Recently, on Facebook, my friend Achim Henriquez posted a comparison of electricity prices across the ABC islands. He asked a simple but important question: Why is electricity so much cheaper in Aruba than in Curaçao?
I followed the thread and saw many reactions – some humorous, others well-meaning – but few that truly addressed the issue. Because this question is too important for guesswork, I want to lay out the main factors that explain the differences between our islands. Only by understanding them can we have a rational discussion about solutions.
Demographics and urbanization
Curaçao covers 444 km² with around 185,500 residents, while Aruba is smaller – 180 km² – but has a population of 108,500, resulting in much higher population density. Aruba’s development is heavily concentrated in specific areas, particularly hotels and tourism zones. Curaçao’s infrastructure, by contrast, is spread widely across the island.
This matters because a smaller, denser grid is cheaper to maintain and expand. Aruba simply needs less extensive distribution networks for both water and electricity.
Demand levels
Aruba’s average household and commercial electricity use is far higher – 22,500 kWh annually, compared to Curaçao’s 8,391 kWh. Water consumption tells a similar story. Aruba’s economy, driven by hotels and tourism, requires much more power and water, creating economies of scale that lower per-unit costs.
Curaçao, with more modest demand, must still cover many of the same fixed production costs. Fewer kilowatt-hours sold means those costs are divided among fewer customers, pushing up tariffs.
Geography and distribution
Curaçao’s water network stretches over 2,744 kilometers, with 21 pumping stations and 11 storage tanks. Aruba’s system, by comparison, covers just 1,052 kilometers, with 5 pumping stations and 7 tanks. Maintaining Curaçao’s larger, more complex network drives costs higher.
On the electricity side, Curaçao’s grid is about 1,700 kilometers, while Aruba’s is only 1,200 kilometers. Once again, Aruba’s compact geography works in its favor.
Production costs
The peak electricity demand on both islands is similar – 164 MW in Curaçao and 170 MW in Aruba. This means Curaçao must maintain nearly the same production capacity as Aruba, but with lower total annual consumption. In practice, that translates to higher costs per megawatt-hour.
The way forward
So, what can Curaçao do?
Grow the economy responsibly – More demand spreads fixed costs across a larger base, but usage must also remain efficient.
Invest in renewable energy – Collective and individual solar investments reduce fuel dependency, ease pressure on the grid, and indirectly affect water prices.
Population growth tied to economic growth – In many cases, population growth follows economic expansion within 1-2 years.
Upgrade efficiency – Continued investment in more efficient production and distribution systems is essential to reduce long-term costs.
We should be cautious with political promises about “lower tariffs.” Too many factors are outside our control, from geography to economies of scale. The best we can do is balance these realities with smarter policies, strategic investments, and a commitment to sustainable energy.
Aruba’s cheaper water and electricity are not simply the result of better management – it’s a structural difference shaped by density, demand, and distribution. Curaçao must recognize these differences if we want to move toward a more affordable and sustainable future.
Anthon Casperson,
former CEO of utility company Aqualectra
Dear Editor,
The recent appointment of a new CEO at the Curaçao Medical Center (CMC) was greeted by many as an opportunity for renewal and decisiveness. However, the major structural problems – such as staff shortages, financial instability, and operational stagnation – had long been known, both inside and outside the organization.
What's striking is that the board and management, during this leadership change, mainly repeated old pain points. Chronic understaffing, outdated regulations, and a lack of strategic investments continue to cast a shadow over the hospital. This raises the question: why is there no robust, publicly presented plan to structurally address these challenges?
The expectations of the community in general, and healthcare professionals and patients in particular, are clear: people want a transparent, coherent strategy with clear objectives and measurable results. Recruitment processes, strengthening of local talent development, modernization of employment conditions, and a long-term vision for governance and infrastructure are crucial. The new CEO acknowledges the existing bottlenecks, but so far his course has been limited to general good intentions. As long as there is no concrete plan for structural improvement, CMC risks perpetuating the status quo – and further endangering the accessibility and quality of care.
