Projections for the 2050 Scenario of the Mexican Electrical System

Abstract

Electricity is fundamental to modern societies and will become even more so as its use expands through different technologies and population growth. Power generation is currently the largest source of carbon-dioxide (CO₂) emissions globally, but it is also the sector that is leading the transition to net zero emissions through the rapid rise of renewables. The impacts of COVID-19 on the electricity sector led to a reduction in the demand for electricity, while at the same time, the current global energy crisis has placed the security and affordability of electricity at the top of the political agenda in many countries. In this way, the decrease in the demand for electricity, as well as its gradual recovery, makes it necessary to carry out energy planning that considers the adverse effects caused by global events with a high socioeconomic impact. In this article, the Low Emission Analysis Platform (LEAP) 2020 software has been used to determine the distribution of energy sources to 2050 for Mexico. The variables that lead to the possible profiles for 2050 are social, economic, and technological. The results correspond to a possible future based on official data from the National Electric System (SEN) of Mexico. The forecast for 2050 indicates that the electricity sector will have almost double the current installed capacity; however, emissions do not correspond to twice as much: they are practically 50% higher.

1. Introduction

2020 was an atypical year compared to previous ones in recent decades due to the fact that the World Health Organization (WHO) declared the epidemic caused by the SARS-CoV-2 virus a global public health emergency, gaining prominence at the political, economic, and social levels [1].

Restrictive policies were different in each country, and their implementation led to a reduction in activities in general, changes in social habits, and negative effects on the economy of the countries. In the case of Mexico, on 19 March 2020, the epidemic of the COVID-19 virus was recognized as a serious disease warranting priority attention; measures were established for prevention and control to reduce the number of infections, and, therefore, prevent its spread, and activities in the public and private sector were suspended until further notice by the health authorities [2].

The impact of the pandemic on economic activity in Mexico was significant and not negligible in absolute amounts. The decision to suspend those activities considered non-essential mainly affected the industrial sector, due to the closure of companies, followed by the service sector that faced a panorama of restrictions on capacity and schedules, together with the reduction in tourism. In parallel to the impact on economic activity, the demand for electricity was affected, and, with that, greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions also changed. Electricity consumption in the residential sector increased during the lockdown, while in the industrial and commercial sectors, it decreased due to the halt in the productive sectors [3].

Lockdowns, disruption in supply chains internationally, and the diversion of fiscal resources to keep food and fuel prices affordable affected progress in meeting SDG 7 to ensure access to affordable, reliable, sustainable, and modern energy by 2030, mainly in the most vulnerable countries [4].

The unequal economic recovery from the COVID-19 recession led to significant tensions in parts of the energy system, causing prices to soar in the natural gas, coal, and electricity markets. In 2021, there was an uptick in the use of coal and oil, recording the second-largest annual increase in CO₂ emissions in history. The direction in which the energy system is currently moving is a far cry from the baseline scenario of net zero emissions by 2050; however, the pressures on the system are not going to weaken in the coming decades as it is a fundamental pillar of the climate change solution [5].

The pandemic exposed the intrinsic links between nature, climate, society, and the economy. It also revealed that listening to science is necessary and urgent. In a matter of weeks, the health crisis showed that it is possible to modify the patterns of exploitation, production, distribution, and consumption of the current global development model. The subsequent process of economic reactivation posed the opportunity to accelerate the transition to low-carbon and climate-resilient models; however, the data show that this did not happen or was a very small proportion [6].

The energy impacts caused by the COVID-19 crisis were intensified by Russia’s special military operation in Ukraine, creating uncertainty in global oil and gas markets and driving up energy prices. The global energy system had not prepared for this social conflict. The economic slowdown and high electricity prices stifled electricity demand growth in most regions of the world [7].

The European Union experienced an unprecedented energy crisis, being the most affected region. European gas prices in 2022 were 175% higher than in 2021 and 320% in 2020. The coal market also increased its prices by 129% in 2021 and 255% in 2022 compared to 2020. The leaders of the 27 member states decided to phase out the EU’s dependence on Russian fossil fuels, reduce oil and gas imports, and consequently reduce its high energy dependence [8].

The conflict between Russia and Ukraine seemed like an opportunity to boost renewable energies; however, in July 2022, the European Parliament approved granting the “green” label to natural gas and nuclear energy, considering investments in nuclear or gas-fired power plants for electricity production “sustainable,” as long as they use more advanced technologies [9].

Despite the geographical distance and although the volume of business between Latin America and Russia is low compared to other regions of the world, the conflict had an impact on some productive sectors. Without a doubt, the increase in the price of energy products had effects on the energy transition, in addition to issues such as climate change and food security. As long as energy and food prices remain high, inflation will accelerate and remain high in the region, reducing purchasing power, especially among the poorest people [10]. It is also important to keep in mind that Russia is the second-largest oil producer and natural gas exporter, and the conflict would cause an increase in oil prices, which also amplified oil price volatility, even altering the trend of crude oil prices [11], affecting the world oil market.

