⚡ POWERGRIDIQ
Institutional Market Brief
🇨🇦 New Brunswick · PGIQ Tier 3 Workable
As of June 2026 · powergridiq.com/rating/new-brunswick
PGIQ Rating v2 (reliability-adjusted) · as of June 2026
3

🇨🇦 New Brunswick

Viable, with conditions, holding steady Minor flags found
Tier 3 Workable · Composite 50/100, #46 of 79 markets (fundamentals 53 minus a reliability dock) · Outlook Stable · High confidence · how we score

A balanced nuclear-hydro-gas grid, but small and mid-cost; workable for moderate load, not a scale destination.

See live grid data →
One market,
four reads
BuildTier 3Siting ratingSellGrade BOfftakePlanLightLoad pressureMonitorNot coveredSiting screen only
The same market, four decisions. Open any lens to see this market ranked against the rest.

Grid conditions now

Structural baseline, June 2026Open the live map for New Brunswick →
Demand
2,600 MW
Structural baseline, June 2026
Wholesale price
55/MWh
Structural baseline, June 2026
Carbon intensity
300 g/kWh
Structural baseline, June 2026
Low-carbon share
68%
Structural baseline, June 2026
The same market, read four ways

New Brunswick is a moderate market to sell power into

Grade B (Moderate)
Offtake score 65/100
Demand 35, build feasibility 62, combined into the score. For a seller: where buyers already pay, how tight supply is, and how feasible new build is here.
See it on the Offtake Grade →

New Brunswick: some room at system level, light demand pressure

Some room 57/100
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.
Future firm supply
Future firm supply: adequacy flagged for a large new load.
Load Pipeline Reality → Where demand is hungry → Connection friction →

New Brunswick is not yet covered for a held exposure

SITING SCREEN ONLY
New Brunswick 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%62

Workable access on a small system.

Availability25%52

Limited availability for large new load.

Cost25%58

Mid-range cost.

Momentum15%25

Little momentum.

Carbon5%57

Carbon moderate (~300 g).

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 53 is reduced to 50, 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

Forward resource adequacy (assessed): Adequacy flagged

Single-unit dependence: Point Lepreau (660 MW) anchors the system and returned Dec 14, 2025 from a planned outage; Belledune must stop burning coal in 2030, ten years before its planned retirement, with the replacement fuel undecided.

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

assessed · Point Lepreau returns to operation (NB Power) · Belledune 2030 conversion options (NB Power)

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
Slow load growth competing for the same capacity.
Future firm supply
Future firm supply: adequacy flagged.

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

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

Limited

0 of 1 data layers measured

Coverage

Partial

1 of 3 dimensions: reliability, connection, cost

Last reviewed

June 2026

per-layer vintages below

LayerMethodVintageFreshnessSource
PGIQ Rating opinionopinionJune 2026CurrentPGIQ methodology
Reliability reviewassessed2025FreshPoint Lepreau returns to operation (NB Power)

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

  • Forward resource adequacy (assessed)

What is open

  • Historical bulk-system performance
  • 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

How service and connection are organized

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.
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

  • No cost or schedule range is compiled for this market.

What could disqualify this market

  • Scale.
  • Mid cost and carbon.

Outlook drivers

↑ Upgrade triggers

  • Point Lepreau and renewables add firm supply.
  • Atlantic transmission links improve options.

↓ Downgrade triggers

  • Small-system limits.
  • Cost and carbon.

Key risks

Peer comparison

Trades like
Nova Scotia (small Atlantic grid)
Ahead
on carbon vs NS
Behind
on scale
🔔 Get alerts for New Brunswick
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 3 Workable assigned.
🔒 The full time series behind New Brunswick, 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.

Score history

How New Brunswick'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 New Brunswick →
Demand
2,600 MW
Structural baseline, June 2026
System demand across the market.
Wholesale price
55/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
300 g/kWh
Structural baseline, June 2026
Derived from the fuel mix. Never directly measured.
Low-carbon share
68%
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
34%
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
5,200 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
400 MW
Structural baseline, June 2026
Modelled. No live interchange feed exists.
Exports
600 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 New Brunswick?

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 New Brunswick? Browse every market or see conditions across every region.

How does New Brunswick compare to every other market?

This page is our full read on New Brunswick 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 New Brunswick 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 →
Cite as: PowerGridIQ Rating, "New Brunswick" (Tier 3 Workable), as of June 2026. A proprietary, directional screen for siting a large electricity load; not a connection guarantee, and not investment, engineering or procurement advice. Sources and methodology at powergridiq.com/methodology. © PowerGridIQ.

Official carbon intensity

The national greenhouse gas inventory publishes a measured carbon intensity for New Brunswick. It differs from the figure this page serves, and both are shown rather than one quietly replacing the other.

Served hereECCC inventory, 2024
300 gCO2eq/kWh
hand authored undeclared basis		361.7 gCO2eq/kWh
generation intensity, Table A7-5, preliminary

We publish 61.7 gCO2eq/kWh lower than the inventory measures. The fuel mix on this record is also unsourced and also differs: it states 15% gas, while New Brunswick generated 19.34% of its electricity from gas in 2024. How much of the intensity gap that accounts for is not established, and differs by market.

Why we have not simply switched. Adopting the inventory figure changes the published carbon intensity on nine Canadian markets at once, which is a reviewed change here rather than an edit, and it is open. Either way nothing moves a tier, score, pillar or outlook: carbon intensity is not an input to the PGIQ Rating.

Boundary: operational combustion, CO2-equivalent, per kWh delivered to the grid. Main activity producers only. ECCC National Inventory Report, Annex 7 →