Recipient information | Input |
---|---|
Total number of customers served by utility / utilities supporting the project | 148,049 |
Total number of residential customers served by utility / utilities supporting the project | 136,358 |
Total number of commercial customers served by utility / utilities supporting the project | 9,797 |
Total number of industrial customers served by utility / utilities supporting the project | 1,894 |
Total number of AMI smart meters installed and operational prior to the SGIG/SGD program | 0 |
AMI smart meters installed and operational | Quantity* | Cost |
---|---|---|
Total | 0 | $29,098,254 |
Residential | 165,784 | |
Commercial | 11,718 | |
Industrial | 2,316 |
AMI smart meter features operational | Feature enabled | # of meters with feature |
---|---|---|
Interval reads | Yes | 179,818 |
Remote connection/disconnection | Yes | 168,195 |
Outage detection/reporting | No | 0 |
Tamper detection | Yes | 179,818 |
AMI communication networks and data systems | Description | Cost |
---|---|---|
Backhaul communications description | Nothing new to report for Q2 2014. During the 2nd quarter, 2012, deployment of additional backhaul nodes began coinciding with the deployment of additional collectors to support the AMI system. At the end of the 4th quarter, 2012, all of the sixteen (16) planned collectors/backhaul nodes have been deployed. | $2,174,144 |
Meter communications network | Nothing new to report for Q2 2014. As of the end of 2nd quarter, 2014, 701 routers and 18 collectors were in place and operational for full deployment. Values include routers and collectors installed for POC. | |
Head end server | Nothing new to report for Q2 2014. During the 1st quarter, 2014, no architecture changes were made to the Landis+Gyr Command Center servers operating as the headend of the AMI system. During the 3rd quarter, 2013, no architecture changes were made to the Landis+Gyr Command Center servers operating as the headend of the AMI system. During the 1st quarter, 2013, the Landis+Gyr Command Center headend was moved to new server hardware and the Command Center software was upgraded to a newer release. | $7,977,579 |
Meter data analysis system | N/A | |
Other IT systems and applications |
Web portal deployed and operational | Quantity* | Description |
---|---|---|
Customers with access to web portal | 0 | |
Customers enrolled in web portal | 0 | Nothing new to report for Q2 2014. During the 1st quarter, 2014, CoServ implemented a web portal solution from Landis+Gyr to provide members access to usage information. The solution has not been released for use outside of CoServ at this time. CoServ is working with the vendor on several enhancements and anticipate launching the portal in the upcoming months. Additional detail about the portal will be provided as it is launched. Nothing new to report for Q4 2013. The web portal has not been deployed. As a web portal is developed and released to members we will report on the number of members access and the number of members with active accounts, along with a description of the web portal. |
Customer systems installed and operational | Quantity* | Description | Cost |
---|---|---|---|
Communication networks and home area networks | N/A | Nothing new to report for Q2 2014. As of Q1 2012, In-home displays (5 ea.), Direct Load Control devices (9 ea.), and Programmable Communicating Thermostats (8 ea.) have been deployed and tested. Initially, we had some connection issues with the devices, but these were resolved with database corrections. The GridStream network was able to sufficiently handle all of the data traffic that the Load Control system introduced with no signs of slow down. Test results were listed in the individual sections but overall system performance met expectations. | N/A |
In home displays | 5 | Nothing new to report for Q2 2014. From Q1 2012: Received 5 (ea) Eco Meters capable of registering Time-of-Use rate information and 5 (ea) Eco Meters capable of registering kW Demand information. As of Q1 2012, 5 devices have been deployed (1 in the Lab and 4 in the field). The following results were observed during testing: Head End Application- Test Result: PASS (Lab) / PASS (Field) Communication was successful with device Performance- Test Result: PASS (Lab) / PASS (Field) Though the round trip time was difficult to prove (specifically, elapsed time between hops), we felt that the overall commissioning time was satisfactory. Devices- Test Result: PASS (Lab) / PASS (Field) In-Home Display- Test Result: PASS (Lab) / FAIL(Field) PASS - One TOU device in the Lab was commissioned and seemed to work properly. FAIL - 3 of the 4 were successfully commissioned in the field; however, there was one that failed and this failure is believed to be a result of being too far from the meter. Those that had the failure were returned to the Lab and seem to work properly in that environment. | $1,500 |
Energy management device | 0 | N/A | |