The fossil-fuel price crisis of 2022 was a telling reminder of the vast economic benefits that renewable energy can provide in terms of energy security. Renewable energy has proven resilient and flexible amid the COVID-19 crisis, as well as providing an opportunity to align economic recovery with climate and sustainable development goals. To achieve this, it is necessary to invest in alternative energy sources that are clean, accessible, affordable, sustainable, and reliable [8,12].

While global investments in renewable energy have risen steadily in recent years, they remain well below the levels needed to put the world on track for a climate-safe future. Globally, the main source of renewable-energy financing comes from the private sector, accounting for 86% in the 2013–2018 period. However, public funding resources, while limited, are crucial for reducing risks, attracting investors, and maturing new markets [12].

National strategies should identify and analyze public policy instruments to attract investment in the renewable energy sector to stimulate the recovery of economic activity and boost sustained, inclusive, and environmentally sustainable growth [13].

As this is an unprecedented situation with short-, medium-, and long-term consequences, it is relevant to analyze the impacts of the pandemic on the electricity sector. González-López and Ortiz-Guerrero [14] studied the changes that occurred in the Mexican National Electric System (SEN) during the pandemic, both in demand and generation. In the study, data were collected from different sources, and using annual percentage change statistics, they analyzed the changes by control region in the years 2018, 2019, and 2020. They conclude that during the pandemic, there was a reduction in demand and changes in generation patterns, where there was an increase in the participation of renewable sources and a reduction in electricity losses. The authors state that the impacts of the pandemic were not linear, collaterally affecting the economic and energy system.

On the other hand, Salgado-Conrado et al. [15] investigated the changes that occurred in the Mexican electricity sector before, during, and after the pandemic. Using a variability analysis, they investigated changes in installed capacity, consumption, generation, and electricity demand in the period 2017–2021. With their results, they affirm that, despite the health crisis, installed capacity increased by 22.8% in the examined period, with renewable energies (solar and wind) being the most favored. In terms of electricity generation, there was an increase of 4.3%, and consumption registered an increase of 3.9%, with a decrease of 2.7% in 2020 and a recovery of 2.0% in 2021. They emphasize the reduction of polluting emissions recorded in 2020, which, due to changes in consumption, were reduced by 18.7%. The authors conclude by confirming the most affected region was the Yucatán Peninsula (SEN Peninsula region), and state that the pandemic will delay the achievement of carbon-dioxide (CO₂)-emission reduction targets.

In the published works, only the changes during the confinement in the electricity sector were analyzed, without assessing the possible repercussions for the future or how the pandemic affected the energy transition process for compliance with agreements on reducing emissions and diversifying the generation matrix. This article, in addition to explaining the changes that occurred during the confinement, analyzes the causes and impacts on the different sectors, presenting a possible scenario to 2050 that shows the consumption trend by sector, the generation matrix to meet the demand for electricity, and the projection of CO₂ emissions. This energy analysis corresponds to one of the three countries of North America that together generate 5454.69 Mt of CO₂, so this region emits a large amount based on its trade dynamics, affecting global trade.

2. Methodology

Energy planning is a systematic and analytical methodology that processes information on energy demand, transformation, and supply, using it to develop strategies to achieve defined long-term objectives. It is a plan that offers great advantages to guide the activities and resources of an energy system, especially in times of uncertainty, and it can reduce it and identify clearer options and paths; that is, estimate the future of present decisions in the face of possible changes in the conditions of the environment. In addition, planning must address aspects such as energy efficiency, the role of new and renewable sources, technological development, access to energy, investment assurance, resource diversification, and minimization of adverse environmental impacts [16].

Considering the substantial cost of the transition and the importance of the energy system to the global economy, planning is a process that must be accurately modeled to allow for future analysis and discussions on system development in order to avoid stalled investments and ensure a reliable energy supply [17].

Today, modeling tools are a key part of best practices in crafting and implementing a decarbonization plan in any organization, city, or country [18]. A wide range of energy system modeling tools is available, providing modeling professionals, planners, and decision makers with multiple alternatives to represent the energy system according to different technical and methodological considerations in response to emerging challenges and new technological advancements [19].

These models are often very distinct from each other, and therefore decision makers and researchers need to choose the most appropriate modeling tool, depending on the specific purpose and goals of their analysis. However, energy modeling development relies heavily on high-quality input data, which can represent significant challenges in developing countries where data accessibility is limited, incomplete, outdated, or inadequate. In addition, while models may exist in countries, they are not publicly available [20].

