It seems that the recently inaugurated Manzanillo Gas and Power plant (“Manzanillo”) will have to go through the same via crucis of criticism, questioning, misrepresentations, political instrumentalization, slander and fallacies, that at the time it was up to Punta Catalina to do.
During the construction process of Punta Catalina, everything was said. From questions to the energy model (coal), bidding, awarding, financing, construction, operation and management of operations, risks and waste (nuclear radioactivity included!). It now appears that criticism from various sectors with different interests converges around Manzanillo… That is why it is necessary to separate the chaff from the wheat.
It is perfectly legal to criticize in democracy, especially if what is criticized is of nature, property or public function (energy is), and it is healthy for it to be so. Likewise, it is legitimate (and necessary!) for the political opposition to question (the PRM did know how to perform that role very well in the past) and demand explanations, and the government has to give them.
Likewise, it is necessary for the environmental sectors and the media to demand transparency and accountability, the counterbalance of governance requires it. Now, the questions raised from unscientific disqualification are unacceptable; fable, manipulation, misrepresentation or accommodating and biased interpretation of facts or realities… much less defamation or slander. Within rigor, everything; outside of rigor, nothing.
Manzanillo is a privately owned project, built with syndicated financing provided by several lending institutions in the banking sector (private and state). The financial architecture of the project is public and the banks lent subject to business plans, guarantees, evaluations, regulations and international practices (Basel II and III, FATF, IFRS Supervision on a Consolidated Basis, etc.), but also to the IFC standards of the World Bank, RAMSAR, ISOs, etc.
Ironically, Punta Catalina was disqualified for being a polluting coal; because it was a public investment, because private investment did not have faith or security to invest its capital.
Now, to Manzanillo, a natural gas project – the fuel of the energy transition – conceived under a concessional regime where all the risk is assumed by the concessionaire; that financed the port’s adaptations under the reimbursable financial contribution scheme; the construction of the facilities at their expense; that it committed to comply with the requirements of the Paris Agreement and the demands of global standards against Climate Change, etc.; They criticize it, simply because it works and generates clean energy, because it stabilizes supply, because it responds to demand during peak hours and guarantees a sustainable supply and lowers energy prices.
In short, whatever they say… but what corresponds is to support the projects that aim to build the route towards continuous, safe, efficient and quality electricity supply. To achieve this, it is imperative to support clean energy generation projects that promote transparency and encourage competitiveness and investment.
