The executive director of the Atlantic Wildlife Institute is renewing his call for federal Environment Minister Julie Dabrusin to order a comprehensive review of the proposed 500 MW gas/diesel plant near Centre Village.
“We’re asking her to do her job,” Barry Rothfuss said Thursday during a telephone interview.
“Right now, we have, in my view, an illegal environmental assessment taking place in the province of New Brunswick,” he added.
“The province does not have any jurisdiction in transboundary issues like this. It is purely federal jurisdiction here,” said Rothfuss who also speaks for the Protect the Chignecto Isthmus Coalition that includes more than two-dozen organizations opposed to the gas plant.
In September 2025, the federal Impact Assessment Agency of Canada (IAAC) concluded that no further review of the project was needed even though the agency had received 270 public comments raising concerns about the gas plant’s potential effects on wildlife, human health and the environment.
Health effects
Rothfuss says the IAAC decision came before PROENERGY, the American company that would build and operate the plant, released a health study showing that emissions from the gas plant would directly affect Amherst and the areas around it in Cumberland County.
He points to a table showing levels of nitrogen dioxide that are nearly three times higher than federal air quality standards and levels of fine particulate matter or microscopic soot particles that also exceed federal standards.
According to Health Canada, long-term exposure to low levels of nitrogen dioxide can increase the risks for breathing problems that include coughing and wheezing while worsening the effects of asthma, airborne allergies and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.
Health Canada also warns that fine particulate matter is most dangerous for children with asthma, older adults or people with underlying breathing or heart problems.
“These are their own figures I’m referring to,” Rothfuss says about the health study that PROENERGY commissioned.
He adds that the current environmental impact assessment (EIA) that New Brunswick is conducting stops at the provincial border.
“Only the federal government has the authority to deal with this from both sides of the border and so it’s critical to protect people’s welfare by making sure that the system represents the interests of the communities on either side.”
Water dangers
Rothfuss says PROENERGY’s extraction of water from a wellfield that may be shared between the provinces could also cause problems in Amherst where the town has spent millions upgrading its water systems since 2018.
“Yes, they’re going down below the actual wellfield and pulling the brackish water from beneath it, but that creates a lot of concerns in dealing with contamination and other things into the well table,” Rothfuss says.
“On top of that, they’re pulling out the brackish water and then treating it through a reverse osmosis system once they get it out of the ground.”
Last month, NB Power Vice President Brad Coady told Tantramar council that PROENERGY is now planning to truck the wastewater from the site, possibly to a disposal facility in Halifax.
“This is a very dangerous contaminant byproduct that is going to be produced on virtually a daily basis,” Rothfuss says.
“It means that these contaminant trucks are going to be moving out of the gas plant and down our road systems and potentially into Nova Scotia road systems as well and that creates an unprecedented type of hazard to our community,” he adds.
“It’s not only that the material could potentially spill,” he says, “but you’re also going to have heavy truck movement continuously through the area and it’s going to wear on our roads.”
Indigenous issues
In addition to potential health and water effects in Nova Scotia, Rothfuss points to the lack of consultation with Indigenous communities.
“We are impacting Mi’kmaq territorial rights on the Nova Scotia side of the border,” he says. “They have the same rights on that side of the border as we have on this side of the border and both communities have to be brought to the table here. In that particular sense, this is clearly not a one-province issue, it’s a transboundary issue.”
On August 10th, Rothfuss e-mailed a detailed letter calling on Beauséjour’s member of Parliament Dominic LeBlanc to review the evidence and co-ordinate with the federal environment minister to order a comprehensive review of the gas plant project.
The letter suggests that if the federal government fails to honour its constitutional obligations to review transboundary health and environmental issues as well as its duty to consult Indigenous communities, Protect the Chignecto Isthmus Coalition could take the matter to the Federal Court of Canada for judicial review.
“In this particular instance, their legal responsibility is clear,” Rothfuss says. “This is their jurisdiction, and they’re choosing to ignore it, they’re choosing to turn a blind eye.”
Federal reaction
Samantha Bayard, a spokesperson for federal Environment Minister Julie Dabrusin responded to a Warktimes e-mail seeking the minister’s comments saying the request “is best suited to our colleagues at Impact Assessment Agency of Canada (IAAC).”
Anna Pittas, a media relations officer with IAAC wrote that “federal impact assessments are limited to major projects that are likely to have adverse effects in federal jurisdiction as defined in the Impact Assessment Act.”
She added that the IAAC’s assessment last year concluded that no further assessment was needed and the effects of the project within federal jurisdiction “would be limited or addressed through existing federal and provincial legislative and regulatory frameworks.”
She also sent a link to the IAAC decision last September.
Gabriel Brunet, senior communications advisor to Beauséjour MP Dominic LeBlanc said Chris Zhou, director of communications for Environment Minister Dabrusin would respond to Warktimes’s request for comment.
Zhou e-mailed to say that the comment from the IAAC (see above) would be the response.
To read CHMA coverage of this story, click here.

























