Mexico Introduces Much Anticipated Secondary Legislation for Energy Reform

May 1, 2014

Reading Time : 2 min

The secondary legislation introduces or reforms 21 laws. These reforms are grouped into nine categories:

1 . Draft decree on the Hydrocarbons Law, with amendments to the Foreign Investment Law, Mining Law and Public Private Partnerships.
2. Draft decree on the Electricity Industry Act.
3. Draft decree on Coordinated Regulatory Bodies in energy and amendments to Federal Public Administration Laws.
4. Draft decree on the PEMEX Law and CFE Law, and amendments to the Public Entities Law, Acquisitions Law, Public Sector Leases and Services Law, and Public Works Act.
5. Draft decree on the Geothermal Energy Act, with amendments to the National Water Law.
6. Draft decree on the Law on Hydrocarbons Revenue.
7. Draft decree on the Mexican Petroleum Fund for Stabilization and Development.
8. Draft decree amending various provisions of the federal budget and tax laws.

Some highlights of the legislation for the Upstream Sector include:

  • Exploration and extraction contracts that can be entered into with PEMEX or others that can be issued by an auction process. Such agreements can be terminated for material breach, but will be governed by arbitration under Mexican law.
  • PEMEX is allowed to be given direct assignment of oil and gas blocks for ‘strategic projects’. Further, laws require PEMEX to receive least a 20 percent participating interest in trans-boundary oil and gas projects. Unlike the Brazilian pre-salt model, however, PEMEX will not have to be the operator and will merely participate. Further, such trans-boundary fields will be operated in accordance with international treaties.
  • Powers, rights and responsibilities are set forth for SENER, SHCP and the CNH.

Some highlights of the legislation for the midstream sector include the following:

  • Open access for the natural gas market, with open seasons to be held for transportation, subject to certification and regulations issued by the CRE. Pipeline owners are not allowed to participate in marketing hydrocarbons, however.  Rules are introduced to reduce market concentration of pipeline and marketing capacity over five and ten-year periods.
  • A new entity CENAGAS will receive PEMEX pipeline infrastructure and initiate capacity reservation contracts with PEMEX.

Some highlights for the downstream sector include:

  • Gradual opening of the diesel and gasoline sector, with maximum price controls in place until 2019 and market pricing beginning in 2020.
  • PEMEX will be the exclusive importer of gasoline until 2018.

Some highlights for the power sector include:

  • Barriers of entry reduced for new investment in clean energy and accelerating the decommissioning of older power plants.
  • Generators can enter into bilateral contracts and sell power to the wholesale electricity market.
  • Nuclear power generation is reserved for the state.
  • CFE is to compete with the market on equal terms.

While there are some of us that firmly believed Mexico would open up its energy sector eventually, and that the current administration had the will to push reforms into economic reality, the general consensus has been to the contrary. Certainly, there will be growing pains as regulatory bodies within Mexico assume their responsibilities over this new regime. However, with the magnitude of these reforms and the potential revolutionary impact it will have on the Mexican economy, we expect the government to continue to press forward, learning from not only their mistakes, but also lessons learned in other parts of the world where energy reforms have been implemented.

As people in Mexico prepare to commemorate the Battle of Puebla, May 5 (Cinco de Mayo for those not familiar with the holiday) can also mark the beginning of a new era of freedom and prosperity founded on open energy markets and competition.

Share This Insight

Previous Entries

Speaking Energy

July 8, 2026

On June 18, 2026, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or the Commission) issued an order to ISO New England Inc. (ISO-NE) directing ISO-NE and ISO-NE participating transmission owners to show cause as to why ISO-NE’s tariff should not be found to be unjust and unreasonable (ISO New England Inc., 195 FERC ¶ 61,215 (2026) (Order)) because it fails to sufficiently:

...

Read More

Speaking Energy

July 7, 2026

On June 29, 2026, the Supreme Court granted a petition for certiorari in Leonard Hoffmann v. WBI Energy Transmission, Inc. (Hoffmann), which presents the question whether section 7 of the Natural Gas Act (NGA) requires pipeline companies using federal eminent domain authority to pay landowners’ attorney’s fees in states where landowners can recover those fees under state law. In the decision giving rise to the Supreme Court’s review, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit held that a group of ranchers were not entitled to recover their $383,300 in attorney’s fees incurred while negotiating their compensation—creating a circuit split with four other courts of appeals. Hoffmann will be heard during the Court’s October 2026 Term, and marks the second time in five years that the Court has agreed to interpret NGA section 7.

...

Read More

Speaking Energy

July 6, 2026

On June 29, 2026, the United States Supreme Court issued Trump v. Slaughter, fundamentally reshaping presidential removal authority over independent regulatory agencies. The decision overruled a 90-year-old precedent established in Humphrey’s Executor v. United States, which had upheld the constitutionality of commissioner removal protections in the Federal Trade Commission Act (FTC Act). As written, the FTC Act permits a commissioner’s removal “only for inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office.” In Slaughter, the Court was asked to reevaluate this standard following the President’s removal of a Democratic-appointed FTC commissioner from office in 2025 without cause. Finding for the President, the Court held that removal was permissible because the FTC Act’s for-cause removal protections for commissioners violate the separation of powers, specifically, the President’s removal power under Article II. The Court explained that the FTC exercises executive power because it promulgates binding rules, investigates and enforces those rules through administrative adjudications, and brings civil enforcement actions in federal court. It found that because it exercises these executive powers, its commissioners “must therefore be controlled by the Chief Executive, in whom such power is vested.” While previous recent cases addressing the scope of the Removal Power, Seila Law LLC v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and Collins v. Yellen purported to preserve some kernel of Humphrey’s, the Court made clear that “[i]f anything more is left of Humphrey’s, we overrule it.”

...

Read More

Speaking Energy

June 25, 2026

On June 18, 2026, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or the Commission) issued an order to the California Independent System Operator Corporation (CAISO) directing CAISO and CAISO transmission owners to show cause as to why CAISO’s tariff should not be found to be unjust and unreasonable (California Indep. Sys. Operator Corp., 195 FERC ¶ 61,214 (2026) (the Order)) because it fails to sufficiently:

...

Read More

© 2026 Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP. All rights reserved. Attorney advertising. This document is distributed for informational use only; it does not constitute legal advice and should not be used as such. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Akin is the practicing name of Akin Gump LLP, a New York limited liability partnership authorized and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority under number 267321. A list of the partners is available for inspection at Eighth Floor, Ten Bishops Square, London E1 6EG. For more information about Akin Gump LLP, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP and other associated entities under which the Akin Gump network operates worldwide, please see our Legal Notices page.