# GO 95: Pole Loading, Make-Ready and Wireless Attachment Rules **Title tag:** GO 95: Pole Loading and Make-Ready Rules 2026 **Meta description:** GO 95 guide: heavy and light loading districts, construction grades, safety factors, LRFD changes, clearance tables, make-ready and wireless attachments. **Author:** Julio Martinez Sr. **Published:** November 12, 2026 **Last updated:** November 12, 2026 **Category:** Pole Loading & Make-Ready **URL:** https://draftech.com/blog/go-95 **Primary keyword:** go 95 **Plan reference:** plan-2026-10-31 **Word count:** 2890 **Read time:** 11 minutes ![Worker in a hard hat and safety vest holds a yellow height pole to a wooden utility pole by a rural road, tablet in hand.](/blog/img_go_95.webp) ## In this article - [What GO 95 governs](#basis) - [Loading districts and construction grades](#districts) - [Safety factors and the LRFD transition](#strength) - [Clearance tables and make-ready](#clearances) - [Wireless attachment checks](#wireless) - [Recommendations for a reviewable attachment package](#handoff) General Order 95 is the California Public Utilities Commission's rule set for overhead electric and communication lines. A pole model can contain accurate measurements and still answer the wrong design question if its calculation settings come from a different code. We start with the governing rules before assessing an attachment. For utility, co-op, ISP and wireless engineers, the practical issue is how those rules enter a loading model and a make-ready drawing. This guide separates GO 95 requirements from NESC conventions, explains the strength-method transition, and identifies the records we keep with an application. A project-specific design basis still requires the applicable rules and owner requirements for the proposed work. ## What does go 95 govern for overhead attachments? The CPUC's go 95 rules govern overhead electric and communication line construction, with requirements for strength and clearances. Rule 43 establishes heavy and light loading conditions, while other sections address construction grades and attachment arrangements. We treat the governing edition and applicable decisions as design inputs before checking a pole or proposing make-ready. ### Record the rule set before the pole result A useful calculation cover sheet identifies the governing code and the revision used to prepare the analysis. Record the pole owner's additional requirements beside that reference, with a clear explanation of which requirement controls each check when the owner's criteria are more restrictive. Keeping that information with the model itself helps us preserve settings that can otherwise disappear from exported summaries. The NESC, published by IEEE as C2, also addresses overhead line clearances and strength, but its rule organization and design criteria differ from GO 95. Even with familiar software labels, we need to examine the load cases and strength basis behind two utilization percentages before comparing them. The assumptions determine whether those results describe equivalent conditions. ### Separate the structural and clearance decisions A structural check asks whether the modeled pole and its supporting system meet the selected strength requirements under the applicable loading conditions. A clearance check asks whether the resulting arrangement preserves the required separation from other facilities and accessible surfaces. For example, a structurally acceptable arrangement can still leave a conductor too low over a driveway, which is why both checks belong in the review. In our application record, each check needs its own disposition, even when the same software reports them together. That makes a revision traceable: moving a cable changes the geometry, while changing its tension changes the forces and potentially its sag. The reviewer should be able to identify what changed without reconstructing the designer's sequence of edits. Field observations also need a defined role. A photograph can support a measured attachment height, but concealed deterioration and missing cable tension require other evidence. Our input labels distinguish measurements from assumptions and identify uncertainty beside the affected value, so an owner can see where additional records would change the calculation. ## How go 95 loading districts and grades differ from NESC ### Heavy and light refer to prescribed loading conditions GO 95 Rules 43.1 and 43.2 define its heavy loading district by elevations above 3,000 feet and its light loading district by elevations at or below that boundary. Rule 43 specifies the associated loading conditions. These labels describe design cases rather than route difficulty; a light-district designation gives the designer no assurance that a pole has spare capacity. For a route crossing an elevation boundary, our district determination belongs with the affected structures and an identifiable elevation source, rather than in one convenient default applied to the whole alignment. If the source is too coarse to distinguish a pole near the boundary, resolve that uncertainty before using the district to support an attachment decision. Under Rules 43.1 and 43.2, heavy