Why the other options are wrong:

• a power outage affecting communities across southern New Brunswick.: There is no power outage discussed in the report.
• new safety rules imposed by the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission.: The report mentions a licensing review, but it does not describe new safety rules imposed by the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission. The main topic is debate over a proposed reactor.
• a federal decision to shut down the Point Lepreau nuclear station.: The report discusses a proposed reactor at Point Lepreau. It does not describe a federal decision to shut down a station there.

Correct Answer: no small modular reactor is fully commercial in Canada yet.

Why this is correct: Susan Holt questioned whether the technology is ready, pointing out that no small modular reactor is currently operating at full commercial scale in Canada. She is worried the technology is not proven yet.

Why the other options are wrong:

• nuclear engineers refused to support the reactor design.: The report does not say nuclear engineers refused to support the design. It quotes McAllister discussing safety systems and acknowledging public trust concerns.
• the federal government has withdrawn all funding offers.: The report says federal funding could cover as much as one third of early costs. It does not state that all federal funding offers have been withdrawn.
• the province lacks sufficient land for a reactor site.: The reactor would go at the existing Point Lepreau site, so lack of land is not the issue.

Correct Answer: about 250,000 homes.

Why this is correct: The transcript says the reactor would supply power to roughly 250,000 homes once operational. This is the specific number given by Energy Minister Holland.

Why the other options are wrong:

• about 1,500 households near Point Lepreau.: The 1,500 figure refers to peak construction jobs, not the number of households served.
• roughly one third of New Brunswick businesses.: One third of businesses is not mentioned - the report says 250,000 homes.
• all communities in Atlantic Canada.: The report describes a reactor project in New Brunswick and gives an estimated supply of roughly 250,000 homes. It does not say it would serve all communities in Atlantic Canada.

Correct Answer: could be implemented more quickly than the reactor.

Why this is correct: The Conservation Council argues the province should prioritise wind and solar, claiming those options could be deployed faster and with fewer long-term risks. Opponents believe renewables are quicker to set up than a nuclear reactor.

Why the other options are wrong:

• require higher long-term waste management costs.: Long-term waste management costs are a concern about nuclear, not about renewables.
• would create fewer construction jobs in the region.: The report does not say renewables would create fewer construction jobs.
• lack federal support compared with nuclear energy.: The opponents did not say renewables lack federal support.

Correct Answer: balanced, presenting both benefits and risks.

Why this is correct: The report gives space to both supporters and critics. It describes the benefits of clean energy and jobs, but also covers concerns about cost, safety, and unproven technology. This makes the tone balanced.

Why the other options are wrong:

• focused mainly on technical details without context.: The report includes context about community reactions and policy implications, not just technical details.
• dismissive of public safety concerns.: Public safety concerns are presented clearly, not dismissed.
• strongly supportive of immediate construction.: No final investment decision has been made, so the report does not support immediate construction.