Dear Sir,

I read the recent opinion piece by Wayne Caines, the president of Belco, with the deep frustration shared by many residents in Pembroke. For decades, we have endured the consequences of living next to the plant, and to see our reality misrepresented with “data, not rhetoric” requires a response grounded in the facts that our community lives with every day.

Mr Caines boasts of $50 million in fuel savings for ratepayers. This figure conveniently ignores the enormous costs his company has forced upon its neighbours.

What is the cost to families who must constantly repaint their roofs and wash their cars to remove oily soot?

What is the cost of the devaluation of our property, a concern raised repeatedly by the Bermuda Clean Air Coalition?

And, most importantly, what is the cost to our health from breathing polluted air and wondering if our water is safe?

These are not rhetoric; they are the documented costs that Belco has offloaded on to our community.

The most cynical argument in Mr Caines’s piece is the attempt to blame residents and regulators for the soot crisis by telling us to “lobby for LNG”. This is a staggering misrepresentation of history.

As has been thoroughly reported by The Royal Gazette, the Regulatory Authority’s 2018 approval was for diesel-configured engines. Belco then made the business decision to optimise those new engines for liquefied natural gas, a fuel that was not approved for use. The Regulatory Authority said it was “imprudent” for Belco to pass on the capital costs to retrofit the North Power Station to the customer. When the LNG plan was rejected, Belco chose to run these gas-optimised engines on the dirtiest, cheapest fuel available — heavy fuel oil. Even the engine’s manufacturer, MAN Energy Solutions, stated it was “not surprised” this mismatch would cause emissions problems (The Royal Gazette, April 11, 2023). This crisis is not our fault; it is the direct result of a failed corporate gamble. To now demand that the community fix Belco’s expensive mistake is unacceptable.

Mr Caines’s claims about water safety are dangerously incomplete. He states that water tests show “zero exceedances of primary drinking-water standards”, which is technically true for the water column. However, he fails to mention the most critical finding of the 2020 BIOS report, which was commissioned by the Department of Environment and Natural Resources. That report found that the sediment at the bottom of our water tanks contains elevated levels of nickel and vanadium — the specific chemical fingerprints of HFO combustion. We are living with a growing reservoir of toxic heavy metals in the bottom of our drinking-water tanks. Citing compliance with a standard that does not measure the true nature of the contamination is a gross misrepresentation of the risk we face.

To frame Belco’s 30-year history of roof painting as a “longstanding commitment” is to admit to 30 years of failing to solve the problem at its source. Community groups have rightly called these reactive measures “rinse-and-repeat PR stunts” (The Royal Gazette, August 15, 2025). We don’t want a temporary cleaning; we want a permanent solution. We want to open our windows without smelling acrid fumes and to trust the water we collect from our roofs.

The real solution is not for the community to lobby for Belco’s preferred fuel. The solution has been already identified by independent experts. A 2021 review by Ricardo Energy & Environment stated that “the most effective way to mitigate this problem would be to use a lower-polluting fuel such as diesel or natural gas” (The Royal Gazette, February 27, 2023). Belco could switch to a cleaner fuel tomorrow. It chooses not to because HFO is cheaper.

We are not interested in political finger-pointing. We are interested in accountability and our fundamental right to clean air and water. The fact is, Belco made a poor business decision and is now polluting our homes. Instead of writing opinion pieces that deflect blame, Mr Caines and Belco should take responsibility.

Stop burning HFO in engines that were not designed for it, and start prioritising the health of the community you claim to serve.

THAD MURDOCH

Pembroke

UPDATE: this letter has been amended with Thad Murdoch’s permission to clarify the context of the Regulatory Authority’s “imprudent” comment in relation to Belco