(..) The (…) identified inversion of power flow (…) due to the new connection or the increase in power injected from its microgeneration. Among the options (…), the only viable and lowest overall cost (…) is the injection (…) restricted to the hours of 19:00 pm to 05:00 am (every day).

If you have requested a connection quote in recent months in the states of Minas Gerais, São Paulo, Mato Grosso and Rio Grande do Sul, it is very likely that you have received such a communication limiting the injection of energy into the electrical distribution network. In some cases, distributors limit the injection to the period between 19pm and 5am, precisely at times when there is no sunlight.
Distributors in these states are issuing connection quotes imposing limitations on energy injection, on the grounds that this measure is necessary to overcome problems that may be caused by power flow reversal.
In their provisions, energy distributors rely on Article 73 of REN 1000, which states: “If the new connection or increase in injected power from microgeneration or distributed minigeneration implies inversion of the power flow at the distributor's transformation station or in the feeder circuit breaker, the distributor must carry out studies to identify viable options that eliminate such inversion…”.
But what is power flow inversion? And how can an integrator or an end consumer overcome this situation and enable the installation of a photovoltaic system under these conditions?
What is power flow inversion?
Before explaining the inversion of power flow, it is first necessary to understand what power flow is.
Geraldo Silveira, electrical engineer on the engineering team at Canal Solar, clarifies that the power flow or load flow are the paths taken by active and reactive power in all the elements that make up the electrical system.
Power flow determines the behavior of electrical quantities (voltages, currents and powers) throughout the circuits of the electrical system.
To find out whether variations in these quantities will not degrade the stability of the network, a study of the power flow is carried out. The power flow study aims to predict the behavior of the electrical variables of a system and ensure that all parameters are within the supportability limits of the equipment that makes up the network.
“Basically, the aim is to predict, for sinusoidal permanent regime operation situations, that is, in normal operating situations, what the values of the electrical variables are at different points of the system under analysis”, he explained.
He also highlights that for this type of operation it is necessary to use specific electrical grid simulation software, based on mathematical formulations, which can predict these values based on system modeling.
“This modeling takes into account the generations, loads, transmission and distribution lines, transformers and other equipment that make up the electrical system”, he points out.
In a classic SIN (National Interconnected System) model, the natural direction of power flow occurs from large generating centers to consumer centers. In other words, the consumer units (CUs) were consumers only.
To make it clearer, look at Figure 1 below. Note that the flow goes from generation to load.
It is important to highlight that this example is only for a didactic explanation, in practice there are different sources of generations and different loads. In other words, the system, mainly distribution, operates predominantly radially.

In cases of flow reversal, what happens is that the concessionaire identifies at some points in its system that the flow, instead of going in the direction shown in Figure 1, goes in the opposite direction, as shown in Figure 2.

This means that the set of distributed generations in that region, in addition to meeting all local load demand, generates a surplus that is being sent to the network operated by the concessionaire.
that's the reverse flow, that is, the flow is in the opposite direction to the conventional one due to the large concentration of generation close to the load.
“In a simulation considering all these factors, the software can indicate that flow reversal is occurring at specific points in the electrical system”, comments the engineer.
By itself, power flow reversal is not a problem for the system. “The problem is when the reverse power flow causes a violation of the charging limits of the electrical network equipment or when the busbar voltage modules exceed the operational limits. In other words, reverse flow is a problem when it causes the electrical network in which it flows to go from an operational state without violations to one with instability”, he explains.
To illustrate, the reversal of power flow can cause a violation of the voltage limits of a distribution system; these limits are pre-established in module 8 of Prodist. Maintaining voltage levels within pre-established limits is essential for system stability.
Silveira highlights that these problems are previously identified in power flow simulations in specific software. “And that’s the importance of software like this, as it can identify problems even before they occur,” he says.
Although REN 1000 points out that flow reversal, if it happens, the distributor must carry out studies to identify viable options that eliminate such reversal, technically, the simple flow reversal should not be used as a disapproval criterion, which therefore does not always such a reversal will impact network operation.
In his assessment, the detailed study must be presented showing this reversal and pointing out the places in the system that will exceed their operational limits.
