To Cade, Petrobras denies abusive or discriminatory conduct

In a letter to the Administrative Council for Economic Defense (Where ), a Petrobras raised questions about a response from the Agência Nacional do Petróleo, Gás Natural e Biocombustíveis (ANP), in which a list of lawsuits filed against the company was presented, in conflicts over access to infrastructure for the movement of fuels, such as the use of pipelines.

The document was presented in one of the inquiries being carried out at Cade, opened in January after the news of an increase in the prices of fuels , to investigate the alleged abuse of the company’s dominant position in the market. This specifically addresses possible effects on competition for imports, after an audit on the refining market.

The second investigation cites the news of the readjustment as one of the elements for opening the investigation. The final opinion on the investigations, which should come out in the second half of the year, is seen by members of the government Jair Bolsonaro as a loophole to change Petrobras’ pricing policy, according to the findings of analysts at Petrobras. CNN Renata Agostini and Thais Arbex.

Within the scope of the refining market, Petrobras pointed out to Cade that the ANP was not limited to the requested time scope, starting in January 2019. The agency included two processes prior to that date.

The first, from 2017, shows a company that requests “action and, if necessary, intervention” from the ANP to gain access to pipelines, after allegedly being denied access by the ANP. transpetro a subsidiary of Petrobras.

The second, from 2018, points out that Transpetro would not have satisfied the use of oil pipelines, “causing imbalances between the interested agents and a potential damage to market supply”.

“The ANP did not present any information that justified the broader time frame that it adopted”, says Petrobras in the letter sent to Cade.

“The ANP did not limit itself to reporting processes that deal with requests for access to the infrastructure – it also presented demands that deal with requests for interconnection and handling fees”, he added.

Petrobras also stated that it “calls attention” that the ANP stuck to the motivation of the processes, but failed to include important information for Cade’s analysis.

“If the ANP considered it relevant to extrapolate the requests of the SG/Cade in relation to the time frame and the object of the complaints made, it would have been coherent to include in its response elements on the outcome of the aforementioned processes – even if this information, important for the completeness of the answers presented, have not been requested by the SG/Cade”, says the document.

The state-owned company declared that, in this context, it decided to present data that it “understands to be fundamental” about the five processes cited by the agency.

Regarding the two from 2017 and 2018, in the first, the company declared that it made improvements to the free access system, while in the second, it stated that the ANP itself said it had no way of intervening and that it did not understand it as a discriminatory action.

Petrobras also listed that the requests for access to infrastructure for fuel handling taken to the ANP “correspond to the unrepresentative portion of the demands made to Transpetro – more than 90% of the requests are met. The demands brought to the ANP deal with extraordinary situations, supported by legitimate commercial or circumstantial justifications”.

The Brazilian company also highlights that there was no decision by the ANP against it and questioned that the agency, during a public consultation on non-discriminatory access to waterway terminals for the movement of oil and derivatives, did not accept the suggestion of sector agents of a Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA).

“The AIR would have been an opportunity to change the regulation of third-party access to infrastructure and obtain a more profitable result – with greater scope – than an eventual intervention by the Competition Authority”, he argued.

THE CNN contacted the ANP about the surveys carried out by Petrobras and is awaiting a response.

Expectation for the end of the surveys

Despite CADE stating that it is not responsible for inspecting prices and services, but for the functioning of markets and the prevention of practices that could harm the competitive environment, the body’s opinion on Petrobras is seen as a strategy for a future change in the pricing policy – ​​today, parity is with the international market.

According to analysts at CNN Renata Agostini and Thais Arbex, sources consulted in a reserved character, stated that this is a bet of the Ministry of Economy to increase pressure on Petrobras’ management and find a way to reduce fuel prices even before the elections.

Rumors about the government’s strategy led Petrobras to issue a position statement. The company disclosed that it “does not hold conversations with the Administrative Council for Economic Defense about changes in its pricing policy”.

“The company also informs that it is not aware of any findings of violations to the economic order in the administrative proceedings underway at CADE. Petrobras reiterates its commitment to the practice of competitive prices and in balance with the market, following up and down variations, while avoiding the immediate transfer of volatility to domestic prices”.

In response to Cade after the opening of the two procedures, Petrobras even questioned the reasons for the investigation and argued that Cade’s role as a price regulator was “unsuitable” in both, in official letters registered on January 24.

“Since this is the motivation and objective of the present investigation, it is, in all evidence, an absolutely unusual procedure, in light of the legal attributions of a competition defense body. It would not make any sense, in fact, for Cade to propose to regulate prices in the oil derivatives refining market”, says the company in one of the demonstrations.

“The Brazilian antitrust authority has already had the opportunity to address several complaints involving alleged conduct of abuse of prices practiced by agents holding a dominant position. In all the cases analyzed, the conclusions invariably ended up – quite rightly – by rejecting investigations…”, he declared.