What could the battery have earned?
Reconstruct a comparable historical opportunity using the same market, period and asset limits.
CausalGrids · BESS revenue intelligence
Is your BESS earning what it could?
Use CausalGrids software to review trading performance from the owner’s perspective. Compare like with like, explore performance drivers and quantify potential differences in euros.
Requests through 31 March 2027. Start with one asset and a recent provider report.
Your BESS, in euros
What is better performance worth?
See the historical market comparison
Public snapshot checked 15 October 2026; rolling 180-day model results for a 4-hour BESS. The baseline reuses yesterday’s prices. These are not your optimiser’s results, and do not set the euro assumptions below.
200 MWh4 hours of storage
Whole MW. Energy capacity = MW × 4 hours.
Historical model shares preloaded for the selected market. These are not your optimiser’s measured results; the euro maximum remains a separate illustrative assumption.
“Capture” is the share of the theoretical day-ahead opportunity earned. Baseline uses yesterday’s prices; comparison uses the published model. Edit either share to test your own scenario.
Editable scale assumption, not an estimate for the selected market. A matched market, period and asset assessment determines the actual reference.
Each 1 percentage point is worth€40,000per year at these assumptions
Annual difference in your scenario · -
-
At the baseline share · --
At the comparison share · --
Enter two valid capture shares to see the scenario difference.
How the euro calculation works
Annual difference = MW × assumed maximum per MW/year × (comparison share − baseline share) ÷ 100. A lower comparison share produces a negative difference.
Day-ahead sales less charging-energy purchases, before losses, fees, wear and other asset costs. This is a scenario illustration, not a forecast or a measured recoverable revenue gap.
What explains the difference?
Separate forecasting, dispatch, availability, constraints and costs before assigning responsibility.
What is worth changing?
Prioritise material gaps in euros and track whether changes improve performance.
What is the theoretical maximum?
A hindsight reference: what the model could earn if it knew every relevant price in advance under its stated constraints. It measures the available opportunity; nobody can promise to achieve it.
Historical context for your market.
43 zones · 28 countries · public snapshot, 15 October 2026
Standardised four-hour battery, one cycle per day. Modelled day-ahead strategies compared with realised prices over a rolling 180-day window.
This selector changes the historical comparison. The euro illustration above retains its stated assumptions.
Germany-Luxembourg
Source: CausalGrids public day-ahead benchmark, checked 15 October 2026. Methodology and limitations. The source describes a rolling 180-day window but does not specify its exact dates. Historical model results, not realised customer returns.
All markets and grouped results
43 selectable zones are represented in 34 published rows. Nordic and Baltic group results are not separate individual-zone measurements.
| Market / group | CausalGrids | Baseline | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Spain | 99.2% | 98.2% | +1.0 pp |
| Portugal | 98.0% | 96.9% | +1.1 pp |
| Greece | 94.2% | 91.0% | +3.2 pp |
| Italy - North | 91.4% | 81.6% | +9.8 pp |
| Italy - Centre-North | 91.9% | 83.0% | +8.9 pp |
| Italy - Centre-South | 93.3% | 85.6% | +7.7 pp |
| Italy - South | 93.9% | 86.4% | +7.5 pp |
| Italy - Calabria | 92.3% | 84.8% | +7.5 pp |
| Italy - Sicily | 91.9% | 87.1% | +4.8 pp |
| Italy - Sardinia | 91.1% | 83.7% | +7.4 pp |
| Germany-Luxembourg | 99.2% | 95.6% | +3.6 pp |
| France | 97.3% | 94.7% | +2.6 pp |
| Netherlands | 98.3% | 95.2% | +3.1 pp |
| Belgium | 97.0% | 92.6% | +4.4 pp |
| Austria | 96.7% | 93.4% | +3.3 pp |
| Switzerland | 97.3% | 93.2% | +4.1 pp |
| Poland | 96.9% | 90.3% | +6.6 pp |
| Czechia | 96.4% | 93.4% | +3.0 pp |
| Slovakia | 95.7% | 93.6% | +2.1 pp |
| Hungary | 96.4% | 94.8% | +1.6 pp |
| Romania | 96.3% | 94.1% | +2.2 pp |
| Bulgaria | 90.0% | 87.1% | +2.9 pp |
| Croatia | 96.2% | 94.7% | +1.5 pp |
| Slovenia | 95.5% | 93.2% | +2.3 pp |
| Denmark - West (DK1) | 96.6% | 93.8% | +2.8 pp |
| Denmark - East (DK2) | 96.1% | 92.7% | +3.4 pp |
| Sweden SE1 · SE2 · SE3 · SE4 | 85.9% | 72.4% | +13.5 pp |
| Norway NO1 · NO2 · NO3 · NO4 · NO5 | 71.6% | 60.0% | +11.6 pp |
| Finland | 81.0% | 56.6% | +24.4 pp |
| Estonia · Lithuania · Latvia | 86.1% | 71.1% | +15.0 pp |
| Great Britain | 83.3% | 61.8% | +21.5 pp |
| Ireland (SEM) | 77.9% | 58.8% | +19.1 pp |
| CAISO - SP15 | 85.3% | 74.6% | +10.7 pp |
| PJM - Western Hub | 95.9% | 93.4% | +2.5 pp |
How your review works
A simple start. An asset-specific assessment.
The free screening identifies initial findings, useful comparisons and missing information. A configured analysis models the actual duration, contracts, operating restrictions, costs and revenue streams supplied for your asset.
No battery control or API connection is needed to start. A recent provider report, specifications and market are enough for the first scoping conversation.
Evidence before a performance claim
- Actual operating records and modelled alternatives are identified separately.
- Public benchmarks are dated and keep their original scope.
- Focus on differences that materially affect your asset’s revenue.
Illustrative software workflow · not a completed client case
Keep the optimiser, change the mandate or fix the operating constraint?
Customer question
Does the BESS earn less because of trading decisions, availability or the terms of the mandate?
Information used
Settlement and dispatch records, market prices, battery limits, availability and fees for the same period.
Alternatives assessed
The current strategy, a comparable dispatch scenario and changes to operating or contractual constraints.
Analysis outputs
A software-generated revenue bridge, sensitivities and performance-gap indicators: inputs for your team to assess potential improvements, operating constraints and monitoring priorities.
Public research and sample reports show the approach. A configured software analysis uses your private project data and scenarios to generate reviewable outputs and maintain the supporting data.
See how we structure an investment decisionOne decision today. A maintained view tomorrow.
Start with a defined question. Add recurring support when you have recurring decisions.
Initial assessment
Define the decision, compare options and identify the information that matters.
Decision & evidence pack
Receive software-generated scenarios, assumptions, comparison results and supporting data for your review.
Portfolio monitoring
Keep material assumptions, performance and reporting current at an agreed cadence.
One agreed scope can combine analysis and evidence. Existing work is reused, with additional work and updates priced transparently.
Your next step
Start with a free screening.
One asset. An initial view, material information gaps and a useful next step. Requests through 31 March 2027; scope and data availability confirmed.