Open energy: from data to decision

The legal possibility of choosing a supplier does not, in itself, guarantee real conditions for choice. To contract for energy, the consumer needs to understand their consumption profile, compare proposals, and complete the switch without excessive uncertainty.

The central question of this study is to identify the extent to which standardized access to information and the reorganization of the migration procedure can make market opening effective.

The regulatory debate precedes the decision of October 2026. At the opening of Public Consultation No. 7/2025, the ANEEL The Brazilian National Electric Energy Agency (ANEEL) linked the initiative to the expansion of access to the free market promoted by MME Ordinance No. 50/2022 and pointed out the need to simplify procedures and address bureaucratic obstacles and anti-competitive conduct. Open Energy was already part of this discussion as a mechanism for access to and consented sharing of information.1

The approach is documentary and prospective: it examines the directives issued by the Agency and their legal implications, without attempting to measure economic results that have not yet been demonstrated.

As of the closing of this article, on October 31, 2026, it was not possible to confirm the number and publication in the Official Gazette of the Union of the final resolutions. Thus, the institutional communication is used as evidence of the announced decision, without replacing the normative text to define validity, exceptions, and enforceability.2

Information as a condition of competition

According to the official statement, Open Energy will allow standardized access to consumption, metering, and billing information, with authorized and revocable sharing. The data will no longer be used exclusively for service execution but will become integrated into the supplier search and evaluation process.

The analytical consequence is relevant: competitors will be able to develop proposals based on a more comparable information base, provided they are legitimately authorized.2

This possibility does not guarantee savings. The usefulness of information depends on its quality, granularity, timeliness, and comprehensibility by the recipient.

A company may receive numerous proposals and still have difficulty assessing risks related to volume, flexibility, guarantees, adjustments, and termination. Therefore, standardization should be understood as a condition for a qualified comparison, accompanied by intelligible contractual criteria.

The comparative platform of CCEE (Chamber of Electric Energy Commercialization) foreseen in the decision may reduce research costs, but its interpretation requires caution. As the disclosure of offers will be voluntary, the data presented should not be interpreted as a necessarily complete picture of the market.

Comparison is no substitute for due diligence on the supplier. As an implementation recommendation, the interface should allow for the identification of eligibility conditions, additional charges, and scenarios that alter the advertised price, preventing structurally distinct offers from appearing equivalent.2

Predictable migration and limits to technical requirements.

The announced procedure allows for the start of the migration through formal notification to the distributor and, in simplified cases, through the contracting of a retail marketer. The regulated contract will be maintained until the transition is complete. The reduction of the regular period from 180 to 90 days applies to AS and A4 units covered by the simplified model, without authorizing its automatic extension to all consumers in Group A.2.

The proposed legal interpretation is that the reform seeks to coordinate steps before transferring the consequences of an incomplete transition to the consumer. This coordination requires a review of purchase and retail representation contracts: the estimated migration date, the start of supply, cooperation obligations, and the effects of delays need to be compatible.

Maintaining a regulated relationship should not be confused with dispensing with contractual planning or authorizing unjustified duplicate charges.

Regarding technical obstacles, the published decision restricts impediments based on requirements without emergency risk and notes the technical infeasibility of necessary replacement of measurement or communication systems. The interpretative conclusion is that generic references to the need for adaptation are not sufficient to explain an indefinite shutdown.

The justification should allow for an understanding of the specific problem and its relationship to the continuation of the procedure.2

This does not eliminate safety requirements. It is recommended that the analysis of each case record the affected installation, the necessary intervention, the cause of the infeasibility, and the alternatives evaluated. This set of documents allows one to distinguish an actual obstacle from a merely bureaucratic requirement.

For the consumer and their advisor, preserving protocols and technical responses is essential for evaluating any potential administrative complaint, without presuming that every pending issue constitutes an infraction.

Consent and data governance

The LGPD (Brazilian General Data Protection Law) protects information related to identified or identifiable natural persons. Data from a business entity does not automatically receive this qualification; however, energy registries and records may contain personal information.

