Ants versus anteaters: the electricity sector stuck in the past

We won't have everything. But we could already have a lot, were it not for the political myopia that insists on treating the electricity sector as if we were still in the 70s. Subsidies, so demonized in easy discourse, played a strategic role.

Proinfa helped diversify the energy matrix; Proálcool built one of the most robust ethanol industries in the world. Distributed generation also had its moment of encouragement—and that cycle has already turned the page: today, small consumers pay for grid use, the benefit was graduated and "taxed" throughout the regulatory transition, and small consumers already contribute their fair share.

The problem isn't the incentives themselves, but the structural barriers that strangle the economy and prevent the sector from advancing: slow-growing consumption, stifling capital costs, and, above all, a centralized and outdated planning model that doesn't address the energy transition.

Here's the gist:

• Who's the big one? These are the large groups of the old electricity sector, owners of concentrated assets, economic and political influence, and direct benefits that remain in effect.
• Who's the small business? It's the average consumer, neighborhood businesses, family farmers, small installation companies—people who have adopted rooftop solar as their only way to reduce their electricity bills and who already pay the cost of the grid.

While the small players comply with new rules and pay their share, the privileges of the big players remain. These are subsidies and direct advantages that few are willing to give up.

In the narrative game, these same groups try to convince consumers that rising electricity prices are the result of the consumer's own actions—and that the small business is the villain. To this end, they invest in simplistic advertising campaigns, some grouped under the banner of the "Just Energy Movement."

But just visit the websites and see who makes up this movement to realize: they are, for the most part, the same actors favored by the old model, who were rarely on the front line when it came to actually reducing small businesses' electricity bills.

And the little one did what was left: he generated energy wherever he could—on the roofs of his house, his business, his school, his farm. He modernized, with clean and accessible technology. And, just as the "little ants" began to succeed, the "anteater" attacked—slow, but with claws sharpened by economic and regulatory power.

The contest seems unequal: one anteater on one side, millions of ants on the other. But these ants are spread across more than 5 municipalities, and when they organize themselves, they suffocate the nostrils and wear down the claws of an anteater pampered by old privileges.

It's also important to understand what's changing. Yesterday's electricity sector was centralized: a few large generators, long transmission lines, and passive consumers who simply paid the bill.

Today's sector already demands decentralization: many small producers, smart grids, energy storage, hybrid systems, electric mobility, and virtual power plants (VPPs) that integrate all of this and balance the grid in real time. In this new design, the consumer ceases to be a spectator and becomes a protagonist—generating, storing, managing, and participating.

This change isn't just technological or market-related; it has a constitutional basis. Article 170 of the Federal Constitution, as updated by Constitutional Amendment No. 42/2003, establishes environmental protection as a principle of the economic order, including through differential treatment based on the environmental impact of products and services.

In other words, there is a clear legal basis for lower-impact activities, such as solar energy and other renewable energy, to receive treatment compatible with their environmental and social relevance.

Can we coexist? Yes, and we should. Large power plants will remain strategic. Small generators are the bridge between innovation and immediate relief. What's unacceptable is pushing new charges onto the backs of small businesses just to maintain the direct subsidies that sustain the privileges of old oligopolies.

Nor can we accept campaigns that masquerade as "consumer protection" while pointing to distributed solar generation as the culprit for all the problems of a sector that's decades behind schedule and lacks planning. In a scenario where rooftop solar has been the only real respite for millions.

In a growing market, there's room for everyone: the game is fair, and each player occupies their share. When the pie doesn't grow, it becomes a "grab-and-grab"—a predatory fight for what's left. It's in this stagnation that old privileges are defended tooth and nail, while the small player continues to pay some of the heaviest electricity bills on the planet.

Brazil has a predominantly renewable energy matrix and the technological capacity to lead the new phase. We don't need to import solutions: we need planning, clear rules, transparency, and a level playing field.

Yes, coexistence is possible — as long as the child is not punished and the illusion is not fed that he is to blame for what the old model failed to do.

The challenge is straightforward: how long will we keep the electricity sector tied to the past, averse to innovation, and resistant to active public participation? How long will we accept improvisation in place of long-term planning?

Brazil has already shown its ability to be bold—just remember the Proálcool and Proinfa programs. It's time to be bold again: with a transparent and modern approach, without hidden privileges, and with respect for the consumer who decided to participate in the solution. Because, let's face it, good luck isn't enough anymore.

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.