Anyone else seeing Duke Energy Carolinas issuing estimated bills even though they have AMI smart meters installed? Three Charlotte clients got estimated bills last month with "meter communication error" as the reason. These are brand new smart meters installed in 2020. If the AMI system is failing this often, what's the point of the $2 billion smart grid investment?
Duke Energy's AMI system creating estimated bills despite smart meters?
Wayne I'm seeing the exact same thing with Duke Progress here in Raleigh. Smart meters that can't communicate back to Duke but somehow still record interval data locally. Duke's explanation is "network connectivity issues" but these meters are supposed to have multiple communication pathways. Seems like a massive system design flaw to me.
Guys, MLGW went through similar AMI growing pains during our smart meter rollout. The issue is usually the mesh network topology - if one collector node fails, dozens of meters downstream can't communicate. Duke probably needs more collector nodes or better network redundancy. The meters are working fine, it's the communication infrastructure that's failing.
Randy's right about the mesh network issues. Eugene Water & Electric had similar problems with their Itron smart meters. The meters collected data but couldn't transmit due to network gaps. EWEB had to install additional repeaters and collectors to fix the communication holes. Duke probably rushed the deployment without adequate network testing.
That makes sense about the mesh network Randy. But here's what bothers me - Duke is still charging customers the AMI Infrastructure Rider even when the system fails to read meters. We're paying for smart meter benefits but getting estimated bills like it's 1990. Shouldn't the rider be suspended when the system doesn't work?
Wayne that's an excellent point about the infrastructure rider. Middle Tennessee Electric has a similar charge but they credit customers when AMI reads fail. Duke should do the same. I've filed NCUC complaints arguing that customers shouldn't pay for smart meter services they're not receiving. Got partial success in two cases so far.
NorthWestern Energy's smart meters here in Montana work better than Duke's apparently. We rarely see communication failures, maybe 1-2% of reads per month. The key was extensive network testing before deployment and redundant communication paths. Duke may have cut corners on the network infrastructure to meet deployment deadlines.
Noel you're lucky. Duke's AMI failure rate in my territory is closer to 8-10% monthly. The frustrating part is Duke has all this interval data stored locally on meters but claims they "can't access it remotely." Why not send technicians to download the data directly from problem meters instead of estimating bills? Seems like basic customer service.
Steve that's a great suggestion. MLGW does exactly that - when AMI communication fails, they send techs with handheld devices to download stored meter data. Takes 5 minutes per meter and customers get actual readings instead of estimates. Duke could easily implement this but chooses the cheaper estimation route instead. Poor customer service decision.
Randy that would solve the whole problem. I'm going to propose this solution to Duke in my next NCUC filing. If they're going to charge customers for smart meter infrastructure, they should use all available technology to provide accurate bills. Manual data downloads should be standard procedure when AMI communication fails. Thanks for the idea!
This whole thread highlights why AMI deployments need better regulatory oversight. Green Mountain Power in Vermont had to meet strict performance standards before their smart meter surcharges were approved. Duke apparently got approval without adequate performance requirements. State commissions need to hold utilities accountable for AMI system reliability, not just deployment numbers.