Richardson proposes National Energy Authority to coordinate St. Maarten’s energy transition

GREAT BAY--St. Maarten’s energy crisis is no longer only about high utility bills, fuel clauses or the performance of NV GEBE. In a new white paper, Eustaquio Richardson argues that the country’s long-term energy future requires a broader institutional solution: the establishment of a National Energy Authority, NEA, to coordinate affordability, resilience, renewable energy, financing and strategic implementation across the sector.

The proposal, titled “Establishing a National Energy Authority for Sint Maarten: A Coordinated Institutional Framework for Energy Affordability, Resilience and Sustainable Development,” is Richardson’s third white paper on St. Maarten’s energy future. It follows earlier papers on the country’s energy transition and a proposed Energy Affordability and Resilience Fund.

At the center of the latest proposal is the argument that St. Maarten’s energy transition cannot be treated as the responsibility of one company, one ministry or one regulator. Richardson writes that while NV GEBE and the Bureau Telecommunication and Post, BTP, each have important roles, the country currently lacks a central institution dedicated to coordinating the full energy transition and long-term energy strategy.

The paper is careful to stress that the proposed NEA would not replace government ministries, BTP or NV GEBE. It would not operate the electricity grid, regulate tariffs or act as a commercial utility provider. Instead, it would function as a coordinating body, financing facilitator, resilience-planning authority and implementation-support framework.

That distinction is important at a time when public discussion around energy has focused heavily on GEBE’s fuel clause, tariff transparency, regulatory oversight and renewable-energy obligations. Richardson’s proposal suggests that these issues point to a deeper institutional gap: St. Maarten has energy problems that are operational, regulatory, financial and strategic at the same time, but no dedicated authority to align all of those areas.

The white paper proposes that the NEA be established by national ordinance as a Zelfstandig Bestuursorgaan, or ZBO. In practical terms, a ZBO is a statutory public body with a degree of operational independence, while remaining publicly accountable and subject to legal oversight. Richardson argues that this structure would allow the NEA to maintain continuity beyond political cycles, recruit specialized expertise and coordinate long-term programs while remaining accountable to government and Parliament.

The urgency behind the proposal is clear. St. Maarten remains heavily dependent on imported fossil fuels for electricity generation and economic stability. That dependence exposes households, businesses and government to global fuel-price volatility, geopolitical instability, shipping disruptions, inflationary pressure and economic uncertainty. At the same time, the country faces increasing electricity demand, aging infrastructure, hurricane exposure, climate vulnerability and growing concerns over affordability.

The tourism sector, one of St. Maarten’s economic pillars, is also directly affected by electricity costs, infrastructure reliability and resilience. High or unstable energy costs affect hotels, restaurants, small businesses and the overall competitiveness of the destination. Without long-term modernization, Richardson warns that energy costs may continue to rise, infrastructure vulnerability may deepen and economic competitiveness may weaken.

The proposed NEA would function as the central coordinating institution for national energy-transition planning, resilience planning, financing coordination, climate-financing facilitation, renewable-energy implementation support, stakeholder coordination, sustainability reporting and long-term execution.

Under the framework outlined in the paper, government would remain responsible for national energy policy, legislation, climate policy, sovereign financing, sustainability objectives and international cooperation. BTP would evolve into the country’s independent utility and energy regulator, with responsibilities such as electricity-market regulation, tariff oversight, consumer protection, renewable-energy licensing, technical standards, interconnection rules and utility-performance oversight.

NV GEBE would continue as the national electricity utility, grid operator, transmission operator and distribution operator. Its functions would include electricity generation, infrastructure maintenance, grid operations, operational dispatch and integration of distributed generation.

The NEA, meanwhile, would sit between policy, regulation, utility operations and financing as the coordinating institution that helps align these moving parts. The proposal also introduces a separate financing vehicle, the St. Maarten Energy Affordability and Resilience Fund, structured as an SPV, or special purpose vehicle. This fund would support rooftop solar systems, battery-storage systems, energy-efficiency retrofits, electric vehicle charging systems, hurricane-resilient infrastructure and sustainability modernization projects.

Richardson proposes that the fund be ring-fenced and professionally governed, with possible financial administration through Qredits St. Maarten, commercial financial institutions or other qualified financial intermediaries. The idea is to create a financing structure that can recycle capital, reduce reliance on one-time subsidies and support long-term affordability and resilience programs.