It is time for openness, ambition, and leadership that brings more than mere recognition of old realities. What is needed: a vision, a roadmap, and the courage to transparently choose sustainable change in Curaçao’s healthcare system.
Michael F. Willem
Ex-Minister/Commissioner/Member of Parliament/Island Council member
Dear Editor,
Recently, the airwaves were filled with talks about government’s plans for the future of the landfill. Although the initiative is extremely late, it is still a step in the right direction. During these discussions, Minister of Public Housing, Spatial Planning, Environment and Infrastructure Patrice Gumbs Jr. has invited the public to join in the dialogue, as the ministry seeks solutions to this challenging and long-term process.
After listening to his brief account of the situation at the landfill and his initiative to hold a town hall meeting, I would have preferred to get a comprehensive account of the garbage lot, from the very inception to present, before he organised the meeting – reasons for it being at its current location and a detailed timeline of the many challenges that have occurred over the years to warrant this urgent decision.
In this way, the community would have gotten a better understanding of what has transpired throughout the years; whether it was due to government’s lack of vision or anticipation of the future, or how we as a community have contributed to this situation because of our lack of awareness to be environmentally conscious.
Very concerning is that, not once have I heard the minister mention the significant amount of garbage that the cruise ships add to our landfill. So, when did the sanitary landfill became available to the cruise ships? Who initiated this contract and why? What does the contract entail? Do all of the cruise ships have the privilege to dispose their garbage at the dump? Before this contract was drafted and executed, where were they dumping their waste? Does this include sewage?
Government wants to burden the population once more with a garbage tax, but how much do these cruise ships pay to handle their waste? Does the payment go directly to government? How often do they make these payments and are they current with their fees? How does government handle their defaults, if any? Or is there a trade-off by them injecting monies into the market and cruise pier?
Did I hear correctly that the money which was made available to deal with the landfill situation would be better spent on the future project than to clean up the dump? Is it not better to get rid of all this mess before something new is being introduced? Has the scarcity of space been taken into consideration, based on this growing population? There has to be a way to get rid of this mountain that is sitting in the heart of Philipsburg.
What’s going to happen to all that muck that is still lying there? Even though there are no visible fires, something is fundamentally wrong, because even in the distance, the unbearable scent of manure fills the air, way too often.
I believe that government should focus on clearing this mountain while it pursues this waste-to-energy project.
Joslyn Morton
Dear editor,
As a concerned industry professional, I wish to express my opposition to the proposed tourist tax.
Before introducing any new tax burden on visitors, government should first focus on fixing the inefficiencies in our existing tax collection system. Right now, thousands of foreign property owners on the island want to contribute by paying occupancy tax and, where applicable, profit tax. Yet the current system makes it nearly impossible for them to do so because they cannot easily obtain a CRIB number. This is a structural flaw that leaves millions of dollars uncollected every year.
Why impose a new tax on our loyal visitors when we are failing to capture revenue that is already due? Tourists are our main source of income, and their experience on the island should not be complicated by additional taxes that may discourage travel. Instead, we should modernize our tax system, streamline compliance for foreign property owners, and collect what is rightfully owed before considering new measures.
Let’s not gamble with our most important economic pillar. Tourism has carried St. Maarten through good times and bad, and we must protect its competitiveness at every opportunity.
Respectfully,
Ricardo Perez
Concerned industry professional
Dear Editor,
In St. Maarten, GEBE is shorthand for frustration: the outages, billing mess, and infamous fuel clause. People can only take so much. However, the story doesn’t start or end with GEBE.
Behind every bill are two private monopolies that control the island’s energy and water lifelines: SOL Antilles N.V., the only fuel importer, and Seven Seas Water, the exclusive supplier of water purified by desalination. Together, they operate without competition, and their costs flow unchecked onto utility bills.
The government’s own tariff evaluation, finalized in April 2025 by the Bureau Telecommunication and Post (BTP) with support from the Regulatory Authority of Curaçao (RAC), confirmed this problem. The redacted report showed that between 2022 and 2024, GEBE over-collected through its fuel clauses. In regulated markets, excess charges are refunded to the people. In St. Maarten, they disappear into cash flows, with no questions asked.