loading includes prescribed ice on conductors, while light loading does not include ice. Their wind pressures and temperature assumptions also differ. That changes both the forces applied to the structure and the sag conditions that need evaluation, so changing the district requires more than relabeling the exported calculation. GO 95's district labels should not be substituted for the NESC's combined ice-and-wind districts. Our [NESC loading district map guide](/blog/nesc-loading-district-map) explains the NESC district framework and the separate extreme-weather checks that may apply. Use the governing code's own criteria when selecting a model configuration, even where both interfaces display a field labeled “heavy.” Wind direction deserves an explicit review. A model may look satisfactory for one orientation while a different orientation produces a larger demand because the supported spans and guys do not share the same alignment. To understand the result, we look through the calculation output for the governing case and the reason it controls; the district name alone leaves that question unanswered. | Design question | GO 95 reference | NESC distinction | Application consequence | | --- | --- | --- | --- | | Weather loading | Heavy and light districts; Rule 43 | Separate district and extreme-weather framework | Document the selected criteria and location basis | | Construction grade | Grades A, B and C; Rule 42 and Table 3 | Grades B, C and N have their own application rules | Determine the grade from the actual arrangement | | Strength method | Rule 44 safety-factor framework and LRFD revisions | Load and strength factors follow NESC provisions | Identify the method and applicable revision | | Clearance | Rules 37 and 38; Tables 1 and 2 | Clearance provisions use different tables and conditions | Cite the governing case and evaluate sag | ### Construction grades do not translate by letter Under GO 95 Rule 42, the order of construction grades is A, B and C, with A highest. Crossings and joint-use conditions require attention to Table 3 and the related rules. The NESC uses a different grade framework. Before carrying a Grade B designation into an analysis under the other code, we need the rule that requires that grade for the arrangement being evaluated. The crossing condition is part of the engineering input. When a proposed span crosses another line, the designer needs to understand the involved facilities before choosing the construction grade. For a joint-use structure, the existing occupants also matter. A cable-only view of the proposed attachment can miss the condition that determines the supporting structure's required grade. **The calculation summary should show the governing grade and its rule reference.** A reviewer should be able to connect the selected grade to the crossing or joint-use condition without searching through an undocumented software default. ## Safety factors, LRFD and the October 2026 decision ### Understand what a reported strength result means GO 95 Rule 44's working stress design framework expresses safety factors as minimum ratios of strength to design-load effects. The applicable requirement depends on the rule context and element being evaluated. A reported pole percentage therefore needs its calculation basis. Before we interpret that percentage as remaining attachment capacity, the underlying load case needs a closer look. In load and resistance factor design, separate factors act on load effects and resistance. The CPUC's revised proposed decision in Rulemaking R.24-10-005 explains that distinction and describes an initial conversion intended to preserve algebraically equivalent results. The change in method does not, by itself, justify adding equipment or treating an existing pole as stronger than previously calculated. ### Keep adoption and implementation separate CPUC Decision D.26-10-004, adopted in October 2026, replaces working stress design with load and resistance factor design for GO 95. The implementation provision in the signed decision determines when the revised regulations apply. Confirm that provision before changing a project calculation basis; adoption and implementation are separate milestones. The decision identifier and applicable implementation provision give us a regulatory reference to retain in the calculation record. A software update date tells us when the tool changed, leaving the question of regulatory timing to the decision. For an application being revised during a transition, ask the receiving owner to identify the required calculation basis and retain that instruction with the submitted revision so the editions remain clearly distinguished. Do not combine an older working stress report with an LRFD report merely because both display a passing result. Their reported quantities can represent different relationships between applied demand and available strength. When a change in basis is required, we preserve the original model and identify the revised analysis clearly, explaining its assumptions in ordinary engineering language so the reviewer can follow the change. A limitation of our preferred documented-input approach is that it cannot resolve missing