Wladimir Janousek

By expressly including batteries among the alternatives that may be considered in the capacity auctions scheduled for 2027 to 2029, the Ministry of Mines and Energy is signaling a positive direction. For INEL, which has long been demanding greater technological openness and transparency in contracting, the measure deserves recognition and monitoring so that it translates into concrete benefits for the consumer. Normative Ordinance MME No. 143, of September 28, 2026, published in the DOU (Official Gazette of the Union) the following day, establishes an estimated schedule that includes batteries, hydraulic storage, hydroelectric and thermoelectric plants among the possibilities for the reserve capacity auctions planned for the second half of each of those years. This signal aligns with an agenda that the National Institute of Clean Energy has been advocating with the ministry: evaluating different flexibility solutions before committing consumers to long-term choices. Recognizing this convergence does not mean attributing the merit of the decision to a single institution. It means valuing guidance that can improve the quality of future hires. The discussion about capacity needs to begin with defining the service that the electrical system requires. How much power should be available, for how long, in which locations, and with what response speed? These answers should guide the evaluation of technologies and combinations capable of meeting demand safely and economically efficiently. Technological neutrality requires objective criteria. This does not imply that batteries replace any other alternative in all circumstances, nor that different solutions should receive identical treatment. Each technology must demonstrate its ability to meet delivery obligations, with its advantages and limitations duly considered. The economic comparison also needs to be comprehensive. Investment, operation, fuel or recharge energy, losses, useful life, and replacements are components that should be included in the assessment, as applicable. The calculations need to use compatible time horizons and assumptions. Comparing only a portion of the cost can lead to incorrect conclusions about which option is most advantageous for the consumer. For the solar sector, this opening is of particular importance. Storage should also be evaluated for its potential to harness renewable energy that, under certain conditions, would otherwise go unused. The possibility of storing energy to deliver it at a later time deserves to be integrated into planning studies and the analysis of the benefits of each project. However, this utilization depends on the location, connection conditions, and availability of power for recharging, as well as operational restrictions. This cannot be assumed for any installation. We argue that reductions in generation cuts should be examined with explicit premises and criteria that allow for verification of the expected benefit. Planning generation, storage, transmission, and consumption in a coordinated manner is essential. An efficient solution for an isolated project may not be the best for the system as a whole. Similarly, shared benefits need to be identified so that the discussion about costs and their allocation is transparent. The scope of the ordinance must be understood precisely. The schedule is subject to adjustments, and the holding of capacity auctions depends on studies by EPE (Energy Research Company) and ONS (National System Operator). The regulation does not guarantee that all technologies will compete for the same product, nor does it establish a review of auction contracts.ANEEL

Wladimir Janousek

Published articles

Batteries in auction planning: a worthwhile advancement.

MMGD faces a new trial by fire.

Photovoltaic market: outlook and projections for module imports for 2022