PGIQ Rating v2 (reliability-adjusted) · as of June 2026
2

🇺🇸 Desert Southwest (Phoenix)

Strong, with known trade-offs, and the path is improving Minor flags found
Tier 2 Strong · Composite 69/100, #8 of 79 markets (fundamentals 72 minus a reliability dock) · Outlook Positive · Med-High confidence · how we score

One of the fastest-growing US markets, on abundant land, strong solar and a pro-build posture. Phoenix overtook Dallas and Silicon Valley on inventory in 2025. The clearest US momentum riser after Texas.

See live grid data →
One market,
four reads
BuildTier 2Siting ratingSellGrade AOfftakePlanRisingLoad pressureMonitorNot coveredSiting screen only
The same market, four decisions. Open any lens to see this market ranked against the rest.
Time to energize · file to power
~55 mo
File a large load today, powered ~2031. Typical range 38 to 72 months, modelled.
End-to-end wait for a large new load, from a complete application being accepted to full firm energization of the nominated MW. Earlier milestones (initial, phased, temporary or conditional energization) are reported separately. A typical case, not a firm quote. · Source: LBNL Queued Up 2026 · Compare markets →

Grid conditions now

Structural baseline, June 2026Open the live map for Desert Southwest (Phoenix) →
Demand
18,000 MW
Structural baseline, June 2026
Wholesale price
38/MWh
Structural baseline, June 2026
Carbon intensity
210 g/kWh
Structural baseline, June 2026
Low-carbon share
60%
Structural baseline, June 2026
The same market, read four ways

Desert Southwest (Phoenix) is a strong market to sell power into

Grade A (Strong)
Offtake score 81/100
Demand 45, build feasibility 68, combined into the score. For a seller: where buyers already pay, how tight supply is, and how feasible new build is here.
Queue depth (generation and storage)
About 95 GW in the interconnection queue (the line to connect to the grid), typical wait 55 months.
See it on the Offtake Grade →

Desert Southwest (Phoenix): some room at system level, rising demand pressure

Some room 67/100
System-level room, not local capacity
Local capacity: not assessed. We have found no operator publication of area or substation capacity for this market, so whether the bus serving a candidate site can take the load is an open question. Absence of a finding here is not evidence that capacity exists.
Two reads for a grid planner: how much room the system as a whole looks to have (Some room), and how hard demand is already pushing (Rising). The first is a market-level estimate from connection ease, forward adequacy and reliability margin. It is not local deliverability. Capacity at a specific substation is not assessed for this market, and a market can look roomy while the bus you want has nothing available. Confirm local capacity with the utility before relying on it.
Generation and storage queue
95 GW requested; about 23.8 GW likely to reach operation after historical withdrawal. The gap is speculative pipeline. This counts generation and storage seeking to connect, not load.
Demand growth
Fast load growth in our read, the pull on your system.
Future firm supply
Future firm supply: adequacy flagged for a large new load.
Load Pipeline Reality → Where demand is hungry → Connection friction →

Desert Southwest (Phoenix) is not yet covered for a held exposure

SITING SCREEN ONLY
Desert Southwest (Phoenix) is not yet monitored. Full monitoring needs reviewed reliability, connection-queue data and a compiled cost band; this market has only a subset, so we show it as a siting screen. We deepen coverage market by market.
See the markets we cover →

The five pillars behind the tier

A
A
C
M
C
The pillar signature: Access, Availability, Cost, Momentum, Carbon, taller is stronger. The same shape repeats across every market so peers compare at a glance.
Access30%68

Moderate, improving access: Arizona utilities are accommodating large load and building fast.

Availability25%62

Moderate availability: solar plus gas, with batteries increasingly covering the evening peak.

Cost25%80

Low-to-mid cost.

Momentum15%85

Very high momentum: a top inventory-growth market with a deep pipeline.

Carbon5%70

Carbon moderate (~200 g), solar-heavy by day.

Default weights, which lean toward cost and access rather than carbon: Access 30 · Availability 25 · Cost 25 · Momentum 15 · Carbon 5. Momentum reflects the data-center build already underway, not just stated intentions.
Seller view: Read these the other way: momentum is your customer pipeline, cost is your revenue ceiling, and access is how hard it is to build and sell here, not only to connect.

Reliability overlay

Reliability adjustment: the five-pillar score of 72 is reduced to 69, a deduction of 3 points, reflecting the delivery-reliability and firm-supply risks flagged below. Reliability is reported as five separate layers, never as one combined label, because they answer different questions and a strong answer on one does not cover a gap in another: what has actually failed on the bulk system, what a forward assessment expects of firm supply, how the local network performs, what your contract actually promises, and what your site is designed to ride through. Any one of them can cap the tier.

