The headline hydro surplus is misleading: Churchill Falls output is largely contracted and exported, the island grid is separate and remote, and Muskrat Falls has been troubled. Deliverable power for a new island load is limited despite the paper surplus.
See live grid data →Limited access: remote, separate island grid; Labrador hydro is contracted/exported.
Constrained deliverable availability despite a large paper surplus.
Cheap power.
Little momentum.
Near-zero operational carbon (~10 g), hydro.
Modelled read: hydro-heavy but small and isolated, with a Muskrat Falls commissioning history.
What this means: A large new load faces occasional exposure here. Monitor conditions and keep a contingency plan.
modelled
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.
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.
What this means: Supply and demand look broadly balanced; the outcome hinges on the drivers below.
Low
0 of 1 data layers measured
Partial
1 of 3 dimensions: reliability, connection, cost
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 |
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.
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.
The real-world events that test our Tier 3 call for Newfoundland & Labrador: 2 support it and 1 challenges it. Each is dated and cited, so you can check the rating against what is actually happening on the ground.
Announced 17 Aug 2026 in St. John's by the Prime Minister with the premiers of Newfoundland and Labrador and Quebec. The agreements terminate the 1969 Churchill Falls power contract, under which Hydro-Quebec bought the output at 0.2 cents per kWh, and replace the December 2024 MOU. Federal financing of $10 billion supports Churchill Falls upgrades, developing Gull Island, co-investment with the Innu of Labrador in a 2,000 MW Labrador onshore wind project, and associated transmission. Ottawa puts the combined projects at nearly $70 billion and 14,000 MW, nearly tripling Churchill Falls capacity, supporting 23,000 construction-phase jobs and $31 billion of GDP through the early 2040s. Newfoundland and Labrador retains up to 2,350 MW against 1,990 MW under the 2024 MOU, plus 400 MW of the wind project's output, and a guaranteed 985 MW transmission portfolio into New York, New England and Ontario markets. Provincial benefit is stated at $49 billion (2026 NPV) against $36 billion. TWO QUALIFIERS THE HEADLINE NUMBER DOES NOT CARRY: the agreement is non-binding, with definitive agreements targeted by end-2026, and the Churchill Falls expansion itself (CFX) was removed from it, leaving a feasibility study with no commercial arrangements in place. The near-term physical change for a load siting in this province is the Labrador West transmission line, not the 14,000 MW.
The federal government referred the Labrador Trough Clean Power, Critical Minerals and Infrastructure Corridor to the Major Projects Office, which coordinates federal financing and accelerates permitting. Pre-development funding under the First and Last Mile Fund covers a Labrador West transmission expansion to connect western Labrador mining operations to the grid, and planning work for the Kami iron ore project near Wabush. The province separately reports a $1 billion (2026 NPV) federal commitment to the Labrador West line. Lack of power has been the stated constraint on developing the region, so transmission is the binding item for any large industrial load there.
VOCM reports that CFX, the expansion of the Churchill Falls generating station itself, has been taken out of the new agreement. A feasibility study will be completed but commercial arrangements are not in place. The 14,000 MW headline therefore rests on Gull Island, the 2,000 MW wind project and existing Churchill Falls capacity rather than on an expansion of the plant. Recorded separately from the announcement because the distinction between a committed project and a study is the whole question for anyone pricing future supply.
How Newfoundland & Labrador's reliability-adjusted score and tier have moved, month by month. Part of your Analyst Desk.
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.
Done with Newfoundland & Labrador? Browse every market or see conditions across every region.
This page is our full read on Newfoundland & Labrador 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 Newfoundland & Labrador against every market side by side, ranked on recurring cost and time-to-connect, with the full history and shortlist alerts.
The national greenhouse gas inventory publishes a measured carbon intensity for Newfoundland and Labrador. It differs from the figure this page serves, and both are shown rather than one quietly replacing the other.
| Served here | ECCC inventory, 2024 |
|---|---|
| 8 gCO2eq/kWh hand authored undeclared basis | 16.0 gCO2eq/kWh generation intensity, Table A7-2, preliminary |
We publish 8.0 gCO2eq/kWh lower than the inventory measures. The fuel mix on this record is also unsourced and also differs: it states 2% gas, while Newfoundland and Labrador generated 0.0% 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 →