Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill14564
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.
|
My understanding of the lowering of rates for NSU operations was because of excess accumulation of reserves because of rates increases early in that system. For the newer CSU systems, the rate increases will be reduced from the projected increases from the last rate study. Accurate/final cost figures for an AMR system have not yet been presented to the board. Many things still in flux. Again, I don't have any figures for the SECO operation.
As you may recall from the meeting when the board voted on using a AMR system, one of staffs objections for using the AMI system was the need for finding tall locations to receive signals. Apparently SECO has that resolved. And, SECO doesn't believe that having their customers login in to view data collected an issue. Again, we will wait to see if opinions change on this AMI vs AMR issue with water systems in the Villages.
Thanks for attending the NSCUDD meetings as
sometimes important issues for our customers are discussed.
