Egypt: PGIQ Rating, Tier 3 Workable

The same market, read four ways

BuildSellPlanMonitor

Egypt is a moderate market to sell power into

Grade B (Moderate)

Offtake score 64/100

Demand 32, build feasibility 65, combined into the score. For a seller: where buyers already pay, how tight supply is, and how feasible new build is here.

Price to beat

Regulated tariff about $18/MWh.

See it on the Offtake Grade →

Egypt: some room at system level, light demand pressure

Some room 65/100

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 (Light). 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.

Demand growth

Slow load growth in our read, the pull on your system.

Load Pipeline Reality → Where demand is hungry → Connection friction →

Egypt is not yet covered for a held exposure

SITING SCREEN ONLY

Egypt 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

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%65

Workable access; a growing market.

Availability25%58

Moderate availability.

Cost25%78

Cheap (subsidized) power.

Momentum15%35

Limited momentum.

Carbon5%35

High carbon (~440 g), gas.

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.

Reliability overlay

Reliability adjustment: the five-pillar score of 61 is reduced to 57, a deduction of 4 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: Minor flags found

Modelled read: recurring load-shedding through 2023-2024 heat, recovering with capacity additions.

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

modelled

Historical utility-territory delivery performance: No reliability flags found

Forward resource adequacy (assessed): No adequacy flags

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: Low. 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.

Large-user tariff

This market has no competitive wholesale power market, so the honest cost is the administered tariff a large load actually pays, all charges included, not a modelled spot price. A tariff market needs no live feed: it changes only when the regulator changes it.

Industrial tariff

about 0.65 to 0.85 EGP per kWh (high-voltage industrial) (about $0.018 per kWh)

administered, high-voltage industrial tariff (EgyptERA), 2026

Trend

Rising fast: repeated tariff hikes as subsidies are phased out, with further increases scheduled through 2026.

Egypt has no competitive wholesale market. High-voltage industrial customers pay an administered EgyptERA tariff of roughly 0.65 to 0.85 Egyptian pounds per kWh. In US dollars the pound's devaluation keeps this low (about 1.5 to 2 US cents), but it is climbing quickly as subsidies are removed, so the low figure is a moving target, not a durable advantage.

Basis: measured. Source: EgyptERA electricity tariff.

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: not_assessedreliability: M2carbon: M2regulatory: not_assessedlocal capacity: not_assessed

Against a Standardized Project Case, these fields are not answered here at all: cost, connection. 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

Partial

1 of 3 dimensions: reliability, connection, cost

Last reviewed

June 2026

per-layer vintages below

Layer	Method	Vintage	Freshness	Source
PGIQ Rating opinion	opinion	June 2026	Current	PGIQ methodology
Reliability review	modelled	2025	Fresh	on the market page
Large-user tariff	administered	2026	Fresh	EgyptERA electricity tariff

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 bulk-system performance (modelled)

What is open

Forward resource adequacy (assessed)
Historical utility-territory delivery performance (would change the answer)
Contractual service terms (would change the answer)
Designed site resilience
cost evidence (would change the answer)
connection evidence (would change the answer)
regulatory evidence
local_capacity evidence

Who would actually serve you

Not compiled for this market. Identify the serving operator before relying on any figure here, because a market-level read is an average over territories.
Who runs the connection process: not yet compiled for this market. This is wayfinding rather than evidence, and its absence is a gap in our compilation, not a fact about the market.

Credible ranges today

No cost or schedule range is compiled for this market.

What could disqualify this market

Macro and reliability.
Data confidence.

Five questions for the utility or system operator

What is the available capacity at the bulk supply point and substation that would serve this site, and what would a 100 MW request do to it?
Is firm service available at 100 MW, and what curtailment (when a plant is told to stop feeding the grid) rights would you retain over us once we are energised?
What are the milestone dates from a complete application to full firm energisation, and which network upgrades would a 100 MW load trigger?
What is the all-in delivered rate for 100 MW at a 95% load factor, including demand, network and rider charges, under the tariff that would actually apply?
What is your own territory's SAIDI and SAIFI for the industrial class, on which major-event standard, and what redundancy serves the candidate substation?

Documents that would advance the case

The area or substation capacity study, and the current queue position list.
The applicable large-load tariff or the draft electric service agreement.
The interconnection or system impact study, and a specimen connection offer.
The current tariff sheet with all riders, and any large-load contract terms.
The utility's own reliability filing and the substation single-line diagram.

Rating history

June 2026

New ratingNew rating: Tier 3 Workable assigned (low confidence).

🔒 The full time series behind Egypt, how its score, recurring cost, and interconnection queue (the line to connect to the grid) 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.

How does Egypt compare to the other 78 markets?

This page is our full read on Egypt 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 Egypt 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 →

🇪🇬 Egypt