UNITED STATES

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

RURAL UTILITIES SERVICE

SUMMARY OF

ITEMS OF ENGINEERING INTEREST

AUGUST 1997
Items of Engineering Interest

August 1997

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ITEM PAGE

CODES and STANDARDS

General Compliance with Codes............................................................................................1

NESC Rule 152 on Location of Transformers........................................................................1

NESC Rule 350 F on Bonding...............................................................................................2

Lightning Bolt Symbol...........................................................................................................3

Safety Signs and Symbols......................................................................................................4

RUS Standards and Specifications.........................................................................................4

Standards Development.........................................................................................................5

Use of Alternative Materials..................................................................................................7

Procurement of Materials ......................................................................................................8

NRECA Materials Subcommittee ..........................................................................................9

Feedback Welcome.............................................................................................................. 10

EQUIPMENT and MATERIALS

EPA’S Distribution Transformer Cost Evaluation Model ..................................................... 10

Guidelines for Approving the Use of Steel Distribution Poles............................................... 12

Special Conductors - Transmission Lines............................................................................. 14

Line Rating/Uprating........................................................................................................... 15

Maximizing the Reliability of Separable Connectors............................................................. 16

Discussion of Common Power System Grounding Methods................................................. 16

Utility Communications Architecture ................................................................................... 18

Why Does RUS Have 7 CFR 1726 Contracting Procedures? ............................................... 19

ADMINISTRATIVE and OTHER

Electric Industry Restructuring ............................................................................................ 22

RUS Technical Publications................................................................................................. 25

RUS 1998 Electric Engineering Seminar.............................................................................. 28

RUS Has a World Wide Web Home Page............................................................................ 28

Transmission and Distribution Engineering Committee ........................................................ 30

APPENDICES

Appendix A - Electric Staff Division Directory .................................................................... 31

Appendix B - NRECA Transmission & Distribution Engineering Committee ....................... 33

Appendix C - Websites........................................................................................................ 37
Items of Engineering Interest

August 1997

ABBREVIATIONS

AAC All Aluminum Conductor

AAAC All Aluminum Alloy Conductor

ACSR Aluminum Conductor Steel Reinforced

ACSR/TW Aluminum Conductor Steel Reinforced - Trapezoidal Wire

ACSR/AW/TW Aluminum Conductor Aluminum Clad-Steel Reinforced -

 Trapezoidal Wire

ACSR/SD Aluminum Conductor Steel Reinforced - Self-Damping

ACSS Aluminum Conductor Steel Supported

ANSI American National Standards Institute

ASTM American Society for Testing and Materials

AWPA American Wood Preservers Association

BIL Basic Impulse Level

CATV Cable Television

CFR Code of Federal Regulations

CITCEM Commercial and Industrial Transformer Cost Evaluation Model

DTCEM Distribution Transformer Cost Evaluation Model

EPA Environmental Protection Agency

EPR Ethylene Propylene Rubber

EPRI Electric Power Research Institute

ESD Electric Staff Division

G&T Generation and Transmission

IED Intelligent Electronic Device

IEEE Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers

kV Kilovolt

RUS List of RUS Informational Publication 202-1, “List of Materials

 Materials Acceptable for Use on Systems of RUS Electrification Borrowers”

NEC National Electrical Code

NECA National Exchange Carrier Association

NFPA National Fire Protection Association

NESC National Electrical Safety Code

NRECA National Rural Electric Cooperative Association

NUP Net Utility Plant

O&M Operation and Maintenance

OFM Owner Furnished Materials

OTS Optimal Transformer Sizing

PES Power Engineering Society

REA Rural Electrification Administration

RUS Rural Utilities Service

SCADA System Control and Data Acquisition

SSAC Steel Supported Aluminum Conductor

T&D Transmission & Distribution

TOC Total Owning Cost

UCA Utility Communications Architecture

URD Underground Rural Distribution

UV Ultraviolet

VR Vibration-Resistant
Items of Engineering Interest

August 1997

1

CODES and STANDARDS

General Compliance with Codes

With respect to general code compliance, in most cases, RUS borrowers’ facilities fall under the

National Electrical Safety Code (NESC). Usually, borrowers’ facilities are installed outdoors on

property owned or leased by borrowers (for access by only qualified personnel) and such electric

facilities fall under the purview of the NESC. In some cases, borrowers’ outside facilities may

also have to comply with state or local code requirements that stipulate details that are in excess

of the NESC. However, for the most part, borrowers only need to deal with the NESC. This

usual focus on the NESC can lead to the impression that the NESC is the only code requiring

compliance.

In fact, at a recent meeting, the statement was made that the NESC is the only code which

borrowers needed to observe...and this blanket statement is the concern here.

Code compliance depends on where equipment and facilities are located. And there may be

situations where borrowers install or need to install electric facilities and equipment in or on

customers’ buildings and structures which, in such cases, fall under the purview of the National

Electrical Code (NEC), NFPA 70.

Because of concerns for liability, insurance, etc., when installing electrical equipment in or on a

customer’s building, borrowers must ensure that:

• Equipment and facilities are installed by a competent electrician, and where required by

state or local ordinances, a duly registered electrician; and

• The installation complies with the NEC and all required local codes.

It is simply prudent utility practice to be certain that all company installations are in full

compliance with all pertinent, applicable, codes or requirements.

If you would like more information or have any questions, please call Harvey Bowles, Chief,

Distribution Branch, at (202) 720-5082.

NESC Rule 152 on Location of Transformers

At a recent engineering meeting, a question arose as to whether there is an RUS or NESC

provision which specifies a required distance between an oil-filled, pad-mounted, transformer and

a non-fire resistant building.
Items of Engineering Interest

August 1997

2

NESC Rule 152 covers the applicable provisions and it mandates that common sense prevail. The

rule specifies installation provisions for the location and arrangement of transformers and

regulators in both indoor and outdoor environments, and specifically mentions provisions for

transformers and regulators that are oil-filled.

One of the concerns addressed in Rule 152 is the spread of fire by the possible spewing of flaming

oil from transformers or regulators. The rule requires that the installation of liquid-filled

transformers utilize one or more of the methods cited in Rule 152 to minimize fire hazards. The

method that is applied must be chosen with consideration of the degree of fire hazard associated

with the equipment being installed. Recognized methods cited in Rule 152 include use of less

flammable liquids, space separation, fire-resistant barriers, automatic extinguishing systems,

absorption beds, and enclosures. The rule advises that the amount and characteristic of the liquid

contained should be considered in the selection of space separation, fire-resistant barriers,

automatic extinguishing systems, absorption beds, and enclosures that confine the liquid of a

ruptured transformer tank, all of which are recognized as safeguards.

Although only generalized provisions are specified and specific distances and clear cut provisions

are not specifically addressed in Rule 152, the rule is clear that the utility must give more than

cursory consideration to where an oil-filled transformers is to be located. It is up to the utility to

research and determine the relative hazard of the equipment to be installed and to install it

appropriately.

The least expensive method to consider for most rural electric installations appears to be the space

separation method. Transformers should be installed a sufficient distance away from flammable

structures, such as wood structure houses, etc., to avoid the possible spread of fire from spewing

oil in the event the transformer sustains damage that causes it to erupt and experience oil

containment failure. The separation distances to use will be dependent on the characteristics of

the liquid involved and the concerns suggested in Rule 152. RUS recommends that borrowers

contact the transformer manufacturer for recommendations appropriate for their products.

If you would like more information or have any questions, please call Harvey Bowles, Chief,

Distribution Branch, at (202) 720-5082.

NESC Rule 350 F on Bonding

Rule 350 F of the NESC states that all above ground metallic power and communications

apparatus, such as electric and telecommunications metallic pedestals, terminals, apparatus cases,

transformer cases, etc., should be bonded to one another whenever they are separated by 6 feet

(1.8 meters) or less. The purpose of the bonding, of course, is the safety of personnel and the

general public: to keep such facilities at the same electrical potential and prevent people from

being able to contact two possible sources of differing electric potential.

Although Rule 350 F is not a mandated provision (because it uses “should” rather than “shall”), it

nevertheless requires significant consideration and obligation on the part of utilities. Each time
Items of Engineering Interest

August 1997

3

that a utility or, when applicable, multiple utilities elect not to observe a rule, there must be good

documented reasons for not observing the provision. For example, in the case of Rule 350 F,

utilities cannot make a blanket policy provision to not bond; they must consider each occurrence,

evaluate the conditions, and document the various reasons why bonding is inappropriate at each

location.

Some borrowers are most conscientious of the Rule 350 F bonding provision (e.g., routinely

installing bonding conductors at their pedestals), while in some cases their neighboring utilities

(including electric, telecommunications, CATV, etc.), are less enthusiastic. We know of a

situation where a borrower provided a bonding conductor with one end solidly connected to its

exposed pedestal metal and the other end made available to the neighboring utility for connection

(bonding) to their nearby metallic closures. For unknown reasons, the neighboring utility chose to

ignore the borrower’s bonding cables and the NESC bonding provision.

In situations where a neighbor ignores the bonding provision, because of the liability involved,

RUS believes that it is in the borrowers best interests to contact the other utility to advise of the

NESC provision and the generosity of the borrower’s available bonding conductor and otherwise

attempt to convince the other party to complete the required bonding. If bonding continues to be

rejected after this attempt, the borrower should obtain and record the reasons provided by the

utility. The bonding wire provided should be removed from access to the public and

consideration should perhaps be given to electrically insulate the borrower’s enclosure metal.

If you would like more information or have any questions, please call Trung Hiu, Electrical

Engineer, Distribution Branch, at (202) 720-1877.

Lightning Bolt Symbol

Borrowers should be certain that the markings on underground rural distribution (URD) power

cable that they purchase is durable. Recently, RUS has learned that some URD cable markings

are easily removed by simple hand rubbing and there is a need for caution.

Rule 350G of the NESC requires that a lightning bolt symbol be indented or embossed in the

outermost cable jacket at a spacing of not more than 1 meter (40 inches). The intent of the

indenting/embossing code provision is that the marking be relatively permanent and that it remain

intact during normal handling and installation activities. Compliance of cable marking that is

easily removed by simple hand rubbing is questionable.

One way to make certain that compliant marking is obtained is to add review of the marking to

the check list at the cable receiving loading dock. Cable with non-compliant marking should be

rejected and returned to the manufacturer.

If you would like more information or have any questions, please call Trung Hiu, Electrical

Engineer, Distribution Branch, at (202) 720-1877.
Items of Engineering Interest

August 1997

4

Safety Signs and Symbols

In previous Items of Engineering Interest, we discussed the ANSI standards for environmental

and facility safety signs. These standards are intended to promote uniform national practice, and

include considerable changes from some past safety sign practices. As RUS underground

construction drawings and specifications are revised, we plan to delete standards for safety signs

and refer to the applicable ANSI standards, which are:

• ANSI Z535.1 Safety Color Code

• ANSI Z535.2 Environmental and Facility Safety Signs

• ANSI Z535.3 Criteria for Safety Symbols

• ANSI Z535.4 Product Safety Signs and Labels

• ANSI Z535.5 Accident Prevention Tags (for Temporary Hazards)

These coordinated standards are intended to apply to every permanent or temporary safety sign or

tag including those on electric utility systems. These standards prescribe details for colors,

shapes, and panel layout for the three panels: (1) the signal word panel, (2) the message panel,

and (3) a pictorial/symbol panel.

