Topaz Generating Station near Houston, Texas is similar to the one that PROENERGY wants to build near Centre Village. Photo: PROENERGY
The New Brunswick government has approved construction of a 500 MW gas/diesel plant near Centre Village subject to 45 conditions that require the U.S. company PROENERGY to monitor air and water quality and submit a net zero greenhouse gas emissions plan after one full year of operation.
Other conditions require the company to:
- engage in on-going information sharing with the Elsipogtog First Nation throughout the project in relation to any impacts on plants or wildlife, including moose.
- work with the Tantramar Fire Department in the preparation of an Emergency Management Plan and Fire Safety plan that specifically addresses the provision of a water supply for firefighting purposes for potential fires at the facility. Those plans must be submitted to the government before construction begins.
- investigate any complaints from local residents about negative effects on the quality and quantity of the water in their private wells. If it’s determined that PROENERGY is responsible for any negative effects, the company would be required to provide a temporary water supply for short-term impacts or to repair, remediate, or replace any permanently affected wells which might include deepening a well or drilling a new one.
PROENERGY would also be required to operate the generating plant using natural gas as the primary fuel and notify the government when it is using diesel and for how long.
Although the conditions state that PROENERGY must operate the plant primarily in synchronous condensing mode that does not require burning fuel, it will be allowed to burn fuel to generate electricity up to 17% of the time calculated on a yearly basis.
Human health
Environment Minister Gilles LePage. Photo: Government of New Brunswick
During a 30-minute news conference, Environment Minister Gilles LePage said he is satisfied with the 45 conditions.
“Some of the concerns addressed in the conditions included potential risk to human health,” LePage said in his opening statement.
“A human health risk assessment concluded that risks are negligible to minimal. Air quality monitoring will be conducted to maintain compliance with regulatory standards during operations,” he added.
“I’m very confident that this project will minimize the impact on human health.”
When asked about local opposition to the project, LePage said he would reassure residents in Tantramar that the 45 conditions will address all of their concerns.
He also pointed out that one condition requires PROENERGY to inform the public regularly about construction activities and the project’s progress.
Indigenous support
When asked how the government could continue to support the project if there is no Indigenous investment in it or approval for it, LePage pointed to the requirement to share information with the Elsipogtog First Nation.
“So, it is not a condition or essential to the project that there be Indigenous investment or buy-in or approval?” a reporter asked.
“No, my role and our role as an EIA process is to evaluate a project on the environmental impacts on a proposed project on a certain site,” the minister answered.
“The business case, the financial part, we are not engaged in that aspect,” he said, adding that the question should be directed to PROENERGY.
‘Bad, expensive, polluting idea’
Tantramar MLA Megan Mitton says she’s not surprised the Holt government has approved the gas plant.
“It’s a bad, expensive, polluting idea,” she said in a telephone interview with Warktimes.
Tantramar MLA Megan Mitton at an anti-gas plant rally last spring
“PROENERGY is the proponent, but NB Power has invited them here and the Holt government is backing this up,” she adds.
“Certainly there’s a list of conditions and I think they tried to make it look like a really long list, but a lot of it is basically saying that the company must follow the law,” Mitton says.
She mentioned what she sees as the negative effects on air, water and human health.
“It’s extremely dangerous for them to move forward with these things, these projects, when we know we have other options and we are in a climate crisis and I didn’t even talk about the cost. $3.5 billion. Think of what else we could do with that.”
Mitton points to the premier’s announcement that the moratorium on fracking is under review, now combined with her government’s approval of the gas plant.
“It’s becoming very clear where Holt really stands on these things. And it’s very clear that the Greens are the only ones who are fighting for the right to a healthy environment, are fighting for a real energy transition, and are the only ones that really have progressive views and want to make sure we have a fair economy and a fair energy system,” she says.
“Unfortunately, the other old parties are stuck in their old ways and are continuing to really just crank out the same ideas from previous centuries.”
Mayor’s statement
Meantime, Mayor Wiggins-Colwell issued a carefully worded statement on Facebook.
“Both the former and current council of Tantramar opposed this project, but we must move forward with the expectation that all public concerns are reflected in the conditions attached to the certificate approval,” that statement says before encouraging residents “to rely on official sources of information for updates regarding the process.”
The read the mayor’s statement, click here.
To read the New Brunswick government’s complete list of 45 conditions for the project, click here.
Commentary: The tricky world of misrepresentation — gas plant edition
By Logan Atkinson, Seniors for Climate — Tantramar
Pixabay Pinocchio image created by iffany
Children have a wonderfully efficient way of getting to the heart of the matter. “Liar! Liar! Pants on fire!” If a peer steps outside the recognized moral order, then there’s no need for debate, reflection, appeals and counter-appeals. Instead, the kids go directly to their own system of justice – chants, ridicule, humiliation and, ultimately, banishment to the far reaches of the playground.
