Yukon Energy has another green light for its $42-million proposal to build a new generating plant powered by natural gas trucked up from B.C.'s Lower Mainland.

On Tuesday evening, the Yukon Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Board issued its final recommendation calling for the project to be approved by the Yukon government.

All told, the board's file includes 272 pieces of correspondence, including the project application and information requests from the board and the responses provided by Yukon Energy. The file includes scores upon scores of letters from the general public, the vast majority of which express opposition to the proposal.

The board is recommending the project proceed subject to 13 specific terms and conditions dealing with matters ranging from monitoring air quality to ensuring safe practices to handle the increase in truck traffic along Robert Service Way.

Yukon Energy's proposal has been met with staunch resistance from those who believe approving the use of natural gas is akin to tacit approval of hydraulic fracturing, or fracking.

Many have also argued the use of natural gas and the practice of fracking is much harder on the environment and atmosphere than using diesel fuel to power the engines.

The publicly owned utility maintains that two of the oldest and largest diesel generators at the Whitehorse Rapids Dam need replacement with either new diesel engines or generators powered by natural gas.

Going with natural gas would save ratepayers millions of dollars in fuel costs and result in cleaner exhaust emissions, Yukon Energy has insisted since introducing the proposal last year.

In its recommendation to the government, the assessment board says in its view, the project would not have a negative economic impact on ratepayers.

"Overall, this assessment shows that the project is more likely to result in savings to ratepayers, over the alternative diesel option,” says the recommendation.

The Yukon government now has 60 days to consider the report and issue its decision on the recommendations.

The Yukon Utilities Board provided its approval of the project in a recent decision following a full public hearing on the proposal.

Yukon Energy president David Morrison was out of the office this morning and was unavailable for comment.

The crown corporation originally wanted to begin construction last month. It was then hoping to begin this month, with a goal of having the plant operational by late this year.

The two new natural gas engines were ordered from a European manufacturer last year, and contracts for site preparation and early construction of the plant have already been awarded.

The project calls for the construction of a facility to house the new generators between Robert Service Way and the dam, directly across from the old motocross and go-cart tracks.

At the site will be tanks to store the liquefied natural gas and equipment to convert it back to a gaseous state.

Included in the assessment board's recommendation is a condition that Yukon Energy develop a risk analysis identifying all potential hazards associated with the transfer, handling of LNG and natural gas at the site.

Yukon Energy is also to work with the fire marshal's office to develop a plan to respond to an LNG accident anywhere along the transportation route in the Yukon.

The assessment board, however, does point out in its recommendation that Yukon Energy did provide technical analysis from independent contractors of all aspects of the project in its proposal, including safety matters.

The assessment board and the utilities board both heard harsh criticism of Yukon Energy's proposal at the separate public hearings they hosted.

Replacing the use of one fossil fuel with another instead of pursuing options involving renewable energy at a time when the earth is already in trouble because of CO2 emissions is shortsighted and irresponsible, the two boards heard.

They heard solid opposition to hydraulic fracturing and use of natural gas to power the back-up generators.

Some have suggested Yukon Energy's proposal to go with natural gas is a backdoor push by Premier Darrell Pasloski to bring the natural gas industry to the Yukon.

The Ta'an Kwach'an Council of Lake Laberge pulled out of a partnership proposal in the project because of its opposition to hydraulic fracturing.

Following an emotional public meeting hosted by the assessment board in December 2013, Ta'an Chief Kristina Kane announced the First Nation's decision to pull out of the partnership.

It didn't matter that the natural gas was not coming from the Yukon, she said back then.

Kane said the fact that the gas might be obtained by fracking somewhere was enough to cancel any interest the Ta'an Kwach'an had in the project.

Stephen Mills, who left his position as chair of the assessment board last Friday, explained at December's public meeting the board had no jurisdiction to consider the issue of fracking in the assessment.

When the legislation says the board is to consider impacts inside and outside the Yukon it means taking into consideration any impact a Yukon project might have on neighbouring jurisdictions, such as a stream used for the disposal of treated water that might flow out of the territory, Mills explained back then.

He said the board could not include fracking in its assessment any more than it would include the origin of lumber or other material for a building project it was asked to assess.

In an interview late this morning, Anne Middler of the Yukon Conservation Society reiterated the society's disapproval of the project and its disapproval of how the assessment board has handled the matter.

Yukon Energy, for instance, did not even present the board with a detailed design of the facility, so there was no way the board could fully assess matters related to safety, she said.

Middler said the assessment board did recommend that Yukon Energy complete a risk analysis of all potential hazards, but whether the government includes the risk analysis as part of its final decision remains to be seen.

It also remains to be seen whether the analysis will be completed before the project begins, she said.

Middler said the society also disagrees with the board's decision to not assess the upstream impacts of natural gas, such as fracking and release of fugitive methane gas associated with the natural gas industry.

"If it had chosen to include the impact from fracking and the life cycle of natural gas, no doubt it would have come to a different conclusion,” she said.

Middler said the society went into the review process with an open mind. At one point, it too was interested in natural gas as an alternative to diesel because natural gas was said to be cleaner and less expensive, she pointed out.

She said what they've learned during their research in recent years – sometimes working alongside Yukon Energy – is that natural gas is bad choice.

Going with new diesels which produce much cleaner exhaust emissions these days would have been a better choice all the way around, Middler said.

The project, she explained, was always intended to provide backup generation.

Middler said the society accepts there is a need for a fossil fuel backup that can be turned on with the flick of a switch.

Even back in December's public meeting, Mills confirmed the project was to provide backup, emergency electricity, she said.

Middler recalled Mills even said at the meeting that if the proposal was for a new supply of base load energy, the assessment would have to be different.

But yet, she said, even the assessment board's document released Tuesday evening refers to the project's need to supply back-up, peak and base load requirements.

And by going with less expensive natural gas instead of the more expensive diesel, there's now even less incentive to explore new alternatives of renewable energy to meet the growing demand on the base load, she said.