Historical bulk-system performance: No reliability flags found

Historical utility-territory delivery performance: No reliability flags found

Average customer interruption (SAIDI) of 67.88 minutes per year in 2024, excluding major event days as filed.

measured · EIA Form 861, Schedules 3B and 3C (annual electric power industry report) (IEEE 1366 major-event treatment, customer-weighted blend of 4 of 4 territories, 100% of customers, regional context only)

A blend, not your supplier. This figure covers several distribution operators, so it describes an average customer rather than the operator that would serve your site. It is good for comparing markets and watching them move, it tops out at Comparable (M2), and it cannot carry a Project Case. major event days identified by IEEE 1366 (2.5-beta method). It is a territory-wide history and is silent on: performance at a specific substation or feeder; transmission-level service, which is a different product from distribution service; the industrial or large-load customer class specifically; N-1 or other redundancy architecture at the supplying substation; contractual curtailment (being told to cut output or consumption) rights the utility may hold over the load; power quality and momentary interruptions, which this metric excludes by construction; on-site UPS, storage or generation; forward adequacy: it is a record of what happened, not a forecast.

The territories inside this market

The market figure above is an average across these territories. A project sits in one of them, not in the average. Each row is that operator’s own filed record; once a candidate site is matched to a territory, that row is the evidence that applies to it.

Territory operatorSAIDI min/yrCustomersMajor-event method
Arizona Public Service Co (AZ)80.861,395,614IEEE 1366
Salt River Project (AZ)52.811,161,925IEEE 1366
Tucson Electric Power Co (AZ)68.36455,579IEEE 1366
UNS Electric, Inc (AZ)60.13106,739IEEE 1366

Filed to EIA Form 861 for 2024, excluding major event days. Territory-wide averages: see the layer note above for what they do not establish.

Forward resource adequacy (assessed): Adequacy flagged

Phoenix and the desert Southwest face extreme summer cooling peaks that strain supply; utilities have managed them so far, but heat-driven peak stress is the standing forward risk.

What this means: A large new load faces occasional exposure here. Monitor conditions and keep a contingency plan.

modelled

Contractual service terms: not assessed

We have not compiled what firm service actually promises here: whether it is firm, non-firm or interruptible, the conditions under which you can be curtailed, the redundancy required of you, and the transfer time behind any N-1 commitment. Treat this as an open diligence item, not as an indication that service is firm.

Ask the utility for the tariff or service agreement terms before relying on firm supply.

Designed site resilience: not applicable at market level

Utility feeds, UPS, storage, on-site generation, islanding, black start and the residual energy you still expect to lose are properties of a specific site design, not of a market. This layer only exists once there is a site, and we never assert it for you.

Confidence: Med. Each input is labelled as measured, modelled, or drawn from a specific event, and is framed as a risk to a prospective large new load, not as a verdict on any utility or grid operator. Forward adequacy is an assessment of what is expected, not a measurement of what has happened; it is a forecast and is labelled as one.
Seller view: Tight forward capacity (firm supply promised for future years) is scarcity that firm generation and storage get paid for; an adequacy flag is a demand signal for new supply, not only a risk to a load.

Supply relief outlook

Will the power crunch ease before your load energizes? This nets the demand racing for capacity against the new supply likely to arrive and the old supply leaving. A cross-side read, using the same data a seller sees the other way.
Balanced
Demand pressure
Fast load growth competing for the same capacity.
New supply in motion
About 23.8 GW of the generation and storage queue is likely to reach operation after historical withdrawal.
Future firm supply
Future firm supply: adequacy flagged.

What this means: Supply and demand look broadly balanced; the outcome hinges on the drivers below.

Reliability metrics

Delivery reliability (measured)

The average customer loses about 67.88 minutes of power per year (2024). This is the standard regulator outage measure (SAIDI); lower means a more reliable grid.

Averaged across 4 territories. No single customer experiences this figure. The per-territory table in the reliability overlay above gives each operator’s own filed record, which is what a site-specific read needs.

Source: EIA Form 861, Schedules 3B and 3C (annual electric power industry report) (IEEE 1366 major-event treatment, customer-weighted blend of 4 of 4 territories, 100% of customers, regional context only)

Hard, cited measures behind the reliability overlay above: the regulator outage series (SAIDI, measured, published with a lag) and the forward resource-adequacy assessment (a measured forecast). Framed as risk to a prospective large new load, not a verdict on any utility.

Interconnection queue

These are generation and storage interconnection queues. They show how congested the interconnection system is. They do not measure how long a new large load waits, and their withdrawal rates are not load withdrawal rates. At the end of 2025, generation and storage projects totalling about 2,060 GW were actively waiting in United States queues, down 10% from a year earlier. Of the capacity that entered between 2000 and 2020, about 75% withdrew before connecting and only about 13% reached operation by end-2025. The typical project built in 2025 waited about 61 months from request to operation (Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Queued Up 2026). Figures below are refreshed quarterly; each is labelled measured or modelled.

