The board of ANEEL (National Electric Energy Agency) approved, this Tuesday (07), unanimously, the text by rapporteur Hélvio Guerra that regulates the 14.300 Law.
O text was voted and approved by the other directors of the Agency during the afternoon, after a series of oral arguments held by agents in the electrical sector, including professionals in the solar energy sector.
Among the most sensitive points to the sector, the approved document determined the TUSDg charge for microgeneration systems in Group B, as proposed at last week's meeting. According to the determination, this amount will only be paid when the demand for injection into the distribution network is greater than the demand for load consumed from the network.
Still on this topic, according to the discussions, such charges will only be made if it is possible to measure these quantities directly on the meters installed in consumer units with microgeneration.
Another theme that generated a lot of discussion was the charging the availability cost and paying Fio B in the compensated energy portion, which according to the board of directors and technicians of ANEEL, the text did not clearly express what the Agency wanted to determine.
The question that remains is whether the availability cost plus part of Wire B (in proportion to the compensated energy) will be paid in double, or if only one of them (the largest among them).
O reporting director Helvio Guerra requested that this point in the text be rewritten so that the rule is clearly defined. This request was agreed with the other directors of the Agency.
Check out what each of the directors had to say ANEEL in their respective votes:
Hélvio Guerra
Guerra emphasized that it is through divergence that we can build better. “Of course, when we say this, sometimes, we have the understanding that everything is fine, that we accept everything that comes. In fact, I always think that if someone convinces me that what I'm thinking is not the most appropriate, I will change my position, but if they don't convince me, I won't change.”
“My quest from the beginning was to find balance. You can be sure that this was the case, I tried to reproduce this condition in the vote. It's not simple, but I believe we managed to achieve this. Perhaps the wording needs to be improved, eventually, as there are those who understand what is written differently, in the same way as in the law itself, from time to time, there are things that we read and interpret differently”, he commented.
Ricardo Tili
The director highlighted that he understands that the spirit of Law 14.300 “provides for a progressive reduction in subsidies” and that “if the rule was applied as it is, when the Fio B portion was lower than the availability cost, the subsidy would be increased and not providing a reduction”, he stated.
According to him, contrary to what the solar energy sector claims, no more than one charge is being made on the cost of availability. “Either pay the installment for wire B or pay for availability”, he commented.
Sandoval Feitosa
Sandoval Feitosa, general director of ANEEL, commented that, of everything he has experienced at the Agency, he has never seen a law as prescriptive as this one, and that it brings positive and negative aspects.
“What was seen here is the negative aspect, in this case, it was the charging of demand (generation) for the microgenerator. This is in the law. Therein lies the difficulty we have in disregarding what is written in the law, approved by the National Congress in two houses, signed and sanctioned by the President of the Republic,” he said.
“If we were on the opposite side, if we were discussing, possibly, putting something in the resolution that is not in the law and would harm the segment, I have no doubt that we would be heavily attacked. I think we have to be mature enough to say: we need to work to change the law in this specific aspect. We are not allowed to do what we want. We have to do what is in the law”, pointed out Feitosa.
“It is clear that the regulatory power, which is conferred on the executive branch, has to be exercised in the energy sector by ANEEL. Law 14.300 made some cuts in some aspects that could be regulated by the Agency, all the others remain. The Agency's national regulation of regulating the energy sector remains, it has not been changed. Therefore, what is not circumscribed by law, Aneel can and should do”, he concluded.
Agnes da Costa
The board stated that it is very clear to them that GD growing beyond what was planned is not the problem in itself. Conduto, pointed out that the problem is “when we have those who benefit from GD, stop paying for costs that other agents should already pay”, he stated.
According to her, since 2015 the debate in the electricity sector has revolved around the best way to allocate DG costs. “I think the concern about how much we have to protect small (consumers) and how they are acting together with large economic groups is legitimate,” she stressed.
However, in addition to agreeing with rapporteur Helvio Guerra's text, the director also suggested a determination for the SRD to evaluate the “need for possible specific regulatory commands to promote the application of the provisions of article 28 of Law 14.300/22”.
Answers of 27
It was clear that the ANEEL is a dispatcher for ABRADEE, the energy distribution cartel. In fact, the energy market is what most interests governments around the world, especially the “progressive” ones. I see this small “gate” open to discretion as an incentive for generating systems with integrated storage, in the best case scenario operating in Grid Zero, like the one I already have installed, including the EV battery bank.
The consumer who consumes energy generated by DG pays for generation, transmission and distribution. The concessionaire is charging the consumer for transmission and generation, which was at no cost to them.
One idea to end this taxation ime would be for the concessionaire to buy all the energy generated by DG and whoever wanted to consume it would pay the real value even for the generation. GD would have the credit of the generation that is not paid today.
A ANEEL Never always defending the distributors' side, this balance weighs on one side only: the consumers and those who pay the bill.
After this regulation, imagine what will happen at the s meeting in July!
The charge for the infamous B wire or any other charge is absurd. Who is going to pay the photovoltaic energy supplier who injects the surplus into the grid and stabilizes it? There was no more blackout, because we injected a lot of energy into the grid. And do we still have to pay for it? For helping
Did I understand? Will I inject my electricity into the grid, will the concessionaire sell it to another consumer and will I still have to pay for the generation? Oh, I also want to have a dealership!!!!
In short: after all the investment we made, we will pay for injecting our excess energy into the utility's network and the more we inject, the more we will pay.
Sounds like a bad joke!
My next investment will be to buy stationary batteries and fill my attic with them; I then request the utility company to turn off the power.
It is clear that they will find a way to tax me or prohibit me from being autonomous, independent in electricity.
