Inspect at the groundline.
Inspect poles using appropriate field methods, assessing deterioration, remaining strength, and structural condition to identify where intervention is needed.
Pole Hardening
Stronger poles and safer networks at a lower lifetime cost.
PoleCo funds and manages condition-based inspection, treatment, restoration, and replacement programs to strengthen pole networks, extend the useful life of viable assets, and reduce our customers’ expected long-term costs.
Earlier intervention preserves more options.
Pole maintenance competes with other infrastructure priorities for capital, crews, and attention. PoleCo uses field-verified condition data and experienced field crews to identify deterioration earlier, restore viable poles, reduce decay, avoid unnecessary and costly pole replacements, and reduce long-term costs for our customers.
What the program delivers
Safety & resilience.
Identify deterioration earlier, prioritize at-risk poles, improve long-term structural reliability, and reduce risk and liability.
Dedicated focus.
Pole maintenance receives consistent capital, technical resources, and management attention.
Proven methods.
Use inspection records, measured condition, and engineering analysis based on 90+ years of field data to direct work where it matters most.
Lower lifecycle costs.
Proactive investment in viable assets to avoid unnecessarily premature replacements.
~75%
fewer wood pole replacements after Hurricane Irma (2017) than after Hurricane Wilma (2005), once Florida Power & Light moved to condition-based inspection.
How we do it
Treat and restore.
Apply remedial treatments to help control decay and use engineered restoration methods to extend the service life of poles that remain suitable for reinforcement.
Replace by condition.
Prioritize poles that cannot be appropriately restored and complete necessary replacements based on condition, safety, and network requirements.
The Evidence
What the data shows.
Better inspection finds more of the poles that need attention, treatment extends their life, and a front-loaded program keeps the fleet healthier for decades.
Inspection effectiveness
Share of reject poles correctly identified, by inspection method.
Inspection method determines what you find.
A visual check finds only 6% of reject poles. Full excavation at the groundline finds nearly all of them.
Source: Nelson Research and Osmose Utilities Services assessment effectiveness study, Rethinking Wood Pole Evaluation (Osmose, 2024).
| Method | Share identified |
|---|---|
| Visual | 6% |
| Sound | 8% |
| Bore | 17% |
| Partial excavation (condition-based) | 73% |
| Full excavation (PoleCo standard) | 99% |
Pole life extension
Observed
Inspection and remediation extend pole life.
Poles in an inspection and remediation program reach an average life of 73 years, compared with 48 years without one: about 25 years, or roughly 52%, longer. More than twice as many are still standing at 46 to 50 years.
Source: Independent inspection data, n = 550,000 poles.
| Program | Average life (years) |
|---|---|
| Without inspection and remediation | 48 |
| With inspection and remediation | 73 |
A front-loaded program stops active decay quickly
IllustrativeCurrent approach
75%of poles decaying or rejected by Year 50
Rejects grow from about 10% to 25% of the fleet.
PoleCo program
3%of poles decaying or rejected by Year 50
Active decay falls from 48% to under 9% within ten years.
- Rejects
- Actively decaying
- Not actively decaying
- No decay
Both programs start from the same fleet in Year 1.
Illustrative. Based on a sample program. Source: Osmose estimates.
| Program year | Current approach: rejects | Current approach: actively decaying | PoleCo program: rejects | PoleCo program: actively decaying |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 9.9% | 48.2% | 9.9% | 48.2% |
| 10 | 13.4% | 56.7% | 2.6% | 8.7% |
| 25 | 19% | 54.7% | 0.5% | 4.5% |
| 50 | 25.3% | 49.5% | 0.3% | 2.3% |