N.B. Power’s attempt to skip the Energy and Utilities Board review process for a proposed gas plant near Sackville faced rejection from the regulator on Thursday. In July, the utility inked a deal with a private company to handle the design, construction, operation, and maintenance of a natural gas plant for 25 years. N.B. Power argued to the EUB that since this project was outsourced, it should not fall under their capital projects’ purview. However, the EUB disagreed, stating that the project poses financial risks that the Electricity Act aims to address, thus warranting a full review.
EUB Chair Christopher Stewart explained that the project’s setup does not eliminate potential risks for N.B. Power, which could lead to additional costs for ratepayers. He emphasized that reviews offer the board a chance to evaluate the financial prudence of such projects and allow stakeholders to voice their support or opposition. Intervener Moe Qureshi from the Conservation Council of New Brunswick welcomed the EUB’s decision, highlighting it as a victory for accountability, ratepayers, and environmental responsibility.
The hearing dates for the review are pending, but N.B. Power’s counsel assured the utility would submit its application promptly. Despite questioning the necessity of the standard waiting period before a pre-hearing conference, Stewart mentioned the importance of giving interested parties ample time to decide on intervention opportunities.
The proposed gas plant, deemed essential by N.B. Power due to potential energy shortages as early as 2027, has stirred controversy. Amid debates, the Tantramar council recently passed a motion urging government officials and the project’s proponents, ProEnergy Canada, for increased engagement and a comprehensive environmental impact assessment. Opposition to the project has been vocal, with concerns raised over transparency regarding costs and potential environmental and health impacts.
Notably, a ProEnergy-hosted open house drew around 170 community members this summer, with worries raised about potential discharge of “liquid effluents” into nearby wetlands and expected impacts on groundwater and surface water quality based on a 2025 environmental assessment.
