Lucas Ferrari

ANEELANEELIt must combat the deliberate actions of agents who seek to render ineffective regulatory commands that are not convenient to them, and the disregard shown by some distributors for the Ombudsman's processes cannot be tolerated. Decision rendered at the 8th Ordinary Public Meeting of the Board of Directors, held on April 22, 2026 - Case No. 48500.007854/2026-50, reported by Director Willamy Moreira Frota. The diagnosis has dual relevance. First, it reveals repeated behavior that goes beyond isolated cases and signals a structural failure in the provision of public distribution services. Second, ________________________________________ Decision rendered at the 8th Ordinary Public Meeting of the Board of Directors, held on April 22, 2026 - Process No. 48500.007854/2026-50, reported by Director Willamy Moreira Frota. It shifts the issue from the realm of individual frustration to that of systemic regulatory concern, creating fertile ground for more robust contentious responses than mere administrative complaints. The economic impact of the reclassification is significant. The classification as Distributed Generation I preserves the full compensation regime for injected energy until December 31, 2045. Migrating to distributed generation (DG) II or III subjects the plant to the progressive incidence of tariff components (Wire B, Wire A, charges and losses), with a significant deterioration in the net present value of the investment. In large-scale projects, the difference between one regime and another can be measured in millions of reais over the asset's useful life. The rule applicable to acquired rights: Law No. 14.300/2022 and REN 1.000/2021 clearly establish the rules applicable to projects that submitted access requests by January 7, 2023, and which, therefore, are entitled to be classified as GD I. The normative design is simple. The injection of energy by the power plant must occur within the legal and regulatory timeframe. If, during the course of the process, there are outstanding issues for which the distributor is responsible, or if there are instances of unforeseen circumstances or force majeure, the deadlines are suspended for the duration of the event. Legally, the matter is addressed in paragraphs 3, 4, and 5 of article [number]. Article 26 of Law No. 14.300/2022, under the following terms. 3. The projects referred to in item II of the heading of this article, in addition to the provisions of articles... Articles 4, 5, and 6 of this Law stipulate that the following deadlines must be observed for initiating energy injection by the generating plant, counted from the date of issuance of the access opinion: I – 120 (one hundred and twenty) days for distributed microgenerators, regardless of the source; II – 12 (twelve) months for solar minigenerators; or III – 30 (thirty) months for minigenerators from other sources. 4. The counting of the deadlines established in paragraph 3 of this article is suspended while there are pending issues for which the distributor is responsible or in the event of unforeseen circumstances or force majeure. 5. It is the responsibility of the distributor accessed to implement and verify compliance with the provisions of this article. In turn, article... Article 655-O of REN 1.000/2021 reproduces the legal structure and adds specific parameters. The deadlines for starting the injection process are counted from the date the connection quote is issued, taking into account the longer of the period indicated in the quote itself and the objective deadlines set in the regulations. The suspension rule is more detailed than that of Law 14.300, expressly identifying the instances of pending issues with the distributor that suspend the counting, as follows. 5. The counting of the deadlines established in § 4 shall be suspended while there are pending issues for which the distributor is responsible that cause delays in the connection, inspection and installation of metering equipment, or in the event of unforeseen circumstances or force majeure, duly proven by the consumer, with the suspension limited to the period during which the event lasts. The FAQ ofANEEL Regarding Law No. 14.300/2022, it expressly reaffirms this discipline in public responses consolidated by the agency itself. Regarding the possibility of an advance statement on whether a micro or mini-generation system qualifies as a GDI (Generation Differential), the... ANEEL It is categorical, in item 8.03 of the FAQ. No. It is not up to ANEEL Or the local distributor may previously analyze reports and possible exclusions of liability for the purpose of evaluating the classification of a microgeneration or distributed minigeneration as GD I, considering that such evaluation can only occur after the start of injection. Law 14.300/2022 determines that it is the responsibility of the accessed distributor to carry out this classification (art. 26, §5º). Thus, only after the connection and effective injection into the grid should the distributor analyze compliance with all deadlines and conditions established in art. 655-O for the classification of microgeneration or distributed minigeneration as GD I, II or III. And regarding the suspension of deadlines due to delays by the distributor in connection works, the FAQ is equally explicit, in item 8.10. Yes. The counting of deadlines for injection is suspended during the