physical condition data. Even a carefully labeled calculation may be unreliable if its assumed pole condition is wrong. Where inspection evidence is absent or conflicts with the modeled strength, the next useful action is to resolve that evidence rather than refine an unsupported utilization figure. ## Use GO 95 clearance tables to develop make-ready ### Choose the clearance case before choosing a dimension GO 95 Rule 37 and Table 1 address clearances above surfaces and other objects; Rule 38 and Table 2 address separation between wires. The relevant case and notes matter. A dimension copied from a familiar NESC drawing may describe a different relationship or condition, even when its units match those used in the GO 95 application. Beside each controlling clearance check, we record the selected table case. State the involved facilities and the condition being evaluated, rather than writing only “meets code” on the drawing. That short reference gives the reviewer a way to examine the decision and lets the designer revisit it when the proposed attachment height changes. Support height and midspan clearance answer different questions. A field measurement at the pole establishes an attachment's position there, while a sag calculation helps establish the conductor's position through the span. Ground elevation can change underneath it. Check the location that controls the required separation instead of assuming the lowest conductor point is always the worst clearance location. ### Recheck the arrangement after every proposed move A make-ready move can solve one clearance problem and introduce another. Raising an attachment may improve ground clearance while reducing the space available to an existing occupant. Lowering it can have the opposite effect. Before we settle on an individual move, the proposed arrangement needs evaluation as a whole alongside its corresponding loading model. **A changed attachment height needs a corresponding model update before the package is issued.** An accepted calculation for the earlier geometry cannot support a different arrangement simply because the pole identifier stayed the same. For NESC-governed applications, our [fiber attachment compliance guide](/blog/nesc-pole-loading-compliance-fiber-attachments) explains how loading and clearance checks fit into the submission review. The review discipline transfers between code systems, but the applicable dimensions and strength criteria still come from the governing rules. We keep that distinction explicit when comparing calculation requirements. The service connection should be equally precise. Draftech's [NESC pole loading analysis, make-ready design and attachment application support](/services/pole-loading-analysis) addresses those defined deliverables. For a particular engagement, we need to agree on the requested calculation standard and the receiving owner's requirements before work is assigned; this GO 95 comparison leaves those project-specific scope decisions open. ## Wireless attachments need equipment geometry and access checks ### Model the proposed assembly, not an equipment nickname A wireless attachment introduces forces through its actual mounting arrangement. Equipment weight acts at an offset, and wind acts on exposed area that changes with orientation. The supporting connection has to transfer those effects. Our model therefore needs the selected assembly's dimensions and mounting information; representing every proposed radio installation with the same generic point load would lose those differences. The equipment schedule and loading model should agree. If a design changes the antenna configuration after the structural analysis, a reviewer needs to know whether the replacement changes the applied forces or their points of application. The dimensions retained with the submitted calculation give the reviewer a basis for that comparison beyond the equipment label. Our [small-cell pole loading requirements guide](/blog/small-cell-pole-loading-requirements) explains the loading inputs associated with wireless equipment and its supports. In a GO 95 review, those physical inputs must be evaluated using the applicable GO 95 requirements, including the relevant communication, joint-pole and wireless provisions. Selecting the governing code remains an engineering decision, even when the equipment inventory is complete. ### Check the occupied space around the assembly Working and climbing space need their own review alongside mechanical capacity. GO 95's arrangement requirements, including the applicable wireless provisions in Rule 94, must be reviewed for the proposed installation. Because brackets can occupy space beyond the antenna outline, we show the complete assembly on the drawing to allow evaluation of its clearances. A wireless make-ready drawing should also show how proposed cabling reaches the equipment. That route may affect the usable space around existing attachments even when the additional cable contributes little to the calculated pole demand. An elevation view needs enough of the installed configuration to support that review; omitting the cable route leaves an unresolved part of the attachment design. ## Recommendations