Two opposing views on Mexico's energy future: Sheinbaum vs. Gálvez

In the upcoming electoral contest, proposals regarding the future of the energy industry in Mexico have become a central theme. Claudia Sheinbaum and Xóchitl Gálvez represent two divergent energy paths that will shape the country's course at a critical moment for the sector. Energy transition is a global imperative that Mexico cannot ignore. With declining oil production and a growing energy demand, the proposals of Sheinbaum and Gálvez offer contrasting visions on how to address these challenges and lay the groundwork for a sustainable energy future. One of the key points that stands out in this dichotomy is the approach towards Pemex. While Xóchitl Gálvez's team proposes to take the company beyond oil, exploring alternatives such as hydrogen production and renewable energies, Sheinbaum advocates for continued support to the oil company, with a more modest oil target but the promise to continue backing it until it can sustain itself. Gálvez's vision aims for total openness to private participants in the energy value chain, seeking to modernize and make Pemex profitable through competition with private companies in different segments. In contrast, Sheinbaum proposes greater continuity in state support for the company, without ruling out private participation in areas such as electricity transmission and distribution. Gálvez's team, led by Rosanety Barrios, is critical of the current management and proposes a deep restructuring of Pemex to adapt it to the demands of the 21st century. The opening to the private market and diversification of the company's activities are key points in their proposal, with the goal of regaining investor confidence and improving the company's financial situation. On the other hand, Sheinbaum's team, led by Jorge Islas, proposes a more conservative strategy in terms of oil production, but with an emphasis on energy transition and investment in electrical projects that promote sustainability and energy efficiency in the country. Although there is still uncertainty about private participation in certain sectors, the continuity of state support for Pemex is a fundamental pillar in their proposal. Amidst this clash of visions, energy transition and the promotion of sustainable businesses such as hydrogen emerge as points of convergence between both candidates. However, the lack of specific details on the implementation of these proposals leaves uncertainty about the future of the energy sector in Mexico and how resources and investments will be managed in a context of global transformation. Ultimately, the choice between the moderate continuity proposed by Sheinbaum and the openness to private entities advocated by Gálvez will mark a turning point in the course of the Mexican energy industry. Society and stakeholders must carefully evaluate the pros and cons of each approach and remain attentive to how these proposals materialize in practice, at a crucial moment for the country's energy future.