Critics question long-term costs of aging Burrard generating plant

Scott Simpson
Vancouver Sun
May 19, 2009

The switch yard at Burrard Thermal Generating Plant in Ioco showing the array of masts and lines carrying power. (Photograph by: Peter Battistoni, Vancouver Sun)

Producer of the most expensive power in B.C. also huge source of greenhouse gas emissions

PORT MOODY: Some critics think the 50-year-old Burrard Thermal generating plant, located along the northwest Port Moody shoreline, should be junked.

And why not? This out-of-date, greenhouse gas-belching electrical generating station on Burrard Inlet will cost BC Hydro customers almost $900 million over the next decade.

When it runs at close to capacity, it is the single-largest source of greenhouse gas emissions in British Columbia.

It will produce only a nominal amount of electricity for $900 million — and it’s going to be some of the most expensive power generated in B.C. during that time because it relies on price-volatile natural gas as its energy source.

BC Hydro says it’s worth it, and is awaiting word from the B.C. Utilities Commission on a proposed initial stage of capital spending to upgrade the plant’s mechanical systems.

Hydro says keeping Burrard operational is the only way it can guarantee the Lower Mainland a secure electricity supply during winter months of peak demand.

Without Burrard, the closest source of electricity big enough to support B.C.’s population hub is more than 500 kilometres distant, at Revelstoke — and the high-voltage transmission system between the two communities is itself in need of a major upgrade.

A project to twin that line — and minimize the risk that an ice storm or a landslide would trigger a blackout in the Lower Mainland — is not expected to be complete for a decade.

Nonetheless, critics such as the Independent Power Producers Association of British Columbia are questioning why Hydro should be spending such a large amount of money ($119 million annually by 2017) for a facility that will run only a few weeks a year and is essentially a very expensive hedge against spikes in Lower Mainland electricity demand.

In a recent submission to the utilities commission, IPPBC described Burrard Thermal as “antiquated and very inefficient” — converting into electricity only 31 per cent of the energy it consumes.

The association says it can “through competitive bid processes” provide from renewable energy projects the electricity that Hydro seeks.

It also argues that, by Hydro’s own admission, in the event of a mechanical breakdown at Burrard Thermal it could take up to 18 months to obtain replacement parts because “stock spare parts are no longer available.”

In an interview, IPPBC legal counsel David Austin said Burrard “has outdated technology, and it’s way past its shelf life.” He said a reconsideration of Burrard’s role on the Hydro grid is “long past due.”

“The ongoing costs of maintaining Burrard are very, very high relative to the amount of electricity it can generate.”

Cam Matheson, BC Hydro director of energy planning, said that even within the Crown corporation, there have been mixed views about Burrard’s future.

At present, Hydro lists Burrard as a primary asset producing 3,200 gigawatt hours per year — although Matheson said the actual production target is 600 gigawatt hours.

“Burrard Thermal is a backup plant. We don’t intend on using it for any kind of a base load capability,” Matheson said in an interview. “Burrard is located in our load centre, the Lower Mainland. The essential electricity system planning conundrum in B.C. is that we’ve got a very concentrated load centre in the Vancouver and Victoria corridor.

But, “the vast majority of our generating facilities are located in hugely remote areas away from that load centre.”

Hydro estimates spending $27 million a year to keep the plant operational, $10 million a year in carbon taxes for the natural gas it will burn — and up to $71 million a year to purchase the gas itself.

A new plant would be twice as efficient, effectively lowering the cost for gas, but Matheson said it’s highly unlikely Hydro could get a permit to build a modern gas-burning generation plant in the Lower Mainland — and building one in a more remote area would only compound the region’s isolation from its electricity supply. “Our view is that the risk of [not] getting an environmental permit to proceed to build a natural gas-fired plant in the Lower Mainland would be very, very high.

“The big risk here is that if you were going to spend all that money to build a new natural gas plant in your load centre, in the Lower Mainland, you would almost certainly be planning on turning it into a base load resource. It would run all the time, and it would have a whole lot of greenhouse gas emissions — and therein lies the risk of ever getting it permitted here.”

The board of directors of Metro Vancouver have indicated they would not support a full-blown renewal of Burrard, although the city of Port Moody, where Burrard is located, has expressed a wish to keep the old plant running — because it contributes significant tax dollars to the economy of a city that has lost a number of major industrial tenants in recent years.

Port Moody Mayor Joe Trasolini noted that Burrard spent hundreds of millions of dollars over the last 15 years upgrading the filtration systems in its burners, to the point that it’s now “the most efficient and least-polluting plant of its type in North America.”

“Of course there is the issue of income to the city of Port Moody, but that is a distant second,” Trasolini said.

“We have been told that at some point it is going to be shut down. But what we are saying to BC Hydro and the provincial government and to anyone who will listen is that this site is perfectly located along the waterfront. Why not look in the longer term at producing renewable energy there, something that will maintain the site as an important facility for Metro Vancouver and the province.”

ssimpson@vancouversun.com

Blog: www.vancouversun.com/energy

© Copyright (c) The Vancouver Sun