Veracruz de Ignacio de la Llave

Colima

Yucatán

Durango

Zacatecas

Guerrero

Guanajuato

Hidalgo

Jalisco

México

Michoacán de Ocampo

Morelos

Nayarit

Nuevo León

Oaxaca

Puebla

Aguascalientes

Querétaro

Baja California

Quintana Roo

Baja California Sur

Sinaloa

Campeche

San Luis Potosí

Chihuahua

Sonora

Chiapas

Tabasco

Ciudad de México

Tamaulipas

Coahuila de Zaragoza

Tlaxcala

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

The Climate Litigation Database

Find climate change litigation data and indicators for {text}.

{text} litigation

Sabin Center for Climate Change Law provides Climate Litigation Database, a comprehensive database of US and Global climate change caselaw

Quickly and easily search through the complete text of thousands of climate change law and policy documents from every country.

Search the Climate Litigation Database

In August 2024, a group of fisherwomen, together with the organization Tsikini A.C. residents from the state of Colima, filed an amparo lawsuit asking for legal protection against various authorities, including the Federal Electricity Commission (CFE), from the damage caused by the Manzanillo Thermoelectric Power Plant (the second largest thermoelectric plant in Mexico, which uses fuel oil and gas), citing the violation of the human right to a healthy environment and health, and the failure to comply with climate commitments.

The lawsuit alleged, among others, lack of access to information on pollutants or data on emissions from the thermoelectric plant and/or their effects; failure to measure hidden externalities, such as human, environmental, and climate health, which are currently causing serious damage; lack of mitigation measures and compliance with environmental and climate laws; destruction of the Cuyutlán lagoon, the fourth most important wetland on the Mexican Pacific coast, and failure to comply with climate commitments resulting from the operation of the thermoelectric plant. 

The lawsuit emphasizes the underlying climate implications of the thermoelectric plant's operation, as its operation represents a failure to comply with the Mexican government's climate policy (targets committed to under the Paris Agreement) and questions the energy transition model followed in the country to date.

On March 2025 the District Court granted an injunction, ordering that the authorities, within the scope of their duties and authority, take the necessary actions to safeguard the complainants' right to a healthy environment and:  i) immediately monitor the natural water reservoir known as Laguna de Cuyutlán and verify whether actions are being taken to protect the ecosystem that comprises it; (ii) examine whether the Thermoelectric Plant located in that locality is complying with environmental regulations and with the process of electricity generation and fuel gas storage, in order to prevent contamination of the water and air in the area covered by the plant; (iii) if they notice that activities are being carried out that are harmful to the environment, they shall issue measures to prevent pollution and achieve the remediation of the lagoon; that is, they must take the necessary measures to control and limit pollutants in the process of storing fuel gas, as well as in the process of generating electricity at the thermoelectric power plant; (iv) grant access to information on pollutants and their impact in a manner accessible to the population of Cuyutlán, which must be done twice a year, so that the appropriate preventive measures can be taken to safeguard their physical integrity. This information must be published in the media or on the website used for this purpose; and (v) provide medical care to the local population who suffer any health problems as a result of the environmental pollution generated by the thermoelectric plant.

The case is pending before the District Court.

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. 

On January, 2023, the plaintiff filed a request to Mexico's Data Protection and Enforcement Agency (INAI) to gain access to Pemex Logistics (part of Mexico's state-owned oil company) Methane Emissions Diagnosis, a document that the entity was required to present before the National Agency for Industrial Security and Environmental Protection in the Hydrocarbon Sector (ASEA) detailing, among other information, the quantity of the methane emissions it generates.

The INAI denied the request, arguing that the information in the Diagnosis contained classified information for national security concerns, as well as trade secrets. 

On September 28th, 2023, the plaintiff filed an amparo suit against this decision, arguing that the information contained in the Diagnosis should be public because it constitutes environmental information. On February 7, 2024, the 11th District Court in Administrative Matters in Mexico City denied the request and confirmed INAI's decision. 

On February 20, 2024, the plaintiff appealed the District Court's decision. The case was sent to the Fifth Circuit Court of the First Circuit, which asked the Supreme Court to decide the case due to its constitutional relevance on August 7, 2024. 

Justice Alfredo Gutiérrez Ortiz Mena delivered the opinion of the First Chaber of the Supreme Court on May 14, 2025, agreeing with the lower court. The Court partially upheld INAI's decision. It ruled that information contained in the Diagnosis that involved the "methods, processes, justification, and location of oil wells and the type of equipment" used by Pemex Logistics was classified for national security reasons. The Court considered that article 110 of the Federal Law for Transparency and Access to Public Information provides a list of grounds under which information can be classified, one of which is national security purposes. The Guidelines for classification and declassification of information specify that any information that could enable the sabotage of strategic infrastructure can be classified under national security considerations. The Court considered that the Diagnosis contained information on the type of equipment used by Pemex Logistics and the location of oil wells. This could enable sabotage. As such, considering that Mexico's Constitution considers the hydrocarbon sector as "strategic activities".

The Court also upheld the decision, finding that the Diagnosis contained information on the "calculating method, the base year of the diagnosis, the number of oil wells, as well as the justification for the methods employed," which constituted a trade secret. 

Lastly, the Court overturned the decision regarding the information in the Diagnosis, which details the total amount of methane emissions generated by each oil well or piece of equipment. The Court found that this information did not compromise national security and was not a trade secret. It also specified that the release of this information translated into accountability since it could allow the public to assess whether Mexico was fulfilling its commitments under the Paris Agreement and the joint declaration made in 2016 with the governments of Canada and the United States pledging to reduce methane emissions by between 40 and 45% by 2025.

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.

Geography

Mexico

Recent cases