Victor Cunha

Victor Cunha from Itaú BBA sought clarification on MP 1304, specifically regarding its inclusion of curtailment, the upcoming definition of renewable versus oversupply, and whether the totality of curtailment could be reimbursable based on the Ministry of Mines and Energy's (MME) future definition.

Answer

CEO Daniel Slaviero acknowledged the ongoing discussions and the "half-full glass" perspective that recognizes the value of reliability for renewables. He noted that while the electric part of curtailment is valued, the energy piece is problematic. Slaviero suggested that the differing texts in the MP and its amendment indicate a potential veto, and while generation companies have legitimate arguments for reimbursement, claiming no consumer impact is unsustainable. He emphasized that Copel is closely monitoring the situation, as curtailment is a critical issue making wind and solar power unfeasible and requires a policy interpretation from the government.

Victor Cunha asked for clarification on MP 1304 regarding curtailment, specifically the definition of renewable versus oversupply, and whether curtailment could be reimbursable depending on the Ministry of Mines and Energy's (MME) definition.

Answer

CEO Daniel Slaviero noted that the MP 1304 discussions indicate a recognition of the value of reliability for renewables, but the 'energy piece' remains a significant problem. He suggested that the differing texts (original vs. amendment) imply a potential veto, and while generation companies have legitimate arguments for reimbursement, the impact on consumer charges is undeniable. Slaviero emphasized that it is a structural decision for the government to determine if curtailment is an entrepreneurial risk or reimbursable, acknowledging that curtailment is a critical issue making wind and solar segments unfeasible.