ACP-SXM to public: Pay your current consumption, while disputed bills are addressed

GREAT BAY--The Association for Consumer Protection St. Maarten, ACP-SXM, is urging consumers to continue making efforts to pay their current GEBE consumption while disputed balances are addressed through proper legal and administrative channels.

ACP-SXM President Peggy-Ann Richardson said the association is not encouraging consumers to stop paying their utility bills. Instead, she said the organization is making a clear distinction between current consumption, which consumers should continue to pay where possible, and disputed balances that many residents say stem from billing concerns following the 2022 cyberattack and subsequent billing irregularities.

“We are not saying not to pay a bill,” Richardson said during a radio appearance with ACP-SXM Treasurer Solange Apon. “If you have a disputed bill, we are saying pause on that. Your current consumption, make efforts to pay that. GEBE employees need to be paid and nobody wants that company to go belly up.”

Richardson said ACP-SXM understands the frustration of consumers who have been dealing with disputed balances, payment plans, disconnections and unclear billing explanations. However, she said the association’s position is that the issue must be handled in a structured way that protects consumers without creating further instability at the utility company.

According to ACP-SXM, consumers should not be forced to carry disputed amounts without proper explanation, but they should also avoid allowing current usage to become another unresolved issue. Richardson said this is why the association is encouraging residents to separate what they are currently consuming from what they are formally disputing.

The association said this approach also strengthens the legal and consumer-protection process, because it shows that consumers are acting in good faith while seeking clarity on contested balances. ACP-SXM said its legal representatives are preparing to submit a formal petition to GEBE, and that the matter must be handled through documentation, mediation and, if necessary, court action.

ACP-SXM said its focus remains on getting GEBE to address disputed bills, billing transparency and the calculation of charges in a manner that is clear and accountable to the public.

A major part of the association’s concern relates to the fuel clause. Richardson said ACP-SXM has identified what it considers three areas that require explanation and review: the use of the previous month’s fuel spending to calculate the current month’s average rate, the treatment of electricity used by Seven Seas to produce water, and the fixed 8.5 percent non-revenue electricity rate applied for losses.

Richardson said the fuel clause is technical, but consumers should not be left in the dark about how charges are calculated, whether corrections are made when consumers overpay, and whether costs are being placed in the correct category.

One concern, she said, is that GEBE uses the previous month’s actual fuel spending to set the current month’s average fuel rate. ACP-SXM said this can create a surplus or deficit because electricity consumption changes from month to month. The association said the public deserves to know whether a clear correction mechanism exists to reconcile any difference between what was charged and what was actually required.

Richardson said this issue goes to the heart of public frustration because consumers need to know whether any over-collection is identified, corrected and returned through the billing system.

A second concern involves the electricity used by Seven Seas to produce potable water for GEBE. Richardson said GEBE distributes water but does not generate it, and that the electricity used to produce water should be reflected properly in the water tariff structure.

According to ACP-SXM, if electricity used in water production is affecting the electricity fuel clause instead of being clearly assigned to water production costs, then electricity consumers may effectively be subsidizing water production.

“Every electricity consumer has been paying for water they may not even be consuming,” Richardson said, while explaining ACP-SXM’s concern about the Seven Seas allocation.

ACP-SXM said the public needs clarity on whether the power used to produce water is being properly separated and billed through the correct tariff category.

The third issue raised by ACP-SXM concerns the non-revenue electricity rate, which Richardson said is applied at a fixed 8.5 percent. She described this as a factor related to losses, including meter errors, transmission losses and other electricity that is generated or distributed but not billed as revenue.

Richardson questioned whether consumers continue paying the 8.5 percent rate even if actual losses fall below that level. ACP-SXM said the public should be told how the rate was established, whether it is reviewed, how often it is adjusted, and whether consumers benefit when actual losses are lower.

“If the losses and the tests on the grid are less than 8.5 percent, let’s say that dips to 5 percent, are they passing on the 5 percent to us, or are we still paying 8.5?” Richardson asked.

ACP-SXM said these questions reinforce why consumers should continue paying current usage while disputed amounts are formally challenged. The association said its goal is not to disrupt the functioning of GEBE, but to ensure that the company provides full transparency on disputed balances, billing calculations, fuel clause application and cost allocation.

The association said it will continue to call for GEBE to provide a clear explanation of the fuel clause formula, the correction mechanism for surpluses or deficits, the allocation of Seven Seas electricity costs, and the basis for the fixed non-revenue electricity rate.

ACP-SXM said consumers have a right to understand what they are paying for, how those amounts are calculated, and whether the billing system properly protects them from being overcharged.

The association said its legal petition and upcoming peaceful consumer rights march are part of a broader effort to obtain clarity, accountability and lawful resolution, while maintaining the position that current consumption should be paid as disputed balances are addressed through the proper channels.

‍