Felipe Figueiró

The discussion regarding the new discount rule for irrigation seems to have become stuck on the tariff benefit. That makes sense, because energy is a significant factor in rural operations, and any change affects the producer's bill. But Normative Ordinance MME No. 137, of June 8, 2026, points to something bigger. She begins to treat rural consumption as a matter of timing, not just as a charge that appears on the network. For many years, the reserved time slot has been a significant part of the relationship between energy and irrigation in the countryside. The producer used energy during periods of lower demand, usually in the early morning hours, and received a tariff benefit for it. Irrigating at that time has become almost a rule of procedure for many people. It was a way to protect costs, even when the farm's routine, staff, or management might suggest a different arrangement. The electrical system has changed more than just that rule. Solar energy gained importance, distributed generation grew, the grid began to coexist with more resources connected at the endpoints, and the timing of consumption became more crucial. There are times when we have more energy available and less to absorb. In others, the solar power starts to fade and the load becomes heavy again. This difference already affects cost, operation, network, and investment decisions. The new regulation maintains the 8 hours and 30 minutes of daily discount, but allows this period to be used continuously or in installments. Consumers gain more flexibility in setting schedules and using different programming options throughout the year. At the same time, the benefit does not apply between 17 PM and 21:30 PM, a sensitive time for the system, when solar generation weakens and the load tends to recover. The design is relevant. The rule doesn't bind the producer to the old logic of the late-night hours, but it also doesn't create total freedom. It opens up space for a decision that is closer to productive reality and preserves a limit at a time that the system does not want to encourage. For me, the novelty isn't just in changing the discount time. The issue lies in the sector beginning to acknowledge that the timing of rural consumption can also be part of the operation. This is not yet a response to the formal request. The irrigation load is not dispatched by the operator, does not become a market product, and does not receive explicit remuneration for reducing or shifting consumption. Even so, direction is relevant. Consumers begin to organize part of their load based on signals regarding schedule, cost, and network usage. It's a starting point for better discussing the management of rural cargo schedules. The producer without their own generation is perhaps the simplest case to understand this change. For him, flexibility lies in the load itself. Previously, the trend was to follow a more rigid night window. Now, he can evaluate other blocks within the permitted period, including with different scales throughout the year. This doesn't mean scheduling irrigation for the day as a general rule. Irrigation depends on the crop, soil, wind, temperature, plant stage, water availability, equipment, and risk to the crop. A window of opportunity that's good for the electrical system might not be the best one for production. The benefit lies in enabling a more technical decision. For the producer, this shouldn't mean more complexity. It should mean a more informed decision about when to use the net without harming the crops. Even without solar power or a battery, it has a significant charge that can be moved when it makes sense. Consumers are no longer simply receiving a bill; they are now able to manage the timing of a significant portion of their consumption. The producer with solar brings another layer. In this case, the discussion shifts from simply about when to use the internet to also encompassing when to consume the generation itself. The new rule does not transform solar energy into subsidized energy, nor does it, on its own, alter the billing logic. What it does is create more room for the producer to better organize the relationship between load, self-generation, and discount window. With more flexibility, solar power can be used when it makes sense for the farm's operation, while part of the grid consumption can remain associated with the formalized scale for irrigation. This point needs to be handled carefully. Solar energy doesn't eliminate the irrigation discount, but it also doesn't multiply the benefit. It increases the producer's options for deciding when to consume their own energy, when to use the grid, and when to preserve the crop's needs. https://canalsolar.com.br/consumo-rural-geracao-distribuida-cresce-brasil/ O desconto continua ligado ao consumo faturável da rede dentro da escala reconhecida. Energy consumed directly from the solar power plant does not receive a discount because it was not billed by the distributor. Still, solar power increases the producer's options. He then has to decide between consuming, injecting, offsetting, shifting load, or using the grid during the best window. In a system where time is increasingly important, this operational freedom begins to have value. For the system, this behavior can be helpful in some situations. A solar producer alone cannot solve renewable generation cuts, grid restrictions, or low net load issues. However, in regions with a lot of distributed generation and programmable rural loads, consuming more efficiently locally can have a positive effect. The value is not in an isolated unit. It lies in the possibility of better coordinating many consumption patterns that were previously viewed simply as common demand. The producer using solar and batteries takes this discussion to a more sophisticated level. The battery should not be treated as a way to artificially increase the tariff benefit. Its role is to separate the time when energy is generated from the time when it is used. With solar power and energy storage, producers can generate energy during the day, store some of it, reduce consumption during off-peak hours, preserve grid consumption for times when discounts are worthwhile, and maintain greater security for farm operations. The property will now operate with more energy options. The conversation is no longer just about having solar. It then becomes a matter of determining when to consume one's own generation, when to store energy, when to import from the grid, when to use credits, when to avoid certain times of day, and when the needs of the crop should prevail over economic considerations. This is a more mature conversation than simply selling equipment, and it's closer to what the system tends to need: consumers capable of adjusting some of their consumption without compromising economic activity. The benefit to the grid doesn't appear automatically just because there's solar power or a battery behind the meter. It depends on measurement, control, location, compensation rules, tariff modality, operational quality, and dialogue with the distributor. Without this, the asset may make sense to the consumer, but not necessarily deliver something useful to the network. When properly measured, this flexibility can manifest as shifted load, increased self-consumption, lower consumption during peak hours, or reduced local injection. The distributor is also factored into this calculation. The new rule gives preference to the consumer in defining the scale, but the flexibility needs to fit within the local network. Without measurement, formalization, and technical criteria, a good idea can turn into a revenue dispute or operational uncertainty. This shows that the quality of the implementation will be just as important as the rule itself. The discussion becomes simplistic when it's limited to whether the measure improves or worsens the viability of a specific project. This question is important for every producer, but it's too narrow to understand the movement as a whole. The overarching theme is how agriculture will manage energy in a system that is more time-sensitive, more renewable, and with more distributed resources. For those serving this client, the conversation is no longer just about sizing or discounts. It then involves reading the curve, tariff classification, use of credits, demand, irrigation window, and the risk of a poorly coordinated decision. A single producer may have a small impact. Irrigated areas, cooperatives, agro-industries, and programmable load systems begin to take on a different weight when analyzed together. Which work schedules can be changed without affecting production. When does it make sense to consume your own generation? When should you preserve credits? When should I use the network? When should the economic signal give way to the needs of the crop? The reserved time slot was a solution from another phase of the electricity sector. Agroflexibility is best suited to a system where time matters more, the grid has become more sensitive, and distributed generation has become part of the actual operation. The significant change may lie there. To make rural consumers view the timing of their energy consumption as a way to manage their energy consumption.

Felipe Figueiró

Published articles

Regarding the time slot reserved for agricultural flexibility.