“This point is important to demonstrate transparency with the customer and thus maintain a good relationship between distributors and users”, he highlights.
According to Dirceu Ferreira, an electrical engineer who worked at CPFL Energia for more than 33 years in the area of Electrical Distribution System Planning, Art. 73 of REN 1000/2023 “gave a blank check to the concessionaires to block Access Opinions and must be corrected.”
According to him, “flow reversal will not always cause degradation of network parameters. The rollback will only be harmful if it exceeds some operational limit of the system”, he added.
But what to do in this situation?
O Canal Solar heard from lawyers who are experts on the subject to better guide integrators who feel aggrieved. “What the entrepreneur needs to know is that there can be an inversion of the power flow, but he can only accept this claim from the distributor if the distribution concessionaire proves it, motivated and in detail”, he explains. Thiago Bao Ribeiro, attorney.
The majority of complaints point to standard responses issued by Concessionaires. They use §1 of Art 73 of REN 1.000/2021, included by 1.059/2023, as support for the statement, but without making available the studies that led to this conclusion.
For the lawyer, this is the first step to take after the denial. “Art. 78 of the same resolution 1.000 obliges the distributor to provide these studies within 10 days. From then on, it is up to the integrator to verify whether the company has evaluated each hypothesis described in art. 73 of resolution 1.000, one of which is the restriction of injections at certain times”.
According to the standard, the distributor has to analyze each of the hypotheses described and choose the one with the lowest overall connection cost. For new connections, the resolution provides for the possibility of indicating “viable options” so that inversions do not occur, pointing out five alternatives, including “reducing injectable power on pre-established days and times or dynamically”.
“The vast majority of connection quotes are being issued without demonstrating flow reversal and maximum connection/flow capacity without flow reversal, violating the resolution”, emphasizes Ribeiro.
Lawyer Lucas Pimentel reinforces that “the study must consider all alternatives, with the consumer being able to choose the one that is least expensive for them. As it stands, the Concessionaires simply throw out a hypothesis that makes the operation unfeasible, without demonstrating the analysis of the other hypotheses or demonstrating that there was a study that attests to the flow reversal”.
To begin resolving the problem, the first step is to request access to the studies from the Dealership that supported the instruction and review them. If necessary, there is the company's ombudsman and also the National Electric Energy Agency (Aneel). Finally, if the conflict is not resolved, the Judiciary may be called upon, “especially to force the distributor to present detailed studies and/or consider more economical and viable alternatives for consumers”, details Ribeiro.
The problem that started with Cemig D, according to a survey by ABSOLAR (Brazilian Association of Photovoltaic Solar Energy), has gained national coverage, involving at least the following companies: CPFL Paulista, RGE, Celpe, Coelba, Enel (CE), Energisa (MS), Enel (GO), Equatorial (PA) and Energisa (TO).
* With collaboration from Filipe Calmon, journalist from Canal Solar in Brasilia (DF)
Comments (21)
Comments are moderated before publication.Comments should be respectful and contribute to a healthy debate. Offensive comments may be removed. The opinions expressed here are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the author. Canal Solar.
I see that the dealerships are simply treating the problem lightly, penalizing consumers.
In my opinion, make investments in batteries with greater durability and customers install OFF GRID systems.
The problem, João, is that distributed generation is not just made up of smaller systems. Financial viability, which is what determines the rules of the game, is seriously compromised when it comes to implementing storage capacity. And that’s without taking into account the energy that “stops being produced” when storage is saturated…
The concessionaire Energisa MT acted in bad faith, because my project had already been approved and I had already renewed my availability more than twice with zero financial participation. I validated it and we entered the project with Energisa in February, and only when res. 1059 was enacted, Energisa, after having already approved my project, rejected it, alleging reverse power flow and presented a participation of more than 800 thousand reais, making my photovoltaic plant unfeasible.
What is the next step to take in relation to this difficulty, especially for small consumers?
It should also be noted that according to resolution 1000, art. 104 and 105, the concessionaires enter into a pre-emptive right to exempt themselves from their obligations, simply put, (the system already exists and I will not make any improvements). So I ask? How are we going to go from the 3rd world to the 1st world with these shields...
