Transend - Appendix 5 Renewal capital expenditure - Australian ...
Transend - Appendix 5 Renewal capital expenditure - Australian ...
Transend - Appendix 5 Renewal capital expenditure - Australian ...
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
0BInvestment Evaluation Summary<br />
TNM-GS-809-0720<br />
� reconfigure and rationalise the existing 110 kV switchyard – there are no cost-effective alternatives to<br />
reconfigure or rationalise Palmerston Substation 110 kV.<br />
7.1 OPTION 1: MAINTAIN EXISTING ASSETS<br />
7.1.1 SCOPE<br />
The scope for this option includes:<br />
� replacement of assets that are known to present a significant safety risk, including post insulators, voltage<br />
transformers and current transformers in 2014;<br />
� continuation of existing maintenance practices, albeit accelerated due to the declining condition of the assets;<br />
� repairs and corrective maintenance as required; and<br />
� deferred replacement of certain assets by up to five years.<br />
The <strong>capital</strong> cost of this option includes an initial $4.00 million ($June 2007) to address the identified safety issues,<br />
followed by a deferred <strong>capital</strong> cost of $8.73 million ($June 2007) to replace the remaining 110 kV assets five years later.<br />
7.1.2 BENEFITS<br />
The benefits for this option are the deferral of <strong>capital</strong> <strong>expenditure</strong> and that the identified safety issues are addressed.<br />
7.1.3 DRAWBACKS<br />
The drawbacks for this option are that it would:<br />
� not allow <strong>Transend</strong> to achieve the <strong>capital</strong> <strong>expenditure</strong> objectives;<br />
� not satisfactorily address the performance issues identified in Section 4 of this document;<br />
� not be sustainable given the demonstrated reliability issues associated with the 110 kV primary and secondary<br />
assets;<br />
� result in an increased number of loss of electricity supply events at Palmerston Substation when compared with<br />
other options;<br />
� incur significantly longer and more frequent outages due to the intensive maintenance regimes that would be<br />
required to sustain the existing assets in service (whilst recognising that this approach is almost certainly unlikely to<br />
be successful);<br />
� incur increased ongoing operating <strong>expenditure</strong> due to increased maintenance, condition monitoring and corrective<br />
maintenance requirements;<br />
� not align with <strong>Transend</strong>’s policy to utilise dead tank circuit breakers when replacing 110 kV live tank current<br />
transformers and circuit breakers; and<br />
� not align with the recommendations made in respective asset management plans for the primary and secondary<br />
assets.<br />
7.1.4 CONCLUSION<br />
Although this option has lower initial <strong>capital</strong> cost, it is not the preferred option because it does not ensure the reliable<br />
operation of Palmerston Substation 110 kV.<br />
7.2 OPTION 2: REPLACE SELECTED ASSETS IN-SITU<br />
7.2.1 SCOPE<br />
The scope for this option includes the replacement of the following assets in 2014:<br />
� replacement of assets that are known to present a significant safety risk, including post insulators, voltage<br />
transformers and current transformers;<br />
© <strong>Transend</strong> Networks Pty Ltd 10 of 13