Active queue depth

95 GW

Typical wait

55 months

The full queue analysis for this market, which covers the share of projects that give up and leave the queue (the withdrawal rate), how much of the queue is data centers, and the sources, is available through /api/v1/queue/desert-southwest with a paid key. These are generation and storage queue figures: they show interconnection-system congestion, not a typical large-load connection wait.

Seller view: A deep queue is both your own time-to-revenue and a moat against competing supply; what matters is the effective supply likely to complete after withdrawal, not the headline queue.

Realized cost band

Withdrawn (#317). The published band blended an effective regulated rate with APS's PROPOSED extra-large-load class of roughly +45%, which the Arizona Corporation Commission has not decided: the rate-case hearing closed 7 July 2026 and the Commission's vote is due by 31 December 2026. A pending proceeding may not set a current delivered cost. The band's primary source was also an ACC large-load workshop rather than a tariff.

No delivered-cost band is published for this market, and no substitute figure has been put in its place. Screening on recurring cost returns insufficient evidence for this market rather than a value we cannot defend.

Restored when: A cited EFFECTIVE rate applicable to the standard archetype -- APS's Extra High Load Factor schedule as it currently stands, or SRP's E-67 large-load terms -- with a stated cost boundary, effective date, method and confidence. The proposed class may then be carried as a dated forward risk outside the band, never inside it. Withdrawn 2026-08-20.

Seller view: This delivered price is the level a competitive supply offer must beat, and the revenue ceiling a merchant plant works against here.

Data provenance and freshness

What we hold for this market, field by field. Each tier below is assigned from the evidence actually held for that field, with provenance. A low tier means we looked and it is thin; it is not a verdict on the market.
cost: not_assessedconnection: M1reliability: M2carbon: M2regulatory: not_assessedlocal capacity: not_assessed
Against a Standardized Project Case, these fields are not answered here at all: cost. Absence of a finding is not evidence of low risk, and it is a different statement from a low tier.
Read against other uses: Discovery and monitoring: insufficient · Market comparison: insufficient · Project Case with a carbon requirement: insufficient · Conditional site diligence: insufficient.
Depth is not a rating strength, a confidence score or a feasibility conclusion. An aggregate is only ever shown for a named use case, and equals the lowest tier across that use case's required fields. Definitions v1.0. See the full coverage matrix.
How solid the data behind this rating is, on two separate axes plus recency. Source reliability is how measured the numbers are, as opposed to triangulated or modelled. Coverage is how many of the decision-relevant data dimensions (reliability, connection, and cost) are compiled for this market. The two are kept apart because they answer different questions: a market can have strong sources on the little that is covered, or broad coverage that still leans on models. Neither grades the rating itself. The rating is a cited opinion, graded separately and falsifiably by the public track record and baseline measurement plan.

Source reliability

Moderate

1 of 2 data layers measured

Coverage

Substantial

2 of 3 dimensions: reliability, connection, cost

Last reviewed

June 2026

per-layer vintages below

LayerMethodVintageFreshnessSource
PGIQ Rating opinionopinionJune 2026CurrentPGIQ methodology
Reliabilitymeasured2024FreshEIA Form 861, Schedules 3B and 3C (annual electric power industry report) (IEEE 1366 major-event treatment, customer-weighted blend of 4 of 4 territories, 100% of customers, regional context only)
Interconnection queuemodelledend-2025 (LBNL 2026)FreshLBNL Queued Up 2026

Freshness reflects each layer's refresh cadence: reliability annual to three-yearly, capacity-auction and queue yearly, tariffs every year or two. The full cross-market freshness dashboard is at /data-quality.

What this market can and cannot answer yet

No market-level read closes a project case on its own, and saying only that would waste the evidence we do hold. Below is what is established, what is open, and what to do next.

What is established

  • Historical utility-territory delivery performance 67.88 minutes per year (2024)
  • Forward resource adequacy (assessed)
  • Typical interconnection wait about 55 months (generation and storage queue, not a load wait)

What is open

  • Historical bulk-system performance
  • Contractual service terms (would change the answer)
  • Designed site resilience
  • cost evidence (would change the answer)
  • regulatory evidence
  • local_capacity evidence

How service and connection are organized

Territories in this market, each with its own filed record: Arizona Public Service Co, Salt River Project, Tucson Electric Power Co, UNS Electric, Inc. Which one serves a given site depends on where that site is.
How the connection process is organised: the applicable service and connection entities depend on the candidate location and the power pathway. We have not compiled the structure for this market; that is a gap in our wayfinding, not a fact about the market.