Commentary: NB Power’s ‘Opposites Day’
by Logan Atkinson, Seniors for Climate Tantramar
Logan Atkinson, Seniors for Climate Tantramar
Fans of Sesame Street will recall the iconic video “Opposites Day,” in which Bert and Ernie learn all about opposites.
Whatever they do, the reverse is intended. Whatever they say, the opposite is meant.
Hilarious for adults, educational for kids.
In a stark example of life imitates art, members of Tantramar town council and residents who packed the chamber were treated recently to their own version of Opposites Day, as NB Power’s Chief Commercial Officer Brad Coady and his entourage appeared before town council on July 14th.
The ostensible purpose? To demonstrate transparency about the proposed 500 MW fossil-fuel power generating plant for Centre Village, to be built, owned and operated by the American firm PROENERGY.
But the result? Obscurity, unintelligibility, obfuscation.
Opposites Day indeed.
Mr. Coady presented to council for about 12 minutes, supported by a series of PowerPoint slides, and then seemed to artfully dodge a series of questions.
Did he enhance transparency in connection with the Centre Village proposal? Did he say anything at all to inform council and the public about this dangerous project? Or did he leave all of us more confused, more skeptical, than before?
Many examples might be cited to support the argument that the NB Power VP seemed more interested in obfuscation than in enlightenment.
In one case, he repeated the oft-quoted claim that the big, jet-engine turbines would operate only 7% of the time, apparently intending to ease our concerns about the combustion of fossil fuels, the poisoning of our climate, and the degradation of the delicate ecology of the Chignecto Isthmus.
Does this claim make any sense? Does it not strain credulity to suggest that a project whose costs approach $3.5 billion will lie idle 93% of the time?
NS connection
And what about the commitment to sell 100 MW of power to Nova Scotia, a commitment revealed to New Brunswick’s Energy and Utilities Board and the public on February 2nd.
If the Independent Electricity System Operator in Nova Scotia exercises its option to draw this power from New Brunswick, what effect would that have on the operation of the Centre Village plant?
Does this not give the lie to NB Power’s claim that the Centre Village plant is necessary only to meet crises of peak demand in New Brunswick? Will our friends in Nova Scotia accept mere intermittent supply, or will they insist on a steady, reliable source of needed power?
NB Power VP Brad Coady
Mr. Coady is quite agile at deflection. At one point in his presentation, he said that the Centre Village plant “…has something called a synchronous condenser capability, and that’s essential for integrating renewable energy.”
This statement, one can only assume, is meant to boost the claim that the Centre Village project would be a transitional resource, helping New Brunswick move away from fossil fuel combustion and toward a more fully renewable energy future.
But Mr. Coady’s logic here is suspect, at best. The clear implication of his words? Because we have synchronous condenser capability, you ought to believe us when we say that this plant is intended for transitional purposes only.
But the truth is that synchronous condenser capability is required by any addition of renewables to the grid; it is not logical to package it with a 25-year commitment to an American company to burn fossil fuels.
And so the deflection is on – please think of the synchronous condenser; please don’t think about fossil fuel combustion.
What about BESS?
One of the strikingly less expensive and increasingly available alternatives to fossil fuel peaker plants is battery storage, known as BESS (Battery Energy Storage Systems). See the very successful Oneida Energy Storage Project in Ontario, operating reliably since May 2025.
At the Tantramar council meeting, Mr. Coady said NB Power has a lot of interest in BESS, but that it’s hard to make a business case for it to the EUB.
While this may at one point have been true, it is certainly no longer the case. As reported by CBC News on March 18th, a BESS facility would be far less expensive and more reliable than a peaker plant. https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/new-brunswick/nrstor-large-scale-battery-replace-tantramar-gas-plant-9.7131768
And in addition, it would provide these advantages without dangerous emissions, and without the heightened risks of exorbitant health and environmental costs. Much evidence to this effect was led by the highly qualified intervenors at the EUB hearings on the Centre Village project. And the Oneida Project in Ontario is living proof that it can be done.
“Transparency” or “Opposites Day” obfuscation?
NB Premier Holt
On July 22nd, CBC News quoted Premier Holt at the Charlottetown Premiers’ conference as saying that New Brunswick ought to be considered as the energy hub of the Maritimes. https://www.cbc.ca/player/play/video/9.7279906
An admirable ambition, but one that ought to be realized by the progressive development of clean, renewable energy supported by battery storage. This is not an ambition to be anchored in aging, dangerous, dirty technology from the last century that will harm our environment in every way at radical expense to New Brunswickers for decades to come.
Operating merely 7% of the time? Unbelievable. Synchronous condenser capability to give us all some comfort? Deflection from the real dangers of the project. Batteries too expensive? Contrary to all available evidence.
It’s become quite fashionable these days for corporate leaders and politicians to claim transparency, to promise transparency, to insist that they are committed to transparency.
But are these claims and promises real? Or are deflection and obscurity what the public is expected to suffer in the name of openness?
Transparency, or obfuscation? There may have been something educational for youngsters about Tantramar’s own version of Opposites Day, but is there anything hilarious there for the rest of us?
No. Not so much.
Logan Atkinson is a resident of Tantramar and a member of the Seniors for Climate Tantramar Steering Committee. scantantramar@gmail.com