Am I judged on what I actually signed?
Often not. The portal was set up once, the contracts were signed later, and one number goes to every client.
Three contracts, one portal number.
Signed
- Client 1: time-based, daylight only, grid outages and force majeure excluded, 97 % guaranteed
- Client 2: energy-based, damages per lost kWh, 98 % guaranteed
- Client 3: “availability as shown in the portal”
Reported
Availability
99.5 %
One number for everyone: 24 hours a day, gaps count as available, grid outages excluded. The portal was set up once, the contracts were signed later.
The portal decides what the contract measures. Client 1 is judged on night hours. Client 2 gets a time number for an energy contract. Nobody signed that.
Synthetic example. The numbers are made up, the mechanics are not.
The number your contract names.
Contractual availability: did the contractor deliver what was signed? The intervals on the contract’s exclusion list come out of numerator and denominator, and the number carries the contract reference.
Contractual availability
Did the contractor deliver what was signed?
99.2 %
Synthetic example. The numbers are made up, the mechanics are not.
The one being measured does the measuring.
When the contractor owns the portal, the owner has reason to doubt the number, even when it is right. Same raw data, same definition, the method written down: you monitor the obligation you actually signed, and the argument is over before it starts.
Is your monitoring delivering what you pay for?
Your availability is computed from the monitoring’s data. When that data has a gap, some portals count it as downtime, and you are the one who pays for it.
Guaranteed in the operations contract: 98 %
Source A
Availability
99.5 %
- 24 hours a day
- inverters counted, not weighted
- data gaps count as available
- grid outages excluded
Source B
Availability
97.5 %
- daylight hours only
- weighted by capacity
- data gaps count as down
- nothing excluded
Source C
Availability
99.2 %
- daylight hours only
- contract exclusions applied
- maintenance within quota excluded
- data gaps left out
All three are called availability. None of them is wrong. Against the 98 % guaranteed in the operations contract, two pass and one fails, and a fail can mean damages. Only the contract’s own definition decides which one counts. Recomputed under this contract, it passes at 99.2 %. Over all daylight hours, the plant was available only 97.7 % of the time: the contract leaves out the grid outage and planned maintenance.
Synthetic example. The numbers are made up, the mechanics are not.
What we can show you
- Gaps: which days and devices delivered nothing, and for how long
- Delays: when the data arrived, against when it was due
- Changes after the fact: numbers the portal revised later, with before and after
- Independent witnesses: the inverters against the grid meter, the sensors against a weather model
- Stated rules: whether the portal’s figures follow the rules it publishes
We see data and numbers. Alarms and response times do not reach us, so we do not judge them.
Questions
Do we need the owner’s consent?
Yes. The plant data belongs to the owner, so we need their written consent or a contract with them that allows it. Best is one record in the owner’s storage that both of you can read. Then you argue from the same numbers.
What if we run the monitoring ourselves?
Then you check your own numbers before your client does: same raw data, same definition, and the method written next to the number.
Do you take sides?
No. Owner and contractor see the same record under the same rules. We check the numbers, not who is right.
Send one plant, one month.
You get performance ratio and availability as a base row with the rules written down, the difference against each reported number with what explains it and what stays open, a method card next to every number and a 30-minute walkthrough. Nothing changes in your monitoring.
Send one plant, one month