Rough justice? Perhaps. But effective? Almost certainly.
In the world of adult discourse, however, to accuse someone of lying is a business fraught with risk. Instead, we tend towards “misrepresentation” as the safer accusation. After all, a statement might be made innocently, without knowledge that it’s untrue. Perhaps it’s made negligently, made without checking the facts carefully enough. Or, in some cases, a misrepresentation might be fraudulent, made with the intent to deceive and to exact some advantage.
This last is the lie.
For over a year now, the proponents (NB Power and PROENERGY) of the Centre Village fossil-fuel plant in Tantramar have been accused of misrepresentation by members of the public fighting against the project. The subjects of concern have been many: water usage, operating times, the need for more power, emissions levels, the economic implications. And on and on.
Are the alleged misrepresentations innocent? Are they negligent? Or are they lies, made with the intent to deceive the public and to exact some advantage, perhaps support for the project among citizens-at-large?
Indigenous investment claim
At the beginning, the Centre Village project proponents claimed that they had secured an equity investment from Indigenous investors. This is important and merits greater scrutiny. We can start with the proponents’ filing with the New Brunswick environmental impact assessment agency, dated July 4, 2025.
In section 2 on page 4, you will see the following representation:
There it is, in black and white. The proponent is holding out to the provincial regulator, and to the public, that the NSMTC has invested in the project.
The proponents were required to file something similar with the federal Impact Assessment Agency of Canada. This document is also dated July 4, 2025, and in section 2, page 1, it says:
It’s less clear here that NSMTC is represented as an equity investor in the Project, although that’s safe to assume given that NSMTC is being held out as a signatory to the tolling agreement.
But any ambiguity is removed further along, in section 4 on page 4, where we find this:
Public info sessions
To this point at least, there’s nothing to suggest that the representation of Indigenous investment in the Centre Village project is a misrepresentation. But then proponents held two public information sessions in Tantramar, the first at the Music Barn in Upper Sackville on August 12, 2025, and the second at the Civic Centre in Sackville on August 13th.
One of the display panels at the first public meeting clearly indicated that the North Shore Mi’kmaq Tribal Council was an equity participant, an investor, in the project.
Innocent? Negligent? Fraudulent? Are we yet to the point of “pants on fire?”
At the second public information session, the same display panel appeared, with the same misrepresentation of Indigenous investment. I pointed this out to Mr. Jackson, and asked why the panel hadn’t been corrected to reflect the true state of affairs. He merely smiled in response.
A question and answer session followed. When pressed about the misrepresentation, John MacIsaac (speaking for PROENERGY) said something to the effect that we can’t control what the media say about ownership of the project. But it was pointed out to Mr. MacIsaac that the media are simply repeating what appears in the proponents’ own proposal to the environmental regulators.
After that, Mr. Jackson claimed that the proposal was written as it was (claiming a First Nations’ equity interest instead of the actual option) to make it easier to understand!
At this point, things are getting serious. Was this an admission that the misrepresentation was made with the knowledge that it was false? Are we slipping away from mere innocence or negligence? Is the possibility of fiery pants now too obvious to ignore?
A-G blows the whistle
In case additional evidence were needed about this misrepresentation, the New Brunswick’s Auditor General released his 2026 Annual Report in installments at the end of May and early in June. Volume 2 addressed the Centre Village project, and the misrepresentation about Indigenous investment was succinctly pointed out on page 15:
Then, a bit later in June, Lori Clark, President and CEO of NB Power, testified before the Public Accounts Committee at the New Brunswick legislature, and appeared to deflect responsibility for the misrepresentation back to PROENERGY.
All doubt was removed when Brad Coady, a Vice-President of NB Power, was interviewed following his appearance at Tantramar Municipal Council on July 14th. Mr. Coady confirmed that no Indigenous investment had been made, and went even further, suggesting that such an investment is a nice-to-have, rather than a must-have. Indigenous communities have the opportunity to invest, he said, and that’s good enough. There is no formal regulatory requirement that Indigenous investment be secured.
Maybe Mr. Coady is right. Maybe there’s nothing in the formal law to compel Indigenous partnership in a project like the proposed Centre Village fossil-fuel plant. But is formal law the only mechanism at work here? Is formal law the only basis on which the project proponents might be judged? The evidence is very clear that the question of Indigenous investment in the project has been misrepresented from the very beginning.
Do we really want to play with the American firm PROENERGY, a firm that misrepresents a vital feature of its project, and then over months and months of scrutiny fails to own up to that misrepresentation? Do you think that this misrepresentation is innocent? Negligent? Something worse?
What would the children on the playground say?
How loud might the chants become?
How might they judge the behaviour of PROENERGY?
Do you think PROENERGY would be banished to the farthest reaches of the playground?
Logan Atkinson is a member of Seniors for Climate — Tantramar, scantantramar@gmail.com