ESTUDO DE VIABILIDADE ECONÔMICA-FINANCEIRA DOS IMPACTOS DA LEI Nº14.300/2022 NO MERCADO DE MINI E MICRO GERAÇÃO DISTRIBUÍDA

Abstract

Due to the growing expansion of the energy market, especially in the solar energy segment, it became necessary to implement a regulatory framework that provided legal certainty for the sector. Previously, regulation was based on Normative Resolution 482/2012, which did not offer the necessary legal stability. In light of this context, the National Congress enacted Law No. 14,300/2022, in collaboration with ANEEL, with the purpose of regulating the sector and introducing several modifications to the photovoltaic market. With the enactment of the law, questions arose about the feasibility of installing new photovoltaic plants from 2023, as the legislation imposes a fee on the energy injected into the utility's grid. This study aims to address the changes grounded in legislation regarding energy compensation, highlighting how the values can be calculated. In this study, a quantitative methodological approach was employed, encompassing data collection, analysis, interpretation, and discussion. Field research was conducted with eight companies, which responded to a questionnaire outlining their expectations regarding the market after the law's implementation. To evaluate economic and financial viability, it becomes imperative to conduct a study on potential investments, as it is necessary to establish a minimum appeal rate for the business. This rate represents the minimum required return for the investment project. In the scope of this study, the adopted minimum rate was the Special System for Settlement and Custody (SELIC) rate, currently set at 12.25% by the Monetary Policy Committee (COPOM). Viability is confirmed when the internal rate of return exceeds the selected appeal rate. To analyze economic and financial viability, three cases A, B, and C were examined with local self-consumption of 1,600, 8,300, and 16,600 kWh/month, respectively. For the studied cases, it was found that the payback period is slightly longer, the project's Internal Rate of Return (IRR) is lower than the Minimum Attractive Rate (MAR) when the project value is low, case A. However, this same rate is higher for higher-cost projects, which applies to cases B and C. Given the indicators presented, it is observed that projects B and C should be accepted for demonstrating positive returns. However, even with a negative return, project A may be accepted due to its social, economic, and environmental benefits.