Brazilian states have begun mobilizing at the Supreme Federal Court (STF) to reinforce challenges against the National Oil, Natural Gas and Biofuels Agency’s (ANP) legal authority to classify gas pipelines, joining the case as interested third parties. The dispute centers on a draft ANP resolution that proposes technical criteria—such as pressure and diameter thresholds—to determine whether a pipeline should be treated as part of the transportation system, which falls under federal jurisdiction, or as distribution infrastructure, which is regulated by the states. State governments and local regulatory agencies argue that this federal initiative intrudes on their constitutional powers over the distribution of piped natural gas and could amount to a form of “regulatory expropriation” of state-level assets. In their view, sections of pipeline currently classified as distribution could be reclassified as transportation, shifting oversight away from the states and potentially altering the regulatory and economic balance of the sector.
This movement unfolds within the context of ADI 7862, filed by Abegás, which asks the STF to strike down as unconstitutional the provision of the New Gas Law (Law 14,134/2021) that granted ANP the power to classify pipelines. The case is under the reporting justice Edson Fachin, who is also responsible for a related dispute brought by São Paulo’s regulator Arsesp and the state government against ANP, involving the Subida da Serra pipeline operated by Comgás. That pipeline has become emblematic because it illustrates the conflict between federal and state regulation over networks that connect industrial hubs to trunk gas pipelines.
Among the states’ main arguments is the risk of retroactivity. They say the ANP proposal could be applied back to 2021, affecting existing projects and concession contracts already in force. Abegás estimates that such retroactive application could impact roughly 935 km of pipelines currently treated as distribution assets, with direct consequences for ICMS tax revenue, for regional network-expansion planning, and for state autonomy in organizing concession services granted to local distribution companies. ANP, on the other hand, argues that any retroactive effect would be supported by the New Gas Law itself, which preserved earlier classifications only until the law’s publication in April 2021. The agency also maintains that a uniform technical definition is necessary to provide legal certainty to the New Gas Market and to avoid regulatory fragmentation across the country.
At its core, the clash combines a federative dispute with substantial economic implications and potential effects on investment and competition. If the STF accepts the states’ position, ANP would lose part of its national coordinating role over gas infrastructure and classification would remain more firmly anchored in state regulation. If the federal view prevails, regulatory centralization will expand, with possible reordering of assets and state revenues, and a reshaping of how new projects are structured.
Photo: Canva
