AMR vs. AMI: Understanding the New Age of Metering for Utilities

As utilities strive to advance their networks and provide the highest level of service to their customer base, questions arise regarding the differences in maintaining an AMR (automated meter reading) system and adopting an AMI (advanced metering infrastructure) system. In this blog, we will explore the key differences and capabilities of both AMR and AMI to better understand the pathways for utilities.

Communication

In a system with AMR, endpoints will communicate to their utility’s network via a one-way path. Readings can be scheduled to pulse communication to the network at different intervals, but they are unable to receive messages from the utility. 

Network systems with AMI have the ability to communicate to and from endpoints. Not only will the endpoint pulse readings to the utility network, but it can also receive messages from the network (e.g., remote shutoff).

Reading Cadence

AMR systems typically function with a short- or long-term frequency of communication. Endpoints can be programmed to pulse readings to the network once a day, or once a month. It is often up to the utility to decide how often they want to receive communications. 

AMI systems offer more customizable communication wherein endpoints can be programmed to communicate every hour if needed. The customizable frequency of communication for AMI systems allows for more precise data collection and analysis.

Reading Collections

In an AMR system, data from endpoints is typically collected via “truck rolls” or “drive bys”. These are methods that require dedicated manpower in order to manually collect data. 

With AMI systems, remote readings from endpoints eliminate the need for manual data collection methods. This helps to decrease the amount of time technicians spend driving between endpoints and increase their availability for productive efforts.

Data Insights

AMR data insights provide basic usage data from endpoints, communicating only a limited view of the entire picture. 

AMI data insights help provide a more granular understanding by relaying information related to pressure, volumetric usage, temperature, and at a more frequent rate than other communication systems. AMI data is also collected at a higher resolution than AMR, ensuring the data is more accurate and reliable.

^{Comparison of data collection frequency for AMR and AMI. Reads per meter per year are 730 times higher for AMI systems, compared to AMR.}

System Maintenance

AMR systems result in mostly reactive maintenance activities due to the lack of real-time communication. Issues are not always detected in a timely manner and can cause even more problems if not addressed.

AMI systems that communicate alarms or other high-frequency alerts help utilities function proactively. Alerts help to plan for predictive maintenance rather than reactive.

Efficiency and Safety Measures

AMR systems as we know them have limited ability to adapt to new technology. This poses a challenge when utilities are ready to phase out older technology and bring in new endpoint systems. With limited communication, AMR also faces risks when it comes to emergency situations and shutting the system down for safety reasons. 

Alternatively, AMI systems can adopt and conform with new efficient technology to promote a robust system. In the case of emergency, AMI is equipped with the ability to remotely shut off any endpoints that may pose a danger.

Conclusion

While AMR and AMI systems both offer a form of communication for utility networks, the features of AMI provide a more reliable, accurate, and responsive system. With a reliable network that you can trust to collect the right data at the right time, energy customers will feel they can trust their utilities with an AMI system.