Governance must separate these situations and also consider commercial confidentiality. In the sharing of personal data, purpose, necessity, transparency, and security define the processing; generic authorizations are incompatible with the legal regime of consent.3

The interpretation advocated is that consent needs to exist as an operational choice, and not merely as a clause. It is recommended to identify recipients, data sets, purposes, and duration of access, to retain evidence of authorization, and to offer easy revocation.

The technological design should allow for the blocking of future access and verification of the permission history. These measures are governance recommendations, the specific sector of which will depend on definitive acts and instruments.

It is also necessary to distinguish between optional sharing and operations essential to the service or regulatory obligations. The LGPD (Brazilian General Data Protection Law) allows for legal bases other than consent; its revocation does not, in itself, determine the elimination of all records. Retention must be examined according to its purpose and legal basis.

An authorization to receive a commercial proposal, in turn, should not be interpreted as unrestricted permission for subsequent incompatible uses.3

Neutrality of the distributor and effectiveness of the opening.

The official statement acknowledges similar brand identities between companies within the same group, accompanied by clarifications for consumers, and establishes restrictions on joint promotion and operational sharing. For brands and communication, it informs of a 180-day transition period; for new infrastructure and personnel sharing, implementation will occur after publication, preserving regularly authorized contracts until their termination.2

The competitive relevance of these safeguards lies in the distributor's position in its relationship with the user. In the analysis proposed here, the perception of continuity between the network service provider and the retailer can affect the choice, especially if the consumer associates contracting with a particular company with the quality of service.

Separating channels, access points, and functions helps to make the required neutrality verifiable, although effectiveness depends on oversight and the effective behavior of the agents.

For legal advisors, the priority is to integrate the review of migration contracts with data governance and the evaluation of business practices.

It is recommended to verify whether sales materials distinguish the services, whether the informational authorization is proportionate, and whether the technical responses allow for monitoring the procedure. The mere existence of affiliated companies does not prove favoritism; the analysis must be based on specific conduct and evidence.

Confusion

Open Energy and the Group A migration review point towards openness supported by practical conditions of choice. The thesis of this article is that accessible data, predictable transition, and competitive neutrality are complementary: information without mobility may have limited utility, while rapid migration without adequate comparison may only accelerate ill-informed decisions.

The expected outcome should be treated as a hypothesis to be evaluated, not as a proven benefit. Implementation will need to be examined in terms of quality of access, clarity of offerings, and handling of concrete obstacles.

The published timelines of 12 and 24 months for Open Energy and 180 days for communication and trademarks should not be counted from the news of October 27th. Their application requires checking the publication of the respective act and its provisions regarding validity and transition.2

Reference notes at the end

1 ANEELConsultation approved to improve rules for distribution services as a consequence of the opening of the market to Group A consumers. February 18, 2025. Available at: https://www.gov.br/aneel/pt-br/assuntos/noticias/2025-defeso-eleitoral/aprovada-consulta-para-aperfeicoar-regras-dos-servicos-de-distribuicao-em-consequencia-da-abertura-do-mercado-para-consumidores-do-grupo-a/ . Accessed on: October 31, 2026.

2 ANEEL. ANEEL Advances with market opening and establishes Open Energy. October 27, 2026. Available at: https://www.gov.br/aneel/pt-br/assuntos/noticias/2026/aneel-avanca-com-abertura-do-mercado-e-institui-open-energy. Accessed on: October 31, 2026. Source of the announced decision; does not replace definitive normative acts.

3 BRAZIL. Law No. 13.709, of August 14, 2018. General Law on the Protection of Personal Data. Updated text, especially articles 1, 5 to 9, 15, 16 and 46. Chamber of Deputies. Available at: https://www2.camara.leg.br/legin/fed/lei/2018/lei-13709-14-agosto-2018-787077-normaatualizada-pl.html . Accessed on: October 31, 2026.

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.