The Evolution of the Benchmarking Methodology Data Envelopment Analysis - DEA in the Cost Regulation of the Brazilian Electric Power Transmission Sector: a critical look at the renewal of concessions

Lopes, Ana Lúcia Miranda; Mesquita, Roberto de Barros; Lambertucci, Matheus; Lara, José Edson

doi:10.1590/0104-530X3940-20

Acessibilidade / Reportar erro

Brasil

Español English

sumário « anterior atual seguinte »

Sumário

ORIGINAL ARTICLES • Gest. Prod. 27 (1) • 2020 • https://doi.org/10.1590/0104-530X3940-20 copy

The Evolution of the Benchmarking Methodology Data Envelopment Analysis - DEA in the Cost Regulation of the Brazilian Electric Power Transmission Sector: a critical look at the renewal of concessions

A Evolução da Metodologia de Benchmarking Data Envelopment Analysis – DEA na Regulação de Custos do Setor de Transmissão de Energia Elétrica Brasileiro: um olhar crítico na renovação das concessões

Authorship SCIMAGO INSTITUTIONS RANKINGS

Abstract:

In 2012, the Federal Government announced a reduction of around 18% of the electric energy tariff going to the consumer. It was up to the National Electric Energy Agency (ANEEL) to create a model that led to the reduction projected by the authorities. To reach this level, the Ministry of Mines and Energy proposed that the electric power transmission concessions be renewed in advance, according to new rules (MP 579/2012 and Law 12.783/2013). An important part of the new rules was the calculation of efficient operational cost through Data Envelopment Analysis - DEA, a methodology already used by ANEEL in two tariff reviews. The objective of this article was to study the evolution of the efficient operational cost calculation models adopted at these times. This analysis showed that ANEEL still needs to promote improvements in the modeling to better represent the operational reality of the concessionaires and eradicate the need for adjustments that reduce the reliability and transparency of the process.

Keywords:
Tariff regulation; Benchmarking; DEA; Efficient costs; ANEEL; Power transmission

Constant Returns to Scale - CRS	Variable Returns to Scale- VRS
$\begin{array}{l} M i n θ_{0} \\ s . t . \\ \sum_{j = 1}^{n} {λ_{r j}}_{} y_{r j} \geq y_{r 0}, r=1,.., s \\ \sum_{j = 1}^{n} {λ_{r j}}_{} x_{r j} \leq {θ x}_{r 0}, i=1,.., m \\ λ_{r j} \geq 0 \end{array}$ (1)	$\begin{array}{l} M i n θ_{0} \\ s . t . \\ \sum_{j = 1}^{n} {λ_{r j}}_{} y_{r j} \geq y_{r 0}, r=1,.., s \\ \sum_{j = 1}^{n} {λ_{r j}}_{} x_{r j} \leq {θ x}_{r 0}, i=1,.., m \\ \sum_{j = 1}^{n} {λ_{r j}}_{} = 1 \\ λ_{r j} \geq 0 \end{array}$ (2)

Product to be represented	Product variable
Transmission Lines	Network Length (km)
Maneuver Modules	Sum of Modules: EL, CT and IB
Equipment Modules	Number of Transformers
Equipment Modules	Transformation Capacity (MVA)

Estimated Parameters
Companies	2005 %	2004 %	2003 %	Median	Normalized Median
COPEL	93	81	100	93	100
CEMIG	69	91	89	89	99
CEEE	70	75	85	75	94
CHESF	75	73	91	75	93
ELETROSUL	73	71	81	73	93
FURNAS	55	65	71	65	90
CTEEP	43	43	50	43	82
ELETRONORTE	34	36	41	36	80

Companies	DEA score 1st stage %	Final result DEA 2nd stage %
CTEEP	100	100
COPEL	100	95
CEEE	73	73
ELETROSUL	53	68
CEMIG	70	66
FURNAS	51	64
ELETRONORTE	22	55
CHESF	55	44

