Demand Response
Providers using this tag (49)
Ranked by API Evangelist rating — Exemplar and Strong are expanded by default.
Strong 4 Solid coverage with minor gaps
Developing 21 Usable, with meaningful gaps to close
Thin 6 Limited public surface area
Emerging 12 Early or largely undocumented
APIs with this tag (10)
Ranked by the provider's API Evangelist rating — the Kin Score is scored per provider, not per API, so every API of a provider shares its band. How the rating works →
Strong 1 Solid coverage with minor gaps
Developing 3 Usable, with meaningful gaps to close
Thin 2 Limited public surface area
Emerging 4 Early or largely undocumented
Companies reaching this through an API (1)
These companies publish an API, specification or operation carrying “Demand Response” but do not classify their business under it. Listed unranked and kept out of the count above, because one tagged operation is not a statement about what a company does.
Score breakdown
Where this tag sits
Related tags
Where this tag comes from
Cohort brief
Auto-generatedThe 48 providers in the APIs.io catalog tagged Demand Response, scored on the Kin Score. Every figure below is computed from the catalog — nothing here is written.
| Facet | This cohort | Catalog | Difference | Scored |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Developer Ergonomics | 40.9 | 23.2 | +17.7 | 48 |
| Operational Transparency | 25.3 | 13.7 | +11.6 | 48 |
| Contract Quality | 28.2 | 17.6 | +10.6 | 48 |
| Access Clarity | 33.4 | 26.5 | +6.9 | 48 |
| Discoverability | 63.3 | 58.1 | +5.2 | 48 |
| Contract Governance | 11.2 | 6.3 | +4.9 | 48 |
A facet is averaged over the members that carry it, not over the whole cohort — the “Scored” column is that count. Averaging an absent facet as zero would score our own coverage gaps as the providers’ posture.
| Artifact | This cohort | Catalog | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| MCP server (any) | 8% | 14% | -6 |
| MCP server (first-party) | 6% | 12% | -6 |
| Agent Skills | 0% | 0% | 0 |
| OAuth scopes | 35% | 11% | +24 |
| Security | 100% | 98% | +2 |
| Arazzo workflows | 8% | 2% | +6 |
| Governance rules | 6% | 14% | -8 |
mcp_pct counts any mcp/ artifact including ones API Evangelist derived from the provider OpenAPI; mcp_first_party_pct counts only servers the provider publishes. Prefer the latter.
- 1 Enphase Energy 63.8
- 2 EDF Energy 62.2
- 3 Pacific Gas and Electric 55.5
- 4 OpenADR Alliance 54.5
- 5 Origin Energy 53.7
- 6 ev.energy 52.2
- 7 Hydro-Québec 51.8
- 8 Voltus 51.1
- 9 Hildebrand 50.2
- 10 Eaton 49.5
- 1 ev.energy 53.3
- 2 Hydro-Québec 40.6
- 3 Origin Energy 40.5
- 4 ERCOT 40.2
- 5 Southern California Edison 40.2
- 6 EDF Energy 38.7
- 7 Pacific Gas and Electric 37.1
- 8 Enphase Energy 36.9
- 9 IESO 35.3
- 10 Axle Energy 34
Coverage caveat. 42 of 48 scored members had under half their catalog-attributable points satisfied at all (catalog_earned / catalog_max < 0.5). They are INCLUDED in the mean above. A large share here means the cohort mean is partly a measurement of how far our enrichment reached, not only of how these providers publish.Generated from the catalog build of 5 October 2026, across 29093 providers, using the same computation served by the APIs.io cohort API. Briefs are published for rosters of 5 or more scored providers; below that a distribution is not meaningful.
Work with this as data
Every tag here is available over the APIs.io API and to AI agents over MCP.