Why GEBE says it cannot meet ACP-SXM’s first two demands
GREAT BAY--The first two demands in ACP-SXM’s petition to NV GEBE are also the two that cut most directly into the heart of the country’s utility crisis. ACP-SXM wants GEBE to reverse the recent retroactive fuel clause increase and suspend residential utility disconnections, including reconnecting households that have already been disconnected.
From a consumer standpoint, the demands are easy to understand. Many residents feel they have been paying for years of confusion, poor communication, disputed billing, service interruptions and unresolved questions following the 2022 cyberattack. The public anger did not come from nowhere. People want relief, accountability and proof that what they are being asked to pay is accurate.
But GEBE’s position is that the first two demands, as presented, cannot be honored without putting the company in a worse financial position. That does not mean the public’s concerns are invalid. It means the issue has now reached the point where legal arguments, public anger and financial reality are colliding.
The fuel clause demand is the most immediate example. ACP-SXM wants GEBE to reverse what it describes as an unauthorized, unlawful and retroactively applied fuel clause increase. For many consumers, this is the clearest symbol of the problem. They see a utility company that has struggled with billing accuracy and public trust, yet still expects customers to accept additional charges.
GEBE, however, is arguing that the fuel adjustment is not simply extra income that can be removed without consequence. The company’s position is that the increase is tied to its ability to cover operating obligations, including fuel and water production costs. Electricity generation depends on fuel. Water distribution depends on supply arrangements. If the additional charge is removed immediately, GEBE says the loss of revenue would affect its ability to meet those obligations.
That is where the debate becomes more complicated. Consumers are asking a fair question: if the calculation is disputed, why should they be forced to pay first and wait for answers later? GEBE is asking its own question: if the charge is reversed immediately, how does the company continue paying the bills required to keep electricity and water flowing?
The second demand, the suspension of residential disconnections and reconnection of affected households, is even more sensitive because it touches people’s homes directly. Electricity and water are not luxury services. They are basic necessities. For seniors, children, low-income families and persons dependent on medical equipment, disconnection can become more than an inconvenience.
ACP-SXM is therefore pressing GEBE on the human impact of its collection practices. It argues that a utility company cannot treat every household in arrears as if the circumstances are the same. There is a difference between someone refusing to pay, someone unable to pay, and someone disputing a bill because they believe the amount is wrong.
But GEBE’s explanation is that a blanket suspension of disconnections creates another problem: it weakens collections at the exact time the company says it needs cash to survive. GEBE says it already paused disconnections for about two weeks during the height of public pressure, and that collections dropped. According to the company, only 58.6 percent of customers paid their bills in May 2026, while more than 9,500 customers remain delinquent.
That figure is central to GEBE’s argument. A utility company cannot operate indefinitely if barely more than half of its customers are paying. It still has to purchase fuel, pay for water supply, maintain equipment, cover payroll, service obligations and invest in infrastructure. If the public interprets a pause in disconnections as permission not to pay, the company’s cash position deteriorates quickly.
This is why GEBE says it cannot reconnect everyone without following its existing process. In practical terms, reconnection requires payment arrangements, administrative review and a reconnection order. Reconnecting all disconnected customers at once, without payment or verification, would send a message that the collection process has effectively collapsed. That does not solve the trust problem. It may make it worse.
The hard truth is that both sides are reacting to real risks. ACP-SXM is responding to the risk that consumers are being harmed by disputed bills, unclear fuel clause calculations and disconnections that may not properly account for vulnerable households. GEBE is responding to the risk that if too many people stop paying, the company loses the revenue needed to keep the utility system running.
The question, then, is not whether consumers deserve relief. The question is what kind of relief can be implemented without pushing GEBE into deeper financial instability. A blanket reversal of the fuel clause may sound simple, but it raises the immediate question of who covers the shortfall. Does GEBE absorb it? Does government subsidize it? Are payments to suppliers delayed? Are infrastructure investments postponed again? Does the cost return later in another form?
Likewise, a blanket suspension of disconnections may sound humane, but it raises another question: how does GEBE separate genuinely vulnerable consumers and disputed accounts from customers who have the means to pay but choose not to? The public debate has too often placed all non-payment into one category. That is not fair to consumers with legitimate disputes. It is also not fair to the company if paying customers are left carrying the weight for those who simply refuse to meet their obligations.
So, the responsible middle ground is a transparent emergency framework rom GEBE. At the same time, ACP-SXM and the wider public must recognize that GEBE cannot function if payment discipline collapses. Consumer protection cannot mean that the utility company is starved of the revenue it needs to operate. If GEBE fails financially, the consequences will not be limited to management. The entire country will feel it.
GEBE may be right that it cannot honor the first two demands exactly as written. But that cannot be the end of the discussion. If the answer is no, then the company must explain if there is workable alternative, when it could be implemented, who qualifies, and how consumers can access it.