Yesterday I attended a Board of Trade luncheon where BC Hydro's CEO, Jessica McDonald, delivered a speech about an innovative proposal that they've put in front of the City right now, to add needed new infrastructure under Vancouver.
Before I get into this I should get some disclosure out of the way: I was a guest at a BC Hydro table at this talk - they paid for my lunch. They also advertise with us from time to time. My father is an electrician just like his father was before him (gramps actually fixed plane radios in the second World War and went on to wire people's houses), and electricity has in one way or another helped put food on my table most of my life. It inspires me that 98% of the electricity produced in our province is renewable, and I fish and camp on Hydro reservoirs often. So...
What they need to do in terms of infrastructure in the coming years is create 2 more substations in the city. These are those big ugly things you see that take up a half block or so and are generally surrounded by barbed wire. Think of the one as you enter Chinatown near the viaduct (shown below), known as the Murrin substation. There are 37 of these in Vancouver, and they need to be close to where the power is going (your house). As more people move in to our city and province they need to make more of them, as well as replace them as they age out.
There are 3 of these substations downtown already. There's this one above, the Dal Grauer one on Burrard Street next to Scotiabank Theatre (hidden inside an above-ground building) and the Cathedral Square one on Richards that's actually built underground and is an official .
I don't need to tell you that there's not much land available downtown, and that the land that is up for sale is insanely expensive. Finding a couple city blocks to put new substations in would cost an ungodly amount of money, so the concept that BC Hydro has come up with is to build more of them underground, like the Cathedral Square one. They want to use land that's owned by the City, currently zoned as parks and a school, and pay the city a lease on it which could be put towards building a new school, amenities, etc. is a piece that Frances Bula wrote for The Globe and Mail about it, and below is BC Hydro's video that they posted on their website that explains it briefly.
They're doing public consultation about the project right now, gathering people's thoughts and trying to gauge how we all feel about it.
The first thing that comes up in most people's minds when they think of having a park or a school on top of or next to a substation is the possible dangers that come with it. Exposure to electromagnetic fields, or , seems to be the main one, and is in fact the first thing that I thought of as I was listening to Jessica's speech. Would I send my kid to the school that's on top of the substation and feel safe knowing his health wouldn't be be affected? According to a study that they did on the existing site at Cathedral Square, the highest output of EMF there is 0.5% of the level that the World health Organization deems as safe for continued exposure to, which is reassuring. Also, "over half [of BC Hydro's existing substations] are within 100 to 200 metres of busy public spaces such as parks, schools, or shopping centres".
There are other concerns, like the parks land being tied up while construction happens. And they want to know what you think of all of this. Is it a good idea? Bad? Why? Visit their website at and submit feedback.
The last hurdle (perhaps even larger than making sure parents understand their kids will be safe) will be getting the powers that be - the ones who own the land - to get on the same page. In order for the project to get the green light the Park Board, City Council and the School Board will all have to agree to the terms. During Gregor Robertson's last term this would've been an easier task as all three were majorities working together under Vision Vancouver, however now we've got a Vision majority City Council, no majority holds the Park Board and a provincial government appointee sits in the seat of the elected School Board which was fired earlier this year for not doing their job.
I personally think this project is a great solution to the problem of not taking up valuable land while giving the city some capital to work with, much like how developers pay millions of dollars in CAC's (Community Amenity Contributions) when they want to add density to residential projects. If they can prove its worth to all three levels of government by their fiscal deadline of March 31st then we'll be getting an innovative solution in place, and everybody wins.
If you agree, or disagree, I encourage you to and definitely fill out the feedback form to let them know.
