Baja California Sur

Veracruz de Ignacio de la Llave

Michoacán de Ocampo

Zacatecas

Nayarit

Campeche

Nuevo León

Chihuahua

Oaxaca

Chiapas

Puebla

Ciudad de México

Querétaro

Coahuila de Zaragoza

Quintana Roo

Colima

Guerrero

Sinaloa

Sonora

Durango

Guanajuato

San Luis Potosí

Hidalgo

Tabasco

Jalisco

Tamaulipas

Tlaxcala

Baja California

México

Yucatán

Morelos

Aguascalientes

Mexico

Generating electricity with 35% clean energy by 2024

Average annual rate of 1.9% reduction in final energy consumption intensity in 2016-2030, and of 3.7% in 2031-2050

Renewable energy to account for 35% of total electricty generation by 2024, 37.7% by 2030, 50% by 2050

Renewable energy sources to account for 35.1% of total energy generation by 2024; 39.9% by 2023, and; 50% by 2050

Transition to a rate of 0% carbon loss in original ecosystems

Renewable energy sources should account for 35% of total energy generation by 2024

Reduction of GHG emissions by 30% by 2020, and by 50% by 2050 against a 2000 baseline

Annual average reduction of energy intensity in final consumption 2.2% between 2020-2035, and 2.5% between 2035-2050.

Target on Clean Energy: 35% by 2024; 39-9% by 2033; and 50% by 2050.




By 2030, Mexico will reduce its total GHG emissions by 22% and will reduce its Black Carbon emissions by 51% compared with a 2000 baseline

Reducing  emissions by 30% by the year 2020 and 50% reduction in emissions by 2050, against a 2000 baseline

30% cut in GHG emission against baseline by 2020 and 50% cut in GHG emission compared to 2000 in 2050

Minimum 35% of electricity from clean energy sources by 2024

Around 35% of electricity generation will come from clean sources by 2020, al least 40% by 2030 and at least 50% by 2050

Forest carbon sinks have a positive balance on sequestration by 2030, compared with negative situation today

On May 7, 2024, the Federal Executive filed an acción de inconstitucionalidad asking the Supreme Court to strike down an amendment made to articles 74 and 75 of the state of Querétaro’s Law that Regulates Drinking Water, Sewage, and Sanitation. The amendment specified that in cases where a person failed to pay for water services for two consecutive periods, the service provider was entitled to restrict water access to “at least 50 liters of water per person”. As context, it is important to note that the state of Querétaro allows private entities to provide water services whenever the state deems it necessary, and private entities prove they can provide equal or better services than local authorities. 

The Federal Executive argued that the limit of 50 liters per person was contrary to the human right to water enshrined in Mexico’s Constitution. It argued that every human being has different needs depending on several factors and that Queretaro’s privatized water service system creates an incentive for providers to supply only the minimum required.

On April 21, 2025, the Supreme Court decided that the articles were constitutional. However, it specified that the limit imposed by the law should not be interpreted uniformly. Instead, since the law specifically said “at least 50 liters” it should be understood that whenever a person needs more water for their daily needs, service providers are bound to give them more than 50 liters. The Court explained that understanding the amendment as a uniform limit would create a disparate impact on certain vulnerable groups that faced socioeconomic hardships. Such could be the case of children, pregnant women, the elderly, people with certain illnesses, or people fasting for religious purposes. Additionally, the Court considered data on the rising temperatures because of climate change in the State of Querétaro and explicitly recognized that a uniform limit of 50 liters per person could trigger a case of environmental and climate injustice. As such, a limit of 50 liters per person should also be adjusted whenever an area of the state faces high temperatures. 

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.

In July 2023, Greenpeace Mexico 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, and the resolution will not allow Mexico to comply with its international climate change obligations.

On July 21, 2023, the Third 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 18, 2023, Greenpeace appealed the Court’s decision to deny the injunction. On April 18, 2024, the Appellate Collegiate Court overturned the Court’s decision and granted the injunction relief. 

On June 22, 2022, Greenpeace Mexico filed a complaint in the District Court in Mexico City against Mexico's new Energy Sector Program for 2022-2036. The complaint alleges that the Program violates human rights - including the right to a healthy environment – because: (i) the electricity policy reflected in the Program does not contemplate the development of a just energy transition strategy that generates wellbeing, reduces the negative social and environmental impacts of the sector, respects and guarantees human rights. In addition, (ii) it delays 13 years the fulfillment of clean energy generation goals and maintains the use of fuels with high social, environmental and climate impact, such as gas, fuel oil and coal, (iii) and finally, it perpetuates negative externalities that end up affecting populations living in highly marginalized conditions. It is also observed in the Program that the generation of electric energy with fossil fuels such as gas and fuel oil is favored and will continue to be favored; this will not allow Mexico to meet its clean energy goals.

On January 24, 2024, the Third District Court in Administrative Matters Specialized in Antitrust, Broadcasting, and Telecommunications decided that Greenpeace did not have legal standing to file the lawsuit, because the Energy Sector Program did not cause the plaintiff a direct, real and current damage. The Court made this decision because it interpreted that the Energy Sector Program is a planning instrument that integrates objectives and strategies with specific actions to be conducted by the Ministry of Energy based on an analysis of the energy sector and sets a series of guidelines, objectives and specific strategies related. These objectives and strategies are indicative, and it is a merely declarative document that does not generate any type of legal obligation, and therefore, it is not an act that affects the plaintiff’s rights. Then, the case was dismissed. 

On February 9, 2024, Greenpeace appealed the Court’s decision. On February 20, 2025, the Collegiate Court confirmed the District Court’s decision and dismissed the case.

Geography

Mexico

Recent cases