There are many types of models used for energy scenarios that can give divergent results, even when inputs and assumptions are aligned. Two contrasting modeling approaches have been developed to answer questions about the future of the energy system in technological, political, or economic scenarios. The “top-down” approach focuses on economic relationships, while the “bottom-up” approach prioritizes technological details. The persistent gap and shortcomings of each of the two approaches prompted a move toward hybrid models that link both approaches into a single integrated framework [21].

Another classification refers to the solution methodology of the model, which is divided into three main categories: simulation, optimization, and equilibrium models. Simulation models represent an energy system based on specific equations and characteristics; these are usually bottom-up models with detailed technological descriptions. Optimization models use a linear programming approach with a target function that is maximized or minimized and subject to a set of constraints. Equilibrium models take an economic approach, study the flow of goods and services in an economy, and are used to assess the impact of policies on the economy [22].

While it is important to analyze the types of models and their applications, no model is ideal for representing the complex economic, technical, social, and environmental uncertainties associated with future energy-system conditions. Among the different modeling tools available is the Low Emissions Analysis Platform (LEAP) 2020.1.107 software used in this study. LEAP is a computational tool for assessing various scenarios for energy policy, economic development, population growth, technological progress, and the impact of GHG emissions developed at the Stockholm Environment Institute (SEI) [23].

The SEN50 model [24] was updated with the aim of analyzing changes in the electricity sector during the COVID-19 pandemic. The model includes a historical period with statistical data from 2013 to 2022 and makes annual projections until 2050. A database was also integrated, considering information from the Balance Nacional de Energía [25], the Programa de Desarrollo del Sistema Eléctrico Nacional (PRODESEN) [26], and the Sistema de Información Energética (SIE) [27].

Electricity demand is modeled using a disaggregated method based on final consumption. Also, in a module, the structure of the electricity demand sectors is created: Residential, commercial, services, industrial, agricultural, and transport. The main socioeconomic variables involved in demand modeling are gross domestic product (GDP) along with population growth. Data from the National Institute of Statistics and Geography (INEGI) [28] and the National Population Council (CONAPO) for the period 2013–2022 were also used, and different assumptions were made thereafter.

As shown in Figure 1, one assumption is that GDP will continue to increase at an average annual rate of 2.4%, according to PRODESEN 2023–2037 [26]. In the case of population growth, the mid-year population variable from the population projections database of Mexico and the states, 2020–2070. It is expected that, if the premises for mortality, fertility, and international migration were met, the country’s population would increase to 138.03 million in 2030 and 146.94 million in 2050 [29].

Electricity demand is calculated with Equation (1); it is the product of the level of activity and energy intensity for each of the sectors, in each of the scenarios, and for each year of projection as shown in Equation (1).

(1)$D_{s,e,y}=A{V}_{s,e,y}\ast E{I}_{s,e,y}$

where $D$ is the demand for electricity, $AV$ the added value, $EI$ the energy intensity, $s$ the sector, $e$ the scenario, and $y$ the year. In the case of the energy intensity of the residential sector, the population’s consumption is used, which does not impact GDP. In the case of the transport sector, energy intensity is associated with the amount of energy used to transport goods and services [30].

The electrical energy intensities of each sector have evolved in different ways, as can be seen in Figure 2. Among the factors that have favored the greater share of electricity are the gradual increase in the level of electrification in the residential sector, technological changes, and the automation of processes in the industrial and agricultural sectors.

Transformation calculations are demand-driven; that is, each module operates to meet demand. The model considers losses in the transmission and distribution processes of electrical energy as a percentage, including technical and non-technical losses. As shown in Figure 3, electricity losses would be reduced due to the application of different strategies that made it possible to reduce irregular consumption and invest in modernization projects. These actions are carried out to achieve the established target of a level of losses comparable to international standards of 8% by 2050. Some strategies consist of expanding the medium voltage distribution network, reconfiguration of the electric grid, following up on the monitoring program distribution transformers, and creating new distribution areas as well as improving existing ones [26].

The electricity generation module considers the hourly demand curve to simulate the annual electricity demand more accurately. According to data published by the Centro Nacional de Control de Energía, Figure 4 shows the hourly demand curve for the SEN for the year 2022, where it is observed that the demand presents a varied behavior; in the summer months, the demand is higher compared to the demand during the winter months, registering the maximum demand in the month of July (4123 h–4165 h) [31].

The model performs an optimization procedure on the electricity generation module with the objective function of minimizing the total cost of the system. Actually, the cost for energy transformation is available by Comisión Federal de Electricidad (CFE) in accordance with historic data until 2022. It uses the Next Energy Modeling System for Optimization (NEMO) platform, an open-source, high-performance energy-system-optimization tool, with the support of the HIGHS solver [32].