period in which there are "pending issues of responsibility of the distributor that cause delays in connection, inspection and installation of metering equipment" (§5º of art. 655-O). Reading these two items together demonstrates that... ANEELIt confirms that the discipline of suspending deadlines exists, operates under the terms of the Law and REN 1000, and that the moment of examining compliance with these deadlines is necessarily subsequent to the injection. Hence the importance of the robust documentation accumulated throughout the entire connection process, because it is on this documentation that the recognition of the classification as GD I will depend when the distributor carries out its analysis. Therefore, as long as there is an issue attributable to the distributor that causes a delay in the connection, inspection, or installation of the meter, the injection deadline is frozen and restarts when the issue ceases. Once the injection is completed within the adjusted timeframe, the classification as GD I is fully preserved. Illustrative Cases: Observing cases in different concessions reveals recurring, merely illustrative patterns of situations in which the distributor fails to fulfill its obligations and, subsequently, promotes the improper reclassification of the power plant. The scenarios below are hypothetical and illustrative, without exhausting the range of possibilities. The most direct forms of delay involve the distributor's own performance of its obligations during the connection process. Hypothetically, the concessionaire delays the completion of the network reinforcement works, suspends the work under the allegation of pending licenses or authorizations from a third-party body without demonstrating prompt and proven diligence in obtaining these authorizations (in accordance with articles... 87 and 89 of REN 1.000/2021), or delays the carrying out of inspections, the approval of commissioning and the installation of measuring equipment. In all these scenarios, the plant remains fit for operation, the developer has fulfilled its obligations, and the sole cause of the delay is attributable to the concessionaire. Section 5 of article Article 655-O operates, in these cases, to suspend the deadlines entirely. A particularly illustrative example of the complexity of the subject involves the combination of two causes of delay. Imagine a scenario where the distributor, after completing the network works under its responsibility with delays, submits the power plant for inspection and eventually points out flaws that require adjustments by the developer. The distributor then immediately reclassifies the service as GD II or GD III, using the failed inspection as justification for attributing the failure to the consumer. However, a proper analysis requires taking into account, before rejecting the inspection, the suspension of any prior outstanding issues attributable to the distributor itself. If there is sufficient remaining time, resulting from this suspension, for the entrepreneur to make the necessary adjustments and enable the investment, the reclassification is improper. The distributor cannot simultaneously delay its obligations and blame the developer for the failure to meet the schedule. In all these scenarios, and in others that practice has multiplied, the distributor, when confronted, tends to reclassify the plant based on a strictly literal reading of § 4, disregarding the application of § 5. When the justification is not supported by robust documentation, and when the concessionaire's own communications reveal that the delay is its responsibility, the reclassification is improper. It is also relevant to note that the suspension of deadlines provided for in paragraph 5 of article... 655-O does not depend on any provocation from the entrepreneur to exist. The duty of the distributor, in exercising the competence attributed to it by § 5 of art. Article 26 of Law No. 14.300/2022 requires the government to spontaneously apply the regulation, suspending the counting of deadlines whenever there is a pending matter under its responsibility. This is the only interpretation compatible with the institutional function assigned to the concessionaire by the Law and by REN 1000. The practical reality, however, is different. When the time for verification arrives, the distributor often disregards the effect of § 5 and applies § 4 literally, reclassifying the power plant. This deviation makes it essential for the entrepreneur to have, from the beginning of the connection process, sufficient documentary organization to demonstrate, a posteriori, the elements that justify the suspension. These are not requirements for the suspension to take effect, but rather evidentiary requirements for its verification in administrative or judicial proceedings. The pending issue actually exists. There must be a specific obligation on the part of the distributor that has not been fulfilled. Typically, this involves network extension or reinforcement work, provision of technical data, scheduling and execution of inspections, or meter installation. Causal link with the connection delay. The pending issue must, in fact, be an obstacle to the start of the injection. Outstanding issues that do not impact the energization schedule do not justify suspension. Liability to the distributor. The outstanding issue must be the regulatory or contractual responsibility of the concessionaire, not the developer. Properly proven unforeseen events or force majeure also suspend the deadline, regardless of the party involved. Claims regarding third-party licenses are only valid when accompanied by proof of the distributor's prompt due diligence, in accordance with articles... 