The Energy and Utilities Board hearings over the past two weeks on the proposed Tantramar gas/diesel plant, known as the RIGS project, failed to show a need for the project, and exposed the uncertainty about its high costs relative to electricity output.
NB Power claims that having an American company provide 400 megawatts of electricity, via eight natural gas/diesel generators, is the only way to avoid blackouts during peak demand periods in as soon as two years.
What the public heard at the hearings strongly suggest this is not the case. To start, NB Power’s proposal for a multi-billion dollar, 25-year project was fewer than eight pages long and contained errors of fact, omission and process.
This scant planning and analysis was grossly inadequate to justify such a large and expensive project. One suspects this was likely the reason NB Power originally tried to avoid an EUB review entirely.
The utility anchored the need for more electricity generation in a February 2023 cold snap, in which energy demand got so high that the system “almost” crashed. The implication was that wind generated electricity was not available. This dramatic “we’re going to freeze in the dark without fossil fuels” strategy was clearly aimed at the public, as much as the EUB.
However, a detailed timeline of the event proved otherwise. The blackout threat was apparently caused by multiple failures of fossil fuel generators. Wind generation, although limited, probably kept our lights on.
The salient point is that NB Power operators avoided the blackout that day, and every day since, using their existing tools. These tools, and others that weren’t utilized, are also adequate to handle the potential increased electricity demand from population growth, which NB Power asserted as another justification for the gas plant.
Yet, the utility’s own forecasts showed that those shortages would disappear due to other factors by 2028.
Their financial case was even more suspect. Multiple economic and financial experts testified that NB Power made inaccurate financial assumptions, omitted some ongoing costs, underestimated the costs of fossil fuels, and did not seriously evaluate any alternative solutions.
This flawed analysis made the project look cheaper than it actually will be, and eliminated alternative solutions. The actual lifetime cost couldn’t be ascertained using NB Power’s evidence, but it is unimaginable that the often-cited figure of $1 billion will be accurate.
The upshot is that NB Power had based its need for the project on a single close-call incident and some short-term population estimates, not on industry standard long-term planning, co-ordination with government policies, modelling, or analysis of alternatives.
Such rushed planning increases the risk of long-term mistakes, significant risks of ratepayers getting locked into unnecessary costs, and reduced system flexibility. Premature investment crowds out better solutions.
And better solutions are available. Perhaps the most egregious shortcoming of NB Power’s proposal was its lack of serious assessment of battery storage and demand-reduction tools.
The utility had assessed those alternatives based on years-old assumptions that didn’t reflect today’s lower costs, the rapid deployment of battery systems (including in Ontario), and current industry practices.
The rising costs for gas plants and fossil fuel supplies are in contrast to the falling costs of renewables and storage, which have declined by approximately 59 per cent between 2023 and 2025. This is a continuing economic trend that increasingly favours renewables backed by utility-scale storage.
There is no reason why a portfolio of renewables, storage and demand-side management couldn’t deliver at a lower cost than a gas plant within 10 to 18 months. These smaller projects are easily replicated as need increases, as opposed to being dependent on yet another big fossil fuel project.
The just-released International Energy Agency’s report, entitled “State of Energy Innovation 2026,” says this about the status of batteries: “Our analysis suggests that no other energy technology has ever commanded such a dominant share, reflecting the strategic importance of batteries for modern energy security, industrial policy and grid infrastructure, as power demand surges globally.”
Finally, my organization filed comments to the EUB about the growing legal framework that considers the failure of a country to decrease its greenhouse gas emissions as an illegal act, which can be pursued in courts.
The International Court of Justice (Canada is a member) issued a unanimous advisory opinion to that effect, which has already been cited in Canadian courts. As climate chaos continues to worsen, this legal trend will increasingly pose financial risks for states who don’t control their emissions.
The Canadian Climate Institute just reported that Canada isn’t on track to meet any of its climate targets, and lags all G7 countries in greenhouse gas emission reductions.
At one point, the EUB chairperson, Christopher Stewart, asked about climate change as a risk factor. Whether or not this was in response to our comments, he unexpectedly highlighted the overarching reason for the EUB to reject this project.
All of the intervenors called for rejecting NB Power’s application, as the EUB was being asked to base its decision on the appearance of an analysis, not the substance of one.
Thus, the RIGS project fails on the lack of need, its unknown costs to ratepayers, and failure to examine alternatives. But all future fossil fuel proposals must automatically be rejected as threats, not solutions.
Jim Emberger is spokesperson for the New Brunswick Anti-Shale Gas Alliance. This piece was first published by the Telegraph Journal on Feb 25, 2026,