The safety signs most applicable to RUS electrical systems are DANGER and WARNING. With

a DANGER sign, there is an imminent hazard - you are in the area where the hazard is located. If

you do not avoid the hazard, the result could be death or serious injury. With the WARNING

sign there is a potential hazard - you are safe where you are, but if you go further, you will enter a

DANGER area or situation.

RUS recommends that a DANGER sign be placed inside pad-mounted equipment and substations

where there is exposure to live parts. RUS further recommends that a WARNING sign be placed

on the exterior of pad mounted cabinets and all external sides of substation fences. WARNING

signs should be conspicuously located on or near doors, gates, removable barriers, or other

entrance areas. State regulatory agencies or insurance companies may have additional

recommendations on this topic.

If you would like more information or have any questions, please call Trung Hiu, Electrical

Engineer, Distribution Branch, at (202) 720-1877.

RUS Standards and Specifications

General - RUS develops and maintains standards and specifications for various types of electric

distribution and transmission materials and equipment and construction. Borrowers are required

to utilize these standards and specifications in the design and construction of their facilities,

regardless of the source of financing for the facilities.
Items of Engineering Interest

August 1997

5

Purposes - There are a myriad of reasons for developing, maintaining and using RUS standards

and specifications. Of course for RUS, borrowers’ use of our standards and specifications

provides us maximum assurances that the design and construction of your system will be adequate

enough for borrowers to provide safe, economical, and reliable electric service to their customers.

This also helps borrowers attain a revenue stream sufficient to repay outstanding RUS and

supplemental loans This last concern is somewhat selfish but, nevertheless, an important one

because it is our trust to all taxpayers to be assured that their (and our money because we are tax

payers too) is used wisely and effectively and in accordance with the purposes of the Rural

Electrification Act.

For borrowers, reasons for using RUS standards and specifications are as equally self-serving.

For starters, a cooperative can deal more easily and more efficiently with contractors who are

familiar with planned facilities because they are similar to the facilities they see on the systems of

all the RUS borrowers with whom they do business. This sameness helps contractors because

they are already familiar with the borrower’s basic design and construction. This standardization

helps contractors cut their costs which, for competitive reasons, they can pass on to borrowers in

their prices. Additionally, the sameness of RUS standards really serves borrowers during times of

emergencies, such as natural disasters that devastate systems and require massive efforts to repair

and get those meters spinning again. RUS borrowers’ crews from many counties and States can

and do converge on a service area and most efficiently pitch right in and help the restoration

process using the tools, knowledge, and materials they use on their own system.

Support for Standards - Borrowers all across America demonstrate their support for RUS

standards and specifications by their numbers and strong membership on the National Rural

Electric Cooperative Association’s (NRECA) Transmission and Distribution Engineering

Committee (T&D Committee). More than 70 RUS borrowers’ engineers are members of the

various subcommittees operated by the T&D Committee. NRECA founded the T&D Committee

for the expressed purpose of assuring the continued development and maintenance of RUS

standards and specifications. RUS strongly supports the NRECA T&D Committees, as well. In

fact, our support includes assigning eight RUS staff members to work closely with each of the

subcommittees that have been formed; and we have established a high priority on our limited

available travel funds for staff to attend all T&D Committee meetings. In recent years, the Rural

Electric Consulting Engineering Association has joined the various T&D subcommittees and

offers an additional source of engineering expertise and professional depth to the NRECA T&D

Committee efforts. A list of the T&D Committee members is included as Appendix B.

If you would like more information or have any questions, please call Mike Agudo, Chair,

Technical Standards Committee “A” (Electric), at (202) 720-0980.

Standards Development

RUS standards and specifications are developed under the public review and comment provisions

of the Federal Register process. In order to promulgate a required standard or specification, RUS

first develops a draft of the concepts and ideas that RUS considers important and needed to affect
Items of Engineering Interest

August 1997

6

adequate system utility in the very broad range environment to which electric facilities are

exposed all across rural America.

Once a draft is ready, we must then have notice of our intentions published in the Federal Register

as a “Proposed Rule.” The notice must detail in its front-end “supplemental” text the purpose of

the proposed standard or specification and the reasons for its need, especially addressing needs for

changes to an existing standard or specification. The public is advised in the notice that it has

(usually) 60 days in which to provide RUS written comments which RUS must consider before

making any final decisions.

In some cases, rather than developing our own standard or specification, we may utilize a

specification or standard developed by some other entity, usually a consensus generated document

prepared by a nationally recognized standards body such as the Institute of Electrical and

Electronics Engineers (IEEE), the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM), the

American Wood Preservers Association (AWPA), the American National Standards Institute

(ANSI), etc. In such cases, RUS’ “Proposed Rule” advises that we plan to “Incorporate by

Reference” the document prepared by the outside group. In recent years, RUS has been

developing some of its standards and specifications with the help of the NRECA T&D

Committee.

Following expiration of the comment period and consideration of all comments received, RUS

must have a “Final Rule” published in the Federal Register. The front-end “supplemental” text of

the Final Rule must address all comments received and relate why the comments we accepted

were deemed appropriate to accept, how we incorporated the comment into the specification, and

why some comments received were not accepted for inclusion in the specification.

Because of the required public process, resulting RUS standards and specifications include

reasonable perspective from all quarters of interest: consulting engineers, borrowers’ engineers,

contractors, material suppliers, etc.

Standards Availability - RUS standards and specifications can be found in the United States Code

of Federal Regulations (CFR) under the United States Department of Agriculture’s Title 7, and

RUS’ Chapter XVII, parts 1700-1799, specifically at 7 CFR 1728, “Electric Standards and

Specifications for Materials and Construction.” If you need any RUS standards or specifications,

please contact RUS' Program Support and Regulatory Analysis Staff at (202) 720-8674. If you

are connected to the Internet, you may also be able to download some of our standards and

specifications through the RUS Home Page (http://www.usda.gov/rus/), which is discussed later

in this document.

If you would like more information or have any questions, please call Mike Agudo, Chair,

Technical Standards Committee “A” (Electric), at (202) 720-0980.
Items of Engineering Interest

August 1997

7

Use of Alternative Materials

Manufacturers often develop “new and better” products to replace or supplement existing product

lines. Often, these products incorporate the use of “alternative” materials, that is materials other

than those traditionally used in that particular product. For example, originally, guy markers (then

called guy guards) were made of wood. Later wood was replaced with steel. More recently,

plastics have been used.

When evaluating the use of alternative materials, it is necessary to look at the entire assembly, not

just a particular aspect of the product. It is also necessary to determine which parameters are

important, as well as which ones are not. For example, there are some tests performed on

crosslinked polyethylene cable that are not performed on ethylene propylene rubber (EPR) cables

because of characteristics that EPR cables have. Only by careful evaluation is it possible to

determine the impact of the product on the system and if there may be any system degradation

because of its use. Although steel poles and fiberglass crossarms are mentioned in the following

discussion, the intent is to show concerns about the use of any “alternative” material.

RUS material and equipment requirements need to be performance-based. However, it is

necessary to keep in mind that each “new” type of material may present its own set of unique

problems. For example, steel poles present new problems that we did not have to consider with

wood poles. Steel poles are not equivalent in all respects to wood poles. Fiberglass crossarms

are not equivalent in all respects to wood crossarms.

The following are some of the important issues to consider:

1. Crossarms need to be dimensionally the same as wood crossarms in order to be

interchangeable. The crossarms must be framed the same. There is a concern about

field drilling. How does a manufacturer “prove” that its crossarms can be field drilled,

while another's cannot be?

2. The crossarms need to withstand the mechanical loads placed upon it. RUS has

historical transverse loads that are used in structure design. Can the crossarms

withstand these loads without deformation? How much deformation is acceptable?

Can the crossarms withstand the vertical loads without exceeding the deflection limits

in the 60 inch (1.5 meter) crossarm brace spec? Do we need to consider that

fiberglass is much more flexible than wood? The limit in the brace spec may have been

based on crossarm breakage. A fiberglass arm is more likely to “recover” after a

heavy load is removed. There is a need to keep a limit of some kind because vertical

deflection affects sag. Do we need just a deflection limit, or do we also need a

minimum ultimate strength? How would ultimate strength be defined? Transverse

deflection limits may also be needed because of sag considerations.

3. What are the electrical characteristics of a fiberglass crossarm? How should it be

tested? Should an impulse wave be used, or should a steady-state voltage be used?
Items of Engineering Interest

August 1997

8

4. Wood crossarms need to be treated to prevent decay. Likewise, fiberglass crossarms

need to be “treated” for protection from the environment. Is an ultraviolet (UV)

inhibitor sufficient? How should it be tested? Is UV the only environmental factor to

be considered? Should the use of “alternative” crossarms be limited to those areas not

subject to contamination? Does RUS need to consider water getting inside the foam

filler compound? How is this different from a wood crossarm getting wet from rain?

How does the fiberglass crossarm perform in temperature extremes? Are there any

particular considerations that we need to consider when wood crossarms are used at

temperature extremes?

5. What other tests would be needed to show that fiberglass crossarms are equivalent to

wood crossarms?

The same issues would apply to other “alternative” materials and products. While steel poles may

have the same strength as wood poles, there are many differences. Can steel poles be field

drilled? What needs to be done so that the entire pole assembly, not just the pole top assembly, is

electrically equivalent? On distribution structures, unlike transmission structures, the hardware

has traditionally not been grounded. Does this design philosophy need to be re-thought? Is it

possible for a line crew to work a steel pole “hot” from the pole? While the vast majority of RUS

borrowers have bucket trucks available, it is occasionally not possible to get a bucket truck to a

particular pole.

If you would like more information or have any questions, please call Harvey Bowles, Chief,

Distribution Branch, at (202) 720-5082.

Procurement of Materials

When purchasing the type of materials included in the RUS List of Materials (RUS Informational

Publication 202-1, “List of Materials Acceptable for Use on Systems of RUS Electrification

Borrowers,”) RUS borrowers may only purchase materials that have a current acceptance or

technical acceptance. For convenience, materials that have been accepted by Technical Standards

Committees (other than technical acceptances) are shown in the RUS List of Materials.

When performing work for an RUS borrower, contractors are to supply only items that have full

RUS acceptance or obtain the borrower's concurrence prior to purchase and use of a RUS

conditionally accepted item or RUS technically accepted item.

