Regulation of SAEs and BESS auction: two distinct milestones for energy storage in Brazil.

The publication, within the same timeframe, of the guidelines for the first Brazilian auction of battery storage and the approval of the regulation of SAEs (Energy Storage Systems) by ANEEL (The National Electric Energy Agency) represents more than a simple institutional coincidence: it is a turning point for the development of BESS in Brazil.

Although both initiatives directly address the expansion of energy storage in the electricity sector, it is essential to recognize that they are completely different in nature, and it is precisely this difference that makes them complementary.

On one hand, the MME (Ministry of Mines and Energy), by issuing Normative Ordinance No. 136/2026, is clearly acting as a public policy formulator and sector planner, signaling the need for contracting power through batteries and paving the way for the concrete inclusion of BESS (Battery Energy Supply) in the Brazilian electricity matrix.

On the other hand, the ANEELBy concluding Public Consultation No. 39/2023 and approving the regulation of SAEs (Storage and Energy Equipment), the government goes beyond a one-off move and establishes, for the first time, a specific legal framework for energy storage activity in the country – a step the sector has been waiting for for years.

The distinction is clear, but the combined effect is even more significant: the Ministry of Mines and Energy creates demand, while the... ANEEL It structures the functioning of the market. Together, they remove storage from the realm of promises and definitively place it in the implementation phase.

The auction design itself reveals a certain degree of institutional maturity. The choice of two products, one with a national content requirement and the other open to all, seems to seek a balance between industrial policy and competitiveness, avoiding overly rigid solutions in a still nascent market.

Extending the contract term to 15 years reinforces this interpretation, directly addressing one of the main obstacles to the financial viability of the projects. Even so, the adopted model clearly demonstrates a strategic choice: initially, storage will be treated primarily as a systemic resource.

There will be no energy arbitrage; the developer must fully comply with ONS (National System Operator) dispatches, and revenue will be concentrated in the contract, with no room for additional monetization.

This is a relatively conservative approach, but could it be different at this stage? In a regulatory environment still under development, prioritizing predictability and operational control seems less of a limitation and more of a condition for unlocking the market.

If the auction represents the first concrete step, the regulation of ANEEL In practice, this is a true game-changer. By recognizing energy storage as an autonomous activity within the electricity sector, with its own concepts, distinct regimes, and specific rules, the regulator resolves a historical gap.

The differentiation between autonomous and co-located energy supply systems is not merely a conceptual choice, but a mechanism that tends to organize market development. On the one hand, autonomous projects begin to operate with a logic closer to generation, with their own regulations and greater regulatory independence.

On the other hand, colocated systems open up space for the expansion of hybrid solutions, especially relevant in a system increasingly dependent on intermittent sources. In this context, BESS ceases to be merely a complement and becomes a structural element of flexibility.

Perhaps the most sensitive point, and one that historically generated the most uncertainty, was the treatment of network usage. Here, the solution adopted by ANEEL It deserves recognition not only for its content, but also for its logic. By establishing a hybrid model that differentiates tariff treatment according to the degree of exposure of the asset to the ONS's dispatch, the regulator avoids imposing a single path.

Assets that make themselves available to the operator receive more favorable treatment, while those seeking greater operational freedom assume additional costs associated with bidirectional network use. This is not a trivial choice.

In practice, this model transfers the decision about its strategic positioning to the agent: greater predictability or greater flexibility? Lower regulatory costs or greater commercial autonomy?

It is legitimate to question whether bidirectional billing could limit more sophisticated models based on arbitrage or revenue stacking. At the same time, it is difficult to ignore the gains brought about by the existence of a clear rule.

For the first time, investors are able to model scenarios, compare alternatives, and price the regulatory impact with some degree of certainty. Another significant advance is in the treatment of charges.

Recognizing that storage should not be equated with final consumption, the ANEEL This avoids a distortion that could compromise the economic viability of the projects. It is a decision that reveals alignment with the physical logic of the system – energy is not consumed, but temporarily stored and returned to the grid – and demonstrates sensitivity to the economic impacts of regulation.

At the same time, it is important to note that the regulation is not intended to be definitive, and perhaps therein lies one of its greatest merits. By postponing issues such as revenue stacking, aggregators, integration with commercialization, and regulatory sandboxes to future cycles, the ANEEL It adopts a stance that is compatible with the dynamic nature of the sector.

In an environment of rapid technological transformation, building an incremental regulatory framework tends to be more efficient than trying to anticipate all solutions.

Ultimately, the question is not whether the model is perfect—it clearly isn't—but whether it's functional for the current market situation. And, from that perspective, the answer seems positive.

Brazil now has both a concrete contracting instrument and a minimally structured regulatory framework. That's no small feat.

The convergence between public policy and regulation, which does not always occur in a coordinated manner in the Brazilian electricity sector, is quite clearly materialized here. Challenges remain, especially in the contractual details of the auction, risk allocation, and the effective bankability of the projects.

But these challenges are, to a large extent, inherent to any nascent market. More relevant than that is the fact that energy storage is no longer a future possibility but an institutionalized reality.

With clearer rules, a defined timeline, and room for evolution, BESS is finally entering the radar of the Brazilian electricity sector not as an exception, but as an integral part of its trajectory.

You may also be interested

ANEEL defines rules for storage in Brazil with two distinct pricing models.

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.