The letter sent by ANEEL (National Electric Energy Agency), on October 14, and signed by director-general Sandoval Feitosa, reignited the debate on the limits of distributors' operations in the electrical system.
The document mentions the possibility of load and generation cuts, including those involving distributed generation, claiming that this prerogative would already be provided for in the Prodist (Procedures for the Distribution of Electric Energy in the National Electric System).
To understand the legal and regulatory implications of this measure, the Canal Solar spoke with Matheus Soares, a lawyer specializing in energy law at Martorelli Advogados.
In the interview, he assesses that the letter should be seen more as an indication of the Agency's future direction than as an immediate application of the rule, and warns of the risks of legal uncertainty and litigation.
Matthew, the ANEEL sent a letter on October 14th mentioning the possibility of load shedding and generation by distributors, something that, according to the agency, was already provided for in the Prodist. From a legal standpoint, is this possible? Can distributors actually carry out this type of operation?
This question has several layers, Wagner. My initial reading is that the letter should not be understood as an immediate application of an already established rule. I see it much more as a clear signal of the direction the ANEEL intends to follow.
There are still many uncertainties about how this would be done. Ultimately, we are faced with an interpretative game: ANEEL and the ONS (National System Operator) read the standard from a systemic perspective, while distributed generation agents rely on legal principles and acquired rights.
Interestingly, both start from the same regulatory texts but arrive at opposite conclusions. In the letter, Sandoval cites Module 4 of the Prodist, specifically a section that states that "the generator must be disconnected when necessary."
The problem is that this expression—"when necessary"—is legally very open. It lacks detail, and this creates legal uncertainty, as it leaves room for multiple interpretations: what exactly constitutes "necessary"? Under what circumstances? Can GD be treated as subject to cuts?
Distributed generation has a distinct legal nature. It is not an independent energy producer—a business activity subject to business risks—but rather a self-consumption initiative.
So, arguing that GD can be targeted by systemic cuts goes against the essence of Law No. 14.300 / 22, which created the framework for distributed generation and the energy compensation system.
On the other hand, it's legitimate to recognize that the advancement of DG brings operational and economic impacts to the system. It influences grid balance, and this needs to be addressed regulatoryally, but without violating the legal concept of self-consumption.
During the hearings for Provisional Measure 1304/2025, APINE proposed an accounting solution for curtailment: a "cutoff factor" that would be distributed between centralized generation and DG. Did you follow this discussion?
Yes, I did. This idea already appears in Public Consultation No. 45/2019. Without delving into the merits of whether it's fair or not, any attempt to impose mandatory participation in this distribution (or even a physical cut) on GD without a more robust legal basis could generate legal controversies.
The current regulatory framework does not clearly support this obligation. This would require legislative reinforcement, perhaps through the conversion of Provisional Measure 1304/2025 itself. Otherwise, the measure is likely to be challenged.
And if MP 1.304 actually moves forward, determining GD's participation in curtailment costs, could this affect the rights acquired by 14.300?
Yes. Even if it comes as a provisional measure or bill, there is a real risk of constitutional challenge.
Law 14.300 guarantees a specific legal framework for GD. Any rule that imposes a new burden, whether physical or accounting, could be construed as a violation of an acquired right, which would open the door to direct unconstitutionality actions. If this type of provision advances, we're likely to see legal disputes over its validity.
We are in a very turbulent time. In the coming weeks, Public Consultation No. 45/2019 is expected to move forward, and the Federal Prosecutor's Office is also expected to comment on whether to include GD in the physical cut or the accounting allocation. The Prosecutor's Office's position will likely provide clearer guidance on the path forward. ANEEL will follow.
Deepen your knowledge
ANEEL publishes official letter: consumers with DG can be included in generation cuts
all the content of Canal Solar is protected by copyright law, and partial or total reproduction of this site in any medium is expressly prohibited. If you are interested in collaborating or reusing part of our material, please contact us by email: redacao@canalsolar.com.br.
An answer
Dear sirs, this represents an affront to the legal norms approved by the National Congress, sending a message of the notorious legal uncertainty so dear to our authorities. Aneel is overreaching, and Congress must immediately summon its director to explain himself. They are exaggerating the problem of the inversion of the flow of energy generated by solar energy. Some distributors are taking advantage of this to create difficulties in project approval. CIMEG is one of them. There are already excellent technical solutions to overcome this, such as energy storage via batteries. Professor-engineer, master of science in electrical engineering, designer of solar generation, energy efficiency, and electric vehicle charging stations.