MP asks why an electricity bill he compared during an Aruba visit appeared so much lower there, and whether fuel purchasing and regulation could bring relief to Sint Maarten households.
PHILIPSBURG:--- Member of Parliament Omar Ottley has called on the government to explain why electricity costs in Sint Maarten appear so much higher than in Aruba and to disclose the findings of the Bureau of Telecommunications and Post’s review of GEBE’s fuel clause.
During Tuesday’s debate on the draft 2027 budget, Ottley described a recent visit to Aruba where he and other parliamentarians discussed electricity costs with an Aruban utility. He said a Sint Maarten bill of roughly $800 was compared with an estimated $303 cost in Aruba, prompting questions about how each island buys fuel and charges customers.
The comparison is striking, but it is Ottley’s account of a discussion, not a verified comparison of two bills with identical consumption, billing periods, fixed charges and currency. He asked government to examine the underlying costs rather than accept high bills as unavoidable.
“Why and how are you able to be so low?” Ottley said he asked in Aruba. He told Parliament that Aruban representatives discussed fuel hedging, a practice intended to manage exposure to changes in oil prices. Ottley wants to know whether GEBE has examined similar arrangements and whether they would benefit Sint Maarten.
The fuel price behind the bill
Ottley’s concern reaches beyond the price a household sees on its monthly statement. He questioned the price GEBE pays for imported fuel, how that price is set, and how it is passed on to electricity customers. He urged the Minister of Tourism, Economic Affairs, Transport and Telecommunication, Grisha Heyliger-Marten, and Prime Minister Dr. Luc Mercelina to explore stronger controls over the cost of fuel used to generate electricity.
Hedging is one option Ottley raised, but it does not automatically guarantee cheaper power. Its value would depend on the contract price, duration, volume, fees, and what happens when market prices fall. Those details need to be tested against GEBE’s actual fuel purchases and electricity production costs.
Ottley also questioned GEBE's relationship with its fuel supplier, SOL. His remarks raised concerns about whether customers are adequately protected from supplier price changes, but he framed those concerns as questions for the government to investigate. They do not establish that SOL or GEBE inflated a price.
What BTP is examining
BTP’s role is central to the answer. The government designated the bureau as GEBE’s independent supervisor under the Electricity Concession Ordinance, with authority to seek records and examine tariff calculations and the fuel clause. In July, TEATT said BTP had not validated a fuel-clause increase to Cg 0.49 before implementing it because the advance review process was still being put into operation. BTP sought additional documentation from GEBE to complete its assessment.
At that time, the ministry also cautioned that checking an individual fuel-clause calculation would not amount to approval of the entire fuel-clause method or GEBE’s broader tariff structure. Those require a wider technical and financial review.
Ottley asked when Parliament and the public would see BTP’s findings and what action would follow. That question has become more urgent as households continue to receive electricity bills affected by fuel costs. Government has said GEBE must supply substantiated figures, BTP must scrutinize them, and TEATT must consider the findings and any action warranted in the public interest.
GEBE has previously said its fuel clause reflects actual fuel costs billed by SOL and passed through under a longstanding formula. BTP’s review offers a way to independently test the documentation and methodology behind that explanation.
From an Aruba example to a Sint Maarten answer
Ottley said the Aruba discussions showed why official travel must produce useful work for residents. He urged Sint Maarten’s government and utility to learn from other Caribbean islands rather than continue asking households to absorb increases without a clear explanation of available alternatives.
The government’s response must address several separate questions: Are the two islands’ bills being compared on the same basis? What does GEBE actually pay for fuel? Could a different purchasing strategy reduce costs without creating new risks? What has BTP verified, and when will its findings be made public?
Aruba’s example does not, by itself, prove what Sint Maarten’s electricity price should be. It does show why Ottley is demanding a closer examination. For residents facing another high bill, the decisive comparison will be between what they are paying now and what a transparent, independently checked system shows they should pay.
