Whenever electricity bills increase, public debate seeks to find someone to blame. In recent years, distributed generation has frequently filled this space. The problem is that the Brazilian electricity sector is far more complex than a single incentive mechanism.
An estimated economic impact of around R$ 200 billion, coupled with indications of potential overpricing pointed out by the technical area of the TCU (Federal Court of Accounts) during the analysis of the LRCAP (Capacity Reserve Auction), did not produce a debate proportional to its relevance.
The comparison is not intended to minimize the importance of discussing distributed generation. It raises a larger question: are we analyzing all the factors that influence the electricity bill or only those that have become more convenient for public debate?
Every public policy should be evaluated by its net economic impact. The cost of a policy is only one part of the equation; the other is the set of economic, social, and systemic benefits it delivers to society.
This should be the criterion applied to subsidies, incentives, charges, and other instruments in the electricity sector. Discussing incentives for distributed generation is legitimate. The accounting reconciliation foreseen by Law No. 14.300 needs to be completed so that its effects can be evaluated based on consolidated evidence, and not on estimates.
What weakens the debate is treating this issue as a permanent priority while other mechanisms that also influence the fare remain relatively peripheral on the public agenda.
The CDE (Energy Development Account) pools resources allocated to various public policies in the electricity sector, demonstrating that the composition of the tariff is the result of multiple factors.
If the goal is to reduce energy costs for consumers and businesses, all these instruments must be subject to the same standard of transparency, the same technical rigor, and the same evaluation criteria.
Choosing only one of them as a recurring focus produces an incomplete view of reality. Distributed generation should be analyzed under this same logic.
In addition to the costs that need to be measured precisely, it mobilizes decentralized private investment, boosts small businesses, expands consumer participation in the energy transition, and can postpone some investments in electrical infrastructure.
These benefits also have economic value and need to be included in any serious assessment of regulatory efficiency. The same principle applies to technological competition.
In the LRCAP, battery storage systems, already used in various markets to provide capacity and flexibility, did not compete on an equal footing with other alternatives.
The greater the competition between technologies, the greater the likelihood that consumers will obtain more efficient and economically advantageous solutions. Brazil has one of the greatest comparative advantages in the world for solar power generation.
Just as it transformed favorable natural conditions into leadership in agribusiness, it can convert its solar potential into competitiveness, innovation, and development. Treating this vocation merely as a regulatory cost means ignoring a strategic opportunity to increase productivity, attract investment, and strengthen the economy.
If Brazilian society intends to discuss what truly drives up electricity bills, this debate is necessary and welcome. However, it will only be technically sound when all public policies are evaluated using the same criteria: how much they cost, what they deliver, and whether more efficient alternatives exist.
Consumers don't need the electricity sector to choose a single entity responsible for tariffs. They need all decisions to be analyzed with the same transparency, the same technical rigor, and the same impartiality. It is this change in perspective that can improve the quality of the debate and contribute to a more efficient and fairer energy policy.
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.
