Dear Editor,
The reported prospect of a third powership arriving in Guyana in December should force every citizen to ask a fundamental question: what has happened to the promises made to Guyanese about affordable, reliable electricity?
For years, the People’s Progressive Party/Civic (PPP/C) Government has presented the Gas-to-Energy project at Wales as a transformative investment that would reduce electricity costs, strengthen the national grid and improve the lives of ordinary citizens. The Government specifically promised a 50 per cent reduction in electricity tariffs and promoted a 300-megawatt power plant as a major step towards a more affordable and reliable energy supply.
Yet Kaieteur News, in its October 25, 2026 report, Third power ship expected to arrive in December, reports that the contractor, Lindsayca Guyana Inc., may be unable to deliver electricity to the national grid by Christmas. The newspaper also reports that the contractor has sought an additional US$120 million to US$170 million to complete the project. These claims require an official response and full disclosure, but their implications cannot be brushed aside.
How did a project repeatedly promoted as a solution to Guyana’s electricity challenges reach a point where the country may need another rented power ship while the principal facility remains unfinished?
In January 2026, President Irfaan Ali maintained that the 50 per cent reduction remained a commitment, despite delays to the project. By August, Prime Minister Mark Phillips explained that the reduction would come only after the plant was fully operational. In September, the Department of Public Information reported that the first turbine was expected to undergo initial firing and testing in December, producing approximately 57 megawatts.
Now, the October 25 report raises doubts about whether even that initial milestone can be achieved by the end of the year.
These changing timelines warrant serious scrutiny. A government cannot reasonably expect citizens to accept repeated announcements as proof of delivery. The public must be able to compare original commitments, revised deadlines and actual results.
The Government’s May 2026 statement said the overall project cost was not expected to exceed US$1.1 billion, including contingency, and indicated that liquidated damages could be reinstated if specified milestones were missed. The reported request for additional funding raises an obvious question: does this request fall within the stated budget, or would it increase the total cost?
The Government must publish a clear account of expenditure to date, the remaining cost to complete the project, the status of contractual claims and the consequences of any further delay. It must also explain whether liquidated damages will be applied if the contractor fails to meet its commitments.
Taxpayers should not be left to speculate about whether they will ultimately bear the cost of project overruns, contractual disputes or emergency electricity arrangements.
The proposed third powership raises further questions. What is its total rental cost? How long will it remain in Guyanese waters? What will be the cost of fuel and other operating expenses? Was the revised agreement competitively assessed, and will the contract be made public?
A temporary generation arrangement may be necessary to protect the public from electricity shortages. But necessity must not become an excuse for secrecy, weak planning or the absence of accountability.
Guyana is producing oil and earning substantial revenues, yet citizens continue to expect reliable electricity and meaningful relief from household expenses. The existence of natural-resource wealth makes careful project management and transparent spending more important, not less.
The issue is not whether the country needs more electricity. It plainly does. The issue is whether the Government planned adequately for growing demand, managed the project effectively, enforced contractual obligations and communicated honestly with the population about what could be delivered and when.
The PPP/C administration must answer these questions directly. If the project is delayed, explain why. If additional money is required, disclose the basis. If a third powership is necessary, publish the full financial implications. And if the original deadlines can no longer be met, provide a credible, independently verifiable schedule.
The public deserves more than repeated assurances that a project is progressing. It deserves evidence of progress, transparency in expenditure and consequences when contractual commitments are not fulfilled.
The Government may continue to describe Gas-to-Energy as transformative, but the final judgment must rest on measurable outcomes: electricity delivered, tariffs reduced, supply made more reliable and public money accounted for.
Guyanese were promised cheaper electricity, not an endless cycle of revised deadlines and additional explanations. The time has come for the Government to account for the gap between its promises and the reported reality.
Yours truly,
Annette Ferguson
