TANTRAMAR, N.B. — New Brunswick’s most closely watched energy fight is now colliding with two issues residents say they can’t afford to gamble with: the reliability of the provincial power grid and the safety of local groundwater.
In the latest round of reporting and public discussion this week, NB Power executives faced pointed questions inside Tantramar council chambers about a proposed gas-and-diesel-fired generating facility near Centre Village—a project the utility says is essential to keep lights on during peak demand and to stabilize the grid as more renewable power comes online. Critics, however, warn the proposal risks locking the province into new fossil-fuel infrastructure on the ecologically sensitive Chignecto Isthmus, while creating new worries about well water, wetlands, emissions, and public health. [1]
What is the proposed Tantramar gas plant near Centre Village?
The project at the heart of the dispute is widely described in recent coverage as a large-scale (roughly 500-megawatt) gas and diesel-fired power plant planned for a rural part of Tantramar near Centre Village, with a price tag commonly characterized as around $1 billion. It would involve NB Power contracting with ProEnergy to build and operate the facility. [2]
Beyond simple “power generation,” the project is often framed as a grid tool designed to do multiple jobs—an idea captured in one headline describing it as a “Swiss Army knife” for NB Power’s system. [3]
In addition to producing electricity during times of high demand, the proponent has said the facility is intended to run much of the time in a grid-support mode. In written responses connected to the federal impact assessment process, ProEnergy describes the Centre Village Renewables Integration and Grid Security (RIGS) facility operating 85% of the time in “synchronous condensing” mode without fuel, 7% of the time generating with fuel, and 8% on standby. [4]
That operating profile matters because it sits at the center of the debate about emissions, fuel use, and whether the project is being sold as a flexible “backup” tool—or, as opponents fear, a long-lived fossil asset that could run more often than initially forecast.
Why NB Power says the Tantramar facility is needed
At a recent meeting with Tantramar council, NB Power vice-president Brad Coady warned that the Centre Village plant is not optional if the province wants to avoid serious reliability problems.
According to reporting from the meeting, Coady told council the 500 MW gas/diesel plant is essential to avoid “likely blackouts” in the years ahead—and argued that if a major turbine supply arrangement fell through, the province could face energy shortages beginning around 2028–2031, with a replacement solution potentially not arriving until 2032. [5]
The message from NB Power’s side is straightforward: electricity demand is rising, winter peaks are severe, and grid operators need fast, dispatchable capacity (and/or stabilization equipment) that can respond when wind and solar output fluctuate or when cold weather pushes consumption to extremes.
In the federal consultation record, ProEnergy similarly frames the project as enabling more renewable electricity by smoothing volatility on the system, while generating electricity during high-demand periods such as “extremely cold days in winter.” [6]
“No ideal site”: why Centre Village was chosen
Site selection has become one of the most politically charged aspects of the proposal—especially because Tantramar sits on the Chignecto Isthmus, a low-lying and ecologically significant corridor linking New Brunswick and Nova Scotia.
In recent reporting, NB Power’s Coady acknowledged the optics and the local unease, saying there is “no ideal site” for a project like this. [7]
He also argued the Centre Village location was chosen in part because existing infrastructure converges there: the Maritimes & Northeast Pipeline and multiple 138 kV transmission lines intersect near NB Power-owned land—reducing the need to extend pipelines or transmission corridors across additional private properties. [8]
NB Power also pointed to constraints at other locations. In that same account, Coady said a different site (Scoudouc) raised permitting concerns due to fish habitat and faced pushback from First Nations, while Centre Village ultimately became the primary option under the project’s timeline pressures. [9]
Packed chambers, tough questions: what council and residents pressed NB Power on
By multiple accounts, the public meeting was heavily attended, and questions ran the gamut—from environmental impacts to operational details.
A summary of coverage collected on Dec. 19 notes that there were barely any empty seats in council chambers as NB Power delivered a short presentation and then faced questions about the project’s environmental and operational impacts. [10]
Separate coverage described the gathering as a special council meeting where about 60 people attended to hear from NB Power and discuss potential impacts on the surrounding area. [11]
Among the most persistent themes:
1) Well-water risk and groundwater draw
Concerns about well water have moved from speculative fear to direct questioning—particularly because many households in and around Sackville/Tantramar rely on private wells.
A synopsis of one report states that a senior NB Power executive acknowledged there is “likely going to be an impact” on well water in the region if the proposed gas plant proceeds. [12]
In the formal federal consultation record, ProEnergy says the facility would take water from a groundwater well on site, purify it using reverse osmosis, and discharge water whose constituents are described as the same as the well water “only at higher concentrations,” with local samples indicating constituents “primarily” include sodium and calcium. ProEnergy also states “no oily water or process water” would be discharged. [13]
The proponent further says the “exact constituents” would not be known until a Water Supply Source Assessment is completed and notes that water use is only required when generating electricity—expected to be about 7% of the time under its operating assumptions. [14]
2) Diesel backup and the “non-firm” gas question
Another flashpoint is diesel—why it’s part of the design, how much would be stored, and what safety measures would be required.
In related coverage, a councillor asked about diesel storage on site, and Coady explained the utility expects to have a “non-firm” supply of natural gas, which is why diesel backup is part of the plan. [15]
To opponents, diesel storage raises questions about spill risk, truck traffic, and remember-the-worst-case scenarios—especially in a region where flooding, wetlands, and sensitive habitat are part of everyday reality.
