IT did not take long for the word BaTelCo to come up after word began to spread of a shake-up of Bahamas Power and Light.

In fact, Bahamas Electrical Workers Union president Kyle Wilson was in no uncertain terms when he said: “We’re not going to allow another BTC to happen, another Wartsila to happen, we are saying no in its entirety.”

It is fair to say the suggestion of some form of private public partnership (PPP) at BPL is not being welcomed with open arms.

The suggestion is that in the coming months, BPL will sign two PPP agreements, one for power generation and the other for transmission and distribution. This will leave what is left of the company to handle such things as customer service and sending bills.

Concerns have already been raised that if the power generation is stripped out, and the network of cables and power distribution is also farmed off, what does the company have left in the way of assets?

We do not yet know the shape of the deal, whether it will be outright ownership or a management agreement, but already BPL workers are uneasy, to say the least.

One company, Pike Corporation, is already being mentioned. Its chairman, Eric Pike, is connected to the Jack’s Bay development of Sir Franklyn Wilson.

FNM leader Michael Pintard has also added his voice to those raising concerns – notably asking who will own the assets and how such a deal can have gone so far already without being put out to a public bidding process.

Three months out from the deal, Mr Wilson meanwhile says that officials “refuse to turn over any documentation”, adding: “We don’t believe that it’s done in accordance with the various laws and acts that govern electricity and national assets. We have not heard from URCA, we do not know what’s going on and you’re telling me in three months you’re just going to put the assets of Bahamians into foreign hands.

“These entities were put about by the visionaries and forefathers to be people driven, now they are being profit driven. So we are saying no.”

There was also criticism yesterday when the Minister of Energy, JoBeth Coleby-Davis, addressed the speculation about the deal – by posting on social media about it.

Heaven forbid that a minister make a statement about an issue that affects a sizeable number of workers in a forum where follow-up questions could be asked, rather than vague, bite-size, bland posts on Twitter.

The Office of the Prime Minister also issued a statement saying that Prime Minister Philip “Brave” Davis had met union representatives. The statement said there would be no layoffs and that agreements and worker benefits would be kept.

Notably, the statement said that the sector is to undergo a “much needed change”.

Few would disagree with the need for change at BPL. Year after year, it has been a source of frustration, between power cuts and, last year particularly, eye watering bills to pay to keep the lights on.

The political wrangling over BTC will come back to haunt this process – with comments made back during that deal likely to resurface for a number of politicians.

That can hold true for the Opposition too – who will be asked if they supported BTC then why would they not support a similar process for BPL.

What concerns most at this stage is how clouded the process already is. With only a few months until the deal, it would appear to be signed, sealed and delivered rather than being conducted with an open process.

For BPL staff, the concerns will be whether their jobs are safe and their deals will be honoured.

For BPL customers, they will want to know if such a deal will make the supply of electricity more dependable and cheaper. Private companies will want to make a profit, though, on top of the costs already having to be borne.

The government is going to need to reveal much, much more if it is to convince people that this will be to everyone’s benefit rather than for the pockets of a few. And if the process is as far along as it seems, they had best reveal that now.