For a year and a half, César Hernández (Durango, 54 years old) was an unusual bridge between two six-year terms that are considered water and oil. Undersecretary of Electricity of Mexico with Enrique Peña Nieto between 2014 and 2017, negotiated the secondary laws of the energy reform that opened the sector to private initiative. Andrés Manuel López Obrador, a nationalist and fervent critic of this liberalization, appointed him head of the National Commission for Regulatory Improvement (Conamer). The pirouette ended with his resignation last May. Outside of the public sector, the former official and a law doctor from UNAM criticizes the government’s new initiative to strengthen the Federal Electricity Commission (CFE) and relegate the private sector and renewables to the background. The recent blackout that left 4.7 million inhabitants of northern Mexico without electricity reflects, according to him, the limits of the parastatal and the importance of alternative energy sources. Hernández attends EL PAÍS via Zoom from his home office.
Ask. The recent blackout has shown the great dependence on gas from the United States. This has grown while Mexican production has fallen in recent years. Did the Peña Nieto Administration abandon the gas industry?
Answer. The gas business was less profitable for Pemex than that of crude oil production. So over the last decades, not only the previous Administration, it was seen that to maintain its financial viability, Pemex was concentrating on profitable areas and investing less in refining and gas production. The new Administration has wanted to strengthen these areas. Now, that policy has a cost and it is that they are not profitable.
In the past six years there were surely many errors, but this Administration has been going on for two years now. The question is where is your plan for gas. The Government has to begin to be judged by its results and cannot turn to the past in all cases.
P. With low prices in the US, does it make sense to produce gas in Mexico?
R. It has all the sense of the world. Mexico has gigantic unexploited gas reserves. Part of the gas pipeline strategy with the United States was to have preferential access to a very cheap and very abundant resource in that country, but in the medium term, those same gas pipelines were going to serve to bring gas from Mexico to the United States.
P. Would having more renewable energy have reduced the severity of the blackout?
R. If we had better connected the wind energy of Tamaulipas to the industrial centers of the north, where there were transmission projects that have not been carried out, I am sure that the energy shortage would have been much less. The lack of transmission networks is one way for the CFE to stop competitors. It is absurd and short-sighted because it is convenient to incorporate the cheapest energy.
P. Precisely, the bill sent by the president seeks to strengthen the CFE. How do you see that bet?
R. It is a central company in the Mexican economy and you want it to be well managed. It is in the how where I differ. Neither CFE nor Pemex can do everything. That idea that they can meet the country’s needs by focusing on all the hydrocarbons and electricity links does not work because they do not have the resources or the technical knowledge.
P. What consequences can the new model have on rates?
R. It is going to raise the costs of generation. The electrical system does not transmit them directly to users, especially residential ones. They have a rate that incorporates large government subsidies. In the last two years of the previous Administration they were around 50,000 million pesos. In the first two years of this they have increased by 50%. You can decide by a political decision not to transmit that cost, especially to the poorest, and it seems to me that it is legitimate. However, the system does have to assume it.
P. And in the industry?
R. In industrial rates that are not subsidized, it will have a huge impact. They are those paid by the Mexican export industry that competes for the United States market with other highly efficient exporters from Europe, from Asia. What is going to be seen there is a drop in competitiveness.
P. Can the initiative destroy the renewable sector? How likely is it to reach the 35% clean energy target by 2024?
R. It is an initiative against the energy transition. You are eliminating everything that would allow you to meet that goal. It penalizes the dispatch of cheaper, clean energy, and puts it in the background. The granting of permits has been frozen in the last two years … And three weeks ago the CFE’s five-year business plan was presented and it does not contemplate a single clean generation project in this Administration.
P. The Government accuses renewable companies of participating in acts of corruption with the previous Administration.
R. In my experience I did not see anything. The accusations have a political basis, but foreign and Spanish investment is convenient for the country. Companies that have been the target of attacks such as Iberdrola have been very successful in countries that do not have a reputation for being corrupt. 8% of its portfolio of assets is in Mexico and the rest in Spain, the United Kingdom, the United States … It is sad that in its investment plan only 2% is designed for Mexico. It suggests that they have lost confidence that this is a place to expand their projects. If there is corruption it must be punished, but it is not the attribute of a nationality.
P. What future do you see for the initiative if it is approved? Could it not be applied?
R. It is a probable scenario. What is the probability that it will pass? Close to 100%. But is it going to apply? Much of it will be stopped in the courts through the protection of the companies. It will be the subject of constitutional controversies and there are also international resources. In the case of State-to-State arbitrations, if the United States or Canada decide to initiate this procedure, there may be a decision in one year.
P. You are describing a kind of legal chaos.
R. Although it may be a political triumph for the Government to take the initiative, it would be condemning itself. You are going to have chaos in the execution of the policy and you are going to waste a year litigating it and trying to apply it. With the problems the system is facing, like the blackout, losing two or three years has an impact.
P. But López Obrador is winning the battle of speech …
R. One of the great challenges of this debate is that many times you are discussing with a political leader, with an incredibly high legitimacy, technical issues in which he has neither the training nor the understanding. But it can be very persuasive when it comes to communicating with the population.
P. In May he resigned from his post in the current government amid the processing of new energy policy regulations. What happened?
R. I did not comment on this issue because it was not my style as a civil servant. I was fortunate that they allowed me to resign and they accepted it immediately. I think time gave me the reason that legally this policy was a bad idea [fue invalidada por la Suprema Corte este mes], as this legal reform is a bad idea.
P. Was it strange to work for López Obrador after being Peña Nieto’s undersecretary?
R. It was an uncomfortable feeling. The president had said that he would keep the energy reform on his terms in the first three years of his administration. That was changing over time for various reasons. Officials such as the director of the CFE, Manuel Bartlett, were gaining weight in the president’s spirit. And it was an awkward situation. I imagine for them too.
Subscribe here to newsletter of EL PAÍS México and receive all the informative keys of the present time of this country