The Third Chamber of the Supreme Court, in a judgment of April 23, 2026 (Docket No. 53,045-2024), rejected the appeals filed against Judgment No. 195 of the Antitrust Court (TDLC), which had ordered Compañía General de Electricidad S.A. (CGE) to pay a fine of 178 UTA for an exploitative abuse of a dominant position.
The ruling resolved two distinct points that should not be confused. First, that in the acquisition of distribution-network assets built by third parties and incorporated into the distributor's network, the price paid could not be lower than the value reported by CGE to the SEC for those assets. Second, that the connection fees charged through a single rate of 0.9 UF per home exceeded the maximum regulated rate during the non-time-barred period analyzed by the TDLC.
Although the judgment does not rule on Small Means of Distributed Generation (PMGD) or on storage projects, it provides relevant arguments to discuss connection charges in regulated electricity markets when the distributor has a dominant position and there is an information asymmetry vis-à-vis the user.
What happened
The case arose from a claim filed by Constructora Independencia S.A. and other companies of the Independencia group before the TDLC (Docket C No. 417-21), accusing CGE of two conducts contrary to art. 3, second paragraph, letter b) of DL No. 211.
The first conduct was the acquisition of network extensions built by third parties at a price lower than the value that the distributor itself had reported to the SEC. The TDLC held that the purchase price had to respond to the "efficient cost," understood as what it would have cost CGE to build those networks under its own standards, and concluded that, in the analyzed projects, CGE should have paid the value reported to the sector regulator. The Supreme Court rejected CGE's appeal on this point.
The second conduct was the charging of connection fees through a single, non-itemized rate of 0.9 UF per home, an amount that exceeded the maximum regulated rate in the non-time-barred period. The TDLC condemned this practice and the Supreme Court confirmed that, together with CGE's dominant position in the electricity-distribution market and its associated services, it constituted an anticompetitive offense for the extraction of rents through abuse of a dominant position.
CGE and the plaintiff companies appealed. The Third Chamber rejected both appeals on April 23, 2026 and left the conviction final. The Court further clarified a point relevant for future cases: the existence of sector regulation and of the Superintendence of Electricity and Fuels (SEC) as the inspecting body does not displace the jurisdiction of the TDLC when the conduct also satisfies the elements of DL No. 211. Antitrust and sector regulation can coexist.
The decision rule can be summarized as follows: the purchase of networks built by third parties cannot be made below the value that the distributor itself reports to the SEC for those assets, and connection fees cannot exceed the rate regulated by the applicable rate decree.
What it may mean for your company
The ruling was issued in a real estate context, not in a PMGD case. That precision is important: the Supreme Court did not set a specific rule on distributed-generation connection works, storage, or the application of the PMGD regime.
That said, the reasoning can indeed be useful for companies that interact with electricity distributors in regulated markets. The Court validated that a controversy technically regulated by the SEC may also have antitrust relevance if a dominant position, charges above the regulatory framework, or a lack of sufficient justification in the applied valuation concur.
From a practical perspective —not directly resolved by the judgment—, this may be especially relevant for holders of PMGD or storage systems when they face connection charges, additional works, or valuations that are not sufficiently itemized. In those scenarios, the ruling does not provide an automatic answer, but it does reinforce the importance of demanding traceability, methodology, and documentary backing.
The gray area is here: the ruling does not determine which cost items make up the efficient cost in distributed-generation connection works, nor does it resolve whether a given PMGD charge constitutes an abuse of a dominant position. That determination will depend on the applicable rate decree, the current sector regulation, the information the distributor provides, and whether the conduct satisfies the elements of art. 3 of DL No. 211.
Before/after: before this ruling, many discussions about valuation and connection charges could be seen mainly as regulatory matters before the SEC. After this ruling, it is clearer that, in certain cases, the antitrust route before the TDLC can be an additional tool, especially when the charge is linked to a dominant position and an unjustified extraction of rents.
Does your PMGD or storage project face connection charges that the distributor does not itemize? Schedule an assessment of the regulatory route before the SEC and the antitrust route before the TDLC for your case.
What you can do
If you are the holder of a PMGD project, a storage project, or another project connected to the distribution network, the practical risk is accepting charges or works without sufficient elements to contrast their justification. Three concrete actions:
- Demand a detailed breakdown of the connection works, fees, or services, with a specification of each cost item and the valuation methodology used. If the distributor delivers a global price without itemization, that may be a relevant element to request clarification or to object, especially if there is an indication of overpricing or abusive treatment.
- Document all communications with the distributor in a formal format, with acknowledgment of receipt and written traceability. If a discrepancy opens up over the charged value, the documentary chain will be key both in the regulatory forum and, eventually, in the antitrust forum.
- Contrast the quoted costs with market values, applicable rate decrees, and comparable references. If the difference is significant and the distributor does not justify it in objective terms, there may be a basis to assess a claim before the SEC and, if the elements of DL No. 211 concur, before the TDLC.
If any of these points raises questions vis-à-vis your distributor, a 30-minute diagnostic session is enough to size up your gaps. Schedule here.
If you need to review the connection contracts of your PMGD project or assess whether the amounts charged by your distributor have sufficient backing, schedule a diagnostic meeting with our team
This content is informational and does not constitute legal advice for a specific case.