The generation technologies considered in the model are those in operation in 2022, corresponding to the CFE, independent producers (PIE), self-sufficiency, and small producers. The processes were characterized according to technical lifetime, plant factor, efficiency, investment cost, and fixed and variable operation and maintenance costs. As for the energy efficiency indicator, it is only applicable to fossil technologies, without applying to renewable technologies, since by convention, it is assumed that these plants have a 100% transformation due to the fact that the resource is unlimited and it does not cost [30].

The retirement of existing plants was modeled based on the technical life of the technologies and the date of entry into operation. It is established that generation with renewable energies (wind, solar, hydropower, bioenergy, and geothermal) is limited by the proven potential of the resources. For fossil fuel generation, the consumption of proven national reserves is considered; otherwise, the demand is met by importing it [33].

Data on investment costs, along with both fixed- and variable-operation and maintenance (O&M) costs, were taken from PRODESEN 2018–3032 [34]. Cost projections through 2050 were made according to the 2020 Annual Technology Baseline (ATB) report, a consistent dataset that provides modeling input assumptions for energy technologies [35].

3. Results and Discussion

Electricity consumption is associated with various factors, including GDP, population growth, fuel prices, and climate behaviors, among others. In 2020, Mexico’s GDP registered the second-largest contraction since 1932, when the economy registered a 14% collapse, confirming a decrease of 8.5%, surpassing the data recorded in 1995 of 6.9% and in 2009 of 5.3%. As can be seen in Figure 5, Mexico’s economy was hit hard in the second quarter (Q2) of 2020 because of the COVID-19 pandemic. In that year, secondary activities registered a 10.2% annual reduction and tertiary activities of 7.9%, offsetting the 1.6% increase presented by primary activities [36].

In 2020, total exports fell by 9.5%, while imports decreased by 15.9%. Foreign exchange generated by international tourism decreased by 55.1%, contrary to remittances, which increased by 11.4% compared to the previous year. In that same year, foreign direct investment (FDI) flows decreased by 18.9%; although this performance is related to the pandemic, it is also linked to the uncertainty caused by the cancellation of energy projects [37].

According to data from the Secretariat of Economy, 2018 was the best year for receiving FDI in the electricity sector because of the concessions granted during the electricity auctions, reaching a historic figure of USD 5020 million, a number that would fall to USD 1380 million with the entry of the new government in 2019, changing the course of the sector [38]. In 2021, Mexico recorded a collapse in FDI in electricity to its worst level in a decade, but in contrast, it had the best level of associated FDI in oil and gas extraction, as shown in Figure 6 [39].

Added to this situation was the social question, no less critical than the economic situation. The effects of the pandemic were felt in society, with an increase in unemployment between March and April 2020, when 12.5 million jobs were lost, of which 10.4 million were part of the informal sector and 2.1 million had formal employment. Millions of workers had to stay at home, telework, or had to face the consequences of the crisis with pay cuts or layoffs, increasing the unemployment rate to 5.5% in June 2020, as shown in Figure 7 [40].

In Mexico, the electricity production matrix is technologically broad, although it still has coal, fuel oil, and natural gas plants. In the last decade, there has been a growth in generation with renewable energies, mainly solar and wind, as can be seen in Figure 8. At the end of 2022, the installed capacity of the CFE, the PIEs, and the rest of the permittees was 84,413 MW. This energy matrix was integrated as follows: Combined cycle had a share of 40.6%, thermoelectric 13.4%, coal-fired 6.4%, gas turbine 4.5%, internal combustion 0.9%, hydroelectric 14.9%, wind 8.2%, geothermal 1.2%, solar photovoltaic 7.7%, bioenergy 0.5%, and nuclear 1.9%, as can be seen in Figure 9.

In Figure 10, the evolution of the electricity generation process by type of technology in the last ten years is shown. In 2022, there was a production of 321.87 TWh, with combined cycle technology being the one with the highest share with 57.6%, as observed in Figure 11.

The Balance Nacional de Energía (BNE) [25] reports final consumption corresponding to the energy destined for the country’s productive activities. In the case of the industrial sector, as of the 2021 publication, the Secretariat of Energy changed the names of the subsectors to unify them with the North American Industrial Classification System, including the petrochemical industry within the chemical industry subsector. Although the report mentions that the statistics may change with respect to those published by the Sistema de Información Energética (SIE), substantial changes were detected with respect to electricity consumption in the industry, as can be seen in Table 1.

Although the SIE [27] is a platform that has yet to be updated in recent years and is currently being restructured, the data reported on electricity consumption in the industrial sector show a consistent trend, without abrupt changes and in accordance with the official documents published in past years, so for the purposes of this work, a trend line was made to assume the data for the year 2021 and 2022, used in this outlook as shown in Figure 12.

According to the planning scenario, in Figure 13, the evolution of expected electricity demand from 2022 to 2050 has been calculated, where it is observed that the SEN would have an annual growth of 2.11%, going from 292.47 GWh in 2022 to 508.08 GWh in 2050.

