Nuestros Derechos al Futuro y Medio Ambiente Sano and CEMDA v. Energy Regulatory Commission (CRE)

In July 2023, two NGOs (Nuestros Derechos al Futuro y Medio Ambiente Sano, A.C. and Centro Mexicano de Derecho Ambiental) filed a lawsuit against the Energy Regulatory Commission (Comisión Reguladora de Energía or CRE), challenging the “Resolution No. A/018/2023 of the Energy Regulatory Commission, which updates the reference values of the methodologies for calculating the efficiency of electric energy cogeneration systems and the criteria for determining efficient cogeneration, as well as the efficiency criteria and calculation methodology for determining the percentage of fuel-free energy established in Resolutions RES/003/2011, RES/206/2014, RES/291/2012 and RES/1838/2016, respectively”. Essentially, the challenged resolution allows to consider as clean energy a fraction of the electricity generated by fossil gas-fired combined cycle power plants, “relaxing” the criteria for efficient cogeneration and the definition of fuel-free electricity generation. The organizations argue that this agreement violated the right to a healthy environment, because it promotes the use of fossil fuels to generate energy that can be classified as "clean". The consequence of the agreement is that the percentage of clean energy generated in Mexico will falsely increase, but greenhouse gas emissions will not be reduced. In addition, it is argued that this measure is regressive, since it eliminates the incentive to promote the generation of renewable energy and to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. These modifications encourage the oil industry to continue generating electricity, halting the energy transition in Mexico. On July 21, 2023, the First District Court in Administrative Matters Specialized in Antitrust, Broadcasting and Telecommunications denied the requested injunction to suspend the effects of the contested resolution. On August 2023, the plaintiffs appealed the Court’s decision to deny the injunction. On May 16, 2024, the Collegiate Court confirmed the Court’s decision to deny the injunction. On March 14, 2025, the District Court dismissed the case, because the Court considered that the plaintiffs did not prove that the challenged norms are unconstitutional. The Court considered the plaintiffs did not prove that the challenged norms would cause an increase on GHG emissions, and therefore did not violate the right to a healthy environment. On April 4, 2025, the plaintiffs filed an appeal. The appeal is pending resolution by the appellate Collegiate Court.