Fair Questions

On Friday, NV GEBE informed customers that the electricity fuel clause had been increased to XCG 0.49, effective July 10, 2026. The increase will be reflected on July electricity invoices, which are scheduled to be distributed beginning Monday, July 13.

GEBE explained that the adjustment reflects ongoing fluctuations in international fuel prices, which continue to affect the cost of imported fuel required to generate electricity in St. Maarten. Given the country's dependence on imported fuel for power production, changes in fuel prices will naturally have an impact on the cost of providing electricity.

That explanation is understandable. GEBE has a responsibility to operate the company, secure fuel and maintain electricity production. It may very well be that the increase is fully supported by the applicable calculations and current fuel costs.

The question, however, is whether the broader oversight process that government recently presented to the public was also applied. Government has spoken extensively about the role of the Bureau of Telecommunication and Post, BTP, under the Electricity Concession Ordinance. A joint Ministerial Decree was presented as the mechanism through which BTP would be designated as the legally mandated supervisor of GEBE.

The public was informed that BTP would be empowered to request and verify operational and financial data from GEBE, review tariff structures, methodologies and fuel clause calculations, conduct inspections and technical assessments, monitor compliance with concession obligations, and oversee renewable energy requirements under Article 14 of the Concession.

In May 2026, government also confirmed that BTP had been instructed to immediately investigate the basis, timing and legality of a previous GEBE fuel clause increase. Government further emphasized that no tariff component, including the fuel clause, may be adjusted without proper justification, supporting data and government review and approval. Against that background, it is reasonable for the public to ask what role BTP played in the latest increase.

Was BTP informed before the adjustment was announced? Did BTP review the fuel clause calculation and supporting data? Was the methodology examined? Did government receive an assessment or recommendation? Was the increase reviewed and approved through the process government previously described?

It is entirely possible that these steps were followed. BTP may have reviewed the figures and found the adjustment justified. Government may have received the necessary information and concluded that GEBE had met the required standards. We are not suggesting otherwise. The issue is simply one of communication.

When government introduces a new oversight structure and places particular emphasis on tariff methodologies and fuel clause calculations, the public will naturally expect some confirmation when an adjustment of this nature is announced. A brief statement from BTP or government confirming that the required review took place would help provide clarity and strengthen public confidence in the process.

GEBE may be responding to fuel costs that are outside of its control. The company may have followed the correct procedure and provided all necessary supporting information. But the public should also be able to understand whether the oversight mechanism government described has been applied.

The questions are therefore not unreasonable. And if the review has not yet taken place, what is the process going forward? These questions do not require accusations or premature conclusions. They simply require clarity. Consumers will soon see the increase reflected on their July invoices. A little more communication from BTP or government would go a long way toward helping the public understand not only that the fuel clause has changed, but also how the oversight process is working in practice.

That, ultimately, is what the new supervisory structure was expected to provide.

‍