To meet the climate goals agreed to by the international community and the 2030 Agenda, an accelerated transformation of the energy matrix would be required that considers not only greater investments in renewable energy but also the phasing out of fossil fuels [13].

The 2013 constitutional reform on energy opened private investment in the national energy sector. This reform not only represented the incorporation of investments in the oil sector but also created a market scheme for the electricity sector with the purpose of promoting competitiveness and price stability through long-term electricity auctions, except in the processes of nuclear power generation, transmission, and distribution [41].

The current government (2019–2024) established as its main strategy “to achieve and maintain sustainable energy self-sufficiency to meet the energy demand of the population with national production” by strengthening the productive enterprises of the Mexican State as guarantors of energy security and sovereignty and a lever for national development. The current federal government’s plan charted a 180-degree turn from the previous policy [42].

Despite the efforts made, some data show that achieving energy sovereignty goals is more difficult than what was proposed in the previous three six-year terms. At the end of 2021, natural gas imports accounted for more than 70% of the national supply, demonstrating that dependence on imported fuels not only continues but has increased, while domestic production has shown a negative trend in the last decade [43].

Petróleos Mexicanos (PEMEX) increased the production of fuels, including fuel oil, generating controversy around its use for electricity generation by the CFE. Between 2018 and 2022, fuel oil production increased by 39.55%, from 185.10 thousand barrels per day (Mbd) to 258.30 Mbd [44].

In its 2021 Annual Report, the CFE reported that fuel oil had a 13.80% share in the electricity generation process, making it the third most used primary energy source. In the period from 2020 to 2021, the company increased fuel-oil consumption by 35.92%, mainly due to the continuity of the health contingency and followed by the weather contingency that increased natural gas prices, prioritizing maintaining the continuity and reliability of the electricity supply [45].

According to data from the Superior Audit Office of the Federation, of the 153 plants owned by the CFE that were in commercial operation in 2020, 59 plants (equivalent to 38.56%) exceeded their design useful life, presenting a decrease in their efficiency, an increase in fuel consumption and their failures, and therefore in its availability. The average age of the state-owned company’s plants is 42.6 years, impacting the degradation of their components and increasing failures, mainly in conventional steam, combined cycle, and gas turbine processes [46].

The SEN50 model considers the output of operation of various generation plants that, according to the date of entry into operation and their technical life, should be replaced by plants with new technology, more efficient and less polluting. For the period 2022–2050, the integration of 70 GW is expected to meet the demand for electricity, going from 84.82 GW in 2022 to 154.83 GW in 2050, as can be seen in Figure 14.

Based on the current situation, where the costs of solar and wind technology have decreased in recent years, and the processes are now more efficient, the resources tested in Mexico are limited; in addition, the objective of the current administration is to limit the participation of the private sector, as well as increase the participation of the CFE, a company that continues to invest in the construction of combined cycle power plants and has chosen to invest in the modernization of old plants. In addition to all of this, the cancellation of long-term electricity auctions and the suspension of solar and wind projects due to various permitting and policy obstacles are added, so these technologies will not grow significantly as shown in the graph. Although important changes have been made, the trend shows that in the coming years, dependence on natural gas will continue to grow if programs and mechanisms are not established to change the direction of the sector. The SEN50 model shows a projection of the impact of current policies; if urgent measures are not established, in 2050, electricity generation will be dominated by fossil fuels, 80.85% will be transformed by natural gas, 17.09% renewables, 1.21% nuclear, and the rest coal, as shown in Figure 15. The situation is worrisome; complying with international agreements is perceived as increasingly distant.

“According to World Bank staff estimates, fossil fuel depletion in Mexico increased five times, from US$5 billion in 1995 to US$25 billion in 2018, while the country discovered fewer than five fields the size of those found in Brazil. This has contributed to a decline in Mexico’s fossil fuel wealth, which fell from US$400 billion in 1995 to US$227 billion in 2018, a decline of 43 percent in 23 years” [47].

As electricity production is the second largest contributor to GHG emissions, it is a key element in decarbonizing the energy system. Mexico has made commitments to reduce its levels of polluting emissions by 50% by 2050; however, the calculations made in this study with the assumptions indicate that it will be difficult to meet the established goals. The SEN50 model presents an emissions scenario according to the proposed technology matrix. As can be seen in Figure 16, by continuing to generate electricity from conventional energy sources, GHG emissions could reach 180 Mt CO₂e.

Mexico’s high dependence on hydrocarbons from North America has sparked a debate among specialists in recent years. The consequences of unsustainable exploitation of natural resources, coupled with poor management, without considering the long-term impacts coupled with a lack of collective action, put future prosperity at risk. There is a need for energy and climate policies that can also help promote a more sustainable approach.

