The Mining and Energy Planning Unit (UPME) put out for consultation the draft resolution that defined the applicable procedure for assigning transport capacity to projects with obligations to the system or with completed environmental procedures.
The initiative regulated CREG Resolution 101 094 of 2025 and established filing windows, strict deadlines and an electrical evaluation with a ten-year horizon.
The new scheme directly impacts projects awarded in the Reliability Charge auctions , particularly looking ahead to 2029-2030, years in which projected demand and uncertainty about FPO compliance required greater coordination between generation and grid.
According to Hemberth Suárez Lozano , lawyer for OGE ENERGY, the S procedure seeks to resolve the inefficiency and slowness in the allocation of transport capacity for energy generation projects .
Furthermore, he maintained that the aim was "to provide clarity and certainty regarding the technical criteria in the evaluation, and to ensure that the evaluations are not surreptitious but transparent."
One of the central points was whether the new model ensured that the awarded projects could connect in a timely manner and meet their firm energy obligations.
Regarding this, the executive stated that it improves the odds.
He explained that the scheme "establishes windows, deadlines and clear criteria for the filing, evaluation and allocation of capacity, prioritizing projects with acquired obligations.
However, he introduced a key warning: The allocation is conditional upon technical feasibility and the execution of works necessary to remove restrictions on the network .
Indeed, the draft contemplated an iterative process that included review of basic and complementary information, issuance of technical comments and eventual approval or denial of the connection concept, with a maximum term of five months from the formal filing.
The connection concept was only approved if the proposed work eliminated the identified restrictions and did not generate new impacts on the National Interconnected System.
Furthermore, the FPO of the project was subject to the entry into operation of the associated infrastructure, requiring that the connection substation operate at least three months before the plant.
This design explicitly acknowledged the possibility of denying transport capacity.
Faced with that scenario, Suárez Lozano stated that this scenario is possible, but that its probability of occurrence is very low .
The refusal was carried out if the technical evaluation concluded that the work did not eliminate the restrictions or generated new limitations in the network.
From a financial perspective, the new framework introduced an element of regulatory certainty.
According to OGE ENERGY's lawyer, "the existence of clear procedures and criteria can give financiers greater certainty about the steps and requirements to obtain transport capacity, which is positive for financial closure."
For structuring banks and infrastructure funds, defining concrete milestones reduced regulatory risk, although it maintained the technical risk linked to expansion works.
Coordination with auctions and risks towards 2029-2030The context of the draft responded to the need to expedite capacity allocation in a scenario where UPME warned of demand pressures towards 2029 and 2030.
In that context, coordination between auctions and the network acquired strategic relevance.
Suárez Lozano considered that greater coordination between the auction schedule and the actual availability of transport capacity would be advisable .
A closer articulation allowed S to reduce the risk of awarding obligations to projects that will not be able to connect on time ," as well as S to optimize the planning of network expansion and reinforcement works .
He also warned that this coordination helped S avoid systemic risks of non-compliance in the critical years (2029-2030) .
The signal was clear: the expansion of generation had to advance in parallel with the expansion of transmission and distribution.
The draft also introduced individual validations of constraints, joint systemic analysis of viable projects, and the possibility of unifying works when they shared common limitations.
With this, the regulator sought to strengthen technical transparency and avoid discretion in the allocation.
In summary, the new procedure would not eliminate the risk of connection, but would regulate it under explicit rules.
Prioritize projects with obligations, establish defined deadlines, and condition capacity on verifiable technical solutions.
Looking ahead to the second half of the decade, the discussion shifted from just how much generation capacity is allocated to focusing on how much of that capacity can be connected in a timely manner without compromising the security of the system.