Fonte: ANEEL
The board of the National Energy Agency (ANEEL) approved seven of the eight cases on the rules regarding the 3rd cycle of periodic rate revisions (RTP) of electricity rates.The issue was resolved in 42 Public Board Meeting, held on Tuesday (11/08) and Wednesday (11/09).The item removed from the agenda will be deliberated at the meeting on 11/22.Read more.
The approval of the new rules will contribute to a drop of consumer rates as companies pass through the rate revision in the period from 2012 to 2014."There may be exceptions, but the general rule is that there is a reduction of rates," says the general director of ANEEL, Nelson Hübner.According to him, these exceptions may occur in relation to companies that had investment levels very low and were investing more in recent years, increasing their remuneration base, which can balance the productivity gains made during the revision.
The set of changes approved directly impacts a portion of the rate, the so-called Part B, which reflects the distribution activity costs, such as operating costs and investments.This portion represents 25% to 30% of the energy bill that reaches the consumer.The other part (Part A) is less manageable by the distributors and refers to the cost of purchase and transmission of electric energy in addition to the industry charges.Also included in the bills of consumers are payment of rates, taxes and duties defined by the Federal, State and Municipal Governments.
The new methodology of rate revision went under Public Hearing (AP no. 040/2010) from 09/10/2010 to 01/10/2011 (first phase) and 04/27/2011 to 06/30/2011 (second phase ) and received around 900 contributions from 155 agents, institutions and consumers.
Rates Revisions– Rates revisions happen on average every four years and are the time when the costs of distribution, reverting to the low rates average efficiency gains obtained by them, are re-evaluated.The previous revision cycles happened from 2003 to 2006 (1st cycle) and from 2007 to 2010 (2nd cycle).The revision of the methodology of the 3rd cycle delayed its start in 2012, but its completion in 2014 remains.The annual revision and adjustment are provided in the concession agreements signed between the Federal Government and companies.In the years that the rate goes under distributor's revision, the adjustment is not applied. (GL/FA/DB).
Check out what has changed for the 3rd cycle of periodic rate revisions
| Then | Now | |
| Operating costs | ||
| They used the business model of reference for defining the operational costs. | There is no more reference company, but the costs defined in the previous cycle (2nd cycle) will be updated reverting to the low rates the average productivity gains achieved by the distributors.In addition, there will be an evaluation of the comparative efficiency of distribution.If there is a difference between the two results, a path of operational costs through the X Factor will be defined. | |
| Rate of return (WACC) | ||
| It was 9.95% (real and net of taxes). | Dropped to 7.5% (real and net of taxes).The decline reflects the reduction of perceived risk to invest in power distribution in Brazil and lower costs of fundraising by the distributors.Another enhancement is to consider the proposed tax incentives given to distributors that operate in the areas of SUDAM and SUDENE in defining the rate of return plus the percentage awarded to cover what is passed on to income tax.For these companies the Agency will consider the transfer of income tax to 15.25%, restoring the tax actually paid, which will support the reduction of rates in the North and Northeast regions. | |
| X Factor – ProductivityComponent | ||
| To estimate the productivity gains, they projected the revenues and expenses of the distribution until the following rate revision. | To estimate the productivity gains, the historical relationship between market expansion and growth of the costs of distribution will be observed. | |
| X Factor – QualityComponent | ||
| There was no mechanism to encourage quality. | Q component was introduced, in order to encourage the improvement of quality of service provided.Thus, at each adjustment will be assessed the evolution of DEC and FEC indicators.If the quality gets worse, the rate is reduced, and if it improves, it drops less. | |
| Power Outage | ||
| An efficient level of non-technical losses (theft and fraud) was defined by comparing the performance of distributors. | The methodology was maintained but the paths will be redefined taking into account the best performances achieved by the distributors.The study of complexity to combat losses and the setting of the potential reducing speed of the level of losses by set of concessionaires with similar characteristics was perfected. | |
| Other revenues | ||
| Only the revenues received by sharing infrastructure were evaluated for the reversion to low rates | Theme was removed from the agenda and is expected to be assessed on 11/22/2011 | |
