By Rosanety Barrios
“The real challenge is how to move forward when we are not sure of the right direction.” -Ruth Bader Ginsburg
It was the turn of the 2013 energy reform to disappear. With the publication of Decree that reforms the fifth paragraph of article 25, the sixth and seventh paragraphs of article 27 and the fourth paragraph of article 28 of the Political Constitution of the United Mexican States, regarding strategic areas and companieson October 31, the energy competition model that was only in force for 10 years was buried, although it operated, as it was conceived, for barely 4, if we consider that the secondary laws were published in 2014 and that since December In 2018 it began its deactivation.
I am in favor of that, as a society, that is, I include the government, we save as many adjectives as possible to address any issue that includes public policies and concentrate on the substantives.
With this in mind, I turn to a part of the speech given by the Secretary of Energy, Luz Elena González, at the morning conference on October 30, regarding the aforementioned Decree:
With this reform… the nature of both the Federal Electricity Commission and Petróleos Mexicanos is changed to give them back… their character as public companies of the State… these companies are given prevalence so that the continuity, security and accessibility of all Mexicans to a strategic resource.
I intentionally removed the adjectives that accompanied the statement from the quote above. The truth is, I think it is much more understandable this way, even if from a political point of view, it is believed necessary to feed the philias and phobias that provoke the visceral reaction of voters.
Let's then go directly to the objectives of continuity, security and accessibility of energy for all people in our country.
It seems to me that no one in their right mind could be against such noble and justified goals. I also believe that, as we are already experiencing the effects of the climate crisis, it is essential to include sustainability as an objective, but for the moment we are going to stay with the 3 presented as the arguments that allowed us to destroy the previous model.
The means to achieve these 3 objectives will be the prevalence (or preference) of State companies over the services that private initiative could provide. This leaves aside the economic analysis, because CFE's electrons are expensive and anything that Pemex sells is expensive given the enormous losses it reports. To meet accessibility, it would be necessary to maintain an increasing level of subsidies, which is a challenge for public finances.
Now let's go to safety. Energy security, according to the most accepted definition of the International Energy Agency, is the continuity of energy services at affordable prices. That is, it is closely related to the other two objectives, or rather, it is the result of achieving the other two objectives, continuity and accessibility. I can only celebrate that energy security is a government priority. We cannot continue living with blackouts and dependence on hydrocarbons whose price no one controlsas is the case of natural gas
For all this to happen, there must be infrastructure that meets the energy demand in the country. With the recently published Decree, the State once again took into its hands the obligation to guarantee their attention. This implies that it has to make very relevant investments and that requires private capital.
Next week we will know the electrical plan and we hope that there the way in which the IP will be able to participate in the sector will finally be revealed. We also hope that the rules that apply to these investments and that will represent the legal guarantee of their recovery, are clear and immediately contained in the secondary laws, because no plan can replace a law.
It will be in the second week of November when Pemex's route towards that sustainable, transparent and non-profit future (Dixit Constitution) will be revealed to us, but without losses that we all deserve.
We hope that Mexico has a safe, reliable, accessible and, I add, sustainable energy system. If it is with the prevalence of state companies, then the prevalence is welcome, as long as it does not put into crisis the objectives defined by the government itself. If the regulators are now going to depend on the Ministry of Energy and with this we are going to gain transparency and efficiency, blessed be the sectoral dependence.
I have to say that this energy model is very similar to that of the pastand that it seems difficult for the solutions of the future to be contained in the past, especially when the problems are different, but, perhaps because it is the last thing that dies, I declare myself willing to embrace hope.
The opinions expressed are the responsibility of their authors and are absolutely independent of the position and editorial line of Opinion 51.
