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.