thesl’s station infrastructure program - …€¦ · 14 • esplanade ts (also known as george...

Toronto Hydro-Electric System Limited EB-2011-0144

Exhibit D1 Tab 10

Schedule 6 ORIGINAL of 6

CRITICAL ISSUES – STATIONS INFRASTRUCTURE PORTFOLIO 1

2

THESL’S STATION INFRASTRUCTURE PROGRAM 3

The purpose of this portfolio is to start refurbishment activities on the 205 municipal 4

station (“MS”) and transformer station (“TS”) buildings owned by THESL across the 5

City of Toronto. Investment in these building has been inadequate to maintain them. 6

7

A Building Condition Assessment (“BCA”) study that was completed on all THESL-8

owned stations during 2009 and 2010 is being used to guide the necessary investment. 9

The BCA indicates that the following stations require repair or refurbishment in 2012: 10

• Bridgman TS (Also known as High Level TS) 11

• Junction MS 12

• Carlaw TS 13

• Esplanade TS (Also known as George & Duke TS) 14

• Glengrove TS 15

• Terauley TS 16

• Windsor TS 17

18

The work ranges from repair and replacement of items like windows and doors to more 19

significant investments such as foundations and structural repairs. Sub-structures on 20

some of these stations require extensive repairs and overhaul to safeguard the assets that 21

reside within them. These investments will increase the lives of these buildings and defer 22

the need for major rebuilds. 23

24

Additional security and telemetry will be added to the stations to protect against 25

disruption of service or damage to THESL assets within them. Table 1 below shows the 26

actual, bridge and test year spending for the Stations Infrastructure portfolio. 27


Exhibit D1 Tab 10


Table 1: Stations Infrastructure Capital Summary ($ millions) 1

2008

Actual

2009

Actual

2010

Actual

2011

Bridge

2012

Test

2013

Test

2014

Test

Stations

Infrastructure* - - - - 10.6 15.2 18.5

*Note: No figures appear for 2008 through 2011 because Stations Infrastructure spending was

not previously broken out as a separate category within the “General Plant – Facilities” portfolio.

The cost increase over the three test years is driven by the increasing number of stations 2

that require refurbishment. The 2013 test year spending reflects an increase of $4.6 3

million versus 2012, due to additional stations being refurbished. Refurbishment work 4

continues to increase in 2014 accounting for the $3.3 million increase over 2013 5

spending. 6

7

DRIVERS OF THE STATION INFRASTRUCTURE PROGRAM 8

9

Current Standards and Asset Refurbishment 10

The stations buildings around the city are the first component of distribution through the 11

THESL grid. Investment and maintenance in the past has not been sufficient to prevent a 12

decline in their condition. Improving the condition of these buildings will increase their 13

life expectancy, and reduce the amount of time and cost required to repair and maintain 14

them. 15

16

Currently the THESL building assets are broken into three major components for the 17

purposes of life expectancy and depreciation: 18

19

1) Interiors include doors, walls, floors, plumbing fixtures, and electrical systems 20

within buildings. These areas of the buildings have useful lives on the order of 20 21

years. 22


Exhibit D1 Tab 10


An example is shown on Figure 1, which displays interior erosion that has 1

affected the strength of a wall at Glengrove Station. Another example is provided 2

in Figure 2 that shows extensive interior flooding and loose wires at Carlaw 3

Station. 4

5

2) Shell or Exterior work addresses components such as windows, sprinkler 6

systems, water supply and sewer systems. These areas of the buildings have 7

useful lives in the order of 30 years. 8

9

Figure 3 shows severe exterior erosion of a rooftop component at Junction station. 10

11

3) Substructure or Foundation work addresses components of the stations 12

buildings that normally have a useful life of 75 years and covers elements such as, 13

exterior walls, floor construction, basement walls and foundations of the 14

buildings. 15

16

Figure 4 displays an exterior crack located on one of the containing walls at 17

Glengrove station. The crack compromises the structural integrity of the. 18


Exhibit D1 Tab 10


Figure 1: Interior Erosion at Glengrove Station 1

Figure 2: Extensive Interior Flooding and Loose Wires at Carlaw Station 2


Exhibit D1 Tab 10


Figure 3: Exterior Erosion of the Rooftop Component at Junction Station 1

Figure 4: Exterior Crack Located on a Containing Wall at Glengrove Station 2


Exhibit D1 Tab 10


CONSEQUENCES OF DEFERRING THE STATION INFRASTRUCTURE 1

PROGRAM 2

3

Safety and Reliability 4

Certain downtown stations, such as those identified above, house large-scale transformers 5

and switchgear and have deteriorated to the extent that any further deferral of investment 6

will create an unacceptable risk of collateral damage and impact to system performance. 7

This portfolio also addresses the work required to maintain and upgrade station electrical 8

and sprinkler systems. Deferral of this work could potentially impact employee and 9

public safety if these systems were to become non-functional or unresponsive in an 10

emergency situation. Delays in investments will also further reduce the life expectancy 11

of these buildings, which will increase the backlog of work required and result in higher 12

future investment requirements. 13

thesl’s station infrastructure program - …€¦ · 14 • esplanade ts (also known as george...

Documents