A coalition is asking New Brunswick’s Court of Appeal to review how the Energy and Utilities Board approved NB Power’s Tantramar power project, saying the process did not meet the standard the public is entitled to.
Gregor MacAskill, representing the Protect the Chignecto Isthmus Coalition, filed the application for judicial review after the Board approved the RIGS project on May 28.
The plan includes a 400‑megawatt dual‑fuel generating station proposed for Centre Village in the Tantramar region, along with a 100‑megawatt expansion intended to serve Nova Scotia.
The capital cost is expected to exceed $1 billion, and the Board’s own decision said that electricity rates would rise if the project is included in NB Power’s future revenue requirements.
RELATED: Auditor General flags risks in NB Power’s Tantramar project
The coalition is not asking the court to decide whether the project should move ahead.
Instead, it wants the court to determine whether the Board provided clear reasons, held a fair hearing and responded to the evidence presented during the proceeding.
The application alleges the Board could not, and did not, make a coherent or reasonable decision based on the evidentiary record.
It also argues that the Board did not explain how or why it dismissed NB Power’s failure to follow mandatory approval steps for major capital projects, including the requirement to consider plausible alternatives.
The filing stated that the Board did not meaningfully respond to submissions from intervenors, including the coalition, and did not give the group a fair opportunity to participate in what it describes as a proceeding of significant scale and consequence.
RELATED: Conservation Council reacts to auditor general report on NB Power
“This is not about relitigating the project — it’s about whether a billion‑dollar decision that ratepayers will be paying for over the next 25 years was reached through a process New Brunswickers can trust,” spokesperson Lisa Griffin said.
“The public is entitled to reasons they can actually follow.”
If the Court agrees, the coalition is asking for the Board’s prudence finding to be quashed and for the matter to be sent back to the EUB to be decided again.
The coalition participated throughout the EUB process as a formal intervenor.
It describes itself as a group of environmental organizations and community members working to protect the Chignecto Isthmus region from fossil‑fuel infrastructure expansion.