At the current stage of the race to acquire a new access permit, unfortunately the reverse flow will exist and the energy concessionaires will not be able to carry out the necessary works to make the connections viable (system on the verge of collapse). The solution found was to insert an alternative connection at night time;
Now we know that there is no nighttime solar generation, so why are opinions coming out with this solution?
The answer is simple, the dealership wants you to install battery systems to accumulate the millions of megawatts generated during the day and export them at night.
(sweeping dust under the rug)
And during the day the reverse flow already happens, so imagine at night with the load at a lighter level?
But the inverter searches for the grid voltage to operate and is it still able to change the voltage that the grid delivers?
Guys, as an engineer, I feel embarrassed to see that they are ignoring the situation that occurs in the distribution system in the event of flow inversion. It is not just exceeding voltage limits/profiles. There are clear problems that are already a consensus in academia regarding the impacts of MT/AT/LT protection, among other factors of behavior at the bars. Obviously, what should be demanded is that the distributors necessarily comply with the resolution of the ANEEL, but attacking this solution that the Agency proposed for cases of flow inversion is, to say the least, appalling.
Rge failed in July claiming reflux. We need help, as everything is already installed and in a market where consumption is almost total of what it produces with the solar system. Phone 51998993829 marne.
We are from Santa Cruz do Sul
- RS.
Unfortunately, many customers are being harmed by this lack of transparency and consideration for the consumer who makes an investment with the intention of saving on the energy bill and ends up being forced to leave the equipment turned off because they cannot approve the project and without having a forecast of a possible date to make the project viable, without getting guidance from the engineers, leaving the customer completely lost and not knowing how to resolve it! I hope that everyone who is going through this situation and who manages to win their rights in court serves as an example so that this does not happen to any other customer! The conflict of interest of the distributors who have total power to do whatever they want without considering the rights of the consumer is very clear!
We must unite to end this abuse!
This Article 73 is one of the things that deserves a more transparent clarification. The main reason for the existence of Aneel is to guarantee equality to the consumer, and this article in its essence seems to harm equality in unimaginable ways. We need to know from Aneel the real reason for this article.
The following document is curious.
https://antigo.aneel.gov.br/web/guest/consultas-publicas?p_p_id=participacaopublica_WAR_participacaopublicaportlet&p_p_lifecycle=2&p_p_state=normal&p_p_mode=view&p_p_cacheability=cacheLevelPage&p_p_col_id=column-2&p_p_col_pos=1&p_p_col_count=2&_participacaopublica_WAR_participacaopublicaportlet_ideDocumento=39268&_participacaopublica_WAR_participacaopublicaportlet_tipoFaseReuniao=fase&_participacaopublica_WAR_participacaopublicaportlet_jspPage=%2Fhtml%2Fpp%2Fvisualizar.jsp
Great and providential article. CONGRATULATIONS
While the limits of power flow inversion are being discussed, distributors could at least provide a form of consultation, even to avoid purchasing equipment before it is rejected.
Good morning. I missed the mention in the article that in cases of microgeneration, if there is a need to reinforce the network, the cost is exclusive to it!!! If it were mini, the story would be different.
It is very clear in law 14.300 – CHAP. III, art. 8° – 6
There are two points I really don't understand: if the concessionaire approved the customer's project, why could there be an excess of power injected into the grid (since, in this case, the customer's input circuit breaker would trip)? And the second question, if since REN 482 the injection of energy into the grid has been foreseen (so much so that the compensation of credits is foreseen), why is this now being pointed out as a problem? The technical explanations did not convince me!
In my opinion, dealerships have not done their “homework” and are trying to transfer this responsibility to customers.
I had a project rejected for this reason
Congratulations to Ericka, excellent work of journalism… She clearly and accurately explained the terrible problem we are going through!
It's difficult to sell and when we do sell, they reject the project, which harms both the client and the entrepreneur!
In São Paulo, which concessionaires are refusing to accept microgeneration?
They want to kill the sector once and for all.
They are still not satisfied with the decline in sales in early 2023.
Brazil is not for amateurs.
We have an evaluation request in progress.