4. Conclusions

The COVID-19 pandemic caused a temporary reduction in CO₂ emissions because of the slowdown in the economy. In 2020, emissions from the burning of fossil fuels from the electricity sector registered a significant reduction of 13.72% compared to 2019. However, with the reactivation of the industrial and commercial sector, emissions returned to pre-pandemic levels. There is no sign of sustainable growth; emissions are rising rapidly again, and they are nowhere near emissions reduction targets.

In terms of social effects, COVID-19 generated a level of unemployment that has decreased linearly; the deconfinement did not immediately hire the millions of unemployed, who in turn contracted commercial activity and, therefore, decreased electricity consumption in that sector. In December 2022, the unemployment rate in Mexico stood at 2.93%, a figure that is lower than the 3.67% value of the first quarter of 2020, confirming a trend of stabilization of unemployment.

The evolution of electricity consumption has been practically linear, with an increase of 57.36 TWh in ten years (2013–2022).

The consumption of the industrial sector, based on the assumptions presented, implies that it is the fastest growing sector and would go from 181.69 TWh to 352.97 TWh from 2022 to 2050 in order to guarantee jobs and products for domestic consumption and export. This implies future installations of planned infrastructure in both combined cycles, as has happened to date, and it will be necessary to conclude with the route indicated by PRODESEN for renewable energies.

The installed capacity to date will have to almost double in the next 30 years, increasing from 84.82 GW to 154.83 GW, but fortunately, with new technologies, emissions will not double in the same period. They would go from 111.88 to 179.98 Mt of CO₂e, which means that conventional technologies will emit 60.8% and not 1.82 times the factor of installed capacity.

It is important to mention that the availability of public data made it difficult to prepare the planning exercises; in addition, the six-year changes in the federal government, the unscheduled publication of the reports, the lack of data, and the notable differences between sources of information, were obstacles to this task.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, D.T.-V., R.J.R., and G.H.-L.; Methodology, D.T.-V., R.J.R., G.H.-L., J.C., and M.M.-G.; Software, D.T.-V., R.J.R., and G.H.-L.; Validation, D.T.-V., R.J.R., and G.H.-L.; Formal Analysis, D.T.-V., R.J.R., G.H.-L., J.C., and M.M.-G.; Investigation, D.T.-V., R.J.R., and G.H.-L.; Resources, D.T.-V.; Data Curation, D.T.-V., R.J.R., and G.H.-L.; Writing—Original Draft Preparation, D.T.-V., R.J.R., G.H.-L., J.C., and M.M.-G.; Writing—Review and Editing, D.T.-V., R.J.R., G.H.-L., J.C., and M.M.-G.; Visualization, D.T.-V., R.J.R., and G.H.-L.; Supervision, R.J.R. and G.H.-L. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Data Availability Statement

The original contributions presented in the study are included in the article, further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.

Acknowledgments

The first author is grateful for the CONAHCyT scholarship awarded during the doctoral program CVU: 904370.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest. This is an academic project with no political interpretation, and these results are prospective and based on official data that would be changed with future action from Mexican society.

Footnotes

Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Figures and Table

Figure 1. Population and GDP projections for Mexico to 2050. Source: authors’ elaboration with data from [26,28,29].

Figure 2. Energy intensity by sector. Source: authors’ elaboration with data from [25,27,28].

Figure 3. Projection of electricity losses to 2050. Source: authors’ elaboration with data from [26].

Figure 4. Hourly demand curve. Source: authors’ elaboration with data from [31].

Figure 5. Quarterly change in GDP. Source: authors’ elaboration with data from [28].

Figure 6. Foreign direct investment (FDI) in the electricity and oil sectors.

Figure 7. Monthly unemployment rate in Mexico. Source: authors’ elaboration with data from [28].

Figure 8. Evolution of installed capacity, 2013–2022.

Figure 9. Installed capacity by technology type, 2022.

Figure 10. Evolution of electricity generation, 2013–2022.

Figure 11. Electricity generation by technology type, 2022.

Figure 12. Electricity consumption in the Industry Sector [PJ], 2013–2022. Source: prepared by the authors using data from [25,27].

Figure 13. Electricity consumption by sector in Mexico, 2013–2050.

Figure 14. Installed capacity by technology type, 2013–2050.

Figure 15. Electric power generation by fuel type, 2013–2050.

Figure 16. GHG emissions from the electricity sector, 2013–2050.

Table 1

Electricity consumption in the Industry Sector [PJ], 2013–2022.

Fuente	2013	2014	2015	2016	2017	2018	2019	2020	2021	2022
SIE	582.17	581.00	582.75	613.47	605.08	631.29	620.00	594.22	756.48	1032.19
BNE 2022	158.87	153.00	159.33	168.53	170.53	173.66	173.64	181.96	380.14	646.36

References

1. WHO. Actualizaciones Continuas Sobre la Enfermedad por Coronavirus (COVID-19), 30 January 2020. Available online: https://www.who.int/emergencies/diseases/novel-coronavirus-2019/events-as-they-happen (accessed on 13 March 2023).

