The lack of effective regulatory milestones to address extreme weather events is creating an uncertain landscape that could deter vital investments in the national electric infrastructure.
The Brazilian electric sector faces a structural challenge that calls into question the security of supply and the market’s attractiveness to international investors. During Coniben 2026, held in Lisbon, economist Joisa Dutra, director of FGV CERI, warned that current regulatory rules and existing contracts are not prepared for the new reality of natural disasters, which have become systemic.
The core issue lies in the lack of predictability about who should bear resilience costs and how investments in grid reinforcement will be remunerated. Without clear guidelines that recognize the severe climate impacts on tariffs and performance targets, the sector is heading toward a confidence crisis that could jeopardize the necessary expansion for the energy transition.
The Real Impact of Nature on Infrastructure
Recent data from ONS (National System Operator) reveal the scale of the problem: between July and October 2026, about 300 transmission towers were damaged by weather events. In some cases, the structures were subjected to winds of up to 250 km/h, far exceeding the design capacity of those installations, which were sized to withstand gusts of up to 100 km/h.
This gap between what was designed and today’s climate reality creates a regulatory bottleneck. Currently, ANEEL (National Electric Energy Agency) struggles to integrate these risks into contracts, especially regarding the Variable Share. This mechanism, which financially penalizes transmission operators in cases of unavailability, has not distinguished between operational failures and force‑majeure events.
“Who delivers? Who plans this resilience? Who pays for it? That is the question investors are increasingly asking,” noted Joisa Dutra during the panel.
Expiration and the Future of Distribution
The concern about resilience extends beyond power transmission, hitting the distribution sector squarely. The real possibility of a concession expiring due to an ineffective response to climate crises—a shadow looming over cases like Enel São Paulo—shows that the regulator has hardened its stance. Yet, without a framework that provides financing for structural adaptations, isolated penalties for concessionaires may not be enough to ensure service continuity.
Representative Arnaldo Jardim noted that the Legislature is already debating the modernization of these contracts. The idea is for them to move beyond static performance metrics and become dynamic instruments capable of absorbing changes in operating conditions.
Projections and the Cost of Security
Transitioning to a resilient grid model will require a division of responsibilities among concessionaires, the public sector, and consumers. While experts such as Vitor Santos suggest that the state intervene in exceptional cases where responsibility is unclear, Joisa Dutra warns that Brazil’s fiscal limits restrict that option, making it essential to create mechanisms that provide legal certainty for private capital.
In the long term, the stability of the electric system will depend on correctly pricing these risks. In addition to climate threats, the economist emphasized that cyber risks should also enter the regulatory radar. Anticipating payment rules for extreme events and energy security, she says, is the most cost‑effective path to avoid blackouts and ensure the sustainability of Brazil’s electric sector in the coming years.