The white paper estimates that the NEA could begin as a lean technical institution with approximately six to seven core employees. These would include an executive director or CEO, an energy transition and grid specialist, a finance and climate funding manager, a legal and regulatory advisor, a project and public-private partnership coordinator, an administrative officer and a communications and public outreach officer.

The estimated annual payroll would range from US $500,000 to US $790,000. The proposed supervisory board would consist of five to seven members with expertise in energy, finance, law, sustainability and public administration. Estimated governance costs are placed between US $200,000 and US $500,000 annually.

Overall annual operating costs for the NEA are estimated between US $1.5 million and US $2.7 million. Startup costs are estimated between US $600,000 and US $1.7 million, including legal establishment, office setup, IT systems, baseline technical studies, regulatory framework drafting and public consultation.

Richardson argues that the NEA should be financed through a blended model rather than relying only on annual government budget allocations. Possible sources include government funding, Dutch Kingdom transition financing, climate and resilience grants, international technical assistance, development institutions, public-private partnership support and program management fees.

The paper presents an illustrative long-term financing potential of US $130 million to US $425 million or more, depending on project readiness, approvals, governance quality, regulatory modernization and implementation capacity. Potential sources include Kingdom and international grants, climate and resilience financing, renewable infrastructure financing, public-private partnerships, green bonds, the Caribbean Development Bank, the World Bank, the Green Climate Fund and development finance institutions.

The economic argument is straightforward. Even modest reductions in imported fuel dependency could reduce long-term national energy expenditure by tens of millions of dollars over time. A coordinated framework could also improve investor confidence, financing credibility, infrastructure planning, eligibility for resilience funding and private-sector participation in renewable-energy projects.

The white paper also places strong emphasis on integrity and transparency. Richardson recommends transparent procurement standards, independent audits, conflict-of-interest disclosures, public reporting obligations, donor-compliance standards and clear separation between policy, regulation, utility operations and financing administration.

That separation is central to the proposal. One of the risks in small jurisdictions is institutional overlap, where the same actors become responsible for policy, regulation, implementation and financing. Richardson’s model attempts to avoid that by assigning clear roles: government sets policy, BTP regulates, GEBE operates, the NEA coordinates and the SPV finances and implements eligible programs.

The proposal identifies several risks, including political interference, funding instability, procurement concerns, institutional overlap, limited technical capacity, implementation delays and public resistance. Suggested mitigation measures include the ZBO structure, governance safeguards, diversified financing, independent audits, clear legal separation of responsibilities, international partnerships, phased implementation and public-awareness efforts focused on affordability.

Implementation would be phased over a 10-year period. The first 12 months would focus on legal establishment and governance. The next 12 to 24 months would involve SPV setup and financing partnerships. From 24 to 48 months, the country would move into pilot programs and infrastructure rollout. From 48 to 120 months, the framework would scale nationally and support broader modernization.

The recommended next steps include establishing an inter-ministerial working group, conducting legal and constitutional review, finalizing a draft national ordinance, engaging Kingdom and international financing partners, setting up a technical advisory framework, developing pilot financing programs, beginning regulatory modernization, consulting stakeholders, preparing a national implementation roadmap and initiating phased establishment of the NEA.

The paper also includes an addendum with a draft national ordinance for the National Energy Authority and Energy Transition Framework. That draft outlines the proposed legal establishment of the NEA, its objectives, mandate, governance structure, financing sources, SPV framework, reporting obligations and annual audit requirements.

Richardson concludes that St. Maarten has significant potential to modernize its energy sector and transition toward a more affordable, resilient and sustainable future. However, he argues that this will require institutional coordination, regulatory modernization, financing accessibility, strategic implementation and long-term planning.

The proposal arrives at a moment when energy affordability has become one of the country’s most urgent public concerns. Households are questioning electricity bills, businesses are worried about operating costs, and government has moved to strengthen oversight of GEBE through BTP. Richardson’s white paper pushes the conversation further, asking whether oversight alone is enough, or whether St. Maarten needs a dedicated institution to coordinate the next phase of energy reform.

Its core message is that the energy transition is not only about producing electricity differently. It is about how a small island organizes itself to finance, regulate, protect and modernize a system that touches every home, business and public service. In that sense, the proposed National Energy Authority is presented not as another layer of bureaucracy, but as a possible framework to turn years of studies, concerns and ambitions into coordinated national execution.

‍