Next week, Mexico’s Congress is poised to vote on a constitutional reform that could significantly alter the landscape of the nation’s regulatory framework in the energy and telecom sectors. The proposal, expected to be approved between November 11 and November 14, seeks to eliminate the independence of key regulatory bodies, including the Hydrocarbons Regulator (CNH) and the Electricity Regulatory Commission (CRE), and integrate them into the Ministry of Energy (Sener).
According to BNA, Ricardo Monreal Ávila, a prominent member of the ruling Morena party and political coordinator in the lower house, confirmed that the reform is on track for approval. Morena, which holds a dominant majority in Congress, has passed several sweeping constitutional amendments over the past month, setting the stage for this latest measure.
The reform’s broad scope extends beyond energy regulators. Along with CNH and CRE, other agencies losing their autonomy would include the Federal Competition Commission (Cofece) and the Federal Telecommunications Institute (IFT). These shifts are part of the administration’s efforts to centralize regulatory control, but they have sparked significant concern among business groups.
Related: Mexico’s First-Ever Class Action Targets Pharma Giants for Price Fixing
Industry representatives argue that removing the independence of these regulators could undermine fair competition in vital sectors. The employers’ association Coparmex has voiced strong opposition to the reform, stressing that the loss of these regulatory bodies would “seriously compromise democratic stability and the balance of powers.” The group also highlighted the critical role these agencies play in ensuring market fairness and protecting consumer interests.
“Their work is essential to guarantee fair economic competition and protect consumer welfare,” Coparmex stated following the constitutional committee’s approval of the proposal.
There are also fears that the reform may strain Mexico’s obligations under the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA), particularly regarding commitments related to competitive market practices. Critics worry that the centralization of power could create a less predictable environment for private businesses, complicating cross-border trade and investment.
Source: BNA
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