2. DOF. ACUERDO por el que se Establecen las Medidas Preventivas que se Deberán Implementar para la Mitigación y Control de los Riesgos para la Salud que Implica la Enfermedad por el Virus SARS-CoV2 (COVID-19); Diario Oficial de la Federación: Mexico City, Mexico, 2020.

3. SolísArias, J.; García, H.; Márquez, J.; Hernández, V. Impact of the 2020 Crisis on the Mexican Economy: An Inoperable Input-Output Approach. Dev. Probl.; 2022; 53, pp. 55-78.

4. IEAIRENAUNSDWorld BankWHO. «Tracking SDG 7: The Energy Progress Report»; The World Bank Publish: Washington, DC, USA, 2022.

5. IEA. Key World Energy Statistics; IEA: París, Fancia, 2021.

6. OLAC. A Look at Latin America’s NDCs and Their Update in the Context of Multiple Crisis. 2023. OLAC. Una Mirada a las NDC de América Latina y su Actualización en el Contexto de Crisis Múltiple. Observatorio Latinoamericano para la Acción Climática. 2023; Available online: https://observatoriolac.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/INFORME-NDC-OLAC-2023.pdf (accessed on 6 June 2024).

7. WB. COVID-19 Pandemic Delays Progress toward Universal Energy Access; World Bank: Washington, DC, USA, 2022.

8. IRENA. Renewable Power Generation Costs in 2022; IRENA: Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates, 2022.

9. Abril, G. The European Parliament Supports the EU’s Green Seal for Gas and Nuclear Energy. El País. Available online: https://elpais.com/economia/2022-07-06/el-parlamento-europeo-respalda-el-sello-verde-de-la-ue-al-gas-y-energia-nuclear.html (accessed on 6 July 2022).

10. Barría, C. Russia and Ukraine: What Effects the Russian Invasion May Have on the Economies of Latin America. Available online: https://www.bbc.com/mundo/noticias-60741690 (accessed on 15 March 2022).

11. Zhang, Q.; Hu, Y.; Jiao, J.; Wang, S. The impact of Russia–Ukraine war on crude oil prices: An EMC framework. Humanit. Soc. Sci. Commun.; 2024; 11, 8. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1057/s41599-023-02526-9]

12. IRENACPI. Global Landscape of Renewable Energy Finance; IRENA: Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates, 2020.

13. Podestá, A.; Eirin, M.; Contreras Lisperguer, R.; Salgado Pavez, R. Investment Attraction Policies for Clean Energy Financing in Latin America, Santiago. 2022; Available online: https://www.cepal.org/es/publicaciones/48084-politicas-atraccion-inversiones-financiamiento-la-energia-limpia-america-latina (accessed on 1 July 2024).

14. González-López, R.; Ortiz-Guerrero, N. Integrated analysis of the Mexican electricity sector: Changes during the COVID-19 pandemic. Electr. J.; 2022; 35, 107142. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tej.2022.107142]

15. Salgado-Conrado, L.; Álvarez-Macías, C.; Pérez-García, L.-A.; Loera-Palomo, R. COVID-19 Impacts on Mexican Power Sector. Energies; 2024; 17, 701. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/en17030701]

16. OLADE. Manual de Planificación Energética; OLADE: Quito, Ecuador, 2017.

17. Bogdanov, D.; Solomon Oyewo, A.; Breyer, C. Hierarchical approach to energy system modelling: Complexity reduction with minor changes in results. Energy; 2023; 273, 127213. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2023.127213]

18. Martins, F.; Patrão, C.; Moura, P.; de Almeida, A. A Review of Energy Modeling Tools for Energy Efficiency in Smart Cities. Smart Cities; 2021; 4, pp. 1420-1436. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/smartcities4040075]

19. Chang, M.; Zink Thellufsen, J.; Zakeri, B.; Pickering, B.; Pfenninger, S.; Lund, H.; Alberg Østergaard, P. Trends in tools and approaches for modelling the energy transition. Appl. Energy; 2021; 290, 116731. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2021.116731]

20. Plazas-Niño, F.; Ortiz-Pimiento, N.; Quirós-Tortós, J. Supporting energy system modelling in developing countries: Techno-economic energy dataset for open modelling of decarbonization pathways in Colombia. Data Brief; 2023; 48, 109268. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.dib.2023.109268] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37383789]

21. Cole, W.A. How much might it cost to decarbonize the power sector? It depends on the metric. Energy; 2023; 276, 127608. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2023.127608]

22. Ringkjob, H.-K.; Haugan, P.; Solbrekke, I. A review of modelling tools for energy and electricity systems with large shares of variable renewables. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev.; 2018; 96, pp. 440-459. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2018.08.002]

