Quote:
Originally Posted by twoplanekid
If we could take additional readings by driving down the street more often with the data collector device in a car or truck, it is my understanding that the data collection software would then alert NSCUDD staff and or Jacobs that a leak may be occurring. Action would then be taken by NSCUDD to check for a leak. No action need by our customers. Daily reads would be much better than one reading a month to help quickly find water leaks. I wanted to have a AMi system but the increase in cost was just too great. So, if we can have a hybrid system taking meter reading more often to then be closer to the best system which is a AMI system. SECO is now using an AMI meter reading system.
|
*IF* that was done then it would certainly be better than today. Actually, it would be better than relying on the homeowners since I'm not likely to check the reading everyday anyway. But given the reluctance of the District (VCCDD staff) to accept that the electronics in the meters can glitch, I'm not ready to trust a District-based detection/alerting/action system yet.
AMI would have been better but the study showed it would be more expensive and it would also require fewer workers. I would have been ready to accept the higher amount the cynical side of me says that was never in the cards. The more expensive, better system had the potential to detect leaks faster. Detecting leaks faster would reasonably lead to alerting the homeowner sooner, fixing the problem sooner, using/wasting less water, and saving the homeowner money. Of course, while this means less spent by the homeowner it also means less collected by the District. It may not be in the District's best interest to reduce the amount it collects, certainly not when it costs more to collect less. Also, AMI would not be in the utility contractor's best interest since it would take them out of the meter-reading business entirely.