In an effort to avoid losing its energy concession in São Paulo, Enel has invoked an international diplomatic treaty between Brazil and Italy.
Enel São Paulo has intensified its defense strategy with the National Electric Energy Agency (Aneel) to block a potential contract revocation process. In its final arguments, filed in early September, the company argued that the termination of its concession agreement could violate a bilateral treaty signed between Brazil and Italy, which guarantees protection and impartial treatment for Italian investments on Brazilian soil.
For the distribution company, the core issue is not just meeting operational targets, but the legal certainty of the electric energy sector. The company requests that the regulator conduct a detailed analysis of the real impact of a possible change of concessionaire, warning that the financial and logistical risks for São Paulo’s 20 million consumers have not been properly assessed.
Arguments of Equality and Technical Criteria
Enel‘s defense maintains that the group is facing disproportionate targeting, pointing to an alleged lack of equal treatment compared to other distributors. The company states that, between 2023 and 2025, dozens of large concessionaires faced similar difficulties in restoring service after weather events, without this resulting in contract termination requests.
“The treatment given to the company is unequal and results in unjustified discrimination, violating commitments to fair and impartial treatment of foreign investments protected by the bilateral agreement between the nations.”
Furthermore, the distribution company disputes Aneel‘s oversight methodology. The company argues that the target of restoring 80% of supply within 24 hours, used by the regulatory body to justify the revocation, was applied retroactively or inconsistently, deviating from the technical criteria the company had previously applied.
Operational Impacts and the Future of the Concession
One of the most contentious points is the absence of a feasibility study on service transition. Enel reiterates that a simple recommendation for revocation does not, in itself, guarantee immediate improvement in the electricity grid. The company emphasizes that the replacement process would require a new, complex bidding process and a period of operational uncertainty that could negatively impact long-term customer service quality.
Instead of contract termination, the concessionaire proposes alternatives, such as signing a Conduct Adjustment Agreement or a more rigorous performance targets plan. To support its continued operation, the company presented recent data from July 2026, indicating a significant improvement in storm response and a substantial reduction in power outage times.
The final decision on the revocation recommendation remains under analysis by Aneel. While the impasse persists, Enel continues to try to reverse the situation through technical appeals and insistence on an expert review, which the company believes is essential to ensure due process and transparency in the administrative proceedings.
