Tantramar gas plant proposal contradicts the imperative of reducing emissions and slowing temperature rise

by Jim Emberger • Telegraph-Journal, Nov 27, 2025

NB Power asserts the proposed Tantramar gas/diesel generator is the only solution to a coming electricity crisis. The utility, the project’s proponent, and various government agencies seem determined to limit the scrutiny of that assertion. It won’t be until the Energy and Utilities Board (EUB) holds hearings in February that we may see NB Power’s evidence showing whether the crisis is real or contrived, and whether it has only one solution – fossil fuel generators.

The hearing delay is because NB Power claimed, based on an imaginative redefinition of some accounting terms, that it should not have to undergo a required review. Fortunately, the EUB disagreed. Even so, the review will be shortened by a month, because the project has an April 2 construction start, and the U.S. company, ProEnergy, will not accept an extension.

This was not the first attempt to fast-track this project via reduced scrutiny. At the first public meeting, the federal Impact Assessment Agency (IAAC) told citizens the agency’s rules compelled it to limit the public comment period to two weeks. Citizens quickly discovered this contradicted the IAAC’s own guidelines, and the period was extended.

When the proponent, ProEnergy, held its first public meeting, a few questions quickly revealed claim of an Indigenous equity partner in the project were false.

Additionally, a report filed by ProEnergy as part of a provincial environmental impact assessment (EIA) found no evidence of nesting by pileated woodpeckers at the proposed site. Such evidence would have stopped the project. Later, local citizens submitted photographs and GPS locations of nests. The issue is under investigation.

iStock image of gas plant similar to the one proposed for Tantramar.

Fast-tracking often is characterized by such false assumptions, lack of (or misleading) information, and hurried evidence gathering. It also precludes examination of alternatives.

The IACC announced it won’t do a federal impact assessment, despite the effects the plant will have on federally protected lands, major bird migrations, wetlands, and the sole migratory route connecting New Brunswick to Nova Scotia.

The province then stated it will only do a ‘normal’ assessment, rather than the comprehensive EIA requested by the community due their legitimate concerns about the effects of discharged water on the local environment, and the excessive water requirements for the plant, especially during a serious drought, as was experienced this summer, including loss of wells.

Public health and the harmful emissions from burning fossil fuels are also high on the list of concerns. Much recent research on the subject has confirmed serious health effects, as indicated by a NB Lung statement of opposition to the project on Nov. 14.

Community opposition is unsurprising, but as P.E.I. and Nova Scotia contemplate similar projects, everyone should be alarmed that any fossil fuel plant is being built anywhere in Atlantic Canada.

Despite “elbows up,” all the proposed plants will be built and owned by American companies, and burn expensive fracked gas and dirty diesel, locking us into a 25-year dependence on U.S. companies, volatile fuel prices, and fossil fuels.

The end of that sentence matters greatly. NB Power and ProEnergy have presented contradictory views of this plant. Is it an emergency backup system to avoid power shortages during peak demands and will only burn fuel seven per cent of the time? Or is it a baseload plant for future energy needs, intended to run much of the time?

The project’s large size – 500 megawatts, with potential to scale up to 800 megawatts – suggests it is the latter, which would rate it among the biggest provincial emitters of climate-killing greenhouse gases. New revelations that NB Power will supply electricity-hungry data centres strengthen this viewpoint.

As the global climate conference now taking place in Brazil reminds us, the climate problem is rapidly worsening. The world will fail to meet the Paris climate targets of limiting global warming to 1.5C, and likely 2C.  Carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere continue to climb as we pass the first tipping point – the death of warm water corals and their ocean food chains.

Billion dollar-plus, climate-influenced weather disasters are common. The World Health Organization considers climate change the foremost threat to public health. The International Nature Conservation Congress has declared fossil fuels as a threat to nature.

Canada is the only advanced economy whose greenhouse gas emissions have actually increased, and it’s among the world leaders in per-capita emissions. As Prime Minister Mark Carney learned at the climate conference, when you’re promoting fossil fuel projects as ‘nation-building,’ it’s hard to present yourself as a responsible nation and trading partner to countries suffering from the worst effects of climate change.

Finally, the International Court of Justice has unanimously decided nations that increase, or don’t decrease, greenhouse gas emissions can be held legally and financially responsible for damages. As this new legal principle works its way into judicial systems, it may bring new fiscal risks.

Since 2021, we’ve known there can’t be any new fossil fuel projects, yet here we are. The tragedy is that energy experts and utilities, nearby and globally, are solving problems like ours with less expensive, non-polluting renewable energies, demand reduction strategies, grid technology, and battery storage.

While waiting for the EUB hearing, perhaps NB Power and the government could learn from them.

~ Jim Emberger is spokesperson for the New Brunswick Anti Shale Gas Alliance.