RUS will determine, on a case-by-case basis, whether to allow use of a non-accepted item in

emergency situations, for experimental use, or to meet a specific need. An emergency means a

situation wherein the supply of listed material and equipment from the industry is not readily

available, or the standard designs are not applicable to the borrower's specific problem under

consideration.
Items of Engineering Interest

August 1997

9

Under these conditions, borrowers may request permission to use products that have not received

acceptance from Technical Standards Committee “A”. The following outlines the information

that is to be included in a request to the appropriate regional division:

1. The request is to be submitted by the borrower - not the manufacturer, a distributor of

the product, or a consultant. When requests are sent in by someone other than the

borrower, it is impossible to tell if the borrower concurs with the request.

2. Description of the product, including manufacturer’s name and catalog number,

drawing, catalog sheet, etc., including appropriate test reports.

3. Description of project - how many units or structures? (RUS does not normally grant

blanket approvals.)

4. Are there any unusual field conditions of which RUS may not be aware?

5. A. Technical justification - why is this product better suited for the specific project

than presently accepted material? (If the borrower has previously used this product,

experience data should be submitted as a part of the technical justification.)

B. Economic justification - if the product is technically equal, is there an economic

benefit?

6. As a condition of approval, borrowers need to submit experience data on the item.

Once this information is received, RUS will review the request and respond to the borrower.

Timely submission of the information discussed above will generally expedite this review.

If you would like more information or have any questions, please call Harvey Bowles, Chief,

Distribution Branch, at (202) 720-5082 or Mike Agudo, Chair, Technical Standards

Committee “A” (Electric), at (202) 720-0980.

NRECA Materials Subcommittee

ESD requested and the NRECA T&D Committee agreed to establish a special subcommittee to

conduct a thorough review of the RUS List of Materials. The purpose of the review is for the

subcommittee to provide RUS with recommendations for improving the RUS List of Materials.

The review is to look at categories of material and equipment items only, not specific

manufacturers’ products. The intent is to look for categories of items that are obsolete,

categories that perhaps should be included but presently are not, and to recommend better ways

to list currently included categories for greater borrower utility. The Chair of Technical

Standards Committee “A” is our liaison with the Materials Subcommittee. We will keep you

updated on the progress as it develops.
Items of Engineering Interest

August 1997

10

If you would like more information or have any questions, please call Mike Agudo, Chair,

Technical Standards Committee “A” (Electric), at (202) 720-0980.

Feedback Welcome

RUS welcomes feedback from borrowers, manufacturers, engineers, and others on the standards

and specifications that we produce and the materials and equipment that we accept. All feedback

is welcome, both positive and negative. Your thoughts, ideas, and accounting of experience with

RUS standards and with RUS accepted and technically accepted materials helps us help you

better. Positive comments about standards and specifications let us know we are on the right

track with these standards and guide us to remain focused. Comments that detail deficiencies or

inadequacies do the same thing; they let us know that you and, most likely, other borrowers have

a tainted tool that needs improvement. The same is true for the materials and equipment that

RUS accepts. Your input can help us help you to have only quality products available.

Please send your comments and concerns related to RUS standards, specifications, and RUS

materials and equipment acceptances to Michael E. Agudo, Chair, Technical Standards

Committee “A” (Electric), RUS, Stop 1569, 1400 Independence Ave SW, Washington, DC

20250-1569. You may also E-mail the Chair at magudo@rus.usda.gov.

If you would like more information or have any questions, please call Mike Agudo, Chair,

Technical Standards Committee “A” (Electric), at (202) 720-0980.

EQUIPMENT and MATERIALS

EPA’s Distribution Transformer Cost Evaluation Model

In April 1995, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) launched the Energy Star

Transformer Program which was designed to encourage utilities to purchase and install

high-efficiency, cost-effective transformers on their distribution systems. The Program promotes

the best practices in the utility industry and recognizes those utilities which have made a

commitment to using high-efficiency transformers. It relies on the ingenuity and technical knowhow of U.S. industries to both improve the economy and protect the environment.

In an effort to assist utilities in considering both the economic and environmental benefits of

energy-efficient distribution transformers, EPA has developed a number of technical tools which

include the Distribution Transformer Cost Evaluation Model (DTCEM), Optimal Transformer

Sizing (OTS) Model, and Commercial and Industrial Transformer Cost Evaluation

Model (CITCEM). Released in December of 1996, DTCEM Ver. 1.0 is an easy, yet
Items of Engineering Interest

August 1997

11

comprehensive computing tool designed for evaluating multiple distribution transformer bids.

The DTCEM prompts the user to enter utility-specific information (e.g., load characteristics and

load factors) and manufacturer bid data in a user-friendly fashion. Quick and Summary Reports

are automatically generated after the DTCEM program is run. These reports present analysis of

the total owning cost, cost of energy saved, simple payback and emission reduction potential.

The reports also provide information on other factors that should be considered in transformer

purchasing decisions.

The DTCEM allows utilities to easily evaluate the cost-effectiveness of new distribution

transformer purchases using the industry-accepted total owning cost (TOC) method. By

assigning dollar values per watt to core and winding losses (referred to as the ‘A’ and ‘B’ factors

respectively), the TOC calculates for the sum of the purchase price and the total levelized annual

cost of transformer losses over the transformer’s life cycle.

The TOC is expressed as:

TOC = BP + A*CL + B*WL

where: BP is the Bid Price or Purchase Price

CL is the Core Loss (watts)

WL is the Winding Loss (watts)

A is the Dollar value assigned to a watt of transformer core loss ($/watt)

B is the Dollar value assigned to a watt of transformer winding loss ($/watt)

The core and winding losses are inherent to the transformers being evaluated. These data are

provided by the transformer manufacturers as part of bid information. Factors A and B are the

dollar values of power losses that occur as a result of energizing a transformer. Factor A is

multiplied with the core (no-load) loss of the transformer while factor B is multiplied with the

winding (load) loss of the transformer. The resulting values are added with the purchase price of

the transformer to obtain the total owning cost. The values of A and B factors in the above

expression are peculiar to the electric system of the purchasing electric utility. These values can

be readily calculated using the DTCEM. The calculation of A and B factors take into

consideration the utility’s load characteristics and cost factors. The data required for the

calculation can be entered quickly and easily through a series of input screens and on-line help.

The DTCEM software package, which comes in a 3.5-inch diskette, requires minimal computing

capability-- 386 SX PC or better with 4 MB RAM, Microsoft Windows 3.1 or later, and 4 MB

hard disk space. Installation of the software is very straightforward.

The DTCEM (Ver. 1.0) is made available by EPA to electric utilities and cooperatives, free of

charge, for their evaluation. All electric utilities and cooperatives and other entities are invited to

establish a partnership with EPA and voluntarily participate in the Energy Star Transformer

Program. As a partner in the Program, utilities must agree to perform an economic analysis of

their new transformer purchases using a standard industry methodology, and purchase the costeffective transformers that meet EPA’s Energy Star guidelines. In return, EPA will provide

technical assistance and other resources to partners in performing cost evaluation of distribution

transformers. In addition, EPA will provide communication tools and will publicly recognize the

“Energy Star Partners” for their commitment to energy saving and air emissions reduction.
Items of Engineering Interest

August 1997

12

If you would like more information or have any questions, please contact Peter South, Manager,

Energy Star Transformer Program, EPA, at (202) 233-9482 or by E-mail at

south.peter@epamail.epa.gov, or call Mike Agudo, Chair, Technical Standards Committee “A”

(Electric), at (202) 720-0980 or Jim Bohlk, Electrical Engineer, Distribution Branch, at

(202) 720-1967.

Guidelines for Approving the Use of Steel Distribution Poles

RUS is presently using the following guidelines when considering borrowers’ requests for the

approval of the use of steel distribution poles. In order to assist the RUS staff in considering such

requests, we request that borrowers consider all of the following and, as a minimum, adequately

address in writing items 2 through 8 of the following in their requests submitted to RUS.

1. Approval is only being granted on a case-by-case trial basis to gain experience;

2. Because approval is only being considered for site specific projects, define the project

and where the steel poles will be installed.

3. Specifically state the maximum number of steel poles to be used.

4. Furnish sound reasons for using steel poles. If favorable cost is the main reason, then

an analysis, using sound engineering economics, of the cost of using steel poles

compared to standard RUS construction with wood poles should be furnished.

5. Provide a description of the proposed steel poles and the method(s) of corrosion

protection to be utilized when manufactured, when placed in service and future

maintenance.

6. RUS regulations require that all assembly units must be built according to RUS

construction standards. If nonstandard construction is being proposed, then furnish

sufficient dimensioned drawings and other technical information for RUS’ evaluation

of the design.

7. Except for various miscellaneous material items, RUS regulations require that

borrowers use materials that RUS has fully, conditionally or technically accepted. A

compilation of accepted materials may be found in the RUS List of Materials. Contact

the Chair, Technical Standards Committee “A” (Electric) for information on

technically accepted items. If the proposed design uses materials that do not fall into

the any of the acceptance categories above, then furnish RUS sufficient information,

data and test results of all such materials for evaluation and approval determinations.

8. Provide a statement regarding the anticipated impact that the steel pole, pole-top

assembly design may have on the possible electrocution of raptors. Also state the

mitigation measures that will be incorporated in the design to minimize such

possibilities.
Items of Engineering Interest

August 1997

13

The following information should be considered by borrowers when considering the use of steel

poles:

• RUS strongly advocates a minimum lightning impulse withstand strength (often

incorrectly and simply referred to as a BIL level) of 300 kV for distribution pole top

assemblies. A minimum of 300 kV withstand has to be maintained at dead-end

assemblies. (Withstand strengths of less than 300 kV will usually facilitate flashovers

of lightning strikes to or proximate to distribution lines. A recloser operation, which

will cause lights to flicker, is usually required to clear the resulting arc. Thus, a

minimum of 300 kV withstand is required to maintain a reasonable quality of service.

Standard RUS pole type assemblies, with wood poles, have a minimum withstand

strength of 350 to 400 kV.) If the steel pole design is less than 300 kV, borrowers

should consider what additional measures, such as the installation of surge arresters,

might be used to minimize flashovers, or, what impact a design with less than 300 kV

might have on the quality of service.

• A steel pole may be used as a grounding conductor if the pole meets the sufficient

conductivity and low impedance requirements of the NESC and RUS specifications.

However, a directly embedded steel pole is not recognized in the NESC as a

grounding electrode. Thus, the NESC and RUS requires that separate driven ground

rods or grounding electrodes be used for all equipment, surge arresters and other

required system grounds.

• Borrowers should use stainless steel or galvanized steel ground rods and non-copper

ground wire in the soil on steel pole lines to mitigate the corrosive effects of buried

dissimilar metals in close proximity.

• RUS advocates using steel poles that meet the strength requirements of the NESC

Grade B construction. The design of the distribution line itself only needs to meet

NESC Grade C construction. Extreme ice conditions and appropriate high winds

should be considered in the construction design.

