Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Utilities Meters Ami topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Lompoc staff previews $3.4M–$4M advanced metering plan for electric utility; contract expected in May
Summary
City consultants presented an Advanced Metering Infrastructure (AMI) plan for the electric utility, recommending Eaton as the preferred vendor after an RFP; council asked for a fiscal analysis and for the item to be reviewed by the utility commission before final contract approval in May.
City officials on May 6 presented a plan to replace aging electric meters with an advanced metering infrastructure system that would read meters hourly, support remote disconnects and reconnects, and deliver detailed consumption data to customers and staff.
The presentation, led by a consultant brought in for the procurement process, outlined an estimated total project cost range of about $3,400,000 to $4,000,000, distributed over a planned three-year deployment window. The consultant said about 20 percent of the city's meters are more than 10 years old and that the current failure rate is "right around 3 percent." He described a proposed network with roughly 13 collectors and a vendor-hosted cloud data center that would store meter reads in an Oracle database.
The project team ran a competitive RFP with five bidders and multiple evaluation rounds. The consultant said Eaton was the preferred vendor, citing functionality, ease of maintenance and a customer-facing web portal (including a three-year historian of usage). The consultant also noted the preferred meter model uses Itron meters and that the deployment would include one-time and recurring fees, with the largest one-time cost category being meters and modules.
Councilmembers questioned funding, staffing and cost-recovery. Councilmember Ball asked whether the cost would be borne by ratepayers; staff said the project sits in the electric fund as a capital improvement (part of the utility's CIP). Several councilmembers asked for a fiscal analysis that quantifies anticipated operational savings, including how many staff positions (FTEs) could be reduced or phased out; staff replied a draft fiscal analysis would appear with the staff report at the next council meeting. Councilmember Starbuck asked whether the utility commission had reviewed the procurement; staff said it had not and councilmembers requested that staff offer the item to the utility commission before final contract approval.
No contract was signed at the May 6 meeting. Staff said they expect to return with a full staff report, final contract language and the requested fiscal analysis at the May council meeting and that the council would vote then if it chooses to proceed.
