Enel São Paulo Defends Against Contract Cancellation
Enel São Paulo defends against contract cancellation, citing improvements in service quality and investments
The Enel São Paulo company has presented its final arguments in a process that may result in the cancellation of its concession contract. The company defends that the case should be deemed groundless, considering the questions raised about various points throughout the process and the evaluation that there is an anti-isonomic treatment dispensed to the distributor in relation to other concessionaires. The company also cites the disproportionality of the measure.
Background
The Enel São Paulo company has been facing a process that may result in the cancellation of its concession contract due to issues with service quality and investments. However, the company argues that it has made significant improvements since 2023, including a reduction of 50% in the indicator of Average Emergency Attendance Time, 88% in the percentage of interruptions over 24 hours, and 66% in the number of customers interrupted for more than 24 hours.
Improvements and Investments
The company also states that it has increased its investments by 73% and personnel, labor, and services allocated to distribution by 31%. This reinforcement is associated with the improvement in operational indicators. The company suggests that instead of canceling the contract, a new plan with defined indicators and objective targets should be determined, as well as the adoption of other less severe measures.
Criticisms and Next Steps
The company's document also presents harsh criticisms of what it considers to be flaws in the process, including the closure of the instruction phase while the analysis of a recourse protocol by Enel regarding the request for an independent and multidisciplinary technical expertise remains pending. The Enel argues that this would be a restriction of defense. The topic will be discussed by the board of directors next Monday.
Expert Opinion
According to Tiago de Barros Correia, former director of the Aneel and Enel consultant in the process, the company is being punished for not responding adequately in emergency situations during extreme weather events. However, he considers that the regulator calculated metrics for these cases in a superficial manner and should have recognized that the process in question reflected a new situation related to climate change. Correia defends the need for the Aneel to evaluate the greater public interest and benefit, which is not provided for in the process.
