The discussion about the budget of federal regulatory agencies may seem technical, far removed from the daily realities of the electricity sector and the clean energy agenda. But it is central to the predictability necessary for Brazil to continue attracting investments, modernizing its infrastructure, and advancing in the energy transition.
What is being debated in Congress is relatively simple to explain. There is a movement focused on overturning the presidential veto of a provision in the Budget Guidelines Law that sought to protect the regulatory and oversight funds of agencies from being frozen.
Meanwhile, Complementary Bill No. 73/2025 is progressing, already approved by the Senate and sent to the Chamber of Deputies, which amends the Fiscal Responsibility Law to remove the expenses of federal regulatory agencies from the limitation of commitment and financial movement, when linked to their core activities and funded by their own revenues, inspection fees or specific funds.
In practice, this means preventing the budgetary execution of agencies from being interrupted by budget cuts that compromise their ability to regulate, monitor, supervise, and decide. This is not a favor to the agencies.
This involves preserving state institutions that have been legally granted independent mandates to act in strategic sectors such as electricity, oil, transportation, mining, telecommunications, sanitation, civil aviation, supplementary health, health surveillance, and data protection.
For the clean and renewable energy sector, this point is central. The expansion of solar generation, distributed generation, transmission, storage, grid digitization, and new business models requires clear rules, technical decisions, effective oversight, and institutional stability.
Long-term investments cannot be sustained under constant uncertainty. When the regulatory agency loses operational capacity, the decision-making process slows down, supervision suffers in quality, and regulatory risk increases.
This risk is not abstract. A weakened agency may have more difficulty monitoring contracts, responding to industry demands, overseeing service quality, analyzing claims, monitoring obligations, and curbing market distortions. The result is bad for everyone: consumers, investors, reputable companies, and the government itself. Weak regulation does not reduce costs; it transfers costs to the future.
There is also an important warning about human capital. Regulatory agencies concentrate highly specialized professionals who accumulate technical, legal, economic, and sectoral knowledge over the years. When there is a lack of budget, recruitment, technology, attractive career paths, and adequate working conditions, the loss of these talents to the regulated market increases. This is the phenomenon known as the revolving door.
Professional mobility is legitimate and part of any dynamic economy. However, in regulated sectors, it must observe rules of integrity, prevention of conflicts of interest, protection of sensitive information and, when applicable, a quarantine period, as a principle of compliance and respect for the public interest. The point, therefore, is not to demonize the movement of professionals. The point is to prevent the fragility of the State from accelerating the loss of essential technical personnel, deepening information asymmetries and reducing the capacity for oversight and supervision of agencies.
This debate must also be approached with maturity by the regulated sectors. Advocating for a strong regulatory agency does not mean agreeing with all its decisions. In a democratic and institutional environment, it is natural for companies, associations, and economic agents to disagree, in a republican manner, with total or partial decisions of a collegiate body on a given agenda. There are appeals, requests for reconsideration, public consultations, technical contributions, and specific instruments for regulatory debate.
What cannot be done is to confuse legitimate disagreement with support for the functional, technical, or budgetary weakening of the regulator. The worst interpretation for any sector is to defend the agency's independence only when one agrees with it, and to relativize it when one disagrees. Independent regulators, with a respected mandate and adequate structure, are good for the country precisely because they decide based on technical, predictable, and equitable criteria, and not according to current pressures.
Therefore, INEL (National Institute of Clean Energy) permanently supports the integrity of regulatory agencies, their full functioning, respect for their independent mandates and their decision-making processes. This support remains even when, in one process or another, there is republican disagreement regarding a particular decision. Disagreeing is part of the democratic process. Weakening the institution is not.
The progress of this issue in Congress is important because it offers a concrete sign of predictability. By protecting resources linked to the core activities of the agencies, the Legislature reinforces the idea that oversight, supervision, and regulation are not ancillary expenses. They are essential for legal certainty, quality of services, attracting capital, and protecting consumers.
Brazil's energy transition will require billions in investments, new technologies, smarter grids, renewable energy expansion, and sophisticated regulatory coordination. None of this can thrive with weakened institutions. Independent, ethical, and functionally capable agencies are part of the invisible infrastructure that allows real infrastructure to happen.
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.
