The ABGD is challenging the imposition of time-of-use tariffs for micro and mini-distributed generation, arguing that the rules of Law 14.300 must protect the economic returns of transition-phase projects.
The Brazilian Association of Distributed Energy Resources (ABGD) has intensified the debate over the future of self-generated energy in the country. In a robust legal opinion, the organization expressed its opposition to the automatic application of the time-of-use tariff—known as the “white tariff”—for consumers who utilize the Electric Energy Compensation System (SCEE) and remain under the transition rules of Law 14.300/2022.
The conflict is unfolding within the scope of Public Consultation 46/2025, conducted by the National Electric Energy Agency (Aneel). The proposal under review considers making the time-of-use tariff mandatory for low-voltage consumer units with monthly consumption exceeding 1,000 kWh. The central point of the dispute is how this shift in the tariff paradigm affects the value of energy credits generated by solar systems, which currently operate primarily under conventional tariff structures.
Impact on credit compensation
The disagreement lies in the technical operation of compensation. In the conventional model, there is no distinction in cost based on the time of day. However, the time-of-use tariff segments consumption into peak, intermediate, and off-peak periods, each with different prices. Since solar generation occurs mostly during off-peak hours (during the day), converting credits to offset consumption during more expensive peak hours could result in financial losses for the prosumer.
According to the opinion signed by the Lefosse Advogados law firm, the compulsory change in the tariff base undermines the legal certainty and economic viability promised by the Distributed Generation (GD) legal framework. The association believes that applying the measure should be optional until the transition periods stipulated by Law 14.300 are fully met.
The compulsory application of the white tariff during the transition period alters the economic basis of energy compensation, disregarding the balance guaranteed by the legal framework for projects already in operation.
Legal divergence and next steps
On the other hand, the Federal Attorney’s Office acting for Aneel maintains that the agency has the authority to implement the time-of-use tariff. The agency argues that current legislation does not grant SCEE members a permanent right to the conventional tariff, nor does it forbid the differentiation of tariff periods for these consumers.
The ABGD, however, emphasizes that it is not questioning Aneel’s regulatory authority, but rather the need to harmonize this transition. The association suggests that only new projects, established under the validity of any potential new rules, should be subject to the mandatory time-of-use tariff, thereby preserving the acquired rights of existing enterprises.
The organization is now seeking to broaden the technical debate, preparing to present a detailed study on the economic impact of the measure. The association’s goal is to raise awareness among Aneel’s board of directors and the regulator’s tariff departments regarding the potential negative consequences that rushing this change could bring to Brazil’s clean energy sector.
