The failure of energy distribution companies to comply with the deadlines and obligations of the connection process has led to the improper reclassification of power plants as GD II or GD III. The correct application of Law No. 14.300/2022 and Article 655-O of REN 1.000/2021 preserves the classification as GD I.
After the ordeal of the connection process is finally overcome, when everything seems in order for the start of commercial operation of the plant, the consumer-generator is surprised, usually in the first bill issued after energization, to find the project classified as GD II or GD III. This scene, once rare, has been frequently repeated throughout the country.
The entrepreneur who filed their access request within the deadline stipulated by Law No. 14.300/2022, rigorously fulfilled their own regulatory obligations, and waited for months or years for the distributor to finalize the connection process, sees their legitimate expectation of preserving their acquired right frustrated.
The crucial point, in the specific cases that are now reaching administrative and judicial disputes, is the delay attributable to the distributor itself in finalizing the connection procedure. Network reinforcement works that never get off the ground, indefinite suspensions under the pretext of third-party licenses, generic inspection rejections, pending parameterization of metering equipment that drag out the schedule for months.
All of this occurs while the plant remains ready and able to inject energy, and the entrepreneur, confident in the full fulfillment of its obligations and the correct application of regulations by the concessionaire, awaits the completion of the process, hoping to see its classification as Distributed Generation I preserved.
The problem is not only perceived by consumer-generators. The Board of Directors itself ANEEL, in recent precedent[1]It expressly noted the systematic increase in complaints received by the ombudsman regarding non-compliance with regulatory obligations by distributors.
Moreover, it acknowledged an even more serious phenomenon. Even when the agency's sectoral ombudsman issues a ruling favorable to the consumer, some distributors repeatedly refuse the request, forcing the consumer to seek higher administrative instances or the Judiciary to guarantee rights expressly stated in sectoral legislation.
In a preliminary decision issued in the context of a precautionary measure, the Board was emphatic in stating that the ANEEL It 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.
[1] 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 highlights repeated behavior that goes beyond isolated cases and signals a structural failure in the provision of public distribution services. Second,
________________________________________
[1] 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. Classification as Distributed Generation I (GD I) preserves the full compensation regime for injected energy until December 31, 2045. Migration to GD II or GD III subjects the plant to the progressive incidence of tariff components (Wire B, Wire A, charges and losses), with a relevant deterioration of the net present value of the investment. In large-scale projects, the difference between one regime and another amounts to millions of reais over the useful life of the asset.
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 are therefore entitled to be classified as Distributed Generation I (GD I). The regulatory framework is simple. The injection of energy by the generating plant must occur within the legal and regulatory timeframe. If, during the process, there are pending 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 26 of Law No. 14.300/2022, as follows.
- 3. The projects referred to in item II of the heading of this article, in addition to the provisions of articles 4, 5 and 6 of this Law, must observe the following deadlines to begin injecting energy from 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 655-O of REN 1.000/2021 reproduces the legal structure and adds specific parameters. The deadlines for starting the injection are counted from the date of issuance of the connection budget, observing the longer period between that indicated in the budget itself and the objective deadlines set in the regulation. The suspension rule is more detailed than that of Law 14.300, expressly identifying the cases of pending issues on the part of 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 of ANEEL 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 must previously analyze reports and possible exclusions of liability for the purpose of evaluating the classification of a microgeneration or distributed minigeneration system 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 the deadlines and conditions established in art. 655-O for the classification of microgeneration or distributed minigeneration as GD I, II or III.
Regarding the suspension of deadlines due to the distributor's delay 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 delay in the connection, inspection and installation of metering equipment" (§5 of article 655-O).
Reading these two items together demonstrates that... ANEEL This confirms that the suspension of deadlines exists, operates under the terms of the Law and REN 1000, and that the moment for 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 the recognition of the classification as Distributed Generation I (GD I) will depend on it when the distributor carries out its analysis.
Therefore, as long as there is a pending issue attributable to the distributor that causes a delay in the connection, inspection, or metering installation, the injection deadline is frozen and restarts when the pending issue ceases. Once the injection is completed within the adjusted deadline, the classification as Distributed Generation I (GD I) is fully preserved.
