With the collaboration of Mateus Badra e Henrique Hein. Article being updated
The board of ANEEL (National Electric Energy Agency) postponed the vote on the process that regulates the rules of Law 14.300 until next week.
The decision was taken by the Agency's directors after receiving and listening to suggestions from the solar energy sector at an ordinary meeting held this Tuesday morning and afternoon (31).
“Some contributions raised doubts that need to be studied. I know that my decision may eventually frustrate those who are following us (…) I will remove the process from the agenda with the intention of resuming it at the next meeting, which will take place on February 7th,” said Hélvio Guerra, director rapporteur of the ANEEL.
The arguments were presented by 17 professionals from associations and companies in the electrical sector.
See the main points brought up during the discussion.
TUSDg for Group B and microgeneration
Hewerton Martins, president of MSL (Free Solar Movement), stated that after reading the draft presented last week, he identified that, in relation to the TUSDg charge for microgeneration systems, there was great concern from the ANEEL with remote DG plants.
“We realized that the entire reading was in this direction, which ended up harming the consumer who generates energy in their own home, with power measurement. At first it was mentioned as 30kW, but in the text, in addition to covering all consumers, it still does not provide legal security for those who have already installed solar energy systems”, he commented.
Regarding billing for the use of the network for the purpose of injecting electricity from microgenerators, Rodrigo Sauaia, executive president of ABSOLAR (Brazilian Association of Photovoltaic Solar Energy), argued that charging consumers in Group B was not, in fact, the spirit that was proposed in this item, specifically.
“The wording, when it included microgeneration, had the objective that a consumer who is billed at medium voltage, for example, and already has demand, but who installs a low 75 kW system, therefore microgeneration, could be charged the their demand, but not so that smaller consumers at low voltage would be targets of a demand charge”, he explained.
In this sense, he stated that there is a simple way to resolve this matter regulatoryly without breaking the law. “We recommend charging demand from consumer units, but starting at 75 kW (75 kW microgeneration and all minigeneration).”
Triple charge
Sauaia also commented that there are critical issues from a legal point of view and from the National Congress. One of them concerns the triple charge on consumers, “especially harmful for small consumers, when we have the possibility of charging Availability Cost, TUSD Fio B and also demand”.
“In this scenario, everyone loses. So, in our proposal to resolve this matter, the text must be written in the same way as it is in the Law. The idea of the standard in several of its points was to effectively help the regulation to be clearer, more objective and not subject to possible interpretative openings that could lead to new conflicts between the parties”, he pointed out.
For Davi Rabelo Conexão, a specialist in Regulation at ANEEL, when we talk about triple charging, “it seems that we are charging three times for the same thing. It is a charge that was divided into two and another charge that the law created”.
“In article 16 I have to pull enough generation so that the network consumption is equal to the Availability Cost. So, the law, in article 16, requires consumption from the grid, even if I have injected more than I have consumed, I necessarily have a portion that I will pull from the grid”, he said.
And this portion that will be pulled from the network, according to Rabelo, necessarily has to be equal to the Availability Cost, “in other words, I am simply charging what I pulled from the network. Why do I have to pull from the net? Because the law says so.”
“And when does the generation pay? When the generation power exceeds the load power. Example, a house with 300 kWh per month. This residence has a charge in the electric shower and it has a generation system. If the load power is greater than the generation system, this generation charge does not exist”, he explained.
Therefore, he stated that, surely, “we say that in local generation there is no charge for generation, as normally in local generation the load power is much greater than the generation power. In the example given, 3 kWp generates 300 kWh per month and an electric shower has more than double that”.
“If I design a generation system to serve the consumer unit itself, there will be no generation charges. The formula itself forces this because TUSDg only affects the difference between generation and load. The remote generator, which has a generation power greater than the load power, will then be charged and it must be charged. So, there are three charges that relate to three completely different products”, he concluded.
Suspension of the deadline due to disputes at the distributor
During the arguments, professionals and representatives of associations and companies highlighted the suspension of deadlines in the event of pending issues for which the distributor is responsible.
“The issue of responsibility of the distributor is the execution of the thread. And pending is not while the thread is out. It is pending as long as she does not finish her role because this affects the entire criterion of financing and running (a project)”, said Ricardo Costa, secretary of technical affairs at INEL (National Institute of Clean Energy).
“What INEL proposes is to go back to the text of Law 14.300 and create a point saying that the distributor covers the CUSD as soon as it finishes running the network, even if the micro and minigeneration unit is not ready to connect. Because this has no regulatory or financial impact on the distributors”, he added.
David pointed out, during his explanation, that ANEEL considers that the distributor's work is not pending. “It would only be pending if there were a delay,” he said.
“When is the deadline suspended? When the distributor missed the connection budget deadline or when it did not meet the deadlines established by the Law in paragraph 3 of article 26, which is 120 days, 12 months or 30 months depending on the source”, he added.
The expert of the ANEEL He also highlighted that this issue is addressed in the vote of rapporteur Guerra. “In practice, this is equivalent to saying that the classification of the agent as GD 1 is possible when the connection occurs before the deadline of the connection budget, or until the deadlines of §3 of art. 26 of the Law, whichever occurs last”, says the vote.
“If the connection budget gives a period of 18 months, the agent will be entitled to connection if he connects within the 18 months. If the connection budget gives a deadline of 6 months and the distributor meets the deadline, the agent can connect within 12 [months] to claim the right to the GD 1 benefit”, he explained.
An answer
Hello good afternoon, the law came into effect on 7/01/2023, is it possible that this postponement changes this date so that we have a little more time in relation to the validity of this law?