23. Heaps, C. LEAP: The Low Emissions Analysis Platform, [Software Version: 2020.1.51]; LEAP: Somerville, MA, USA, 2021.

24. Toledo-Vazquez, D.; Hernández-Luna, G.; Romero, R.; Cerezo, J. Comparison of Scenarios for the Mexican Electricity System for 2050 Energy Transition Law Objectives—Pre COVID-19 Analysis. Processes; 2023; 11, 410. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/pr11020410]

25. SENER. Balance Nacional de Energía, Secretariat of Energy; SENER: Mexico City, Mexico, 2022.

26. SENER. Programa de Desarrollo del Sistema Eléctrico Nacional 2023–2037, Secretariat if Energy; SENER: Mexico City, Mexico, 2023.

27. SENER. Energy Information System. 2022; Available online: https://sie.energia.gob.mx (accessed on 2 February 2024).

28. INEGI. National Institute of Statistics and Geography. 2024; Available online: https://www.inegi.org.mx (accessed on 2 February 2024).

29. CONAPO. Projections of the Population of Mexico and the Federal Entities, 2020–2070; CONAPO: Mexico City, Mexico, 2023.

30. CEPAL. Informe Nacional de Monitoreo de la Eficiencia Energética en México, 2018; CEPAL: Mexico City, Mexico, 2018.

31. CENACE. Centro Nacional de Control de Energía. 2023; Available online: https://www.cenace.gob.mx/Paginas/SIM/Reportes/EstimacionDemandaReal.aspx (accessed on 2 February 2024).

32. SEI. NEMO: The Next Energy Modeling system for Optimization. 2024; Available online: https://leap.sei.org (accessed on 2 February 2024).

33. SENER. Prospectiva de Energías Renovables 2018–2032. Secretariat of Energy; SENER: Mexico City, Mexico, 2018.

34. SENER. Programa de Desarrollo del Sistema Eléctrico Nacional 2018–2032. Secretariat of Energy; SENER: Mexico City, Mexico, 2018.

35. NREL. Annual Technology Baseline. 2021; Available online: https://atb.nrel.gov/electricity/2021/index (accessed on 15 January 2024).

36. Morales-Quiroga, Y. In 2020, Mexico’s GDP Plummeted 8.5%, El Economista. Available online: https://www.eleconomista.com.mx/economia/El-PIB-de-Mexico-se-desplomo-8.5-en-2020-la-peor-caida-desde-1932-20210225-0043.html (accessed on 25 February 2021).

37. CEPAL. Economic Survey of Latin America and the Caribbean 2021: Labor Dynamics and Employment Policies for a Sustainable and Inclusive Recovery Beyond the COVID-19 Crisis; LC/PUB.2021/10-P/Rev.1; CEPAL: Santiago, Chile, 2021.

38. Aali-Bujari, A.; Venegas-Martínez, F. On the relationship between foreign direct investment and energy consumption: The Mexican case. Int. J. Energy Econ. Policy; 2021; 11, pp. 231-235. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.32479/ijeep.10988]

39. Solís, A. Bloomberg Línea, 21 February 2022. Available online: https://www.bloomberglinea.com/2022/02/21/mexico-tiene-la-peor-inversion-extranjera-electrica-en-10-anos-y-la-mejor-petrolera/ (accessed on 25 February 2021).

40. ILO. Labour Overview in Times of COVID-19. Mexico and the COVID-19 Crisis in the World of Work: Responses and Challenges; ILO: Geneva, Switzerland, 2020.

41. DOF. Decreto por el que se Reforman y Adicionan Diversas Disposiciones de la Constitución Política de los Estados Unidos Mexicanos, en Materia de Energía; Diario Oficial de la Federación: Mexico City, Mexico, 2013.

42. SENER. Programa Sectorial de Energía (PROSENER) 2020–2024, Secretariat of Energy; SENER: Mexico City, Mexico, 2020.

43. SENER. Prontuario Estadístico. December 2022; SENER: Mexico City, Mexico, 2022.

44. PEMEX. Institutional Database (BDI); PEMEX: Mexico City, Mexico, 2023.

45. CFE. Annual Report, Version 22.04.2022; CFE: Mexico City, Mexico, 2021.

46. ASF. Desempeño Integral de la Comisión Federal de Electricidad. Auditoría de Desempeño: 2020-6-90UJB-07-0469-2021. Superior Audit Office of the Federation, Economic Development Functional Group, Mexico City. 2021; Available online: https://www.asf.gob.mx/Trans/Informes/IR2020c/Documentos/Auditorias/2020_0469_a.pdf (accessed on 4 March 2024).

47. WB. The Changing Wealth of Nations 2021: Managing Assets for the Future; World Bank: Washington, DC, USA, 2021.