A mixed fleet on one scale
Assets from different manufacturers and different vintages are normalized once, so a comparison across the portfolio reflects the machines and the sites rather than the reporting systems that came with each acquisition.
Consistent performance across a portfolio that was not built to be consistent.
An independent power producer owns and operates generation assembled over time, across sites, manufacturers, and turbine vintages. Raising output across that portfolio is a different problem from raising it on one well-understood site.
What a portfolio operator needs that a single-site operator does not
Comparability, a value basis that differs by asset, and reporting that will be examined externally.
Capital allocated by return
Engineering time and capital move to the assets where the next unit of either returns the most, which is only possible once every asset has been measured on the same basis.
Energy valued at what it earns
A megawatt-hour under a power purchase agreement and a megawatt-hour sold merchant are not worth the same. Findings are valued against the basis that applies to the asset they belong to.
Reporting that survives examination
Lender, offtaker, and board reporting is produced from the operating record with the method stated, which is the form in which it will be read by people whose job is to test it.
A portfolio is not a larger wind farm.
Operating one site well is a matter of attention. Operating twenty is a matter of allocation, because the binding constraint is no longer what the team knows about any single asset but where its finite time and capital are spent.
Allocation requires comparability, and comparability is what a portfolio assembled by acquisition generally lacks. Each site arrives with its own SCADA system, its own reporting conventions, and often its own service agreement, and the fleet view is assembled by hand from all of them at the end of every quarter.
The same lost megawatt-hour is worth different amounts across a portfolio.
An asset under a fixed-price offtake agreement, an asset selling merchant into a volatile market, and an asset subject to frequent curtailment each price a production loss differently. A ranked list that ignores this is ordering the fleet by physics when the decision is financial.
Valuing findings against the basis that applies to each asset is what makes a single ranked list usable across a portfolio, rather than a set of site lists that cannot be compared with one another.
The obligations the analysis has to support are external.
An independent power producer reports to lenders under a financing agreement, to offtakers under a power purchase agreement, and to its own board on the performance of capital it has deployed. Each of those reports is generally assembled separately, at quarter end, and often from figures the operations team does not itself use.
Producing them from the same asset-level record the operating decisions are made on removes that reconciliation, and it means the number defended externally is the number acted on internally. Where the two differ today, it is rarely because either is wrong; it is because they were built from different sources for different audiences.
What changes across a portfolio
One record, read by the operations team, the asset managers, and the people the business reports to.
- Every asset measured on one scale regardless of manufacturer or vintage
- Findings valued against the offtake basis that applies to each site
- Engineering time and capital allocated by return across the fleet
- Lender, offtaker, and board reporting produced from the operating record
- One ranked work list across sites instead of a separate list per site
A more intelligent approach to sustainable energy.
See how OpenTurbine can help your team understand performance, anticipate operational issues, and make better decisions across your wind assets.