3) Emissions, climate targets, and how often it will actually run
Whether the facility runs 7% of the time or something closer to a conventional generator is not a minor detail—it’s the dividing line between “backup/insurance policy” and “new fossil plant.”
In its written response, ProEnergy says the facility would reduce certain pollutants through “advanced catalyst technology,” and it contrasts modeled emissions at comparable facilities with and without that approach. It also references an “extreme stress case” CO₂ figure in environmental documentation while stating the plant is being modeled to operate at fewer hours and would therefore produce lower annual CO₂ emissions under that scenario. [16]
Critics, however, argue that once a large facility exists—and once contracts and fuel logistics are in place—future conditions (price, demand, exports, or emergency events) could shift run-hours upward.
Opposition argues NB Power is using “scare tactics” on blackouts
For local opponents, NB Power’s reliability message sounds less like prudent planning and more like a pressure campaign.
After the council meeting, one local organizer accused NB Power of using “scare tactics” to justify building a gas plant on the Chignecto Isthmus—arguing the timeline is being used as a rationale to force through a project in a location opponents call ecologically vulnerable. [17]
This framing—grid emergency versus environmental integrity—is now shaping how the broader public sees the dispute: as a test of whether the province can plan an energy transition without creating new long-term environmental burdens.
Health concerns are now part of the Tantramar gas plant conversation
While the meeting spotlight has been on water, diesel, and demand forecasts, the public-health angle is also getting louder.
A New Brunswick physicians’ guide on gas plant risks emphasizes that gas plants release pollutants such as nitrogen oxides (NOx), sulfur dioxide (SO₂), particulate matter, carbon monoxide (CO), and volatile organic compounds (VOCs), and it links air pollution exposure to respiratory and cardiovascular harms, among other risks. [18]
The same document references NB Power making a deal with ProEnergy to build a large (500 MW) multi-turbine gas plant in the Tantramar area and warns that long-term agreements can lock in costs and impacts even if grid needs change. [19]
Supporters of the project dispute the implication that the plant would necessarily run frequently enough to drive major air-quality impacts, pointing back to the “mostly synchronous condensing” operating model and modern emissions controls. [20]
The project’s political profile is rising at the legislature
The Tantramar proposal is also increasingly showing up in provincial political debate—often wrapped into broader questions about foreign contracts, energy sovereignty, and the role of fracked gas.
In the New Brunswick Legislative Assembly’s published materials this month, the project is referenced in the context of U.S.-linked energy development, noting that ProEnergy has been given a contract by NB Power to build a new fossil-fuel plant described as fuelled by diesel and U.S. fracked gas. [21]
That kind of language underscores the political challenge for the utility and the government: public trust erodes quickly when residents feel a major infrastructure decision is being made “to” them rather than “with” them.
What happens next: key decisions to watch
As of Dec. 19, the Tantramar gas plant remains proposed, but the timeline pressure repeatedly cited by NB Power means several near-term steps could prove decisive.
Based on the formal consultation record tied to the federal process, one immediate technical milestone is the Water Supply Source Assessment work, which ProEnergy says would help determine the exact composition of discharged water and inform how discharge would be handled to avoid downstream impact. [22]
Beyond that, the big public questions are likely to center on:
- Groundwater impacts: drawdown, interference with private wells, and effluent management. [23]
- How diesel would be stored and used, and under what circumstances gas supply interruptions would trigger backup fuel. [24]
- How often the plant would run on fuel under real-world conditions, and what that means for emissions and costs. [25]
- Whether grid alternatives—such as demand response, storage, transmission upgrades, efficiency, and renewable buildout—could credibly meet the same reliability goals on the same timeline.
The bottom line for New Brunswick ratepayers and Tantramar residents
The Tantramar gas plant debate has moved beyond a single municipal meeting. It is now a provincial test of how New Brunswick balances near-term reliability with long-term climate commitments, and how it accounts for local risks—especially to water—when siting major infrastructure.
NB Power’s argument is urgency: delay could mean shortages and a longer wait for new equipment. [26]
Opponents’ argument is irreversibility: once built, the community lives with the consequences—and the burden of proof should be higher when well water and sensitive ecosystems are on the line. [27]
References
1. ground.news, 2. nouzie.com, 3. nouzie.com, 4. registrydocumentsprd.blob.core.windows.net, 5. warktimes.com, 6. registrydocumentsprd.blob.core.windows.net, 7. nouzie.com, 8. warktimes.com, 9. warktimes.com, 10. ground.news, 11. nouzie.com, 12. ground.news, 13. registrydocumentsprd.blob.core.windows.net, 14. registrydocumentsprd.blob.core.windows.net, 15. ca.news.yahoo.com, 16. registrydocumentsprd.blob.core.windows.net, 17. warktimes.com, 18. warktimes.com, 19. warktimes.com, 20. registrydocumentsprd.blob.core.windows.net, 21. legnb.ca, 22. registrydocumentsprd.blob.core.windows.net, 23. ground.news, 24. ca.news.yahoo.com, 25. registrydocumentsprd.blob.core.windows.net, 26. warktimes.com, 27. ground.news
