The discrimination continues, just hidden in contract terms instead of price declarations.
En el sector eléctrico peruano, siete generadoras de energía han elevado una voz de protesta contra el operador del sistema COES, acusándolo de eludir —más que cumplir— un fallo del Tribunal Supremo que ordenó eliminar la discriminación en la declaración de costos de gas natural. Lo que está en juego no es solo una disputa técnica sobre tarifas, sino una pregunta más profunda sobre si las instituciones reguladoras pueden reformular el espíritu de una sentencia judicial sin traicionarla. La decisión recae ahora en Osinergmin, árbitro final de un conflicto que pone a prueba la integridad del marco regulatorio energético del país.
- Siete generadoras eléctricas acusan públicamente a COES de haber encontrado una vía alternativa para mantener la discriminación que el Tribunal Supremo declaró inconstitucional en 2019.
- La tensión central radica en que COES habría trasladado el problema: en lugar de manipular las declaraciones de precios —lo que el tribunal prohibió—, ahora excluiría costos de distribución mediante condiciones contractuales, con el mismo efecto distorsionador.
- Las generadoras denuncian que COES aplica criterios asimétricos e injustificados: los costos de suministro se incluyen tal como se incurren, los de transporte se excluyen temporalmente y los de distribución se excluyen de forma permanente, sin base legal alguna.
- COES invoca el principio de 'confianza legítima' para justificar una transición gradual, pero las generadoras replican que dicho principio no puede amparar prácticas que el propio Tribunal Supremo calificó de abusivas.
- Las generadoras exigen que Osinergmin rechace la propuesta de COES y adopte sin demora el marco original presentado por la propia dirección ejecutiva de COES el 4 de febrero, alineado con el mandato judicial.
Siete generadoras eléctricas peruanas —entre ellas Celepsa, Fenix Power, Statkraft Perú y Termochilca— han rechazado públicamente una propuesta regulatoria del operador del sistema COES, calificándola de "decepcionante" y acusando a las autoridades del sector de incumplir su deber de garantizar un mercado transparente y eficiente.
El conflicto tiene su origen en un fallo del Tribunal Supremo de 2019 que declaró inconstitucional la práctica de permitir que algunos participantes del mercado declararan costos de gas distintos a los realmente incurridos. El tribunal ordenó al Ministerio de Energía reescribir las normas que rigen cómo las plantas térmicas reportan sus precios de gas natural.
Sin embargo, las generadoras alegan que COES no ha cumplido el espíritu de esa sentencia, sino que ha desplazado el problema. En lugar de modificar las declaraciones de precios —lo que el tribunal exigió—, la propuesta de COES excluiría los costos de distribución de los gastos operativos que las plantas deben reportar, confundiendo una 'condición' contractual con una 'obligación' real. El resultado práctico sería el mismo: algunos generadores podrían seguir ocultando sus costos verdaderos, perpetuando la discriminación que el tribunal buscó eliminar.
Las generadoras también cuestionan que COES invoque el principio de 'confianza legítima' para justificar una transición gradual hacia el nuevo sistema, argumentando que dicho principio presupone buena fe por parte de los regulados, no el abuso de normas que el propio Tribunal Supremo ya condenó.
Ante esta situación, las siete empresas han pedido a Osinergmin —el regulador con autoridad final para aprobar cualquier nueva normativa— que rechace la propuesta de COES y adopte en su lugar el marco original que la propia dirección ejecutiva de COES presentó el 4 de febrero, sin modificaciones ni demoras adicionales. La decisión de Osinergmin determinará si el mandato judicial se cumple en su integridad o si encuentra acomodo en una reinterpretación que, según las generadoras, lo vacía de contenido.
Seven electricity generators in Peru have publicly rejected a regulatory proposal from COES, the country's grid operator, arguing it violates a Supreme Court ruling meant to eliminate discriminatory practices in how natural gas costs are declared for thermal power plants.
The generators—Celepsa, Empresa de Generación Huallaga, Fenix Power, Statkraft Perú, Termochilca, Parque Eólico Tres Hermanas, and Huaura Power Group SA—issued a statement calling the COES proposal "disappointing" and accusing Peru's electricity authorities of failing their basic duty to regulate the market with transparency and efficiency. At the heart of their complaint is a Supreme Court decision from 2019 that explicitly found no objective or reasonable justification for allowing some market participants to declare gas costs different from what they actually incurred. The court ordered the Energy Ministry to rewrite the rules governing how thermal generators report natural gas prices.
But COES, in its proposal to the electricity regulator Osinergmin, appears to have found a workaround. Rather than changing how prices are declared—which is what the court ordered—the generators allege that COES is now excluding distribution costs from the operational expenses that plants must report. The generators argue this conflates a contractual "condition" with an actual "obligation," and in doing so, perpetuates the very discrimination the court sought to eliminate. They point out that COES treats three cost categories differently: supply costs are included as incurred, transport costs are excluded only in a temporary regime, and distribution costs are excluded permanently. None of this, the generators say, has legal foundation.
The generators also challenge COES's invocation of the legal principle of "legitimate confidence"—the idea that regulatory rules cannot change abruptly without a transition period. COES appears to be using this doctrine to justify maintaining the old system temporarily. But the generators counter that this principle assumes good faith on the part of regulated parties, not abuse of the rules. The Supreme Court itself, they note, found the original system constituted such abuse and declared it unconstitutional.
What troubles the generators most is that COES seems to have simply relocated the problem. Instead of manipulating the market through price declarations, as the court prohibited, COES is now proposing to manipulate it through the contractual terms of transport and distribution agreements. The effect is the same—some generators can still hide their true costs—but the mechanism has shifted. This, the generators argue, is precisely what the Supreme Court ordered corrected.
The generators are calling on Osinergmin, which has final authority to approve any new regulation, to reject the COES proposal and instead adopt the original framework that COES's own executive direction submitted on February 4th. They want no delays, no further modifications. The decision now rests with Osinergmin, which must weigh whether to accept COES's reinterpretation of the court ruling or enforce what the generators and the court itself intended.
Citações Notáveis
The generators called the COES proposal 'disappointing' and accused authorities of failing their duty to regulate with transparency and efficiency.— Seven electricity generators (Celepsa, Fenix Power, Statkraft Perú, and others)
The generators argued that COES is 'proposing that the market continue to be manipulated, now through contractual conditions rather than price declarations'—exactly what the court ordered corrected.— The seven generators in their statement
A Conversa do Hearth Outra perspectiva sobre a história
Why does it matter how generators declare their gas costs? Isn't that just accounting?
Because it determines what they can charge for electricity. If you can declare costs you didn't actually incur, you can inflate your prices and pocket the difference. The court found that some generators were doing exactly that.
And COES is trying to let them keep doing it, just differently?
That's what the generators are saying. COES can't change the price declaration rules—the court forbade it. So instead, COES is proposing to exclude certain costs from what counts as "incurred," which achieves the same result through the back door.
Why would COES do that? Don't they work for the public?
COES operates the grid, but it's made up of representatives from generators, distributors, and others. There are competing interests. The court's ruling threatened some players' profits, so there's pressure to find ways around it.
Can Osinergmin just reject this proposal?
Yes. That's why the generators are appealing directly to them. Osinergmin is the regulator—they have the authority to say no and demand COES follow the court order as written.
What happens if Osinergmin approves COES anyway?
Then the court ruling becomes meaningless. The discrimination continues, just hidden in contract terms instead of price declarations. The generators would likely challenge it again in court.