Inputs	OPEX	Personnel Accounts, Materials, Third Party Services, Insurance, Taxes and Others
Products	Transmission lines	Network Length (Km) - 600 to 765kV
		Length of Network (Km) - 440 to 525kV
		Network Length (Km) - 325kV
		Network Length (Km) - 230kV
		Network Length (Km) - 138kV
		Network Length (Km) - 69 to 88kV
	Maneuver Modules	Sum of Modules: EL, CT and IB
	Equipment Modules	Number of Transformers
	Equipment Modules	Transformation Capacity (MVA)

Company	Efficiency score (%)	Company	Efficiency score (%)	Company	Efficiency score (%)
CEEE	58.3	COPEL	45.5	ELETROSUL	46.9
CEMIG	61.5	CTEEP	96.0	FURNAS	39.3
CHESF	36.7	ELETRONORTE	26.7

Company	Efficiency achieved by DEA (%)	Quality adjustment (%)	Final efficiency score (%)
CEEE	58.3	19	77.30
CEMIG	61.5	29	90.50
CHESF	36.7	19	55.70
COPEL	45.5	39	84.50
CTEEP	96.0	39	135.0
ELETRONORTE	26.7	19	45.70
ELETROSUL	46.9	49	95.90
FURNAS	39.3	10	49.30

Variables		Average	Standard deviation	Minimum	Maximum
Operational cost (R$)		440,323,129.0	315,156,665.1	100,991,372.7	1,185,290,053.8
MVA Power		31,007	25,058	7,160	86,948
Nº of Modules		1,056.4	646.9	324	2,435
Nº of Transformers		279.9	167.0	80	601
Network Extension	69 to 88kV	246.1	350.4	0	1,099
	138kV	1,925.4	2,933.0	0	9,423
	230kV	4,294.5	3,904.3	757	13,472
	440 to 525kV	3,138.6	2,113.2	0	6,305
	345kV	1,133.9	2,062.7	0	6,221
	600 to 765kV	759.2	2,005.7	0	5,922

Volts (kV)	Extension of transmission lines (km)
Volts (kV)	CEEE	CEMIG	CHESF	COPEL	CTEEP	Eletro- norte	Eletro- Sul	Furnas	Total
69-88	227 3.94%	0	325 1.67%	13 0.68%	1,099 5.81%	248 2.71%	24 0.24%	0	1,936 2.13%
138	760 13.20%	0	572 2.93%	138 7.25%	9,423 49.84%	366 4.00%	1,828 18.37%	2,149 10.36%	15,236 16.78%
230	4,772 82.85%	768 15.56%	13,472 69.13%	1,596 83.82%	1,364 7.21%	5,295 57.94%	5,135 51.61%	1,883 9.09%	34,285 37.76%
345	0	1,967 40.11%	0	0	715 3.78%	0	0	6,221 29.99%	8,903 9.80%
440-525	0	2,169 44.23%	5,120 26.27%	157. 8.25%	6,305 33.35%	3,230 35.34%	2,962 29.77%	4,572 22.04%	24,515 26.99%
600-765	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	5,922 28.54%	5,922 6.52%
Total	5,759	4,904	19,489	1,904	18,906	9,139	9,949	20,747	90,797

Company	Percentage of adjustment in personnel expenses %
CEEE	2.13
CEMIG	2.14
CHESF	5.51
COPEL	2,13
CTEEP	-19.59
Eletronorte	3.24
Eletrosul	2.13
Furnas	2.27

Company	MVAR Capacitive	%/Total
CEEE	598.2	1.7
CEMIG	1,008.3	2.8
CHESF	4,369.6	12.1
COPEL	311	0.9
CTEEP	3,597.3	10.0
Eletronorte	5,861.06	16.2
Eletrosul	684.4	1.9
Furnas	19,720.8	54.6
Total	36,150.66	100.0

Company	DEA score with capacitive MVAR %	DEA NT Score 383/2012 %	Difference %
CEEE	58.3	58.3	0
CEMIG	61.6	61.6	0
CHESF	36.7	36.7	0
COPEL	45.5	45.5	0
CTEEP	96.0	96.0	0
ELETRONORTE	51.0	26.7	24.3
ELETROSUL	39.3	47.0	-7.7
FURNAS	74.3	39.3	35.0