87 and 89 of REN 1.000/2021. Robust documentation. Official documents, protocols, electronic correspondence, and technical records must prove the beginning, persistence, and end of the pending matter. Without supporting evidence, the argument for suspension loses strength in any potential litigation. The count resumes exactly where it was interrupted, once the pending issue is resolved. Time freezes and then restarts, as we discussed in a previous article when addressing the symmetry of this logic in the suspension of deadlines in favor of the entrepreneur, as provided for in article [article number]. 157, § 4º, II, of REN 1.000/2021. https://canalsolar.com.br/atrasos-de-conexao-na-gd-solucoes-juridicas/ Prejuízos indenizáveis decorrentes do atraso O atraso da distribuidora na finalização do processo de conexão não repercute apenas sobre o enquadramento tarifário da usina. Throughout the period in which the concessionaire fails to comply with its regulatory obligations, the entrepreneur ceases to generate energy, offset credits, receive revenue in the modalities pertinent to its original regime, and bears operational and financial costs that would only make sense in an operational power plant. The natural consequence is a significant set of compensable damages, which include both lost profits, related to energy that was not generated or compensated, and consequential damages, such as financial charges from unamortized financing, costs of mobilizing and maintaining teams, validity of expired reports and insurance policies, among others. As discussed in a previous article, the distributor's strict liability, recognized peacefully by jurisprudence, ensures the entrepreneur full compensation for these damages, by virtue of art. Article 14 of the Consumer Protection Code, articles... Articles 402 and 403 of the Civil Code and Law No. 14.300/2022. The preservation of the classification as GD I and the compensation for damages accumulated during the delay are autonomous and cumulative claims that coexist in the same litigation. Idem. Paths to Redress: With the institutional diagnosis consolidated that the Ombudsman's Office has proven to be an insufficient channel to reverse the improper reclassification, the entrepreneur has two complementary avenues of __________________________ https://canalsolar.com.br/atrasos-de-conexao-na-gd-solucoes-juridicas/ Idem. contentious. The administrative route before the Collegiate Board of Directors ofANEEL...notably through a request for precautionary measures, the viability of which was recently confirmed by the precedent examined. And the judicial route, mainly aimed at repairing the damages suffered during the distributor's delay. Each route has its own vocation, specific technical requirements, and better performance depending on the circumstances of the case. The choice between one of them, or a combination of both, is a decision that requires strategic analysis in light of the available documentation, the stage of the connection process, and the entrepreneur's objectives. What matters, for the purpose of this article, is to solidify the central premise. There is an adequate legal remedy, and it exists at two levels, but its activation demands technical structuring that transcends the scope of a mere administrative complaint. Conclusion The distributor's delay in finalizing the connection process has ceased to be an isolated episode and has become an operational standard in several concessions in the country. The most serious consequence of this scenario is the undue reclassification of power plants, which diverts the entrepreneur from the tariff regime to which it would legitimately be entitled and compromises the economic equation of the project. Brazilian Law No. 14.300/2022 and REN 1.000/2021 literally offer a solution. Injection deadlines are suspended during pending issues with the distributor, and the classification as Distributed Generation I (GD I) is preserved even when the actual injection occurs after the nominal deadline. The key to success lies in the meticulous documentation of each stage of the access process. Every email in which the distributor acknowledges delays in network work, every inspection protocol, every formal communication about pending issues, every response from the ombudsman constitutes relevant evidence for proving the suspension. The attentive entrepreneur and their legal advisor are ultimately responsible for ensuring that the right to preserve the classification as GD I, duly guaranteed by law, effectively translates into the tariff regime applied to the plant, preserving the economic logic of the investment for the coming years, until 2045. The opinions and information expressed are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily represent the official position of the [organization/organization]. Canal Solar.

Lucas Ferrari

Published articles

The improper reclassification of MMGD and the suspension of deadlines due to the fault of the distributors.

Connection delays in GD: legal solutions and avenues for damages