The board of ANEEL (National Electric Energy Agency) resumed, in this Tuesday morning (07), the discussion of regulation of Law 14.300. In total, there were 37 requests for oral arguments, being 22 speeches effectively performed.
O Canal Solar it's at Brasilia DF) following the entire movement, which started around 9 am, with explanations from representatives of the renewable energy sector and electricity distributors.
A vote reading, started by rwriter director Hélvio Guerra after the oral arguments, it was not finalized in the morning. It was resumed after the break and continues to be held in the afternoon. Watch live:
Check main points brought during the discussion in the morning:
Triple charge
Carlos Evangelista, president of the Board and co-founder of ABGD (Brazilian Association of Distributed Generation), questioned the decision of ANEEL for the triple charge for the service of using Fio B, claiming that the measure makes no sense and harms small consumers, with residential and commercial systems, for example.
“Although Fio B, TUSDg and Availability Cost are different things, they fall under the same service. It's as if I decided to take a bus and, in addition to paying the fare, I also had the obligation to pay for the driver and the fuel used. Obviously there are three distinct services, but these charges don’t make sense considering that one of them already covers all the services provided”, he highlighted.
Hewerton Martins, president of MSL (Free Solar Movement), criticized the ANEEL and also stated that the decision harms small consumers who wish to install a photovoltaic system in their home or commercial establishment.
“We are seeing the creation of a binomial tariff, in which there was not even an opening for discussion in public hearings. Demand was created for Group B, which will now have a mandatory minimum volumetric tariff. How will this be charged? Are we going to have rush hours soon? There was no debate to create this binomial tariff and microgeneration was used as a scapegoat. Sorry, but this is unacceptable”, he commented.
According to him, the decision only values and defends the interests of large economic groups and harms Group B, made up of low voltage consumers. “We need to keep the small solar energy consumer alive. For big investors it was really cool. Small consumers are the ones who will be penalized,” he said.
In his view, the argument that consumers harm the network is nothing more than a defense of the interests of large economic groups that are also in GD. The text and the technical note from ANEEL remained, and shows that even with the opening for dialogue with the sector, the shot will end up hitting small consumers.
Rodrigo Matias, commercial director of Ecori, classified the decision of ANEEL as a setback that will make Brazil go backwards for years. “We are seeing the desire of solar energy consumers being ignored with a technical note that includes other billing components that had not been agreed upon until now.”
According to him, the Agency is penalizing consumers who seek the possibility of working towards positive change in the national electricity sector.
“If we do not participate in a change in the energy matrix, mainly, giving the possibility for generation alongside the load to be a differentiator for relieving the electricity grid and the consumer being the main protagonist of this market, we are certainly not looking at a process evolution of the Brazilian energy system”, he added.
Availability Cost
Bárbara Rubim, Vice President of the Board of Directors of ABSOLAR (Brazilian Association of Photovoltaic Solar Energy), was also present at the meeting and commented that it is important to question who is really being defended.
“In this case, whether it is the consumer or whether it is each of the associations of large companies and consumers who, in recent years, have comfortably learned about the electricity sector within their own subsidy boxes”, he pointed out.
In this sense, aiming to continue consumer protection, she highlighted some critical points. “We consulted several law firms and they were all unanimous in bringing the reading of what is contained in the law, to bring the interpretation, not only to the grammatical spirit of the rule, but also to the agreement that was made, which is conveniently forgotten by so many people in this room” .
The first point indicated by the executive is the Availability Cost. ABSOLAR I brought an excerpt from one of the legal opinions that expressly states that the law does not authorize double charging of the Availability Cost and Wire B.
“And here we must talk about double charging, because if we recover the technical notes of ANEEL when this cost was introduced, it was done with the objective of remunerating the distributor's network, just like wire B. So, there are not two charges for different products, there are two charges made to remunerate the distribution service to the energy distributor”, explained Rubim.
Therefore, according to her, the Agency's proposal affects small consumers more. “The ANEEL must ensure that distributors are not reimbursed twice for the use of the network: via availability cost and CDE”.
TUSDg
Another point that Bárbara Rubim highlighted is the TUSDg. “Also in view of the legal opinions that we brought, there is no need to talk about a legal provision for charging TUSDg for low voltage consumers, which is why we ask that this point be removed and that the rule given to consumer B Option also be reviewed.”
“At least, if not revised, it does not impact consumers who trusted the ANEEL in recent years and decided to carry out the installations, as this would be an affront to the principle of objective trust that the consumer must be able to have with the Agency that regulates him”, he concluded.
Energy distributors
In addition to the renewable energy sector, directors of some of the main electricity distributors in Brazil were also present at the audience, such as Enel, EDP, Equatorial, among others.
All companies congratulated the ANEEL for the technical note and defended the thesis that the benefits of distributed generation burden the electricity bills of other Brazilian consumers. Such explanations, however, were criticized by other professionals during the meeting.
