on hydroelectric power, and could compromise initiatives aligned with the COP30 discussions.

Another sensitive point is the veto on Article 1-A of Law 10.848which would create a compensation mechanism for generation cuts occurring between 2023 and 2025. Congress approved two provisions on the same subject — articles 1-A and 1-B — with contradictory wording. The veto of the first, coupled with the maintenance of paragraph 11 of Article 1, left the matter open.

“Article 1-B is restrictive and does not specify deadlines. Paragraph 11 prevents reimbursement when there is a restriction in the access assessment, but it does not make it clear whether the restriction is at a specific point or at any point in the network,” he states.

The expert cites cases of companies facing cuts for reasons unrelated to the restrictions outlined in their reports, and yet they may still receive no compensation. "This doesn't solve the problem and can maintain or even increase litigation," he says.

Section 1-B also only addresses the period up to November 26, 2025. There is no definition for the treatment of curtailment after that date, even considering concessions with a duration of 30 years.

Gomes also highlights §14 of Article 26 of Law 9.427, which prevents consumers who migrate to the free market after the law is enacted from accessing the discount. TUSD for incentivized sources.

The measure directly affects companies considering installing data centers in Brazil. "They announced Redata saying that contracting renewable energy was a condition, but those arriving in the country after November 26th will not have this benefit," he points out.

According to the lawyer, removing attributes from existing concessions raises constitutional questions and reduces the country's competitiveness in the competition for investments in digital infrastructure.

Three vetoes are expected to dominate the debate in Congress.

Despite the upcoming parliamentary recess, Gomes believes there is political room to reverse some vetoes. The most mobilized issues are expected to be:

• §8 of Article 16-B (self-production);
  • Use of existing power plants in distributed generation;
  • Art. 1º-A of the curtailment.

The eventual restoration of Article 1-A, he says, would be the change with the greatest impact. "It re-establishes a more balanced risk matrix. It's an immediate cost to the consumer, but less than letting the problem evolve into a burden or the bankruptcy of agents," he states.

However, overturning the veto on paragraph 8 of Article 16-B, according to him, would have a significant negative effect.

Next steps for companies

The firm already serves companies that were waiting for the law to be defined before deciding whether to file lawsuits. With the current scenario, the outlook is for new litigation. "With the current approach, we may see another wave of litigation," he states.

For consumers interested in self-generation, the veto of paragraph 8 opens a three-month window for formalizing contracts with existing power plants. For generators affected by curtailment, the recommendation is to await the legislative outcome before taking legal action.

"After the decision is made, the market will need to prepare itself — either to sign the commitment agreement or to take legal action."

Gomes' assessment indicates that Law 15.269, instead of ending historical discussions, has reignited debates about legal certainty and risk allocation, with direct effects on expansion planning and attracting strategic investments.

The outcome of the vetoes, whether in Congress or in the regulations, will likely determine the degree of regulatory stability in the electricity sector in the coming years.

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.