Tag: CRED-NB Action

CRED-NB’s statement on the EUB approval of the Tantramar Gas Plant

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.

CRED-NB comment on the Holt government’s response to the NB Power Review

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.

May 19: CRED-NB co-hosts book launch

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.

CRED-NB comment on the DGR project

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.

What is a PPE?

Currently there are more than 18 new nuclear reactors proposed in Ontario and Alberta, plus one new nuclear project planned in New Brunswick. The proponents are applying for environmental review, without identifying the type of reactor they are planning. How is this possible? The answer is the “PPE.”

What is the “Plant Parameter Envelope” Procedure?

Nuclear reactor proponents in Canada are using a “Plant Parameter Envelope” (PPE) approach instead of identifying one reactor design in Impact Assessment and CNSC reviews.

The PPE is a Pretty Poor Excuse for environmental review of a new nuclear reactor.

The PPE originates from a US lobby group, the Nuclear Energy Institute. The NEI published a document with a toolkit to develop a PPE. The PPE is intended to reduce the time needed for a nuclear proponent to obtain an Early Siting Permit for a proposed new reactor from the US NRC (equivalent to a CNSC site preparation licence). Both the NRC and the CNSC have accepted the PPE as a tool designed by the industry to streamline the approvals process.

The PPE is essentially a large spreadsheet. Various parameters (quantifiable characteristics) are listed in the many rows, with one column for each of several candidate reactor designs. Reactor vendors provide the numbers in the spreadsheet. The regulator can examine the range of values for each parameter to ensure they are within certain bounds, regardless of the reactor type. If the regulator accepts these bounds, indicating that all relevant regulatory guidelines could be met by any one of the candidate designs, an Early Siting Permit may be granted and site preparation can commence.

Therefore, in the absence of a specific design, the proponent can use the PPE approach as a surrogate in safety and environmental reviews.

This is worrisome in particular because the vendors supply all the information in the PPE. This includes the “normal and accident source term” – that represents the maximum amount of radioactivity available to be released to the environment under both normal and accidental circumstances. In Canada the source term for a severe nuclear accident in a CANDU reactor was pegged at 100 terabecquerels of cesium-137, which is in fact a small fraction of what might realistically be released in the event of a major nuclear accident involving severe fuel damage (core melting).

The danger is not only that the numbers may be skewed but also that the entire exercise of conducting an environmental evaluation and granting a site preparation licence is reduced to a numerical box-checking exercise in lieu of a detailed examination of one specific reactor design. The PPE approach is off-putting for intervenors who cannot evaluate and critique a specific reactor design.

This information was prepared by the Canadian Coalition for Nuclear Responsibility (CCNR). See one of the CCNR interventions on PPE concerns related to the “Darlington New Nuclear Project” (the BWRX-300):
Mischief in the Making

Could a new nuclear reactor double or triple electricity rates in New Brunswick?

The NB Power Review Panel report recommended considering building a new large nuclear reactor at the Point Lepreau site in New Brunswick. Based on recent experience in other jurisdictions, a new large reactor of the types likely to be considered for Lepreau could cost between $15 and $26 billion. That would be a far higher capital expenditure than the original Point Lepreau reactor, which itself came in at more than $5 billion in 2026 dollars. Read the story by Mark Winfield from York University and Susan O’Donnell, CRED-NB core member. Published by the NB Media Co-op, HERE.

Will the NB Power Review finally shake up NB Power?

The report released on March 30 from the NB Power Review panel was meant to chart a path to a better future for the public utility.  Does it do that?

NB Power desperately needs a very big shake up. The NB Power Review report rattled the utility but not nearly hard enough, writes CRED-NB core member Susan O’Donnell in a commentary published in the NB Media Co-op. Read it HERE.

Stand with Save Lorneville

CRED-NB support’s Save Lorneville’s call for a moratorium on new large data-centre grid allocations and full transparency on the proposed Beacon Data Centers project in Lorneville.

We’re asking supporters to act by April 17. Email a letter to Premier Holt and officials. It takes only 2 minutes using the letter template available HERE.

Copy and paste the text into your own text editor, and then follow the yellow-highlighted instructions. Thank you for standing with Save Lorneville!

Why this matters: Beacon Data Centers is seeking ~200 MW from the NB Power grid, roughly the electricity used by ~150,000 homes. New Brunswickers are being warned about power constraints and rising rates, yet government and agencies have been advancing this massive new demand behind closed doors.

Please share widely with your contacts. To learn more visit the Save Lorneville Facebook page HERE.