24.02.2013 Views

Transend - Appendix 5 Renewal capital expenditure - Australian ...

Transend - Appendix 5 Renewal capital expenditure - Australian ...

Transend - Appendix 5 Renewal capital expenditure - Australian ...

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

7.1 MAINTAIN THE EXISTING ASSETS AND DEFER REPLACEMENT<br />

0BInvestment Evaluation Summary<br />

TNM-GS-809-0720<br />

This option essentially comprises maintaining the existing secondary systems and to undertake repairs as necessary.<br />

This option does not address the compliance, operational, reliability and maintenance issues outlined in this paper. In<br />

addition, it does not align with good electricity industry practice or the strategies detailed in the respective asset<br />

management plans. Maintaining the existing secondary systems presents the significant risk of failures impacting on the<br />

operation of the transmission network. It also would not provide adequate spares to sustain the serviceability of the<br />

protection schemes into the future.<br />

This option is also not efficient because it would not take advantage of the benefits associated with coordinating the<br />

protection scheme replacements with those at the connecting substations and switching station.<br />

Deferral of this project would result in the need for additional operating <strong>expenditure</strong> of up to $70,000 over the next seven<br />

years to carry out planned maintenance. This figure does not include any costs associated with corrective maintenance or<br />

the impact of unplanned outages.<br />

7.2 UNDERTAKE THE IDENTIFIED WORKS AS AN INTEGRATED PROJECT<br />

This option proposes that all of the identified works associated with the secondary systems at New Norfolk Substation be<br />

integrated into a single project. This approach will ensure that the works are undertaken under a single contract, hence<br />

reducing contract management costs and avoiding potential hazards associated with critical design information handover<br />

between different contractors. The cost of mobilisation and de-mobilisation will be reduced. Delivering this project in a<br />

shorter time span will also limit exposure to changing technology.<br />

8 OPTION ESTIMATES<br />

A comparison of the net present value of options is provided in Table 1.<br />

Table 1 – Comparison of options considered<br />

Option Net present value of costs ($M June 2007)<br />

1 Maintain the existing assets and defer replacement 5.27<br />

2 Undertake the identified works as an integrated project 3.97<br />

The <strong>capital</strong> project estimate is $5.58 million ($2008–09).<br />

9 PREFERRED OPTION<br />

Option 2 is the preferred option because it is the least-cost solution that addresses all of the identified issues.<br />

© <strong>Transend</strong> Networks Pty Ltd Page 6 of 6

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!