Direct load control devices | 9 | Nothing new to report for Q2 2014. As of Q1 2012, 2 water heater load control devices & 2 HVAC load control devices were installed in the Lab and 5 HVAC load control devices were installed in the field. The following results were observed during testing: Head End Application- Test Result: FAIL(Lab) / FAIL(Field) System does not support user level access and only supports devices made by the software vendor. Does not support scheduling to control all field devices, but does have the ability to schedule a variety of events. FAIL - (Lab) - Server not connected to CoServ network FAIL- (Field) – Server not integrated with other systems on the network Performance- Test Result: PASS (Lab) / PASS (Field) Though the round trip time was difficult to prove (specifically, elapsed time between hops), we felt that the overall commissioning time was satisfactory L/C traffic does not coexist with other AMI/DA data communications Devices- Test Result: PASS (Lab) / PASS (Field) Each device has a unique LAN number and CSE entered the devices using an XML drop file. Lab – Devices were pre-installed by CSE Field – CSE configured device file and CoServ installed it to the server System allows users to query any device Verified relays will open/close on demand. | $0 |
Programmable communicating thermostats | 8 | Nothing new to report for Q2 2014. From Q1 2012: Received 8 (ea) Programmable Communicating Thermostats. As of Q1 2012, eight devices have been deployed. (2 devices in the Lab and 6 devices in the Field) The following results were observed during testing: Head End Application- Test Result: PASS (Lab) / PASS (Field) Running on a Windows Server 2003 with basic Office Suite, the software allows users and roles to be set up successfully. It also allows the user to adjust the PCT temp and operational mode via a web-based customer portal. Performance- Test Result: PASS (Lab) / PASS (Field) Though the round trip time was difficult to prove (specifically, elapsed time between hops), we felt that the overall commissioning time was satisfactory. System was not operational during previous firmware broadcast. We will continue to monitor the system during future broadcasts. Devices- Test Result: PASS (Lab) / PASS (Field) Each device has a unique LAN number and CSE entered the devices using an XML drop file. The software allows us to change set-points of the thermostat. It has a built in reporting function that is available to the user. PCT Device- Test Result: PASS (Lab) / PASS (Field) Upon event trigger, the device successfully adjusted the temperature and responded to the request to return to normal setting as expected. | $4,803 |
Smart appliances | 0 | $0 |
Recipient information | Input |
---|---|
Total number of customers served by utility / utilities supporting the project | 148,049 |
Total number of residential customers served by utility / utilities supporting the project | 136,358 |
Total number of commercial customers served by utility / utilities supporting the project | 9,797 |
Total number of industrial customers served by utility / utilities supporting the project | 1,894 |
Total number of distribution circuits within utility service territory | 120 |
Total number of distribution substations | 24 |
Portion of distribution system with SCADA prior to SGIG/SGD program | 0 |
Portion of distribution system with distribution automation (DA) prior to SGIG/SGD program | 0 |
Electric distribution system | % | Description |
---|---|---|
Portion of distribution system with SCADA due to SGIG/SGD program | 0% | |
Portion of distribution system with DA due to SGIG/SGD program | 0% |
DA devices installed and operational | Quantity* | Description | Cost |
---|---|---|---|
Automated feeder switches | 2 | None | $0 |
Automated capacitors | 2 | $0 | |
Automated regulators | 2 | $0 | |
Feeder monitors | 2 | $0 | |
Remote fault indicators | 6 | $0 | |
Transformer monitors (line) | 0 | $0 | |
Smart relays | 0 | ||
Fault current limiter | 0 | $0 | |
Other devices | 0 | $0 |
SCADA and DA communications network | Cost |
---|---|
Communications equipment and SCADA | $20,121 |
Distribution management systems integration | Integrated | Description |
---|---|---|
AMI | No | |
Outage management system | No | Nothing new to report for Q2 2014. During the 1st quarter, 2014, CoServ completed the integration between the MDMS and CoServ’s Outage Management System. This integration allows the OMS to verify the service state of an individual meter. As of Q3 2013, no integration work to the Outage Management System has been completed. Work has begun on the design of the integration between CoServ’s MDMS and OMS. This integration will allow the OMS to verify the service state of an individual meter. This integration is expected to be complete during the 1st quarter, 2014. |
Distributed energy resource interface | No | |
Other | No |
Distribution automation features / functionality | Function enabled | Description |
---|---|---|
Fault location, isolation and service restoration (FLISR) | No | |
Voltage optimization | No | |
Feeder peak load management | No | |
Microgrids | No | |
Other functions | No |
* In some circumstances, costs are incurred before devices are installed resulting in a reported cost where the quantity is zero.
* All dollar figures are the total cost, which is the sum of the federal investment and cost share of the recipient (the recipient cost share must be at least 50% of the total overall project cost).
** In some cases the number of entities reporting is greater than the total number of projects funded by the Recovery Act because some projects have multiple sub-projects that report data. View list of sub-projects.