• The design of unguyed angle and dead-end steel pole structures should consider pole

deflection and greater embedment depths.

RUS does not judge the above items to be onerous. Each item is important for a sound and safe

design. The relevant items above, plus several other design considerations, are incorporated in

RUS construction drawings and specifications for overhead distribution lines.

If you would like more information or have any questions, please call Jim Bohlk, Electrical

Engineer, Distribution Branch, at (202) 720-1967.
Items of Engineering Interest

August 1997

14

Special Conductors - Transmission Lines

Recent transmission line designs submitted to RUS from borrowers have specified conductors

other than conventional ACSR conductors. These designs were for both new lines and

reconductoring/upgrade projects intended to improve reliability or to increase line capacity.

Type ACSR/TW (trapezoidal-shaped aluminum wires, also ACSR/AW/TW, where AW stands for

the aluminum-clad steel core wires in the ACSR), has been selected for some line upgrade

projects. The ACSR/TW conductors, covered by ASTM B-779, use a "type" designation rather

than the number of strands used for conventional ACSR. Compared with a conventional ACSR

with the same aluminum area, an equivalent ACSR/TW is approximately 10% smaller in

conductor diameter, which reduces the transverse wind load on line and support structures. As an

alternative, ACSR/TW is available with overall conductor diameter equivalent to conventional

ACSR. In this case, an equal diameter ACSR/TW gains 20-25% increase of aluminum area, a

significant decrease in the resistance and an increase in the current-carrying capacity of the line.

Ground clearances and strength of the existing structures and line components usually are

analyzed or checked based on the diameter, weight, and sag tension of the ACSR/TW conductor.

The RUS List of Materials currently includes, on a conditional basis, two suppliers of ACSR/TW

conductors in various sizes up to 795 kcmil, 26/7 stranding, (Type 16).

Vibration Resistant Conductors - Another use of TW type conductor is for self-damping type

conductors, ACSR/SD, which are constructed of core steel wires surrounded by layers of

trapezoidal-shaped aluminum wires, designed to maintain a small annular gap between the layers

under conductor tension. Internal damping results from interaction of the different natural

vibration frequencies of the steel core and aluminum layers and movement within the gap. The

damping permits a design at higher conductor tension under loaded and unloaded conditions

without damper devices or additional vibration protection. Generally, ACSR/SD is applicable for

the larger transmission conductor sizes and has the disadvantage of increased conductor handling

and installation costs.

Twisted-pair conductors (also known as type T-2, VR, and Duplex) may be used in areas prone

to conductor galloping. Twisted-pair conductors are included on the Conditional List for Item av

in the RUS List of Materials. The conductor sizes are limited to standard ACSR and AAAC

conductors in the RUS preferred sizes (AAC conductor is not included in the RUS List of

Materials). With the increase of experience using this conductor, installation cost premium has

decreased from the initial 15 to 20% to 5 to 10% over conventional ACSR conductors. See also

the 1996 Items of Engineering Interest for further information on twisted-pair and type ACSS

conductors used for transmission projects.

A new type of oval-shaped conductor designed for conductor galloping-prone lines is being

developed and tested by Southwire. The conductor uses a spiral, oval cross-section which

presents a changing profile for wind action and ice formation, similar in concept to the twistedpair conductor, but without the variability and added installation cost associated with the twistedpair design. Connection, hardware and installation of the oval conductors should be similar to

conventional ACSR conductors. ASTM is beginning the process of developing new

specifications for the oval conductor.
Items of Engineering Interest

August 1997

15

If you would like more information or have any questions, please call Bing Chan, Electrical

Engineer, Transmission Branch, at (202) 720-0999.

Line Rating/Uprating

In recognition of the new utility environment, transmission engineers are re-examining practices

and methods used for line design, including conductors. Economic factors such as open-access,

retail-wheeling, and constraints on new line construction will intensify the pressure to increase

thermal rating of existing (and new) transmission lines at minimum cost or modifications. At a

"Symposium on Thermal Ratings of Overhead Transmission Conductors," held at the July, 1996

IEEE-PES meeting in Denver, presentations included the following topics on the effects of

sustained high temperatures on conductors, attachments, hardware, and accessories:

• Reasons for Thermal Limits on Bare Overhead Conductors;

• Applications of IEEE Standard 738-1993 for Static Ratings;

• Some Sag Calculation Uncertainties with ACSR at High Temperatures;

• Sags and Tensions Equalization at High Temperatures;

• Measuring Conductor Sag at High Temperatures; and

• Operation of Conductors and Accessories at High Temperatures.

Attempts may be made to utilize any margin or cushion possessed by existing lines, for example,

higher conductor temperature and sag may be permitted when the actual conductor-to-ground

clearance is found to be higher than the minimum required by code. Utilities are beginning to

collect high temperature data, previously unavailable, for their lines. One opinion expressed

during the presentations was: For line rating, the prudent course to follow is a conservative

approach due to the present uncertainties and concerns of conductor creep, loading history, and

the accuracy of stress-strain data used for the sag-tension calculations under sustained high

temperature.

Some of the proposed line rating methods being considered involve modification of existing

methods or use of an entirely new approach. For example: assuming less conservative weather

parameters used in conventional static line rating calculations; permitting higher maximum

conductor temperatures than previously used; and adopting a "real-time" or dynamic thermal

rating system. Some of these proposed methods are currently being studied under research

projects funded by the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI).

If you would like more information or have any questions, please call Bing Chan, Electrical

Engineer, Transmission Branch, at (202) 720-0999.
Items of Engineering Interest

August 1997

16

Maximizing the Reliability of Separable Connectors

Some factors reported as contributing to premature failure of URD cable separable connectors

(e.g., elbows) include inferior lubricants and misapplication of lubricants on connectors. Most

separable connector manufacturers usually supply two distinct lubricant packages for

installation - one to be used on elbow/insert interface and the other on elbow/cable interface.

Unfortunately, many line personnel cannot differentiate between them as there is little visible

difference. Also, there have been vendors that have sold lubricants that do not meet the

requirements of the connector manufacturers. The ANSI/IEEE Std. 386 Working Group is

working to establish specific requirements for lubricants and has requested that manufacturers

include a list of “acceptable” lubricants with their products.

If you would like more information or have any questions, please call Trung Hiu, Electrical

Engineer, Distribution Branch, at (202) 720-1877.

Discussion of Common Power System Grounding Methods

The simplest and most effective method of power system grounding is to solidly connect the

neutrals of any wye connected transformers or generators directly to earth. This method has two

major advantages:

1. It is simple and inexpensive in that it requires no extra equipment; and

2. It minimizes the magnitude of over voltage which will appear on the unfaulted phases

during a ground fault, providing a resulting reduction in the stress on line insulation, as

compared with other methods. This is the reason that solidly grounded neutrals are a

necessity where reduced BIL insulation designs are to be used.

In spite of these advantages of the solidly grounded system, there are associated disadvantages

such that other grounding methods are often used. These disadvantages all stem from the fact

that a solidly grounded system produces the greatest magnitude of ground fault current when a

fault-to-ground occurs. It is realized that with a grounded neutral system perhaps 95 percent or

more of all faults start as a single phase-to-ground fault. If the amount of ground current that

flows can be controlled and the fault is cleared promptly, the amount of damage at the fault will

be reduced and the fault will most likely be restricted so as not to involve more than the one

phase. This may result in preventing burn-downs, reduction in the cost of making repairs, and

reduction in the frequency or extent of maintenance on the breakers which interrupt the fault. In

the case of generators or transformers, the difference in repair costs may be that of replacing a

few damaged coils as compared with completely replacing the generator or transformer which

may be necessary where oil fires and explosion follow the transformer fault, or where heavy fault

currents melt down coils and burn and weld together extensive areas of laminated electrical steel

in the transformer core or generator stator iron. Since the damage done is approximately

proportional to I2t, much more benefit can be gained with reduction of current than by reduction

in time. Under certain conditions, single-phase-to-ground faults can give rise to short circuit
Items of Engineering Interest

August 1997

17

currents 50 percent higher than the three-phase short circuit current. Thus, breakers, whose

ratings make them entirely capable of interrupting three-phase faults, may have severe difficulty

handling a single-phase-to-ground fault. In view of the above, the potential savings in damage

and repair costs or avoiding the cost of having to install larger breakers may justify avoiding the

simple and inexpensive solidly grounded system in favor of a more complex and expensive system

which will provide control of the magnitude of fault current.

In the selection of grounding equipment and methods, many factors must be considered. It is

desirable from the reduction of fault damage, repair costs and switching equipment maintenance

to limit ground fault current as much as possible. However, the greater the limitation of ground

fault current, the higher the possible transient overvoltages which will be encountered on the

unfaulted phases. Expected overvoltage levels will determine the equipment insulation levels

required and the ratings of lightning arresters required to protect the connected equipment, and

will consequently affect costs. Therefore, these factors are in conflict with the desire for

maximum fault current limitation. Whether resistors or reactors are used to limit the fault current

will determine the degree of overvoltage expected on a given system for a given degree of current

limitation, and thus effect the selection of the use of resistors or reactors. Whenever grounding of

any kind is used, it is obvious that fault current will flow when a normally ungrounded conductor

becomes grounded. It is necessary that relays, fuses, or other protective devices sense and

operate to clear the fault. Since the degree of current limitation employed may well have a

serious effect upon the ability of these devices to operate as desired, the degree of current

limitation which can be employed may well be determined by the sensitivity of the protective

devices used. Conversely, the type and sensitivity of the protective devices required may be

determined by the degree of current limitation selected.

Thus, the selection of the value to which the ground fault is to be limited becomes the problem of

making a selection between minimum ground fault current to limit damage, the minimum ground

fault which will give adequate protective device operation, and the maximum ground fault current

which generator or transformer windings can tolerate.

In conclusion, there are several important points with respect to impedance grounding of system

neutrals that are often overlooked.

1. Since grounding equipment is electrically active in a circuit only during a ground fault,

considerable money can be saved by buying equipment rated for short time duty.

Grounding equipment for a station with all underground circuits will be expected to be

subjected to very infrequent faults, and since cable faults are usually permanent,

repeated reclosing attempts will probably not be made. Under these circumstances, a

short time rating of the grounding equipment of 5 seconds or less may be adequate.

However, grounding equipment installed in a station having all overhead circuits will

be subjected to the cumulative heating effect of perhaps many closely spaced feeder

faults during severe storm conditions, each circuit outage being accompanied by

several unsuccessful closing attempts. Under these conditions, equipment having a

rating on a 10 minute or more basis may be considered.
Items of Engineering Interest

August 1997

18

2. Impedance neutral grounding equipment must always be considered hot, since there is

no telling when a fault to ground will occur and raise the neutral end of the equipment

to full phase to ground voltage. This poses a safety problem and creates a problem of

how to maintain the equipment unless the generator, transformer, bus, or station for

which the impedance furnishes the ground is shut down.