“Many people love company but hate competition…” S. Freud, this phrase demonstrates well what happened when they approved law 14.300, the concessionaires (legal entities) realized the growth of the energy matrix that could threaten them (competition) in profits (GD) and ed forces with the government's interest in collecting more taxes. We have another thought “Homi Homus Lupus” Man is a wolf to man.
It is regrettable that, despite the efforts of the integrating companies, trying to avoid the worst, it still ended up as it did. We have more than 500.000 people directly involved in this market. It's a shame that our “agents” only looked at the distributors. Everything I heard from the rapporteur for this matter only included penalties for those who installed the photovoltaic system. There will be a lot of judicialization and many colleagues without jobs.
This is the Brazil they want to create. Unfortunate.
In short, they want to charge the cost of availability together with the B wire fee, that is, if the value is lower than the cost of availability, they would have to compensate for this difference. The Government is impressive, they always leave room for interpretation to create a mechanism to charge the taxpayer. When they think about relieving the entire energy matrix that cannot handle the demand and charge higher fees from taxpayers, the government comes up with laws that are not clear, where the regulatory bodies, through their directors, are not unanimous and as another comment says: ANEEL It is not a body to favor taxpayers, but rather a supervisory body, which aims to create a revenue mechanism for the Executive of this Country.
Full dams, photovoltaic and aeolian energy growing and the consumer has no peace.
This is a shame and we who want to grow in the sector are annihilated, shame….
Good morning,
The injection charge for new Micro Generation opinions after 6/01 will start from which year?
What deadline will be granted for new Micro Generation approvals so that billing begins in the year stated in the question above?
What will be the net percentage to be charged for micro generations? from the date informed above?
The question that remains is, does Itaipu and other large generators pay tariffs for supplying energy? Why should the micro generator pay? Paying under consumption is no problem, when you generate less than you consume, but the right thing to do is charge those who consume, simple as that.
I agree with Marcos Alberto.
DGs (consumers) will absorb costs that do not benefit their facilities in any way. In other words, they help to relieve obligations from governments, distributors and generators, but they do not receive any benefit in exchange for their fees and taxes.
For a better interpretation of what the subject is about, an example could be published of what an invoice will look like before the 14300 comes into effect and after it comes into effect.
I invested in my residence, I will pay for years, but I am already looking at this positioning with concern. ANEEL, totally biased, brings a more commercial and political aspect than efficiency, balance and sustainability as it should be!
Sorry I typed it on the web. But I summarized that I was not aware of the charging Law as of 06/01/23 and among several discussions, what consumers need is less charges and more efficiency in the case of energy consumption. I see loose, tangled threads and the governors, most of whom are concerned about ICMS, while the majority are also not asking for the repeal of the Kandir Law that exempts them from exporting minerals and commodities. So we have to review it.
It is quite clear what Aneel's role is in this process: defending the interests of the concessionaires who benefit most from DG. Brazil unfortunately follows the old pattern of interfering to deconstruct what has been working.
Aneel has already analyzed the situation the country would be in without DG. Where would the energy needed for development come from???
On the contrary, it was a decision that took into what was in the law and followed the law, weighing on consumers. It makes no sense for someone who installs MMGD to want to live off tariff subsidies paid for by other consumers and despite the regulation of the ANEEL The subsidies will continue until 2045, as required by law. So for another 20 years, other consumers will still have to pay for costs that were not generated by them. It is even strange to see this discontentment over having to one day have to pay for costs that they were always responsible for and that they blamed on others, or is it fair to live off subsidies ed by others? They always talk about “rights”, but they get irritated whenever they hear about “duties”.
Another defining moment.
The regulation of law 14.300 penalizes small investors and protects large investors, which are usually foreign capital, such as foreign DG companies that are entering Brazil. All in the name of ensuring profitability for distributors, which in turn are the heritage of the Brazilian people.
The manager thinks he is superior because he is sitting in the director's chair, but he acts like a servant. The one who loses is Brazil, we will build huge generation plants and we will send the profits $$ to s abroad.
This way we increase the bone row.
The Law that should simply regulate DG systems left openings to privilege concessionaires and ANEEL tendentiously relies on the Law that was written for the benefit of the great! It is worth criticizing the one who sanctioned it, leaving the ANEEL with the final stab. Could someone elected with the green flag under his arm do something for the benefit of the people?
Unfortunately, in Brazil the laws only help the big ones, never the population!
The favorable maneuver for distributors is evident. At no point is it clear that the Agency made any considerations that would help consumers. The allegation is that the Law has to be worked on. But never in favor of the population. How many billions of R$ will the distributors receive in benefit from these fees? How much of this value will be returned to society? These are the questions that the Agency does not answer. Unfortunately, our country is a joke…
Good morning, consumers really always have to pay, in the end the consumer always has to assume the debts of big companies and that doesn't change until people's thinking stops understanding what the process is like. Unfortunately, we will always have a few rich people who rule the masses. poor.
this is having a great benefit that ANEEL approved for the benefit of concessionaires at no time did the agency think about benefiting small consumers and now they will continue to charge the availability cost plus the Sun fee or there will be duplication in the fee charging, the stick always only breaks on top of the weakest.
The impression we who work in the solar sector have is that ANEEL At no point did they think about consumers; they always had a biased view of the situation, always favoring the distributors. This was very clear to me, and the final result of this entire discussion was even a little suspicious. Some points were not clear, for example: how much are the concessionaires saving in their operating costs thanks to consumers' adoption of solar energy? The concessionaires' profits will certainly increase, and in this case, the consumer is the only one who does not benefit at all. It is regrettable for a country that should prioritize the sector so that we can increasingly change our energy matrix, but we are going against what I understand to be the right path.