A ANEEL (National Electric Energy Agency) held, last Thursday (29), a Public Hearing to hear questions from energy consumer representatives about the way in which Group companies are billed Equatorial, operating in the states of Alagoas, Maranhão, Pará and Piauí or 13% of consumers in Brazil.
Among the complaints, the following stand out: lack of transparency of distributors on the composition of the costs charged on the electricity bill, difficulty in accessing invoice information, errors in credit compensation, delays in measuring consumer units and incomplete or evasive responses, often classified as unfounded without presenting technical information to justify the decision.
However, the main concern is regarding the ICMS collection in the TUSD (Distribution System Usage Tariff) of consumers with distributed generation.
“In June of this year, consumers of at least four distributors of the Equatorial group were surprised by the change in the billing of consumer units benefiting from systems characterized as GD II”, said Bárbara Rubim, vice president of ABSOLAR (Brazilian Photovoltaic Solar Energy Association).
“This change in billing occurred for two reasons: first, due to the start of charging for Fio B in these consumer units, a point that was later clarified by Grupo Equatorial; and second, due to the start of charging ICMS on tariff components understood as economic subsidies, that is, components that do not correspond to the energy within the TE [Energy Tariff], nor to the 30% of Fio B duly remunerated by GD 2 customers”, explained the executive.
According to Rubim, the biggest problem in this matter is that this change was implemented without any prior communication ou clarification by the Equatorial group to consumers, which generated a wave of dissatisfaction and questions, given that, from one month to the next, a consumer's bill went from R$60 to R$240.
The association issued a letter to Equatorial requesting clarification. However, the response to the letter did not address the issue of charging ICMS on the tariff components identified as an economic subsidy.
“As far as we were informed, there was no determination by the state tax authorities for this charge. Although the ICMS is a substitute tax of the State, it is not up to the distributor to create taxation rules for consumers,” stated Rubim.
Rubim requested that, in addition to the agency establishing a list of mandatory information that must appear on the energy bill, ANEEL standardize the invoice.
“In our view, a standardized invoice will help to streamline the inspection work of ANEEL and, more than that, it will make it easier for the consumer to familiarize themselves with and understand what is being charged on their bill”, added the representative of ABSOLAR.
Lucas Malheiros, Regulatory Affairs advisor at ABRADEE (Brazilian Association of Energy Distributors), questioned the “unprecedentedness” of the ANEEL when holding a Public Hearing to address issues related to a specific economic group, suggesting that there are other ways to address the issue, since the agency has oversight procedures to ensure that the distributor corrects its practices. “The fact is that, in this specific case, we did not clearly identify any evidence of irregular conduct on the part of the distributor,” he said.
“We heard about billing and, in fact, there was lower billing in some months. This meant that the consumer paid less due to a system issue. When the distributor comes to charge this difference, it does so as determined by resolution 1.000/21, charging the number of cycles allowed,” added Malheiros.
“When we deal with ICMS, as Dr. Bárbara rightly commented, distributor has no autonomy over what to do with ICMS. It simply follows what is determined by state legislation, and that is what Equatorial did”, added the ABRADEE representative.
Mallets too questioned the absence of any evidence, on the part of ANEEL, which clearly points to non-compliance on the part of the distributor. “This lack of evidence is what generated the unprecedented event we mentioned here,” he stated.
At this time, the director of ANEEL, Fernando Mosna, asked to speak to respond to ABRADEE's comments. He stated that, so far, the Agency did not find any improper conduct on the part of Equatorial, and that, if such conduct had been identified, a violation report would already have been drawn up.
“What are we doing is active listening and also to understand consumers and consultants any reason for dissatisfaction with the Equatorial Group's billing method. After listening to society, we will be able to carry out a technical analysis through the superintendencies present here, and, eventually, arrive at evidence. It is premature to understand that now would be the time to present evidence”, said Mosna.
“Regarding the originality, if I continue to count on the of the collegiate ANEEL, this will not be an unprecedented stance, as other processes will be opened for public hearings in relation to other economic groups. I believe that this is the good work that the agency should do. If it is unprecedented, it means that, during the 27 years of the agency's existence, this instrument has always been available, but perhaps it was not necessary or wanted to use it. I, with the of the collegiate board, intend to use it for all economic groups that have consumer complaints”, concluded the director.
Attack on the autonomy of ANEEL
The president of INEL (National Institute of Clean Energy), Heber Galarce, participated in the hearing where defended the autonomy of the regulatory agency and criticized a possible intervention, raised by the Minister of Mines and Energy, Alexandre Silveira.
On August 20, the minister sent a letter to the agency's director-general, Sandoval Feitosa, demanding responses within 5 days regarding the failure to meet deadlines in some processes and declared that the agency is inactive, suggested an omission on the part of the directors and considered state intervention.
Read also ANEEL says that there is no omission in deciding matters within its competence
Galarce states that INEL is against any type of intervention in the agency and highlights that the institute officially s the Valoriza Regulação Movement, which aims to raise awareness in the government about the importance of regulatory agencies and oversight in various segments.
“Improving and expanding dialogue is the only way to solve the problems in the electricity sector. INEL remains available, s Valoriza Regulação and we will work in the National Congress to prevent the ANEEL be attacked in this way. Any type of intervention is uncalled for. Investors shudder when they hear this type of subject,” he warns.
According to him, the institute is already in talks with the National Congress, including documents and communications that defend the independence and respect for the autonomy of the ANEEL. INEL is the entity that technically subsidizes FREPEL (t Parliamentary Front for Clean and Renewable Energy), which already has 212 deputies and nine senators.
The president of the institute stressed that Minister Alexandre Silveira should prioritize and focus on important actions of the ministry, such as, for example, sending the guidelines for the capacity reserve auction that have not yet been sent to the ANEEL continue the process.
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 us by email: [email protected].
