GEBE’s Fuel Clause: Where is the LBHAM?

There is a simple question that the people of St. Maarten deserve a simple answer to: Where is the LBHAM that establishes GEBE’s electricity tariff and fuel clause?

Article 12(4) of the Electricity Concession Ordinance states that the tariffs the concessionaire may charge for connection to the distribution network and the supply of electricity shall be determined by a national decree containing general measures, an LBHAM.

That wording is important. The law does not say that tariffs may simply be established through an internal GEBE decision, a shareholder resolution, a ministerial approval, a historical practice or an agreement. It specifically refers to an LBHAM.

GEBE has stated that the fuel clause has been part of its approved tariff structure for more than 15 years and is intended to pass fuel costs on to consumers. Fair enough. But where is the legal instrument establishing it?

The Government’s own statements raise the question. The independent 2025 evaluation of St. Maarten’s electricity and water tariffs noted that Article 12(4) requires electricity tariffs to be determined by LBHAM. The report then stated that, in practice, the electricity tariffs and their monthly amendments were not being determined by national decree as stipulated by the ordinance, while GEBE was calculating the fuel clause monthly.

Then, in May 2026, Government announced that BTP’s newly activated oversight function would provide the verified information required to establish a lawful LBHAM tariff decree. That statement deserves attention. If an existing LBHAM already establishes the applicable GEBE tariff and fuel-clause mechanism, why would Government be working toward establishing a lawful LBHAM tariff decree?

Perhaps such an LBHAM does exist. If it does, there should be no difficulty identifying it.

Government and GEBE should simply provide the public with the LBHAM establishing the GEBE electricity tariff, its publication number and date, the National Gazette in which it was published, the specific article establishing the fuel clause, the formula governing the fuel-clause calculation, the provision establishing who has authority to adjust the fuel clause, and the provision stating whether GEBE requires prior Government approval before implementing an adjustment.

These are not unreasonable questions. They go directly to the legal framework governing what consumers are charged on their electricity bills.

This is not about whether GEBE has fuel costs. Nobody is arguing that fuel is not a legitimate cost of generating electricity. The question is whether those costs are being recovered from consumers through a tariff established in the manner required by Article 12(4).

If the base electricity tariff excludes fuel costs and the fuel clause separately recovers those costs, then that methodology should be clearly established in the applicable legal instrument. And if the fuel clause can be changed every month, the public should know who has the legal authority to make that change and under what rules.

In July 2026, Government stated that BTP had not received the supporting information necessary to validate the latest XCG 0.49/kWh fuel-clause adjustment before it was implemented. Government also stated that its review of the methodology did not constitute approval of the existing methodology or the broader electricity tariff structure.

That makes the question even more relevant.

If the LBHAM exists, show it. If Government can produce the LBHAM, then the public can examine it and determine exactly what it authorizes.

But if Government cannot identify an LBHAM establishing the tariff and fuel-clause mechanism required by Article 12(4), then Government needs to explain what legal instrument gives GEBE the authority to charge and adjust the fuel clause.

An internal GEBE approval, a ministerial decision, a shareholder resolution, a concession condition, a historical tariff decision or an agreement is not automatically the same thing as the LBHAM specifically required by Article 12(4).

If the law requires an LBHAM, the question cannot simply be dismissed by saying, “This is how GEBE has always done it.”

The fact that something has been done for 15 years does not, by itself, answer whether the statutory requirement was satisfied.

So, Government and Parliament, here is the question: Where is the LBHAM?

If it exists, show it to the people.

If it does not, explain the legal basis under which GEBE continues to charge the fuel clause.

The people of St. Maarten deserve nothing less than a clear answer supported by the law and the official record.

Show us the law.

‍