Bermuda is at a crossroads. Not a solar crossroads, or an LNG crossroads, or even an energy crossroads. A decision crossroads; the kind that comes along once in a generation and that shapes what kind of island we leave behind.

The public consultation on the National Electricity Sector Policy closes this week. Most Bermudians don't know it is happening. Of those who do, many assume the outcome is already decided. I want to make the case that it isn't, that their voice matters and that the stakes are higher than the technical language of energy policy suggests.

What this debate is really about

It is not about whether solar panel owners are hurting their neighbours.

It is not about whether Belco is a villain or a hero.

It is about a single, consequential question: should Bermuda commit its electricity system; and therefore every household and business electricity bill, to a major new fossil fuel infrastructure for the next 30 to 50 years, or should it invest in flexible, modern alternatives whose costs are falling and whose risks are manageable?

That is the question the NESP 2026 is asking.

The data deserves respect

Bermuda's electricity bills are rising. That is real and it matters most to those with the least. But before we decide what to do about it, we owe it to ourselves to understand why it is happening.

Solar generates approximately three per cent of Bermuda's total electricity. It is a contributor to changing grid economics but it's not the primary driver of the cost pressures Bermudians feel. Our population has been declining. Major hotels have been offline for years. Bermudians have become meaningfully more energy efficient. When fewer customers share the same fixed infrastructure costs, bills rise.

We encourage and support the Government to publish a clear, disaggregated analysis of what is actually driving decline before it finalises any policy. Bermudians need this transparency to understand how to decide on our future.

Two plans already gave us an answer

Bermuda did not come to this debate unprepared. In 2019, the Regulatory Authority commissioned a rigorous and independently reviewed Integrated Resource Plan. It examined LNG carefully and pointed away from it, warning that a commitment to gas infrastructure would influence energy policy and prices for up to 50 years. In 2024, Belco's own preferred plan reached the same conclusion and chose a more flexible energy mix that enables our island to evolve with technology and not close the opportunity to meaningfully incorporate efficient, sustainable and proven modern solutions.

These were not ideological documents. They were technical analyses using Bermuda's own data, conducted by independent experts, from the University of Edinburgh and Black & Veatch, with no stake in the outcome. Two plans, two conclusions, the same direction.

The question worth asking is not whether LNG should be studied. It was studied. Thoroughly. The question is what new evidence has emerged since 2024 that justifies reopening a conclusion already reached twice.

The real risk is lock-in

There is a concept in infrastructure economics called “sunk cost lock-in”. It means that once capital is committed to a single-purpose asset, a gasification plant, an LNG terminal, a storage facility, that capital must be recovered regardless of what happens to the technology, the commodity price, or the alternatives available in the future. Under Bermuda's regulatory framework, approved infrastructure earns a guaranteed return recovered from electricity bills for the life of the asset.

That is not a criticism of Belco; it is how regulated utilities work everywhere. But it means that every dollar committed to LNG infrastructure is a dollar that earns its return from Bermudian ratepayers for decades, whether or not cheaper alternatives exist by then and whether or not the renewable transition the NESP itself champions makes that infrastructure redundant.

Bloomberg NEF reported this year that utility-scale battery storage now costs less to build than a new LNG plant. That comparison did not exist when the 2019 IRP was written. It exists now.

This is not an argument against Belco

I want to be direct about something. Bermuda does not benefit from a weakened Belco. A strong, well-run, financially stable utility is essential to everything we are trying to achieve on this island. We all need Belco to succeed. We need it to be able to invest in the grid, to manage the integration of distributed generation intelligently and to lead Bermuda's energy transition with competence and confidence.

Our concern should not be with Belco. Our concern must instead be with a capital decision of historic scale and duration being made before the alternatives have been fully tested, before the cost comparison has been updated for 2026 economics and before the public has had a genuine opportunity to understand what is being decided on their behalf.

Wayne Caines called this week for policy that is honest about costs, equitable in its application, and grounded in evidence. We wholeheartedly agree with every word. That is precisely what we are asking for.

What Bermudians can do, today

This is not about solar versus LNG. It is not about rich versus poor. It is about whether Bermuda makes this decision with full information, or whether it gets made for us while most of us are still trying to understand it.

Bermuda has always been small enough that individual voices matter. This is one of those moments.

Go to forum.gov.bm/en/projects/nesp-2026 to submit your comments. It closes today.

• Robbie Godfrey is the CEO of BE Solar Ltd