3. Where a multiplicity of grounding units are employed, care must be exercised in

switching facilities for load transfer to avoid the danger that someone will get caught

operating disconnects for transfer just as a ground fault occurs. If multiple units are

used, care must be exercised that the protective relaying will operate and coordinate

properly through the range of conditions possible with the multiple units.

4. Where impedance grounding is used, all neutrals in the same zero sequence system

must be grounded through the same impedance. Otherwise, the original impedance

will shunt or short circuit and raise the ground fault current above the desired design

value.

If you would like more information or have any questions, please call Mike Eskandary, Electrical

Engineer, Transmission Branch, at (202) 720-9098.

Utility Communications Architecture

The technical areas that are changing the most rapidly in the electric power business are

automation and telecommunications. Automation technology is now almost entirely digital and

communication is very rapidly going in the same direction. System Control and Data

Acquisition (SCADA) systems, reclosers, voltage regulators, meters, radios, and even sensors

inside transformers are now digital. When different software packages or digital devices need to

communicate with one another, they use a protocol, a sort of “language.” When the different

elements don't speak a common language, there is a problem. This is not an insurmountable

problem, but it can be an expensive one. It can be dealt with by using protocol converters and

custom software. Another solution is to get all the automation/digital “stuff” to speak the same

“language.” Such a “language,” Utility Communications Architecture (UCA), has been developed

by EPRI and NRECA's Rural Electric Research program. It is a suite of open communication

protocols tailored to achieve seamless, enterprise-wide data transfer throughout utilities. Late last

year, a demonstration of UCA was held at United Power Association in Elk River, Minnesota,

and at some of its distribution cooperatives. Products from eight different vendors all spoke UCA

to each other. SCADA and IED (intelligent electronic device) vendors as well as vendors of

other types of hardware and software are now beginning to sell commercial products that speak

UCA. As you automate your cooperative, you should make a conscious decision about the

protocol that the devices and systems speak.

If you would like more information or have any questions, please call Mike Agudo, Chair,

Technical Standards Committee “A” (Electric), at (202) 720-0980, or Martin Gordon of

NRECA's Rural Electric Research program at (703) 907-5840. You can also contact the UCA
Items of Engineering Interest

August 1997

19

Exchange by phone at (800) UCA-EXCH or by E-mail at uca@plxs.com. Detailed technical

documentation about UCA 2.0 can be downloaded over the Internet at

ftp.epri.com/PowerDelivery/UCA.

Why Does RUS Have 7 CFR 1726 Contracting Procedures?

RUS is mandated by Congress and the American taxpayer to see that RUS loan and loan

guarantee funds are used efficiently, effectively and fairly. To this end, RUS issues policies and

procedures that encourage competitive bidding as much as possible. Competitive bidding

generally results in the lowest cost and treats contractors fairly, allowing equal opportunity, where

all eligible contractors can benefit from RUS program funds. RUS also issues standard contract

forms to promote efficiency through uniformity and familiarity in contract documents. The RUS

contracting procedures help ensure that the Government and your members are getting the

maximum benefit from their investment in the rural infrastructure.

Where Are RUS Contracting Policies and Procedures? - RUS’ Electric Program Construction

Contracting Policies and Procedures are included under 7 CFR Part 1726. RUS consolidated

6 bulletins and 25 forms into this regulation, providing more concise and flexible requirements.

A tabular summary of some of the key provisions and dollar limits of 7 CFR 1726 follows this

material. For answers to some of the frequently asked questions about 7 CFR 1726, see RUS

Bulletin 1726-601, “Electric System Construction Policies and Procedures - Interpretations.”

How Are the New Requirements Different? - RUS listened to the concerns of the rural electric

community, and put in place some major changes:

• Bidding, contract approval, and other requirements of 7 CFR 1726 only apply to

projects that that are financed with RUS loan or guaranteed loan funds (including

reimbursable projects.) The old requirements in RUS Bulletin 40-6 (now rescinded)

applied to all construction, regardless of the source of funding.

• Borrowers now have increased flexibility in procurement practices. A number of

provisions in 7 CFR 1726 include cumulative dollar limits that apply on a “per calendar

year” basis and Owner Furnished Materials (OFM) costs are not counted against these

dollars limits. The old requirements in RUS Bulletin 40-6 generally had dollar limits

on a “per contract” basis and included OFM.

• Dollar thresholds which determine the procurement procedure to be used have been

raised. Generally, it is the borrower's responsibility to decide what procurement

procedure to use for electric distribution line construction up to the larger of $250,000

or 1% of Net Utility Plant (NUP) per calendar year. Similar borrower latitude applies

to other types of construction.

• RUS has added a new streamlined bidding procedure, called multiparty unit price

quotations. This procedure generally involves obtaining three or more written unit
Items of Engineering Interest

August 1997

20

price quotes and awarding contracts on the lowest evaluated cost. It can be used for

electric distribution line construction for the larger of $350,000 or 1.5% of NUP per

calendar year. This is in addition to the limits noted above as being the borrower’s

responsibility.

• RUS has also added a more flexible bidding procedure specifically for procurement of

communications and control facilities. This procedure, called multiparty negotiation,

generally involves obtaining quotes from three or more bidders, but award of the

contract need not be to the low bidder.

• Fewer contracts are subject to approval by RUS:

− Generally, distribution contracts and contracts for headquarters facilities are not

subject to RUS approval.

− Contracts for transmission and substation construction and communications and

control facilities below $250,000 or 1% of NUP (up to $500,000 for distribution

borrowers, $1,500,000 for power supply borrowers) generally won’t require RUS

approval.

• Subcontracts are no longer subject to RUS approval.

• Borrowers may now use RUS Form 792 in lieu of Form 830 when all materials are

owner furnished. Form 792 offers less cumbersome close-out procedures.

• The number of contract close-out forms to be submitted to RUS has been sharply

reduced.

If you would like more information or have any questions, please call Fred Gatchell, Deputy

Director, Electric Staff Division, at (202) 720-1398.
21

This summary does not include all requirements. See 7 CFR 1726 for detailed requirements.

SUMMARY OF RUS ELECTRIC CONTRACTING PROCEDURES

Bidding Procedure

Formal Informal

Facility or Borrower Multiparty Competitive Competitive Multiparty Contract

Contract Type Responsibility Quotations Bidding Bidding Negotiation Approval

Distribution Line ≤$250,000 ≤$350,000 All Other N/A N/A N/A

 Construction or 1% of or 1.5% of

NUP/CY NUP/CY

(Unit Price)

Substation and ≤$250,000 or N/A All Other N/A N/A ≥$250,000 or

 Transmission Line 1% of NUP/CY 1% of NUP/

 Construction (NTE $2,000,000) Contract (NTE

$500,000 for Dist;

$1,500,000 for PS)

Generation ≤$1,500,000 N/A Yes Yes RUS Approval Specific

 Equipment and Required Contracts

 Construction

Buildings N/A ≤$250,000 All Other N/A N/A N/A

or 1% of NUP/CY

(NTE $1,000,000)

(Lump Sum)

Communications ≤$250,000 or N/A N/A N/A All Other ≥$250,000 or

 and Control 1% of NUP/CY 1% of NUP/

(NTE $2,000,000) Contract (NTE

$500,000 for Dist;

$1,500,000 for PS)

Note: All limits are exclusive of the cost of owner furnished materials

Abbreviations: CY - Calendar Year Dist - Distribution Borrower N/A - Not Applicable

NTE - Not To Exceed NUP - Net Utility Plant PS - Power Supply Borrower
Items of Engineering Interest

August 1997

22

ADMINISTRATIVE and OTHER

Electric Industry Restructuring

During this transitional period in the electric industry, RUS remains committed to engineering and

architectural standards that protect and improve the reliability of borrowers’ electric systems. The

transition from a highly regulated monopoly industry to an industry that is governed to a large

degree by the forces of the free market must not downgrade the quality of electric service in rural

America.

Recently RUS has placed more of the responsibility for ensuring system safety and reliability in

the hands of borrowers. RUS, for example, no longer needs to approve system improvements

unless these improvements are to be financed with RUS loan funds. RUS will continue to issue

and revise standards and specifications. All borrower construction must meet these standards

regardless of the source of financing.

RUS has recently increased the number of engineers in both line and staff offices. This increase in

staff supports RUS’ commitment to electric system reliability.

The RUS Principles for Electric Utility Industry Restructuring below stress this commitment.

RURAL UTILITIES SERVICE

PRINCIPLES FOR ELECTRIC UTILITY INDUSTRY RESTRUCTURING

LEGISLATION

Deregulation and competition in some industries has resulted in savings for consumers. However,

an unintended and unfortunate consequence of these changes in rural areas has often been a

decline in the availability and quality of service and increased costs to customers. Airline

deregulation is an example. The transition to a more competitive electric power sector should

seek to minimize these adverse impacts and to preserve the benefits of a more than 60 year old

Federal partnership with states and local communities to bring and maintain universal electric

service to rural America.

The Rural Utilities Service has two main goals in the development of legislation:

• To ensure the continued availability of reliable, high quality electric service at a

reasonable cost to rural consumers; and;

• To protect the integrity of the Government’s loan portfolio.
Items of Engineering Interest

August 1997

23

RUS believes that legislative proposals for restructuring the electric utility industry should be

guided by the principles of Reliability, Fairness, and Flexibility.

RELIABILITY: The transition to a more competitive industry environment and retail

customer choice must maintain the reliability of the nation’s electric systems. Electric

industry reforms should not harm the existing electric infrastructure in rural America.

• Utilities, suppliers, and power marketers must be held accountable for system integrity.

• Adequate back-up sources of power and transmission capacity must be maintained.

• All utilities, suppliers, and power marketers must adhere to regional reliability

standards. Enforceable mechanisms for assuring reliability with penalties for

noncompliance must be developed.

FAIRNESS: A transition to a more competitive electric sector with retail choice should be

fair and equitable to all consumers--including rural Americans, to existing electric utilities,

and to Federal taxpayers who support the RUS program.

• All consumers and consumer classes should have the opportunity to share fully and

fairly in any benefits of electric industry restructuring.

• Affordable, reliable, universal electric service, long the foundation of State and Federal

law, should be preserved and protected in rural and other at risk areas. A variety of

state and/or Federal mechanisms designed to achieve this goal should be considered.

Possible options include, but are not limited to, a fund financed with a wires surcharge,

similar in concept to the National Exchange Carrier Association (NECA) pool for

telephone service, territorial exemptions to retail wheeling, allocation of “life line”

customers to competitive generation providers, supplier of last resort designation.

• The diversity of the nation’s electric utilities in size, resources, customer load,

corporate structure, and regulatory status should be recognized. Implementation plans

and mechanisms providing for fair and equitable recovery of system changes, transition

costs, and stranded investment should not discriminate against any class of utility.

