Public Power - November/December 2007 - (Page 23)

Regulatory Commission survey issued in 2006, less than 2 percent of municipally owned utilities had AMI systems. Six percent of investor-owned utilities had AMI systems. For the survey, FERC staff interviewed utilities in the public and private sectors, including nearly 1,800 municipally owned utilities, 11 municipal marketing authorities, approximately 220 IOUs and approximately 880 cooperatives. Evolving technologies—So here’s the big question: Is the technology for a sophisticated advanced metering system available—and affordable—now? Not quite, said KCP&L’s Herdegen. “A couple of things have to happen. One is more standardization in the industry, so we know the protocols in the components we use. The second is lower price. I might need between 2,000 and 10,000 distribution system automated switches, but can only afford a handful at today’s price.” The combination of standardization and sufficient demand will drive down the price so smaller utilities will find it eco- nomical to adopt the technology, said Herdegen. When SMUD developed its business case for an AMI system, the utility realized that the technology for that system “was advancing daily,” said Krause. “We tried to keep our ear to the industry and continually talked to utilities, including PPL. And we built the project so we had ‘off ramps’ in case we needed a way to change direction.” The industry is changing so much that it’s a challenge to find the best fit and make sure it’s financially viable, Krause added. He recommends asking technology vendors about their plans for the future. “You need to create a relationship with a vendor that allows flexibility.” As Seattle City Light moved through a proof-of-concept pilot and acceptance testing of its AMI system, the technology was evolving. New, improved versions became available as the utility proceeded. “That caused some delays,” said the utility’s Lockwood. “But now we have a system that is expected to meet our re- quirements.” One of those requirements is to own and operate the system. It’s rather unusual, Lockwood admits, but it gives the utility better insight into the issues and keeps the system under utility management. Lockwood believes that the utility industry is on the cusp of great change. “People sat back, waiting for the communication technology folks to cut deals with meter makers.” That is now happening. “With AMR our customers can obtain daily information on their energy use and eventually will be able to directly monitor that use online,” said JEA’s Young. “The goal is to enable JEA and its customers to monitor, evaluate and manage energy use.” To do so will require an end-to-end systems approach that integrates meters. AMI technology, meter data management software, and home networks, he said. “At present, the AMR market has not matured to the point of offering a total meter-tocustomer solution. But tomorrow? ❚ www.APPAnet.org NOVEMBER-DECEMBER 2007 23 http://www.APPAnet.org

Table of Contents Feed for the Digital Edition of Public Power - November/December 2007

Public Power - November/December 2007 Contents Washington Focus 10 Questions Connecting with the Customer Through Automation AMR or AMI? The High Court’s Antitrust Thunderbolts California’s Push for Demand-Response Plug-In Partners Get Plugged In Wiring Up for Double-Digit Growth For Engineers Safety Community Broadband For Governing Boards DEED Customer Service Hometown Connections Index to Advertisers Parting shot

Public Power - November/December 2007

For optimal viewing of this digital publication, please enable JavaScript and then refresh the page. If you would like to try to load the digital publication without using Flash Player detection, please click here.