Court orders double refund after unjustified increase in solar energy bills, exposing serious failure by the utility company

Published 20/11/2025 às 18:05

The use of solar energy It has grown throughout the country, but cases of irregular charges still worry users of photovoltaic microgenerationIn Mato Grosso, a recent court decision drew attention when it ordered Energisa Mato Grosso to return amounts charged improperly—and in double—after an abrupt increase in a consumer’s bill. In addition, the company was ordered to pay R$ 5 in moral damages.

Unjustified price increase raises alarm and leads to legal action.

The problem began in 2023 when the consumer noticed sudden increases in her bills, despite no change in her consumption patterns or the amount of solar energy injected into the grid. Faced with increasingly high charges and no technical explanation, she sought legal recourse.

The analysis was conducted by the 11th Civil Court of Cuiabá, which recognized a failure in the provision of service. The decision indicated that the concessionaire failed to prove the regular functioning of the metering system or justify the increase in billing. Although it had access to the technical data, the company presented only generic arguments about the legality of the charges.

Reversal of the burden of proof and recognition of poor service.

During the process, the judge applied the reversal of the burden of proof, reinforcing the consumer’s vulnerability. The sentence stated: “The defendant, even when faced with the burden of proving the regularity of the charges, failed to prove the proper functioning of the metering system or that the increase resulted from a fact attributable to the consumer, limiting itself to generic allegations of legality.”

Therefore, the court concluded that the dealership’s conduct cannot be treated as justifiable error. The fact that the company maintained excessive charges even after the legal action reinforced the interpretation that there was bad faith, allowing for the double restitution stipulated by the Consumer Protection Code.

Moral damages are recognized and the request for urgent relief is confirmed.

In addition to the financial losses, the judge highlighted that the situation went beyond “mere annoyances,” considering the essential nature of the electricity service and the long period of uncertainty experienced by the consumer. According to the ruling, “the defendant’s conduct generated more than annoyance, violating the consumer’s peace of mind and dignity, thus establishing the duty to compensate.”

Therefore, compensation of R$ 5 was set, with monetary correction and interest according to legal parameters. The preliminary injunction, which had prevented the suspension of the energy supply during the process, was confirmed definitively. The exact amount of the refund will be determined in the sentence enforcement phase.