• Any wholesale and retail choice plan must respect the unique structural features of

consumer-owned cooperatives, both financial and corporate. Among other matters,

the plans must:

− Allow not-for-profit, consumer-owned cooperatives to recover all stranded

investment;

− Permit recovery of investment by power supply (Generation and Transmission -

G&T) borrowers stranded as a result of load loss incurred by distribution

borrowers due to competition;
Items of Engineering Interest

August 1997

24

− Permit a return on member-provided equity for appropriate purposes including the

calculation of transmission and distribution access fees and provision of other

services to non-members;

− Preserve the benefits of Federal loans to rural utilities and consumers, including an

offset in the calculation of charges for system access and other services provided

to others.

• Existing retail and wholesale power contracts, including the all-requirements wholesale

power contracts, which are critical to the structure of the RUS financed cooperatives,

must be respected.

• The existing tax-exempt status of cooperatives under 501(c)(12) must not be

jeopardized as a result of transactions or corporate restructuring either required or

encouraged by any choice plan.

• Existing loan obligations should be honored. The financial viability of cooperative

utilities to repay these Federal obligations should be assured through approval of retail

and wholesale rates and access charges that are adequate to cover debt service and/or

through fair and equitable recovery of stranded costs.

FLEXIBILITY: Any legislative proposal for utility industry restructuring should allow for

a flexible, adaptable transition process that accommodates: the diversity of electric utility

industry; state regulatory structures and policies; evolving industry conditions; and

consumer education. The process should allow for experimentation and evaluation to

learn from experience and to correct mistakes.

• There is no need for a “one size fits all” retail choice requirement. Differences among

states should be respected. Federal legislation should offer states the opportunity to

develop retail choice plans to suit their needs.

• Non-regulated, consumer-owned cooperatives should similarly be given adequate

opportunities to tailor the transition to customer choice to their unique structure.

• A single national “date certain” for retail choice and rigid implementation schemes

should be avoided because of the potential of disproportionate harm to small utilities

that lack resources to withstand an abrupt transition.

• The transition to a more competitive electric utility sector will be a period of

experimentation for utilities, generation providers, consumers, and regulators. Any

implementation plan for retail competition must be flexible enough to allow

participants to adapt to evolutionary changes in the electricity markets and must

permit sufficient time and experience to develop new and refined institutional,

technological, and practical responses to the challenges presented.
Items of Engineering Interest

August 1997

25

If you would like more information or have any questions, please call Sue Arnold, Financial

Analyst, Program Support and Regulatory Analysis, at (202) 690-1078, E-Mail:

sarnold@rus.usda.gov.

RUS Technical Publications

RUS has published several items recently of interest to the RUS electric engineering community.

These publications include:

• 7 CFR 1724, “Electric Engineering, Architectural Services and Design Policies and

Procedures.” This proposed rule, published on August 4, 1997, contains RUS

requirements on engineering and architectural services and system design. These

policies and procedures are presently contained in seven RUS bulletins, which will be

rescinded after this regulation becomes effective. This proposed rule would simplify

RUS requirements relating to architectural and engineering services and the planning

and design of electric distribution, transmission, and generation systems and facilities

owned by RUS borrowers, and substantially reduce the number of engineering

documents that must be submitted to RUS. Comments on this proposed rule are due

by October 3, 1997.

• 7 CFR 1730, “Electric System Operation and Maintenance” (O&M). This proposed

rule, published on April 16, 1997 contains RUS requirements on electric system O&M

and the policy on RUS’ review and evaluation of borrowers’ O&M practices. It also

includes revisions to RUS Form 300, Review Rating Summary, and will replace

RUS Bulletin 161-5, Electric System Review and Evaluation. Comments have been

received and are now being incorporated into the final rule. RUS is also preparing a

companion publication, Bulletin 1730-1, “Electric System Operation and Maintenance

(O&M),” to provide guidelines related to O&M, including a rating guide for

RUS Form 300.

• 7 CFR 1789, “Use of Consultants Funded by Borrowers.” This rule, published on

September 16, 1996, allows RUS to use consultants funded by the borrowers to

facilitate timely action on funding applications and other RUS approvals. Consultants

may provide financial, legal, engineering, environmental, or other technical advice and

services in connection with the RUS review of the borrower’s request.

• Bulletin 1724E-204, “Guide Specification for Steel Pole and H-Frame Structures,”

dated June 6, 1997. This guide specification, which replaces REA Bulletin 62-12,

“Guide Specifications for Steel Pole Structures” (June 1983), is to provide RUS

borrowers with a basis for procuring adequate single pole and H-frame steel

transmission line structures. Use of this specification should help eliminate ambiguities

that might arise in the evaluation process of competitively bid steel pole procurements.

This suggested purchase specification covers the technical aspects of design, materials,

welding, inspection, delivery, and protective coatings of single circuit steel pole and
Items of Engineering Interest

August 1997

26

steel H-frame structures, 115 kV to 230 kV. This specification does not include

contract (front-end) documents or specifications for construction. This specification

may be expanded to include double circuit structures and structures over 230 kV.

The Transmission Line Subcommittee of the NRECA T&D Engineering Committee

contributed significantly to the revision. For further information, contact Don Heald at

(202) 720-9102.

If you need any of these publications, please contact RUS' Program Support and Regulatory

Analysis Staff at (202) 720-8674. Many RUS publications are also available via Internet at:

http://www.usda.gov/rus/

Publications in Progress

Timber Specifications: RUS is in the process of revising the following three bulletins that

cover pressure treating poles and crossarms, and their respective quality control:

• 1728F-700, “RUS Specification for Wood Poles, Stubs and Anchor Logs;”

• 1728H-701, “RUS Specification for Wood Crossarms (Solid and Laminated)

Transmission Timbers and Pole Keys;” (7 CFR 1728.201) and

• 1728H-702, “RUS Specification for Quality Control and Inspection of Timber

Products” (7 CFR 1728.202).

Topics currently being considered for revision include:

1. Removal of the Insured Warranty Plan as an acceptable plan for supplying poles

due to lack of use,

2. Elimination of the requirement for borrowers to notify RUS of their timber

product purchases during the previous year,

3. Reinstatement of the acceptance and listing of inspection agencies and treating

plants in the RUS List of Materials,

4. Requirement for a heat sterilization during kiln drying or steam conditioning of

poles,

5. Boring each distribution pole to check penetration of preservative, similar to the

existing requirement for transmission poles.

6. Requirement for inspection agencies to have their company designation branded or

tagged on the pole face, and
Items of Engineering Interest

August 1997

27

7. Elimination of the 10 percent allowance of preservative retention reduction at the

time of shipment to the borrower.

RUS is hereby soliciting input from electric borrowers and others as to necessary changes

to the aforementioned bulletins. Comments or suggestions should be sent to H. Robert

Lash, Chief, Transmission Branch, RUS, Stop 1569, 1400 Independence Ave SW,

Washington, DC 20250-1569, E-mail: blash@rus.usda.gov. All comments are welcome.

RUS is also working on the following publications:

• RUS Bulletin 1724E-206, “Guide Specification for Prestressed, Spun, Concrete

Poles.” This guide specifications, which is nearing completion, provides a basis for

procuring prestressed, spun, concrete poles. This purchase specification covers the

technical aspects of design, materials, manufacturing, inspection, testing, and delivery

of prestressed, spun concrete poles.

The Transmission Line Subcommittee of the NRECA T&D Engineering Committee

developed the basis of this bulletin. The bulletin should be available this fall, 1997.

For further information, contact Don Heald at (202) 720-9102.

• RUS Bulletins 1728F-810 and 1728F-811, “Electric Specifications and Drawings for

34.5 kV through 230 kV Transmission Lines.” RUS expects the final rule covering

the revision of these bulletins to be published during the summer of 1997.

RUS has made editorial changes and changes to improve clarity of the bulletins. RUS

borrowers and other users of RUS electric transmission line specifications have

proposed corrections to several drawings. RUS and RUS borrowers have also

suggested modifications to clarify and modify some of the drawings. RUS also has

renumbered and reformatted these bulletins in accordance with the agency’s

publications and directives system. These bulletins were formerly known as

RUS Bulletins 50-1 and 50-2. For further information, contact Don Heald at

(202) 720-9102.

• RUS Bulletin 1728F-803, “Specifications & Drawings for 24.9/14.4 kV Line

Construction.” RUS expects the proposed rule covering the revision of this bulletin to

be published during the summer of 1997. The proposed revision includes a new

drawing assembly designation system as well as a number of clarifications,

modifications, and updates to these drawings. For further information, contact Jim

Bohlk at (202) 720-1967.

• RUS Bulletin 1728F-806, “Specifications & Drawings for Underground Electric

Distribution.” RUS expects the proposed rule covering the revision of this bulletin to

be published during the summer or fall of 1997. The proposed revision includes a
Items of Engineering Interest

August 1997

28

number of clarifications, modifications, and updates to these drawings. For further

information, contact Trung Hiu at (202) 720-1877.

RUS 1998 Electric Engineering Seminar

RUS is planning to conduct a seminar on rural electric distribution and transmission system

engineering and operation in March, 1998. The program will include presentations on various

topics of interest to the rural electric engineering community.

In addition to the formal presentations, this seminar will provide an opportunity for the

participants from around the country to share experiences and ideas of mutual interest.

Distribution system managers, engineers, and line superintendents as well as personnel of

consulting engineering firms are expected to attend this seminar. RUS is planning to hold this

seminar in conjunction with NRECA’s “TechAdvantage 98.”

If you would like more information or have any questions, please call Fred Gatchell, Deputy

Director, ESD, at (202) 720-1398.

RUS Has a World Wide Web Home Page

RUS is on the World Wide Web with an Internet Home Page. Come visit us at the following

address:

http://www.usda.gov/rus/

Our Home Page is very easy to use. As you browse, you will notice that some words and phrases

are underlined and usually highlighted in blue. These words are linked to other areas of our home

page and to other web sites. Clicking the left button on your mouse when your cursor is on

highlighted words will take you to different screens and allow you to read more about the topics

described by these words.

Some of our files are stored in *.pdf format and are viewable by using the Acrobat Reader

software package. The Acrobat Reader is available as freeware from Adobe Systems, Inc., at the

Adobe Acrobat Home Page. We have placed a “Get Acrobat” button at several locations on our

web site. Clicking on this button will enable you to download the Acrobat Reader from the

Adobe Acrobat Home Page.

RUS Mission Statement - Find out why we are here and what we do by reading our mission

statements. To access the RUS Mission Statement, click on the first option in the Main Menu

entitled, RUS Mission Statement and Organization. Once you’ve read about what we do, please

take some time to read about some of our accomplishments. You can do so by going back to the

Main Menu and selecting Electric Program and then clicking on the words good work on the

following screen.
Items of Engineering Interest

August 1997

29

We have mission statements for each of our programs.