Take SOL’s 30-year exclusive contract: it locks GEBE into buying oil only from its terminals, with no alternatives available. BTP/RAC reviewers found invoices padded with unexplained “throughput fees”, premiums and losses, with no regulator verifying a single one. With no price cap, SOL effectively writes the bill, and the public pays it. To make matters worse, GEBE’s aging engines, most of which are well past their intended lifespan, are burning more fuel than modern equipment, further inflating costs.
The same story plays out with water. Seven Seas’ 2007 “take-or-pay” contract forced St. Maarten to buy fixed volumes of desalinated water, whether it was needed or not.
After Hurricane Irma in 2017, the country had to pay millions for unused water. An amendment in 2018 lowered the contracted volume, saving about 4 million guilders per year for three years, roughly 12 million in total. However, the monopoly structure remained intact. In 2023, the deal was extended through 2027 because GEBE was still not ready to produce its own water supply. Officials publicized annual savings of about US $400,000. While significant on its own, this amount is modest compared to the earlier multi-million-guilder savings and does little to offset the inflated costs that households and businesses continue to bear.
People remain trapped in a one-sided arrangement where electricity has long been misallocated, and businesses pay four times more than households do. Faced with growing criticism, GEBE tried to defend its position by hiring Reporting, Controlling, and Regulatory Consulting B.V. (RCRC) to produce a counter-review released on July 31, 2025.
RCRC cautioned that simply cutting the fuel clause could destabilize GEBE, estimating a revenue hit of 2.6 cents per kilowatt hour, or XCG 9.2 million, annually. Their warning recalled Curaçao’s 2011 mistake, where regulators forced Aqualectra into steep tariff cuts, only for the company to collapse within two years. Curaçao’s government had to inject millions to rescue it from bankruptcy, and the people ended up repaying the so-called relief through higher bill payments. This is a textbook case of how quick fixes and political tampering can backfire. No subsidy, town hall, or empty promise will solve this problem. Subsidies only recycle taxpayers’ money; they do not cut costs; they simply shuffle them. No town hall can renegotiate monopoly contracts. Real relief comes only from structural reforms.
The BTP/RAC evaluation provided 13 solid recommendations, of which several were noteworthy. Generator fuels (LFO/HFO) must be brought under the same price controls as gasoline and LPG, with every SOL invoice being independently verified. A correction mechanism should be introduced so that over- or undercharging is automatically adjusted on future bills. The water fuel clause must be redesigned to ensure that electricity costs are transparent and fairly allocated. Most importantly, independent regulatory oversight must be established to end utility self-regulation. One more step that costs nothing but political will is to publish supplier contracts, redacted if necessary, so the public finally knows what it is paying for.
While St. Maarten clings to played-out political grandstanding, other islands have taken steps toward energy diversification. Curaçao strengthened its regulators in 2011 after Aqualectra collapsed due to political interference. Aruba began forming global partnerships in 2012 to roll out wind and solar projects and reduce its dependence on fossil fuels. Barbados broke monopoly markups in 2015 by introducing competitive fuel procurement policies. Jamaica went further, launching renewable energy auctions in 2016; by 2019, renewables already supplied 17% of its grid and are on track to reach 20% by 2030. The lesson is clear:
transparency, competition, and renewables are not theory; they are proven practices.
Keeping GEBE chained to fossil fuels while sidelining renewables guarantees higher future costs for the public. If leaders fear “losing control” of GEBE through privatization, then they should form strategic alliances with private partners that bring the technical expertise needed to modernize. The choice is not complicated: either keep paying inflated bills under a broken system or finally modernize the energy sector with real regulation, competition, and renewables.
The shadows behind your GEBE bills are not simple accounting errors; they are monopolies protected by law, one-sided contracts, and political cowardice. As long as these issues remain untouched, any talk of relief is nothing more than a performance. True relief means rewriting the rules of the game. Anything less is political theatre.
Angelique Remy-Chittick
Financial Strategist & Consultant @Financial.ish
