Court Orders Halt on 2021 Electricity Law Reforms
Home > Energy > News Article

Court Orders Halt on 2021 Electricity Law Reforms

Share it!
By MBN Staff | MBN staff - Fri, 07/26/2024 - 11:28

A federal court ruled that the government has not complied with the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation’s (SCJN) ruling to stop applying the 2021 reform to the Electricity Industry Law (LIE). The court emphasized that the ruling must apply to all companies in the electricity sector, not just the six that initially filed complaints, to avoid market distortions.

The SCJN's ruled on Jan. 31 that the seven main articles of the LIE 2021 reform were unconstitutional. Despite this, on April 15, CRE and SENER informed that they would cease applying the reformed version only to the six companies that filed the complaint. Judge Dinorah Hernández Jiménez accepted this proposal, which led to multiple appeals from other companies who argued that the government's actions evaded the highest court's ruling by not extending the effects to the entire Wholesale Electricity Market (MEM).

The Second Collegiate Court Specialized in Economic Competition ruled in disagreement, unanimously revoking Judge Hernández's agreement. The court ordered CRE not to apply specific articles of the LIE reform to both the complainants and all economic agents in the MEM capable of acquiring clean energy certificates. This includes regulations that prioritize contracts with a commitment to physical delivery, preferential dispatch for CFE energy, and the elimination of mandatory auctions by CNEACE for electricity coverage contracts. Furthermore, it prohibits the allocation and dispatch rules allowing CFE to obtain Clean Energy Certificates (CEL) at the expense of new investors.

CRE will revert to applying the LIE regime that existed before the 2021 reform, as implemented during the last administration. The case will return to the court, which is currently on vacation, so Judge Hernández is expected to demand government compliance with the ruling in August. The court has removed the names of the companies involved in the disagreement from its records, as their issue has been resolved under case 7/2024.

You May Like

Most popular

Newsletter