Our Programs - We provide financing and technical assistance to enable organizations to build

electric, telecommunications, and water and waste facilities to serve residents in rural areas.

Home pages have been set up for each program. Learn more about them by clicking on the

underlined topics highlighted in blue at our Main Menu.

In addition to the Electric, Telecommunications, and Water and Waste programs, we offer a

special program which provides funding for Distance Learning Facilities and Telemedicine

Facilities. Information about this program can also be found by going to the Distance Learning

and Telemedicine Home Page from the Main Menu.

Check out these opportunities and others which are available to you and your community before

you move on.

Regulations and Bulletins - Many of our bulletins and regulations are now available on our web

site. These documents may be accessed by selecting the RUS Regulations option at the Main

Menu. They are stored as text, Microsoft Word for Windows (Version 6), and *.pdf files. You

may either view them or download them as needed.

Forms for the Electric Program - We are in the process of converting many of our forms to

electronic files. Some of these files are already available and can be accessed by clicking on the

word Forms on the Home Page for the Electric Program or by clicking on Grant Application

Guide and Download Application Forms on the Distance Learning and Telemedicine Home Page.

Directory of Key Staff Members - We have included the telephone numbers, regular mail, and Email addresses of all key staff members in our agency. This information is available by State and

by division in the Home Pages for the Electric and Water and Waste Programs.

Information Superhighway - Since launching its National Information Infrastructure initiative, the

Administration has vigorously promoted the development of an Information Superhighway and

universal service in rural America. Our agency is in the forefront of this effort for rural America.

For more information, please select the Information Superhighway option from the Main Menu.

1996 Farm Bill and Its Impacts on the Rural Utilities Service - A synopsis of significant impacts

the 1996 Farm Bill will have on the Rural Utilities Service can be found under the RUS Farm Bill

Provisions selection on the Main Menu.

Industry Links - This section has links to many borrowers, State Commissions, and industry

organizations.

Future Plans for this Web Site - We foresee this web site playing a significant role in exchanging

information with our customers in the future. We welcome your input and ideas. We are here to

serve you. Comments and suggestions may be sent to wmaster@rus.usda.gov.

Other Websites - Appendix C includes a list of various Internet sites. They include Government

sites, publications on-line sites, regional utility group sites, power marketing administration and
Items of Engineering Interest

August 1997

30

other governmental generation sites, electric industry trade and professional associations, and

individual company sites. This list is in no way all inclusive and RUS is in no way promoting

companies listed over those not on the list.

If you would like more information or have any questions, please call Sam Morgan, RUS Web

Master, at (202) 720-1914, or Sam Pooré, Electric Program Web Master, at (202) 720-1922.

Transmission and Distribution Engineering Committee

In 1991, NRECA established its Transmission and Distribution Engineering Committee (T&D

Committee) to work with REA (now RUS) in the development and maintenance of electric

transmission and distribution standards and specifications, and the exchange of engineering

information of mutual interest to rural electric utilities. The T&D Committee is composed of

some of the most dedicated and talented individuals from NRECA and from electric cooperatives

all across the United States. These individuals routinely donate several weekends and

considerable amounts of other personal time each year to fulfill their commitments to the

Committee.

We want to use this opportunity to thank these individuals and the organizations that sponsor

their participation. See Appendix B for the T&D Committee Roster.

If you would like more information or have any questions, please call Mike Agudo, Chair,

Technical Standards Committee “A” (Electric), at (202) 720-0980.
Items of Engineering Interest

August 1997

APPENDIX A

RURAL UTILITIES SERVICE

ELECTRIC STAFF DIVISION

31

Office of the Director

George J. Bagnall Director

(202) 720-1900 gbagnall@rus.usda.gov

Margaret A. Reason Secretary

(202) 720-1900 preason@rus.usda.gov

Fred J. Gatchell Deputy Director

(202) 720-1398 fgatchel@rus.usda.gov

Michael E. Agudo Chair, Technical

Standards Committee “A”

(202) 720-0980 magudo@rus.usda.gov

Michelle Lew Technical Committee

Assistant

(202) 720-0980 mlew@rus.usda.gov

Robin L. Meigel Financial Analyst

(202) 720-9452 rmeigel@rus.usda.gov

William Procopiow Architect

(202) 720-9090

Energy Forecasting Branch

Georg A. Shultz Chief

(202) 720-1920 gshultz@rus.usda.gov

Lisa Johnson Secretary

(202) 720-1920 ljohnson@rus.usda.gov

Sharon Ashurst Public Utility Specialist

(202) 720-1925 sashurst@rus.usda.gov

Christopher L. Tuttle Economist

(202) 205-3655 ctuttle@rus.usda.gov

Distribution Branch

Harvey L. Bowles Chief

(202) 720-5082 hbowles@rus.usda.gov

Anjunette A. Lyles Secretary

(202) 720-5082 alyles@rus.usda.gov

James L. Bohlk Electrical Engineer

(202) 720-1967 jbohlk@rus.usda.gov

Trung V. Hiu Electrical Engineer

(202) 720-1877 thiu@rus.usda.gov

George L. Keel Equipment Specialist

(202) 690-0551 gkeel@rus.usda.gov

Stephen Jones Electrical Engineer

(202) 720-1792 sjones@rus.usda.gov

Transmission Branch

H. Robert Lash Chief

(202) 720-0486 blash@rus.usda.gov

Virginia S. Jenkins Secretary

(202) 720-0486 gjenkins@rus.usda.gov

Bing C. Chan Structural Engineer

(202) 720-0999 bchan@rus.usda.gov

Donald G. Heald Structural Engineer

(202) 720-9102 dheald@rus.usda.gov

Mike Eskandary Electrical Engineer

(202) 720-9098 meskanda@rus.usda.gov
THIS PAGE IS

INTENTIONALLY

BLANK
Items of Engineering Interest

August 1997

APPENDIX B

NRECA TRANSMISSION & DISTRIBUTION ENGINEERING COMMITTEE

33

MEMBER ORGANIZATION LOCATION

Committee Chairman

 Overt L. Carroll Clark RECC Winchester, KY

NRECA Staff Coordinator

 Jim Dedman NRECA Arlington, VA

David Altman Lumbee River EMC Red Springs, NC

Dominic Ballard East Kentucky Power Co-op Winchester, KY

David Beam North Carolina EMC Raleigh, NC

Alan Blackmon Blue Ridge EC Pickens, SC

Gregory Broussard Jackson EMC Jefferson, GA

John Burch Florida Keys EC Tavernier, FL

James Byrne Poudre Valley REA Fort Collins, CO

Jim Carter NRECA - WQC Spartanburg, SC

Steve Cress Tipmont REMC Linden, IN

James Crouch Fairfield EC Winnsboro, SC

Russ Dantzler Mid-Carolina EC Lexington, SC

Berl Davis Palmetto EC Hilton Head, SC

Bruce Dreyer Middle Tennessee EMC Murfreesboro, TN

Charles Emerson Trico EC Tucson, AZ

Doug Emmons Hoosier Energy REC, Inc. Bloomington, IN

Mark Evans Upper Cumberland EMC Carthage, TN

Ronnie Frizzell Arkansas EC Corp. Little Rock, AR

David Garrison East Central Oklahoma EC Okmulgee, OK

David Gebhardt LaPlata EA Durango, CO

Phil Gelhorn East Central EA Braham, MN

Ed Giesler Tri-County EC Portland, MI

Allan Glidewell Southwest Tennessee EMC Brownsville, TN

Weldon Gray Concho Valley EC San Angelo, TX

Ron Gunnell Randolph EMC Asheboro, NC

Charlene Ham Rusk County EC Henderson, TX

Wayne Henson East Mississippi EPA Meridian, MS
Items of Engineering Interest

August 1997

APPENDIX B

NRECA TRANSMISSION & DISTRIBUTION ENGINEERING COMMITTEE

34

MEMBER ORGANIZATION LOCATION

Bill Hetherington Lee County EC, Inc. North Ft. Myers, FL

Vince Heuser Nolin RECC Elizabethtown, KY

Jon Hodge Kaufman County EC, Inc. Kaufman, TX

Jerrod Howard Central Electric Power Co-op, Inc. Columbia, SC

Robert Johnson Arkansas EC Corp. Little Rock, AR

Joseph Joplin Rutherford EMC Forest City, NC

Kendrick Kirschenmann Rushmore EPC Rapid City, SD

Allan Kunze Lower Colorado River Authority Austin, TX

Wally Lang Minnkota Power Co-op, Inc. Grand Forks, ND

Terry Lee South Mississippi EPA Hattiesburg, MS

Carl Liles Western Farmers EC Anadarko, OK

Gregory Lindsly Dixie EMC Baton Rouge, LA

Troy Little Four County EPA Columbus, MS

Charles Lukkarila United Power Assn. Elk River, MN

Charles (Bubba) McCall Oglethorpe Power Corp. Tucker, GA

John Mitchell Rappahannock EC Fredericksburg, VA

David Moore Johnson County EC Cleburn, TX

Ken Murphy Tallapoosa River EC LaFayette, AL

William Murray Berkeley EC Moncks Corner, SC

Tom Myers Berkeley EC Moncks Corner, SC

Ace Necaise Singing River EPA Lucedale, MS

Stuart Nelson Lower Colorado River Authority Austin, TX

Jim Newberg Missoula EC, Inc. Missoula, MT

Rod Nikula Wright-Hennepin CEA Rockford, MN

David Obenshain Piedmont EMC Hillsborough, NC

Bob Oldham Southern Maryland EC Hughesville, MD

Michael Pehosh Ozarks EC Fayetteville, AR

Chris Perry Nolin RECC Elizabethtown, KY

Peter Platz Coast Electric Power Bay St. Louis, MS

John Rodgers Nodak EC, Inc. Grand Forks, ND
Items of Engineering Interest

August 1997

APPENDIX B

NRECA TRANSMISSION & DISTRIBUTION ENGINEERING COMMITTEE

35

MEMBER ORGANIZATION LOCATION

Terry Rosenthal Laclede EC Lebanon, MO

Paul Rupard East Kentucky Power Co-op Winchester, KY

Brad Schmidt Cass County EC Fargo, ND

Glenn Sell Union Rural EC Marysville, OH

Lewis Shaw Brunswick EMC Shallotte, NC

Robert Siekas Cherryland EC Grawn, MI

Jim Skeen Plumas-Sierra Rural EC Portola, CA

Gordon Sloan Sulphur Springs Valley EC Willcox, AZ

Thomas Slusher Union EMC Monroe, NC

Michael Smith Singing River EC Lucedale, MS

Paul Spears Tri-County EC Azle, TX

Gary Stein Wabash Valley Power Assn. Indianapolis, IN

Blaine Strampe Federated REA Jackson, MN

Vernon W. Strickland Intercounty ECA Licking, MO

Tom Suggs Natchez Trace EPA Houston, MS

Fred Terwilliger Central EC, Inc. Parker, PA

Brian Tomlinson Denton County EC, Inc. Corinth, TX

John Twitty Alabama EC Andalusia, AL

Scott Wehler Adams Electric Co-op Gettysburg, PA

John Westby Verendrye EC, Inc. Velva, ND

Kenneth Winder Moon Lake Electric Roosevelt, UT
Items of Engineering Interest

August 1997

APPENDIX B

NRECA TRANSMISSION & DISTRIBUTION ENGINEERING COMMITTEE

36

MEMBER ORGANIZATION LOCATION

 CONSULTANT MEMBERS

Jim Bardwell SGS Witter, Inc. Albuquerque, NM

Keith Bartels Martin & Associates, Inc. Mitchell, SD

George Chapman Patterson & Dewar Engineers, Inc. Decatur, GA

Peter Daly Power System Engineering, Inc. MADISON, WI

Bob Dew Southern Engineering Company Atlanta, GA

Don Gray SGS Witter, Inc. Albuquerque, NM

Emmett Green Allgeier, Martin & Associates, Inc. Joplin, MO

Joe Perry Patterson & Dewar Engineers, Inc. Decatur, GA

Gene Smith SGS Witter, Inc. Lubbock, TX

Mike Smith SGS Witter, Inc. Albuquerque, NM

James Stewart Stewart Engineering, Inc. Anniston, AL

Ed Thomas Utility Electrical Consultants Raleigh, NC

Mike Waters Utility ElectricalConsultants Raleigh, NC
Items of Engineering Interest

