Coquitlam demands business case from Metro Vancouver for $480 million incineration plan
A change of circumstances
Stewart says the business case is required because several assumptions have "substantially" changed since the first business case was prepared. Those include changes to BC Hydro’s long-term electricity rates and the emergence of new technology that allows for the recovery of more valuable material from the waste stream.
San Francisco material recovery facility. Photo: Zack Embree.
“I want to be sure all those things have been taken into account and measured as best we can, because we are looking long into the future and there’s been great changes over the last eight years,” said Councillor Nicholson. “There’s going to be even more over the next 20.”
The letter from Coquitlam requests an updated business plan that “clearly identifies and analyzes the current key assumptions, associated risks and financial implications of WTE (waste-to-energy)”.
“Obviously, the goal is that Metro Vancouver can be comfortable that we are proceeding with our eyes fully open and our minds fully informed, and that the updated business case be used to facilitate meaningful dialogue and informed decision-making regarding the pursuit of WTE versus other potential disposal technologies.”
Metro Vancouver is proceeding with the plan to build one, or more, waste-to-energy incinerators either inside or outside the greater Vancouver region. A list of potential sites was announced last fall and several more potential sites are expected to be unveiled in the next few days. After that a series of consultations will begin before selecting a final proponent and location.
That process has been underway for the past five years, and is expected to take at least two more. With advances in technology however, some councillors argue the landscape has changed, and Metro Van should go back and revisit the 2009 decision.
In February, Port Moody councillor, and Zero Waste Committee member Rick Glumac raised the issue of an updated business plan during a committee meeting. Glumac raised the issue again at the Thursday committee meeting but was rebuffed by committee chair Malcolm Brodie, who told him it would be dealt with later. The public-part of the meeting ended and the committee then met “in-camera” for 45 minutes to privately discuss issues. Glumac would not reveal what was discussed behind closed doors.
Neal Nicholson hinted the business plan proposal was discussed but says the issue needs to be dealt with publicly at an open meeting of the Zero Waste Committee before sending it to the full Metro Vancouver board.
He said despite some member of the zero waste committee holding entrenched opinions on the waste-to-energy strategy, he is adamant that new information and technologies that could fundamentally change the existing plan be considered before spending tax payer money on a massive capital project.
“I wouldn't waste my time looking for a business plan if I didn't think there was a possibility of changing the decision or impacting it with the best knowledge we have today,” he said.
The March 28 letter from the City of Coquitlam was not included in the monthly agenda available to the public prior to the meeting. It was added as an additional agenda item when the committee met on Thursday and obtained by The Vancouver Observer after the meeting was over.
In an email response to questions about a new business plan, a Metro Vancouver official said part of the work of the Zero Waste Committee includes the submission of a business case for the new waste-to-energy facility. That report is expected to be presented by the end of June. Metro Van says that reports are discussed in public, but that there may be reasons for 'in-camera' discussions as dictated by the Community Charter.