Company	Scores %	Weights assigned to the Network Product in the DEA Model
Company	Scores %	MVA Power	Xfmr QTty	Modules QTty	600-765 KV	440-525 KV	345 KV	230 KV	138 KV	69-88 KV
CEEE 11	58.30	0	0	5.59E-04	0	0	0	0	0	0
CEMIG11	61.60	0	0	0	1.10E-04	1.10E-04	1.50E-04	1.09E-04	7.38E-05	6.40E-05
CHESF11	36.70	0	0	0	2.00E-05	1.93E-05	1.75E-05	1.91E-05	1.30E-05	1.13E-05
COPEL11	45.50	4.19E-05	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
CTEEP11	96.00	0	0	3.94E-04	0	0	0	0	0	0
ELETRONORTE11	26.7	0	0	0	3.13E-05	3.01E-05	2.74E-05	2.98E-05	2.03E-05	1.76E-05
ELETROSUL11	39.30	0	0	0	4.30E-05	4.23E-05	3.85E-05	4.18E-05	2.85E-05	2.47E-05
FURNAS11	39.30	4.52E-06	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0

Company	Efficiency %	Average PV/RT %	Group	Difference PV/RT %	Quality Adjustment %	Final Efficiency %
ELETROSUL	46.90	0.05	1	-	49.00	95.90
CTEEP	96.00	-0.08	2	0.13	39.00	135.00
COPEL	45.50	-0.11	2	0.16	39.00	84.50
CEMIG	61.50	-0.32	3	0.37	29.00	90.50
CEEE	58.30	-0.53	4	0.58	19.00	77.30
ELETRONORTE	26.70	-0.65	4	0.70	19.00	45.70
CHESF	36.70	-0.78	4	0.83	19.00	55.70
FURNAS	39.30	-1.31	5	1.36	10.00	49.30

Universidade Federal de São Carlos Departamento de Engenharia de Produção , Caixa Postal 676 , 13.565-905 São Carlos SP Brazil, Tel.: +55 16 3351 8471 - São Carlos - SP - Brazil
E-mail: gp@dep.ufscar.br

Acompanhe os números deste periódico no seu leitor de RSS

[1] Source: NT nº 182/2007 - SRE/ANEEL (ANEEL, 2007bAgência Nacional de Energia Elétrica – ANEEL. (2007b). Nota Técnica 182/2007, de 22 de junho de 2007. Benchmarking dos Custos Operacionais das Concessionárias de Transmissão de Energia Elétrica. Brasília: ANEEL. Retrieved in 2015, October 28, from http://www.aneel.gov.br
http://www.aneel.gov.br... ).

$1.05 \leq \frac{u_{(600 - 765)}}{u_{(230)}} \leq 1.57$	u_(600-765)>=1.05 u₍₂₃₀₎ u_(600-765) <=1.57 u₍₂₃₀₎	(1)
$1.01 \leq \frac{u_{(440 - 525)}}{u_{(230)}} \leq 1.51$	u_(440-525)>=1.01 u₍₂₃₀₎ u_(440-525)<=1.51 u₍₂₃₀₎	(2)
$0.98 \leq \frac{u_{(345)}}{u_{(230)}} \leq 1.38$	u₍₃₄₅₎>=0.92 u₍₂₃₀₎ u₍₃₄₅₎<=1.38 u₍₂₃₀₎	(3)
$0.68 \leq \frac{u_{(138)}}{u_{(230)}} \leq 1.02$	u₍₁₃₈₎>=0.68 u₍₂₃₀₎ u₍₁₃₈₎<=1.02 u₍₂₃₀₎	(4)
$0.59 \leq \frac{u_{(69 - 88)}}{u_{(230)}} \leq 0.88$	u_(69-88)>=0.59 u₍₂₃₀₎ u_(69-88)<=0.88 u₍₂₃₀₎	(5)