Event Performance Calculation Methodologies
Event performance is not one number by default. The right representation depends on whether you are explaining delivery to operators, settling financially, or validating engineering behavior.
Three common ways to describe performance
The same event can be described in more than one valid way. First, you can express performance as interval-by-interval reduction or increase relative to the baseline. Second, you can summarize those intervals as an average delivered kW over the event window. Third, you can express the aggregate energy effect over the event, which is often more intuitive for program reporting or cost impact analysis.
| Metric | Best use | Common misunderstanding |
|---|---|---|
| Interval performance | Engineering review, anomaly detection, event-shape analysis | It can look noisy even when the event is operationally successful. |
| Average delivered kW | Program reporting and simple performance communication | It can hide the timing detail behind the average. |
| Event energy impact | Cost impact and aggregate event summaries | It should not replace interval-level QA when debugging delivery issues. |
What GridMango should show
For most users, the strongest default is to show interval performance, average delivered kW over the event, and total event energy effect together. That gives engineers enough detail to inspect what happened while still giving operators and program managers a concise summary.
When a customer says “industry standard is average delivered kW,” they are often talking about the reporting headline rather than the only calculation that matters. The supporting interval trace is still essential.
Direction matters
Import-style events, export-oriented DER dispatch, EV charging curtailment, and battery discharge support do not all interpret performance the same way. The math must remain consistent with the event direction. Otherwise a technically correct number can still be operationally misleading.