The case was framed in a scenario of regulatory changes that directly affected renewable projects already in progress and, in particular, hybridization as a way to optimize existing facilities. The conflict arose when a hybridization initiative was conditioned by the interpretation and application of regulatory and administrative criteria on access and connection, with direct effects on the viability of the project.

The key technical question was to determine how the proposed action should be classified: whether it was a modification compatible with existing permits or, on the contrary, an expansion (or substantial change) with different requirements. This difference was not merely formal: it implied practical consequences on the continuity of the project, the applicable requirements, and the coherence of the decisions adopted by the intervening agents.

martinsdelima intervened to provide an expert opinion with a dual focus:

(1) technical-economic analysis and refutation of the arguments that prevented hybridization and

(2) construction of a solid framework for quantifying the damage associated with the impossibility of executing the proposed solution (without the need to rely on generic or unverifiable “assumptions”). The objective was to convert a complex debate—half regulatory, half technical—into a clear, verifiable, and defensible explanation.

The methodology combined technical reading of the file (background, requests, communications, and relevant decisions) with a regulatory mapping that lands the requirements actually applicable to hybridization and network access. The analysis was based on the regulations and reference criteria used in this type of procedure—including RDL 23/2020 and Circular 1/2021—to assess whether the regulatory fit and the applied interpretation were consistent with the current framework.

Based on this work, a structured critical analysis was developed: identification of the points of regulatory friction, contrast between what the regulatory framework requires and how it was applied in the case, and construction of a clear causal chain between the administrative interpretation and the practical result (the impossibility of hybridizing). This approach made it possible to precisely separate verifiable facts from debatable interpretations, and to support conclusions with technical and legal logic.

The result was an especially useful and “marketable” report as an experience: an expert piece that integrates regulation + engineering + economics to offer solid and actionable conclusions, reinforce the technical position in the procedure, and provide the legal strategy with robust support. In other words, martinsdelima transformed a complex regulatory problem into a comprehensible, defensible, and technically impeccable narrative, with a coherent quantification framework aligned with the expert standard.