Portuguese 
The minimum capital required by ANP could reach R$ 200 million for fuel producers, accompanied by an audit of the source of funds and identification of the true controller of the company, as part of a regulatory review that also extends to distributors, resellers, and the aviation market.
The proposal affects the entry point for fuel supply. Those intending to operate in sensitive activities will not only need to present technical documentation and facilities; they must also prove adequate financial capacity and explain the origins of the funds used to establish the capital.
The agency’s board approved a public consultation of 45 days on September 4. According to an ANP announcement, six resolutions regulating different sectors will be amended.
The amounts stipulated by law are clear: R$ 1 million for liquid fuel resellers, R$ 10 million for distributors, and R$ 200 million for producers. The scope varies depending on the activity and the applicable resolution.
-
ANP Launches Regulatory Sandbox for Public Consultation with Three Models to Test Rules Before Implementing Them in the Energy Market
-
ANP Approves Differentiated Regulatory Treatment for 74,000 Micro and Small Businesses, Streamlining Inspections to Focus on Higher Risks
-
ANP Seizes Over 14,000 Liters of Gasoline and Diesel in Operation Across 17 Brazilian States; Fines May Reach R$ 5 Million Per Violation
-
Minister Alexandre Silveira Supports Fracking Gas 8 Days Before STJ Ruling; Proposes Oil Companies Bring Onshore Gas Currently Reinjecting into Wells
ANP’s minimum capital gains a layer of traceability
The figure alone does not complete the change. The legislation now requires proof of the origin and legality of the funds contributed, as well as identification of the effective owner of the legal entity. In practice, the agency wants to see who controls and finances the operation.
The draft stipulates that this proof should be provided by an opinion from an independent auditor registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission. It also allows for verification through agreements or cooperation arrangements with banks and public agencies.
This structure aims to tackle formally compliant companies that may hide the origin of capital or the final beneficiary. The fuel market involves significant volume, operates with taxable products, and has an extensive chain from refinery to distributor, transporter, and gas station.
Therefore, financial fragility is not just a private problem. A distributor without sufficient capital can disrupt deliveries, accumulate obligations, and affect resellers. Meanwhile, opaque corporate structures hinder oversight, accountability, and enforcement.
The proposal adapts the rules to the Taxpayer Defense Code, established by Complementary Law No. 225, enacted in January 2026. As the changes stem directly from the law, the ANP has waived a new Regulatory Impact Analysis for this stage.
The resolutions addressed relate to the production of petroleum and gas derivatives, distribution and resale of aviation fuels, automotive resale, distribution of liquid fuels, and production of biofuels. Therefore, the revision impacts a significant portion of national supply.
Two years for adaptation of authorized agents
For companies that already have authorization, the draft provides a two-year period to meet the requirements. The exception is for liquid fuel distributors, whose resolution already includes a transition rule related to capital.
This interval seeks to balance two risks. If the requirement takes effect all at once, agents may exit the market and jeopardize supply. If it takes too long, fragile or non-transparent structures remain exposed for an extended period.
For small retailers, R$ 1 million (about US$180,000) is a significant barrier. It can professionalize entry into the market but also increases the costs of formalization. The public consultation should specifically gather arguments regarding proportionality, deadlines, and documentation.
On the other hand, R$ 200 million (about US$36 million) for producers aligns with the scale of industrial facilities, inventory, safety, and environmental responsibility. Even so, social capital should not be confused with cash on hand, nor does it guarantee good management by itself.
This is a point worth noting: integrated capital serves as a filter, not as a certificate of integrity. Quality control, volume, taxes, competition, and safety will still be necessary after authorization.
Independent audits add recurring costs and require organized documentation. Family-owned businesses or those with outdated structures will need to review corporate records, beneficiaries, transfers, and banking proofs before presenting the report.
New distributors and producers must incorporate this expense into their business plan. Investors who previously focused only on installations and profit margins now need to consider financial governance as a requirement for entry and longevity in the market.
Consultation Will Define How the Rule Enters the Market
The draft and participation procedures will be published following the notice in the Official Gazette. From then on, companies, associations, and consumers will be able to review the text and make contributions during the 45-day period.
The consultation does not mean that the values are open for discussion, as they stem from the law. However, operational aspects can be discussed: accepted documents, format of the report, update timelines, and treatment of corporate reorganizations.
It will also be important to avoid duplication. A company that already submits information to banks, the Securities and Exchange Commission (CVM), or another body should not repeat the same proof in incompatible formats. Data cooperation can reduce costs without diminishing control.
For consumers, the change will initially be invisible at the pump. The expected effect will manifest in a market with more identifiable and financially structured agents. This could reduce the space for precarious operations, although it does not guarantee lower prices.
Looking at it this way, the proposal is not just a capital table. It connects money, corporate control, and regulatory authorization. ANP now requires that financial capacity be accompanied by demonstrable origins.
The outcome will depend on the final wording and subsequent enforcement. A strict rule on paper loses value if documents are not verified; overly bureaucratic requirements could concentrate the market without addressing those who employ illicit structures.
The next steps will be publishing the draft, the consultation, and the public hearing. Until then, agents can map capital, partners, and proofs to gauge the distance between their current situation and the proposed standard.
The agency will also be responsible for explaining how to treat economic groups, changes in control, and capital formed by assets, not just cash. The more objective this guidance is, the less documentation disputes there will be, and the greater the chance for oversight to focus on genuinely questionable cases.
The public participation phase will be an opportunity to turn such doubts into documented contributions. After this phase, the approved version should clearly indicate who verifies, when the submission is made, and what consequences arise from insufficient information.
Do you think the new minimum capital requirement will strengthen the fuel market or excessively diminish competition?
