{"id":6137,"date":"2026-01-29T23:02:25","date_gmt":"2026-01-30T02:02:25","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.jdf.cl\/?p=6137"},"modified":"2026-01-29T23:02:25","modified_gmt":"2026-01-30T02:02:25","slug":"modificacion-a-la-ley-general-de-servicios-electricos-mediante-norma-en-ley-de-reajuste-al-sector-publico","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/jdf.cl\/en\/modificacion-a-la-ley-general-de-servicios-electricos-mediante-norma-en-ley-de-reajuste-al-sector-publico\/","title":{"rendered":"AMENDMENT TO THE GENERAL ELECTRICITY SERVICES LAW THROUGH A PROVISION IN THE PUBLIC SECTOR WAGE ADJUSTMENT LAW"},"content":{"rendered":"
    \n
  1. Context: A risky precedent and a disruption to the remuneration regime of the distribution sector<\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

    On January 21, 2026, the National Congress approved the bill granting the general wage adjustment for public sector employees for 2026, dispatching the corresponding bill to the Executive. During its legislative process, an additional provision was introduced by way of a parliamentary amendment, imposing new and burdensome obligations on electricity distribution companies.<\/p>\n

    This provision was incorporated into a bill whose purpose and legislative debate should have been strictly limited to regulating the patrimonial and labor conditions of public servants\u2014namely wage adjustments, benefits, and allowances. However, a provision unrelated to those matters was abruptly added, without sufficient technical debate, and with the potential to significantly alter the regulatory framework applicable to the electricity distribution sector.<\/p>\n

    Specifically, Article 102 of the bill, in its first paragraph, provides:<\/p>\n

    \u201cElectricity distribution companies must ensure that customer service is provided by human personnel when so requested by the customer in telephone and electronic interactions. The exclusive use of automated systems for customer service shall be prohibited in cases of inquiries, complaints, and requests for information. Companies shall be required to ensure the availability of personalized service within a maximum period of five minutes from the start of the interaction.<\/em><\/p>\n

    Non-compliance with these provisions shall be sanctioned in accordance with Title IV of Law No. 18.410 (Superintendence of Electricity and Fuels), for each verified infringement, without prejudice to the obligation to implement the corrective measures necessary to ensure compliance with this rule.<\/em><\/p>\n

    El incumplimiento de estas disposiciones ser\u00e1 sancionado conforme al T\u00edtulo IV de la Ley N\u00b0 18.410 de la Superintendencia de Electricidad y Combustibles, por cada infracci\u00f3n comprobada, sin perjuicio de la obligaci\u00f3n de implementar las medidas correctivas necesarias para garantizar el cumplimiento de esta norma. <\/em><\/p>\n

    The costs associated with the implementation and compliance with this provision may not, under any circumstances, be passed on to the customer.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n

    The amendment lacks precision on several formal and substantive points. By way of example, the new paragraphs are incorporated into Article 133 of the General Electricity Services Law (LGSE), a provision that regulates energy supply bidding processes\u2014an area entirely unrelated to the customer service obligations imposed on distribution companies.<\/p>\n

    Likewise, as evidenced by the wording of the final paragraph, the provision seeks to prevent distribution companies from \u201cpassing on\u201d the costs of the new obligation to customers. This approach overlooks the fact that distribution companies are subject to maximum regulated tariffs that already reflect the efficient costs of providing the service under the applicable regulatory framework. In the electricity distribution model, companies do not have the ability to directly pass costs on to customers at will.<\/p>\n

    Although not expressly stated, if the intention is to exclude these costs from being recognized in the model company used for tariff setting, the imposition of new quality-of-service obligations without tariff recognition prevents such costs from being properly internalized. This may generate a systemic imbalance in the remuneration scheme applicable to distribution services.<\/p>\n

    Beyond its economic impact and the evident shortcomings in legislative technique, the incorporation of this type of provision raises serious institutional concerns. Validating the insertion of sector-specific regulations into public sector wage adjustment laws could set a dangerous precedent, allowing complex regulatory frameworks to be modified without the technical analysis and deliberation required in a highly regulated industry.<\/p>\n

      \n
    1. Breach of the legislative procedure and lack of connection with the core purpose of the bill<\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

      The core purpose (\u201cideas matrices\u201d) of the bill, as reflected in its message and in the prior negotiations with the Public Sector Roundtable, is exclusively to regulate the State\u2019s patrimonial relationship with its employees, establishing wage adjustments, bonuses, and labor benefits. In contrast, Article 102 of the wage adjustment law imposes significant obligations on electricity distribution companies, giving rise to potential grounds of unconstitutionality.<\/p>\n

      Indeed, its inclusion constitutes an addition wholly unrelated to the fundamental purpose of the bill, infringing the prohibition set forth in Article 69 of the Constitution, which requires thematic coherence between the provisions incorporated and the subject matter of the bill under discussion. This not only undermines the coherence of the legislative process, but also affects the minimum guarantees of democratic deliberation and technical debate that must precede sector-specific regulation.<\/p>\n

       <\/p>\n