August 1997

APPENDIX C

WEBSITES

37

The following is a list of various Internet sites. They include government sites, publications online sites, regional utility group sites, power marketing administration and other governmental

generation sites, electric industry trade and professional associations, and individual company

sites. This list is in no way all inclusive and RUS is in no way promoting companies listed over

those not on the list.

If you would like more information or have any questions, please call Don Heald, Structural

Engineer, Transmission Branch, at (202) 720-9102.

Regulatory Resources

Code of Federal Regulations www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/

index.html

Code of Federal Regulations law.house.gov/cfr.htm

Department of Energy (DOE) www.doe.gov/

DOE Energy Information Administration (EIA) www.eia.doe.gov

DOE Office of Environmental Management(OEM) www.em.doe.gov/

DOE Office of Science & Technological Information www.osti.gov/

Environmental Protection Agency www.epa.gov/epahome/index.html

Federal Emergency Management Agency www.fema.gov/

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission www.ferc.fed.us

Federal Register www.access.gpo.gov/su_docs/aces/

aces140.html

Government Printing Office www.gpo.gov

Internal Revenue Service www.irs.ustreas.gov/

National Association of Regulatory Utility

Commissioners

www.erols.com/naruc

NRECA’s “Other Links” www.nreca.org

NRECA’s “Rules & Regs” www.nreca.org

Nuclear Regulatory Commission www.nrc.gov/

Occupational Safety and Health Administration www.osha.gov

OSHA, Electrical Power Generation, etc, www.osha_slc.gov/Preamble/

Elect_toc/Elect_ toc_by_sect.html

Rural Utilities Service (Electric Program) www.usda.gov/rus/electric/

State Environmental Regulatory Agencies

State Environmental Regulations Hotlink Directory www.law.cornell.edu/

Scott Rubin’s Utility Resources home.ptd.net/~sjrubin
Items of Engineering Interest

August 1997

APPENDIX C

WEBSITES

38

Regional Utility Groups

Missouri Basin Systems Group www.mbsg.com

North American Electric Reliability Council www.nerc.com

Power Marketing Administrations and Other

Alaska Power Administration www.alaska.net/~swillis/apa.html

Bonneville Power Association www.bpa.gov

Tennessee Valley Authority www.tva.gov

Western Area Power Association www.wapa.gov

Electric Industry Trade and Professional Associations

American National Standards Institute www.ansi.org

American Public Power Assoc. www.appanet.org

American Society for Testing and Materials www.astm.org

Association of Energy Service Professionals www.aesp.org

Canadian Electricity Assoc. www.intertower.com/cea.html

Edison Electric Institute www.eei.org

Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) www.epri.com/

Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers www.ieee.org

National Association of Regulatory Utility

Commissioners

www.erols.com/naruc/

National Council on Competiion and the Electric

Industry

www.erols.com/naruc/nccei.htm

National Electrical Manufacturers Association www.nema.org/nema/contact/

index.html

National Rural Electric Cooperative Association www.nreca.org

National Rural Telecommunications Cooperative www.nrtc.org

Power Marketers Association www.intr.net/pma
Items of Engineering Interest

August 1997

APPENDIX C

WEBSITES

39

Publications OnLine

Electric Advertiser www.ea-online.com

Electric Light & Power Magazine www.pennwell.com/elp.html

Electric Power Industry Organization Directory www.electricnet.com/orgs.htm

Electrical World & Information Technologies for Utilities www.electricalworld.com

News Page Electric Power Industry www.newspage.com/newspage/

cgi-bin/walk.cgi/newspage/

info/d13/d4

Power Delivery Products News www.pdpn.com

Power Magazine www.powermag.com/

Power Quality Magazine www.powerquality.com

Public Utility Reports www.pur.com/

Rural Electrification Magazine www.nreca.org/rem/remag.html

Transmission & Distribution World Magazine/Intertec www.intertec.com

Directories

Directory of Organizations Relating to the Electrical

Power Industry

www.electricnet.com/orgs.htm

ElectricNet OnLine Directory-buyers guide for electrical

products and services

www.electricnet.com/main.htm

m.i.u.e Utility Directory www.webfeats.com/preecs/miue/

resources.html

RCI EnergyWeb www.reddy.com/etweb/etweb.htm

Other

Future prices of electricity (NYMEX) www.ino.com/cgi-bin/

gw?exch=nyrmex

Government approved sureties list www.fms.treas.gov/c570.html

Parties excluded from Government contracts www.arnet.gov:8000/epls/owa/

epls.main_menu

Transmission System Info. Network www.tsin.com/
Items of Engineering Interest

August 1997

APPENDIX C

WEBSITES

40

Company Websites

ABB Power T & D Company, Inc. www.abb.com:80/americas/usa

Advanced Control Systems, Inc. acsatlanta.com

Advanced Optical Controls, Inc. www.dgsys.com/

AGEMA Infrared Systems www.agema.com

AlberCorp www.alber.com

Amber, A Raytheon Company www.amber-infrared.com/

American Video Communications www.americanvideo.com

AMP, Incorporated www.amp.com

Ansoft Corporation www.ansoft.com

Arbiter Systems, Inc. www.arbiter.com

Arnco Corporation www.arncocorp.com

Associated Engineering Company www.keco.com

AT Plastics Inc. www.atplas.com

AVO International www.avointl.com

Baker Division of Sonoco www.dec.tis.net/baker/

Basic Measuring Instruments www.electrotek.com/bmi/

Basler Electric Company www.basler.com

BJ Software www.realflex.com/~bjsoftwr

Black & Veatch www.bv.com

C&D Charter Power Systems, Inc. www.cdpowercom.com

CAE Electronics Ltd. www.cae.ca

Cannon Technologies, Inc. www.cannontech.com

CESI www.cesi.it

CMP Inc. LEADING-EDGE TECHNOLOGIES www.x-mentor.com/cpm

Consulting-Specifying Engineer www.csemag.com

Cooper Power Systems www.cooperps.com/

COPEK ELECTRO www.x-mentor.com/copek

CRC Industries, Inc. www.crcindustries.com

Cutler-Hammer Inc. www.cutlerhammer.com

Delta-X Research www.hydracen.com/dx

Demark www.demark.com

DILO Company, Inc. www.dilo.com

Doble Engineering Company www.doble.com

Dynapower Corporation www.dynapower.com

Electrotek Concepts, Inc. www.electrotek.com/

Enghouse Systems Limited www.enghouse.com

ESRI www.esri.com

Evans Consoles, Inc. www.econsole.com
Items of Engineering Interest

August 1997

APPENDIX C

WEBSITES

41

FOCAS, Inc. www.focas.com

The Foxboro Company www.foxboro.com

GE Transmission and Distribution www.ge.com

General Physics Corporation www.genphysics.com

Heary Bros. Lightning Protection Company, Inc. www.hearybros.com

Holaday Industries, Inc. www.holadayinc.com

I.S.I. Group, Inc. www.isigroup.com

Information Technologies for Utilities/IT and Electrical

World

www.electricalworld.com

Inframetrics, Inc. inframetrics.com

Integrated Engineering Software www.integrated.mb.ca/ies

Irby Construction Company www.irby.com

James Martin & Company www.jamesmartin.com/

Kavouras, Inc. www.kavouras.com

KEMA www.kema.nl

Koontz-Wagner Electric Company, Inc. www.koontz-wagner.com

Kuhlman Electric Corporation www.keco.com/

Lightning Eliminators & Consultants, Inc. www.lightningeliminators.com

Maintenance and Diagnostics, LLC (M&D,LLC) www.atmnet.com/~mandd

Maysteel Corporation maysteel.com

Mehta Tech, Inc. www.mehtatech.com

Micra systems www.micrasys.com

Micromonitors Inc. www.micromonitors.com

Microwave Data Systems www.mdsroc.com/

Milsoft Integrated Solutions, Inc. www.milsoft.com/

MPHusky Corporation www.mphusky.com/mp

PenMetrics, Inc. www.penmetrics.com

PennWell Publishing Company;

Conventions and Exhibitions

www.pennwell.com

Positron Industries Inc. www.positroninc.com

Powell Industries, Inc. www.powl.com

Power Technologies, Inc. www.pti-us.com

Powertech Lab Inc. ewu.bchydro.bc.ca

Quazite www.mmfg.com

Ripley Company www.ripley-tools.com

Sediver, Inc. www.sediver.com

SNC Manufacturing Company, Inc. www.sncmfg.com

Sonoco Products/Baker Division www.dec.tis.net/baker/

Southern Company www.southernco.com
Items of Engineering Interest

August 1997

APPENDIX C

WEBSITES

42

Southwire Company www.southwire.com

Tamaqua Cable Products Corporation www.pottsville.com/tamaqua

Techron Division of Crown International www.crownintl.com

Telog Instruments www.telog.com

Teltone Corporation www.teltone.com

3M www.mmm.com

Trayer Engineering Corporation www.trayer.com

Trenwa, Inc. www.trenwa.com/

TrueTime, Inc. www.nbn.com/people/truetime/

truetime.htm

UE Systems Inc. www.uesystems.com

Underground Devices, Inc. www.udevices.com

Utility Automation www.penwell.com

UVEX Safety, Inc. www.uvex.com

The Von Corporation www.voncorp.com

Weiss Instruments, Inc. www.thomasregister.com/

weissinstruments

Westinghouse Power Generation www.westinghouse.com

X-Mentor, Inc. www.x-mentor.com