Ottley’s proposed tariff regulation returns to focus as GEBE fuel clause faces scrutiny

Editor’s note: This article was first published in November 2025 and has been updated in light of the current examination of GEBE’s fuel clause and tariff structure.

GREAT BAY--A draft Ministerial Regulation submitted by Member of Parliament Omar Ottley in November 2025 has renewed relevance as government, the Bureau Telecommunication and Post and NV GEBE examine the calculation and legal framework behind electricity tariffs and the fuel clause.

The proposal was designed to place electricity pricing and the fuel used to generate electricity under direct government supervision. It would establish rules governing what GEBE may charge consumers, how the fuel clause must be calculated and which operational costs the company would be permitted to pass on through electricity bills.

The renewed attention follows confirmation that the latest fuel clause increase to XCG 0.49 was implemented without advance validation by BTP. GEBE has been given until July 27 to provide additional documentation and substantiate the calculation behind the adjustment.

Ottley’s draft Ministerial Regulation proposes a four-part electricity tariff consisting of a fixed service charge, a connection or reconnection fee, a base rate covering non-fuel operational costs and a monthly fuel clause based on verified fuel use and prices.

Under the proposal, GEBE would not be free to determine or increase these charges without oversight. Electricity could not be sold above the maximum rates established in the regulation, while any proposed base rate would have to be justified by the company’s operational costs, investment requirements and financial information.

The fuel clause would be calculated monthly using actual fuel consumption, verified purchase prices and supporting documents. A correction mechanism would require any overcollection or undercollection from one month to be reflected in the following billing period, preventing unexplained surpluses or deficits from accumulating at the expense of consumers.

The regulation would also limit the amount of plant self-consumption, electricity losses and other inefficiencies that GEBE could include in customer bills. Where the company exceeds established efficiency standards, the additional cost would remain with GEBE rather than being transferred to households and businesses.

A tiered base-rate system is included to provide greater protection for lower-usage consumers, along with a reduced fixed service charge. The proposal also establishes a separate rate for persons 65 and older, applicable to one household serving as the senior citizen’s primary residence.

BTP would be assigned monthly supervisory and advisory responsibilities. GEBE would be required to submit the information needed to verify the fuel clause and tariff calculations, while BTP would review the data and advise the Minister of Tourism, Economic Affairs, Traffic and Telecommunication.

The regulation extends beyond GEBE to the fuel supplied for electricity generation. Heavy Fuel Oil, Light Fuel Oil, diesel and industrial lubricants would be placed under a regulated pricing structure, with maximum prices reviewed monthly by the Minister based on advice from BTP and the Department of Economic Affairs.

Fuel suppliers would have to support their prices with commercial invoices, bills of lading, insurance documents, customs entries and currency-conversion information. Purchase prices would be compared with recognized international benchmarks and regional landed costs, limiting the possibility of unsupported markups being passed through GEBE to consumers.

Ottley said when submitting the proposal that residents and businesses should no longer be surprised by sudden increases in electricity bills and that the system required greater transparency, accountability and fairness.

Government has since activated BTP as supervisor of GEBE’s electricity concession through Ministerial Decree No. 2026/806. That decree gives BTP responsibility for examining tariff structures, fuel clause calculations and GEBE’s technical, operational and financial compliance.

However, the current fuel clause discussion has shown that supervisory authority and a complete tariff framework are not the same thing. BTP has cautioned that reviewing the latest calculation does not automatically approve the existing methodology or GEBE’s wider tariff structure, both of which require broader technical, financial and regulatory examination.

Ottley’s proposed Ministerial Regulation offers one possible framework for that next stage. It seeks to establish, in advance, what GEBE may charge, what information must support those charges, which inefficiencies consumers should not be required to absorb and how fuel prices feeding into electricity bills should be verified.

The proposal remains subject to review and implementation by the Minister of TEATT. Its central question, however, is now at the heart of the current GEBE debate: whether St. Maarten will continue responding to individual fuel clause increases after they occur, or establish binding rules governing how electricity prices are calculated before consumers are billed.

‍