Meade County RECC's AMI process moved from committee-defined technical requirements and structured vendor evaluation through peer-cooperative validation to a Landis+Gyr pilot. After selecting the vendor, the utility separately tested and accepted the pilot before pursuing wider deployment.
-
Utility: Meade County RECC
Utility type: Distribution cooperative
Technology / purchase: Advanced Metering Infrastructure (AMI)
Buying archetype: Pilot-to-scale / staged deployment
Stages visible in the record: Problem Definition → Solution Exploration → Vendor Evaluation → Purchase Decision → Adoption & Implementation → Expansion & Advocacy (expansion only)
Stakeholders explicitly visible: AMI Committee; peer electric cooperatives
Evidence / information explicitly mentioned: Vendor RFP responses; AMI Vendor Evaluation Matrix; peer-cooperative site visits and conference calls; vendor reputation, dependability and capability; Pilot System Acceptance Test
Outcome: Landis+Gyr Gridstream selected for a pilot; pilot accepted after testing; wider deployment pursued but not documented as complete in S074
Source basis: Primary Meade County RECC regulatory filing hosted by the Kentucky Public Service Commission
What triggered the purchase
The available record does not identify a single discrete event that triggered the AMI purchase.
It documents Meade County RECC seeking an AMI system with specified communications, metering and control capabilities. The buying process is visible once the cooperative had formed an AMI Committee and begun defining technical requirements and an evaluation mechanism.
How the utility defined what it needed
The AMI Committee developed technical requirements for the proposed system and created a structured mechanism for comparing vendors. The regulatory filing includes an AMI Vendor Evaluation Matrix as an exhibit.
The public record does not reconstruct an earlier strategy or market-education phase in detail. What is visible is a defined set of technical needs carried into a formal comparative evaluation.
How vendors or options were evaluated
The AMI Committee reviewed vendor RFP responses and used the evaluation matrix as part of the comparison process.
The committee also conducted site visits and conference calls with other electric cooperatives while evaluating vendors. The filing explicitly states that these peer-utility activities helped the committee determine which vendor could provide the best solution.
Aclara and Landis+Gyr advanced to contract negotiations based on reputation, dependability and capability. Meade County RECC then selected Landis+Gyr Gridstream as the most suitable system and signed a contract for a pilot on June 30, 2019.
The pilot was a separate post-selection step. After installation, Meade County used a System Acceptance Test to determine whether the pilot met its requirements and expectations. The filing states that the pilot was accepted after that test.
The record then shows Meade County pursuing continuation into full deployment. It does not establish that system-wide deployment had already been completed.
Evidence and information explicitly mentioned
Vendor proposals and AMI Vendor Evaluation Matrix
The AMI Committee reviewed vendor RFP responses using a formal evaluation mechanism. The filing includes the AMI Vendor Evaluation Matrix as Exhibit 3, documenting a structured comparison before the cooperative moved to contract negotiations and vendor selection.
Peer-cooperative site visits and conference calls
The committee conducted site visits and conference calls with other electric cooperatives during vendor evaluation. In this case, the regulatory filing goes beyond merely noting that peer evidence was available: it states that these activities helped the committee determine which vendor could provide the best solution.
Pilot System Acceptance Test
After Landis+Gyr had been selected for the pilot, Meade County used a System Acceptance Test to evaluate the installed pilot. The filing states that the pilot met the cooperative's requirements and expectations and was accepted. The test occurred after vendor selection and evaluated the installed pilot; it was not part of the original vendor comparison.
Outcome
Meade County RECC selected Landis+Gyr Gridstream as the most suitable AMI system and signed a pilot contract on June 30, 2019.
The cooperative later accepted the pilot after the System Acceptance Test and pursued full deployment. The available S074 record documents that progression, but it does not establish that full system-wide deployment had been completed at the time of the filing. The record documents expansion toward wider deployment, not public advocacy.
Why this case matters for vendors
Peer-utility evidence was part of vendor evaluation before selection
Meade County RECC did not rely only on vendor submissions and its internal evaluation matrix. The AMI Committee also visited and spoke with other electric cooperatives, and the filing explicitly connects that peer evidence to determining which vendor could provide the best solution. In this case, peer validation was part of the vendor-evaluation record itself.
Vendor selection and pilot acceptance were separate steps
Landis+Gyr was selected before the pilot was accepted. Meade County then tested the installed pilot against its requirements and expectations before pursuing wider deployment. The evidence used to select a vendor and the evidence used to accept the installed pilot therefore appeared at different points in the process.
-
Meade County RECC AMI regulatory filing / application
Host: Kentucky Public Service Commission
Public link: https://psc.ky.gov/pscecf/2020-00336/EHALL%40MCRECC.COM/10282020120718/Application_102820.pdfSource provenance: Primary regulatory filing submitted by Meade County RECC and hosted by the Kentucky Public Service Commission. The filing includes the cooperative's account of the AMI research and vendor-selection process, the AMI Vendor Evaluation Matrix, and pilot acceptance materials.
Evidence limitations: The filing provides a strong chronology of requirements development, vendor evaluation, peer-utility validation, pilot selection and pilot acceptance. It does not expose every internal deliberation, establish that any single piece of evidence alone determined vendor selection, document completion of full system-wide deployment, or document advocacy activity. The System Acceptance Test form is vendor proprietary, but the filing and utility testimony document Meade County RECC's acceptance of the pilot.
More Buying Cases
NEW CASES + ANALYSIS
Get new Utility Buying Cases when they’re published, plus analysis of how utilities buy. Subscribe to CONDUCTOR below