for a reviewable attachment package ### Give each reviewer a clear decision **Utility and co-op engineers:** Require a stated calculation basis and an explanation of the governing case. Resolve differences between the modeled condition and available inspection evidence before accepting the structural conclusion. In our review, requests for additional field information are separate from drawing corrections, because revising the drawing alone will not resolve an unknown physical condition. **ISP engineers:** Tie the proposed cable arrangement to the same revision used in the loading analysis. Where an owner requests make-ready changes, identify the affected spans and update their checks before resubmitting. If we submit a changed attachment drawing with an unchanged analysis, an engineering review must first establish and document why the original result remains applicable. **Wireless engineers:** Confirm the selected assembly before asking for final review. Preserve the dimensions and offsets that support the model, and make the mounting arrangement readable on the drawing. Explicitly flagged equipment substitutions let us and the reviewer determine whether the change requires a new structural or clearance check. Source control matters when reviewing a general order with later amendments. The CPUC identifies its GO 95 PDF as the official version and warns that its older HTML pages are not consistently current. Keep the applicable rule text with the governing decisions. For NESC work, record the edition required by the authority and pole owner rather than relying on an unlabeled library. Draftech International's [partner and company information](/about) identifies the people accountable for our work. Engineering is 100% in-house. Draftech delivers full turnkey construction through Draftech-managed subcontract crews under Draftech's QA/QC; engineering review and construction execution retain distinct responsibilities. Active in 24 states. Available across all 50 U.S. states. Unclear calculation settings and mismatched drawing revisions make an attachment package difficult to assess. For NESC loading analysis, make-ready design and attachment applications, [contact Draftech about the required deliverables](/contact) or write to [info@draftech.com](mailto:info@draftech.com). We can start the scope discussion with the owner's requirements and the information already available for the proposed attachment. For owners evaluating a qualifying route, Draftech's [free design offer](/free-design) covers engineering for the first 20,000 linear feet at no cost, from feasibility and field survey through permit approval. The owner reviews each request before Draftech commits the package. Bring the route information into that review so the request reflects the work being considered. ## Frequently Asked Questions ### What is GO 95, and is it the same as the NESC? GO 95 is the CPUC's general order for overhead electric and communication lines. The NESC is IEEE C2 and has its own loading, strength and clearance provisions. Before modeling an attachment, we identify the governing code and its design criteria. Matching grade letters or district labels can conceal differences between the two systems, so the underlying requirements need comparison. ### How are GO 95 heavy and light loading districts selected? GO 95 Rules 43.1 and 43.2 use elevation to distinguish heavy loading above 3,000 feet from light loading at or below that boundary. Rule 43 provides the associated loading conditions. The elevation basis stays with our calculation, especially near the boundary. Before applying one district setting to an entire route, we check the applicable requirements against the route's elevation information. ### What does the October 2026 LRFD decision change? CPUC Decision D.26-10-004 adopts load and resistance factor design in place of working stress design. Separate load and strength factors replace the older safety-factor approach. The CPUC's revised proposed decision describes an initially equivalent conversion. For a project calculation, we look to the signed decision's implementation provision to determine when to change the basis. The adoption milestone alone leaves the implementation date unresolved. ### Which GO 95 tables matter for attachment clearances? Rule 37 and Table 1 address clearances above surfaces and other objects, while Rule 38 and Table 2 address separation between wires. The correct case depends on the arrangement being evaluated. Our clearance record needs the applicable table reference and the required conditions. A measurement at the pole covers that location; evaluating the supported span also requires its geometry and sag. ### Can a passing pole analysis establish wireless attachment compliance? A passing structural result addresses only the checks represented in that model. GO 95 also requires review of the applicable attachment arrangement and clearance provisions, including Rule 94 for wireless facilities. In our review, the complete mounting assembly and its occupied space are checked against those requirements. Before submission, the drawing and structural model must describe the same proposed installation.