Credible ranges today

  • Schedule: interconnection queues here run about 55 months for generation and storage; a large load follows a different process and we do not hold its measured distribution

What could disqualify this market

  • Summer extreme heat and cooling-peak reliability.
  • Water availability for cooling.

Outlook drivers

↑ Upgrade triggers

  • Continued solar-plus-storage build lowers carbon and firms the peak.
  • Sustained absorption converts the pipeline.

↓ Downgrade triggers

  • Water and extreme-heat constraints.
  • Transmission limits slow new connections.

Key risks

Peer comparison

Trades like
Atlanta (fast-building, mid-cost)
Ahead
on momentum
Behind
ERCOT on openness

Evidence behind this rating

The real-world events that test our Tier 2 call for Desert Southwest (Phoenix): 1 supports it. Each is dated and cited, so you can check the rating against what is actually happening on the ground.

Phoenix overtakes Dallas and Silicon Valley on inventory ✓ Supports the rating
2025MomentumMateriality: low

The Desert Southwest is now one of the fastest-growing US data-center markets on land, solar and a pro-build posture.

Source: CBRE ↗
Cited, dated developments tagged to the pillar they bear on, and whether they support or challenge the current tier. A material item flags the market for analyst review and may drive a rating action.
🔔 Get alerts for Desert Southwest (Phoenix)
Be notified the moment this market's PGIQ Rating, outlook, or a material development changes. Free while we validate demand.

Rating history

June 2026
New ratingNew rating: Tier 2 Strong assigned.
🔒 The full time series behind Desert Southwest (Phoenix), how its score, recurring cost, and interconnection queue have moved month by month, is part of the Analyst Desk. The rating actions above are always free.
Every rating action is dated and explained, and the log is only ever added to, never edited. Reviews happen on a regular schedule and whenever a significant event occurs. "Affirmed" means we reviewed a development and the tier held; "Under review" means a significant item is being assessed and the rating could change.

Score history

How Desert Southwest (Phoenix)'s reliability-adjusted score and tier have moved, month by month. Part of your Analyst Desk.

Immutable monthly snapshots of the reliability-adjusted score, tier, outlook and recurring cost, oldest first. Dated when taken and never back-filled, so the series only compounds forward. Part of the Analyst Desk →

Grid conditions now

Structural baseline, June 2026Open the live map for Desert Southwest (Phoenix) →
Demand
18,000 MW
Structural baseline, June 2026
System demand across the market.
Wholesale price
38/MWh
Structural baseline, June 2026
Energy only, and always modelled: no live price feed exists in any market. This is not the delivered cost.
Carbon intensity
210 g/kWh
Structural baseline, June 2026
Derived from the fuel mix. Never directly measured.
Low-carbon share
60%
Structural baseline, June 2026
Wind, solar, hydro, geothermal, biofuel and nuclear. The emissions-free share of generation, which is the read for a carbon target.
Renewable share
48%
Structural baseline, June 2026
Wind, solar, hydro, geothermal and biofuel. Excludes nuclear, which is low-carbon but not renewable, so this is the read for an RE100-style renewable procurement mandate.
Installed capacity
44,000 MW
Structural baseline, June 2026
Firm capacity
not held
Structural baseline, June 2026
De-rated, system-level.
System firm margin
not held
Structural baseline, June 2026
Market-wide estimate of de-rated firm capacity less peak demand. This is a directional screen, not local connectable capacity at any point of delivery.
Imports
2,000 MW
Structural baseline, June 2026
Modelled. No live interchange feed exists.
Exports
3,000 MW
Structural baseline, June 2026
Modelled. No live interchange feed exists.

Every field above carries its own source and freshness. Price, imports and exports are modelled in every market because no feed supplies them. Carbon intensity is derived from the fuel mix.

What next for Desert Southwest (Phoenix)?

Add to shortlistTrack it alongside your other candidates.Compare with peersRank markets against each other on your own weights.Open the Analyst DeskEvery market side by side, with history and alerts.Retrieve it through the APIThe same read as JSON, with provenance on every field.

Done with Desert Southwest (Phoenix)? Browse every market or see conditions across every region.

How does Desert Southwest (Phoenix) compare to every other market?

This page is our full read on Desert Southwest (Phoenix) alone, and it is free. To decide where a large load should actually go, you need every market side by side, ranked on recurring cost and time-to-connect, with the history and alerts when your shortlist moves. That is the Analyst Desk.

With your Analyst Desk, compare Desert Southwest (Phoenix) against every market side by side, ranked on recurring cost and time-to-connect, with the full history and shortlist alerts.

+ Add to your shortlist Recurring cost, ranked Connection friction, ranked Get the Analyst Desk →