ANP temporarily suspends pipeline tariff review to allow a consensual agreement between Petrobras and NTS, following government directives.
The leadership of the ANP (National Agency of Petroleum, Natural Gas and Biofuels) decided to pause the final phase of the tariff review for the country’s pipelines. The measure responds to a request from the MME (Ministry of Mines and Energy) and grants a two‑week period for the involved companies to outline a negotiated alternative.
With this pause, the regulator halts the discussion that had called for significant cuts in the prices charged by transport operators, sparking intense debate in the energy sector. The strategic break aims to align expectations among the government, transport firms, and major industrial consumers.
The impact on tariffs and the alternative under discussion
The original proposal drafted by the agency’s technical team called for a steep reduction, ranging from 32% to 35%, in the rates charged by NTS (Nova Transportadora do Sudeste) and TAG (Transportadora Associada de Gás) for the 2027‑2030 cycle. In contrast, the plan anticipated upward adjustments for TBG (Transportadora Brasileira Gasoduto Bolívia‑Brasil), reflecting the decline in imported gas flow through Gasbol.
In response to the regulator’s intended cuts, NTS and Petrobras devised a differentiated arrangement. The strategy involves extending legacy contractual ties through 2041, smoothing the initial tariff drop—starting at 37% in 2027 but falling to 18% by the end of the period.
Seeking consensual alternatives requires legal certainty and the approval of the relevant authorities to ensure balance in Brazil’s natural gas market.
Next steps and market resistance
During the fifteen‑day truce, the Procuradoria‑Geral will review the legal soundness of adopting consensual agreements over the traditional tariff review process. Additionally, the CdU (Council of Users) will be consulted to issue opinions on the structure of the parties’ understanding.
The movement has sparked caution and opposition from industry representative bodies, such as Abrace, Abividro and Abegás. Industrial consumers and distributors question the legal validity of the parallel negotiations, demanding transparency and predictability to avoid unwanted cost transfers for energy and the routed input.