Mexico’s competition regulator COFECE issued an opinion on controversial draft regulations energy regulator CRE published via the website of regulatory reform agency CONAMER, adding to objections mostly from natural gas market participants submitted since August.
A document published on the draft regulation page on the CONAMER site shows CONAMER received COFECE’s opinion on October 18th, in which the company supports a clearer separation of its responsibilities from those of the CRE.
COFECE says that the draft regulation invades its responsibility to evaluate competition matters in part because it attempts to establish a methodology to analyse the effects of cross participation on the market.
Related: Mexico Competition Commission Warns Of Higher Electricity Rates
Cross participation in most markets in Mexico is usually first evaluated by COFECE. In addition, open access under the country’s 2014 hydrocarbons law requires private pipelines to have strict separation between capacity holder and transporter roles. This requirement means that if a company owns a pipeline, it would not be able to directly control capacity in that pipeline, although other options, such as joint ventures, have been attempted to get around these limitations.
COFECE’s opinion also points out that the draft regulation assigns to CRE the responsibility of evaluating the effects of cross participation on competition and market efficiency. COFECE warns that CRE is attempting to replicate the competition analysis it normally undertakes based on its responsibilities outlined in Mexico’s legal and regulatory framework.
COFECE also says the CRE’s draft regulation does not recognize its specialisation, which is outlined in article 83 of Mexico’s hydrocarbons law. COFECE’s opinion states that the draft regulation attempts to give CRE some of COFECE’s responsibilities, which may cause uncertainty for entities that may apply for authorisation. COFECE also points out various other elements of the draft regulation that if implemented would involve CRE violating existing sections of Mexico’s law and regulations to the detriment of COFECE.
Featured News
Judge Appoints Law Firms to Lead Consumer Antitrust Litigation Against Apple
Dec 22, 2024 by
CPI
Epic Health Systems Seeks Dismissal of Antitrust Suit Filed by Particle Health
Dec 22, 2024 by
CPI
Qualcomm Secures Partial Victory in Licensing Dispute with Arm, Jury Splits on Key Issues
Dec 22, 2024 by
CPI
Google Proposes Revised Revenue-Sharing Limits Amid Antitrust Battle
Dec 22, 2024 by
CPI
Japan’s Antitrust Authority Expected to Sanction Google Over Monopoly Practices
Dec 22, 2024 by
CPI
Antitrust Mix by CPI
Antitrust Chronicle® – CRESSE Insights
Dec 19, 2024 by
CPI
Effective Interoperability in Mobile Ecosystems: EU Competition Law Versus Regulation
Dec 19, 2024 by
Giuseppe Colangelo
The Use of Empirical Evidence in Antitrust: Trends, Challenges, and a Path Forward
Dec 19, 2024 by
Eliana Garces
Some Empirical Evidence on the Role of Presumptions and Evidentiary Standards on Antitrust (Under)Enforcement: Is the EC’s New Communication on Art.102 in the Right Direction?
Dec 19, 2024 by
Yannis Katsoulacos
The EC’s Draft Guidelines on the Application of Article 102 TFEU: An Economic Perspective
Dec 19, 2024 by
Benoit Durand