Approach

Our objective is to approach AMI Integration from all aspects of the utility’s operation.  AMI is typically though of as an engineering base strategy inasmuch as it is driven by technology and is a derivative of the engineering operational process of a utility.  While the technical aspect is a substantial component of the infrastructure, it is simply one of the many aspects that must be considered to justify a full AMI implementation.

Many of the hardware and software applications utilized in the utility environment today serve a much needed purpose and operate in most cases primarily as an independent and standalone system with occasional file exports or imports.  However many of the dozens of operational systems overlap, in their data components and need to share real-time data with each other.  Yet to accomplish with traditional methods, custom integration from one application to another and vice-versa must be written.  This is usually very expensive with on-going updates, version control, licenses fees, maintenance fees, etc.  Furthermore if one system vendor makes a change, all other connected applications must be modified as well.  This domino effect can be exponential with likewise financial impacts, and never-ending project implementations. 

Consequently, our intent in developing our Common MiddleWare Interface (CMI) was to eliminate the on-going expenses and project management associated with numerous “app-to-app” data communications.  If the utility has twenty applications, each with an average of six interfaces, a change by one vendor could have the potential effect of modifying 120 interface connections.  With an average of 20 hours labor at $150 per hour, this could result in a cost of $360,000 every time one vendor makes a change to their software.  With the ECN Common Middleware Interface approach, a maximum of one connection for each twenty applications needs modification for a total cost of $60,000.  Furthermore, since the data exchange tables actually exist in the CMI, the effort and cost will in fact always be less.

Justification Model

One of the most difficult tasks is justifying the capital expenditure for AMI. With the help of several utility managers, ECN has developed a very simple yet robust approach to evaluating the benefits of AMI across the entire utility organization. This model covers twenty-five (25) aspects of the utility operation and touches virtually every department of the organization, focusing on the financial benefits. In less than an hour, the inputs can easily show a net benefit of $3.00—$10.00 per customer account per month (after debt service). This approach and normal results make it very difficult NOT to implement a comprehensive AMI system. The model is proprietary and a non-disclosure must be executed between the utility and ECN but is free to prospective clients.

Service Model

It is becoming very difficult for any utility to maintain its technological edge in today’s rapidly changing electronic data environment. As software and systems become more advanced and complex, the effort to implement upgrades, manage interfaces, purchases licenses, hardware and software and maintain the staff to manage these projects becomes overwhelming and very costly.

Consequently provides its CMI and services as a “Service Model” rather than a “Purchase Model”. Not only is this the trend of the utility industry but has become the standard approach by most large and progressive utility organizations. In fact it is the only possible method to staying current with technology and services. A Service Model avoids expensive upfront capital costs and provides continuous software and integration updates at a fraction of the price of owning expensive hardware and software systems. You simply pay a substantially lower per account costs or “per click” cost each month.

Not only does it provide a huge savings for the utility but it also eliminates hidden annual operating and upgrade costs while providing a lower but steady cash flow for the supplier, thereby ensuring that your vendor will be around in the future to support your systems. This approach has proven to be a “win-win” for all parties, especially the utility.