Illustrative cases
Observation of 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 execution of obligations during the connection process. Hypothetically, the concessionaire delays the completion of network reinforcement works, suspends the work under the allegation of pending licenses or authorizations from third-party bodies without demonstrating prompt and proven diligence in obtaining these authorizations (in accordance with articles 87 and 89 of REN 1.000/2021), or delays carrying out inspections, approving commissioning, and installing metering equipment.
In all these scenarios, the plant remains operational, the developer has fulfilled its obligations, and the sole cause of the delay is attributable to the concessionaire. Paragraph 5 of Article 655-O applies, in these cases, to suspend the deadlines entirely.
A particularly illustrative example of the complexity of the issue involves the combination of two causes of delay. Imagine the scenario in which the distributor, after completing the network works under its responsibility with a delay, submits the power plant to inspection and eventually points out a failure that requires adjustments by the developer.
The distributor then immediately reclassifies the energy as GD II or GD III, using the failed inspection to blame the consumer for the delay. However, a correct analysis requires considering, before the inspection is rejected, the suspension of any previous outstanding issues attributable to the distributor itself. If there is sufficient remaining time, resulting from this suspension, for the developer to rectify the adjustments and enable the injection, 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 foreseen in § 5 of article 655-O does not depend on any action by the developer to exist. The distributor's duty, in exercising the competence attributed to it by § 5 of article 26 of Law No. 14.300/2022, is 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 attributed to the concessionaire by the Law and by REN 1000.
The practical reality, however, is different. When the verification process begins, the distributor often disregards the effect of paragraph 5 and applies paragraph 4 literally, reclassifying the power plant. This deviation makes it essential that the entrepreneur has, 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 operate, but rather requirements for proof in administrative or judicial litigation.
- 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 works, provision of technical data, scheduling and carrying out the inspection or installation of the meter.
- Causal link with the connection delayThe pending issue must, in fact, be an obstacle to the start of the injection. Parallel pending issues that do not impact the energization schedule do not justify the suspension.
- Liability to the distributor. The pending issue must be the responsibility of the concessionaire, not the developer, due to regulatory or contractual obligations. Properly proven acts of God 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 action, 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 matter 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 157, § 4, II, of REN 1.000/2021.[1].
[1] https://canalsolar.com.br/atrasos-de-conexao-na-gd-solucoes-juridicas/
Compensable damages resulting from the delay
The distributor's delay in finalizing the connection process not only affects the plant's tariff classification. Throughout the period in which the concessionaire fails to meet its regulatory obligations, the entrepreneur ceases to generate energy, offset credits, receive revenue under the modalities pertinent to its original regime, and bears operational and financial costs that would only make sense in an operational 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[1]The objective liability of the distributor, recognized peacefully by jurisprudence, ensures the entrepreneur full compensation for these damages, by virtue of article 14 of the Consumer Protection Code, 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 losses accumulated during the delay are autonomous and cumulative claims that coexist in the same litigation.
[1] Idem.
Paths to repair
With the institutional diagnosis consolidated that the Ombudsman's Office has proven to be an insufficient channel for reversing improper reclassification, the entrepreneur is left with two complementary avenues of...
__________________________
[2]https://canalsolar.com.br/atrasos-de-conexao-na-gd-solucoes-juridicas/
[3] Ditto.
contentious. The administrative route before the Collegiate Board of Directors of ANEEL...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 period of default.
Each route has its own vocation, specific technical requirements, and best 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 establish the central premise. There is an appropriate 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 incident and has become an operational standard in several concessions across the country. The most serious consequence of this scenario is the improper reclassification of power plants, which diverts the entrepreneur from the tariff regime to which they would legitimately be entitled and compromises the economic balance of the project. Law No. 14.300/2022 and REN 1.000/2021 offer, in their literal wording, the solution.
Injection deadlines are suspended while the distributor has outstanding issues, and the classification as Distributed Generation I is preserved even when the actual injection occurs after the nominal deadline.
The key to success lies in the meticulous documentation of each step in the access process. Every email in which the distributor acknowledges delays in network work, every inspection report, every formal communication about pending issues, every response from the ombudsman constitutes relevant evidence for proving the suspension.
The astute entrepreneur and their legal advisor are ultimately responsible for ensuring that the right to maintain the classification as a Distributed Generation I plant, 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 author. Canal Solar.
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.
