[Bill14564]

Originally Posted by twoplanekid

I am on the NSCUDD board and would not totally agree with your observation of this situation. Looks can be deceiving. It is my personal belief that AMI is the much better of the two systems and staff is looking at our situation to maybe make a change in how we will proceed. We will have to wait and see how things pan out. And, I have no knowledge of SECO board decision making.

I was at the April(?) meeting and heard your objection to the decision to go with AMR as the less expensive option. I was not at the May meeting to hear the discussion of further looking into the situation or your idea to provision Community Watch vehicles with AMR readers to implement a quasi-AMI solution.

I prefer AMI as I have stated in a previous post in another thread. I suspect that glitches are occurring with the current meters that could be detected with the AMI system. Hopefully, those glitches will disappear or at least be more easily explained with the capabilities of the new AMR meters.

My comparison with SECO was only to wonder whether the difference in cost between the two meter systems might explain the difference in rate adjustments between the two providers.