Aneel upheld the fine imposed on Engie Brasil Energia for the lack of backing at the Paracatu IV solar plant, underscoring regulatory rigor in the Brazilian electricity market.
The National Electricity Agency (Aneel) decided to maintain the financial penalty imposed on Engie Brasil Energia for failures in supply assurance related to the 8th Reserve Energy Auction.
The panel decision confirmed the sanction originating from the Electricity Market Commercialization Chamber (CCEE), which identified a shortfall in the physical backing of the UFV Solar Paracatu IV, located in the state of Minas Gerais.
The process was handled by the federal agency under the report of director Ludimila Lima da Silva, whose vote prevailed after pointing out formal deficiencies in the company’s submission.
According to the report, the defense failed to include specific regulatory articles allegedly infringed by commercial inspection, and also re-presented arguments already superseded by previous regulatory bodies.
The defense arguments and the challenge over backing
During the administrative proceeding, the generator argued that the requirement for proof of coverage should not apply to commitments arising from reserve auctions, as they are governed by their own regulatory framework.
The company maintained that the retroactive application of later regulations violated principles of legal certainty and the rights acquired from the 2015 auction.
Another point raised by the company involved a serious operational incident in April 2023, when weather damage destroyed dozens of equipment and drastically reduced the available power at the photovoltaic complex.
The defense argued that this event reduced delivery capacity and created insurmountable operational difficulties for the immediate restoration of the required indices.
The company noted that the extraordinary episode severely compromised its production capacity, and argued that the monetary penalty outweighed other revenue retention mechanisms already contractually provided.
Regulatory understanding and supply security
The technical area of the regulator and the reporting director rejected the thesis that coverage rules do not apply to the reserve modality.
For the board, subsequent regulatory acts only served to detail the methods of assessment and control, without creating new obligations that could violate the terms set out in the historic notice.
The consolidated understanding is that technical or climatic intercurrences do not exempt developers from keeping their guarantees active, as the rule is strictly objective and aimed at system stability.
With an unfavorable outcome in the administrative arena, the company has exhausted another stage of contestation against the charge set by the market operator.