Author: CREDNB

CRED-NB is a member of the Coalition to Protect the Chignecto Isthmus (CPIC) that is fighting the development of a fossil gas plant that was given the green light this week by New Brunswick’s Energy and Utilities Board. This article by Bruce Wark in the NB Media Co-op, HERE, has the reaction of CPIC, New Brunswick Anti-Shale Gas Alliance and the Conservation Council of New Brunswick.

CRED-NB is deeply disappointed by the approval of the 500-megawatt gas-and-diesel plant proposed for Tantramar by the NB Energy and Utilities Board (EUB) on May 28.

While the plant threatens the sensitive Chignecto ecosystem, human health from toxic and climate-changing emissions, and aenergy affordability, the EUB is not required to consider the added costs these impacts would impose on the public.

As Megan Mitton, MLA for Tantramar, observed, the EUB is only required to determine if the project is “reasonable financially.”

It’s hard to see how approving a project that will contribute to rising electricity bills and increasing costs for health care and climate-related emergency response is reasonable financially.

Despite this setback, opponents are considering next steps, including launching a legal review of the EUB’s decision.

The power of the provincial government to overturn a decision by the EUB was removed by legislation in 2013.

In its decision, the EUB rebuked NB Power for filing insufficient information in support of its application for regulatory approval. In a CBC article, Lisa J Griffin, organizer of the Protect the Chignecto Isthmus Coalition, noted that when Prince Edward Island’s energy regulator faced a similar difficulty during its ongoing hearings for gas plants from ProEnergy, the same company building the Tantramar project, it commissioned a study from Synapse Energy Economics of Massachusetts. The study concluded that battery storage was cheaper than gas plants and brought added benefits.

Why didn’t the EUB commission such a study when it found NB Power’s information on alternatives insufficient? Was it because ProEnergy had set June 2 as the deadline for regulatory approval, failing which it would walk away from its contract with NB Power?

Would pausing the hearings to commission a study have fallen outside the EUB’s mandate? In either case, the regulations governing the EUB have not served the public interest. Reform of the EUB Act should be considered. When the information supplied to support the project is insufficient, the EUB should not be bound by proponent “deadlines” and instead be able to extend the timelines to gather sufficient information to make an informed decision.

Act by June 7, action alert and more info HERE.

The federal Discussion Paper, Delivering on Big Projects in Canada outlined the plan to shorten and reduce environmental impact assessment. The plan will hit nuclear projects particularly hard, handing the assessment process over to the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission.  The deadline for comment is June 7, and it’s expected that new legislation will follow quickly.

In May, the provincial government responded to the NB Power Review report released in March. Of the Review report’s 50 recommendations, the government accepted 44 and identified six for further study. 

Many of the recommendations are intended to improve NB Power’s operations and organizational culture, including governance, oversight, accountability, staffing levels and training. The government assigned most of these improvements to NB Power to implement, with some external assistance. We can only cross our fingers that the same utility that the Review criticized as lacking operational excellence – including basic project management skills – can somehow get it together to improve itself.

The Review report included a bizarre suggestion that buildings heated with baseboard electric heaters should switch to fossil gas furnaces. Thankfully, the government response did not pounce on this opportunity to promote fracking but instead responded by completing an “analysis of the role of natural gas for heating purposes” and developing recommendations “for government consideration.” Fingers crossed again that these will be quietly binned.

The Review report included considerable discussion of NB Power’s nuclear operations, much of it highly critical, yet recommended that the government consider developing a new large nuclear reactor. Remembering that more than half of NB Power’s $6 billion debt is due to Point Lepreau’s refurbishment and ongoing maintenance and outage expenses, this recommendation appears illogical.

At the media event in March to launch its report, the Review panel pointedly recommended against developing SMRs because they carry “a whole set of risks.” 

Considering this clear advice to avoid SMRs, it is interesting that the government response to the new large reactor recommendation is “short-term action” to “evaluate opportunities for new nuclear (SMR and/or conventional).” CRED-NB was hoping that the Review panel’s criticism of SMRs as well as a new report highlighting the failure of Canada’s SMR strategy would mean the end of New Brunswick’s SMR ambitions, but it seems not.

Dr. Gordon Edwards, president of the Canadian Coalition for Nuclear Responsibility has used the term “hopium” to describe the irrational belief in the potential of nuclear energy. In a recent post, Dr. Edwards added: “HOPIUM also requires OPM = Other People’s Money.” Our hope is that the government’s evaluation of opportunities for new nuclear will be a learning opportunity about the reasons why nuclear power has no future.

Proposed changes affecting households that generate their own solar power represent a step backwards for environmental sustainability and the renewable energy sector in New Brunswick, according to critics from the Green Party and solar energy industry. Read the article HERE in the NB Media Co-op by David Gordon Koch.

CRED-NB co-hosted the Canadian book launch by author Linda Pentz Gunter: No To Nuclear: Why Nuclear Power Destroys Lives, Derails Climate Progress and Provokes War.

The recording of the event, HERE, features the author in conversation with CRED-NB core member Susan O’Donnell.

The nuclear power industry wants us to believe that theirs is the only technical fix for the climate crisis. No To Nuclear calls the industry’s bluff. Beyond Nuclear Executive Director Linda Pentz Gunter makes the irresistible case that nuclear power is too slow, too expensive, too dangerous and too integrally connected to the nuclear weapons complex, to serve as a rational energy choice. The book also delves into the lives of Indigenous peoples and communities of colour, who have been harmed the most by the nuclear sector, and questions whether the way we devalue nature and the environment is costing us the chance of a genuinely just energy transition.

New Brunswick environmental activists are reacting with alarm to Prime Minister Carney’s announcement of a National Electricity Strategy that promotes the burning of natural gas to help double Canada’s supply of electrical power by 2050. Read the story HERE by Bruce Wark in the NB Media Co-op.

Not mentioned in the story but of particular concern to CRED-NB is the electricity strategy’s focus on nuclear energy instead of renewable energy to power electricity grids, although the strategy contains no specific details. The federal government announced that a national nuclear energy strategy will be released before the end of 2026.

CRED-NB was one of 20 environmental organizations across Canada to sign the letter from the Alberta Wilderness Association to the federal Minister of Environment demanding that the Pathways carbon capture utilization and storage project undergo a federal environmental impact assessment. Read the joint media release HERE.

On Sunday, June 7, CRED-NB will be part of the Earthfest Climate Solutions Hub event at Ministers Island in St. Andrews. Tickets are free and organizers are asking everyone to reserve your ticket. Details HERE.

CRED-NB is engaged in the ongoing process to ensure a rigorous Impact Assessment for the proposed Deep Geological Repository (DGR) for high-level nuclear waste. Our latest submission is “Comment to the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada on the draft Integrated Tailored Impact Statement Guidelines: Include the Point Lepreau nuclear site and Indigenous nations and communities in New Brunswick.” Read it HERE.