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

πŸ‡ΊπŸ‡Έ Northern Virginia (PJM)

Strong, with known trade-offs, and access is getting harder● Under review Reliability flags found
Tier 2 Strong Β· Composite 52/100, #38 of 79 markets (fundamentals 59 minus a reliability dock) Β· Outlook Negative Β· High confidence Β· how we score

The largest and most proven data-centre market on earth, which is why it holds a strong rating despite a severe connection queue and rising cost. But it is saturated and expensive, and getting in is slow and slowing further. A builder free to go elsewhere may prefer a cheaper, faster market.

See live grid data β†’
One market,
four reads
BuildTier 2Siting ratingSellGrade BOfftakePlanHeavyLoad pressureMonitorWatchGrid strength
The same market, four decisions. Open any lens to see this market ranked against the rest.
Time to energize · file to power
~72 mo
File a large load today, powered ~2032. Typical range 61 to 83 months, measured.
Application & cluster entry 6mo · System impact / cluster study 36mo · Facilities agreement 12mo · Construction & energization 18mo
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: PJM speed-to-power, RMI · Compare markets →

Grid conditions now

Structural baseline, June 2026Open the live map for Northern Virginia (PJM) →
Demand
65,000 MW
Structural baseline, June 2026
Wholesale price
38/MWh
Structural baseline, June 2026
Carbon intensity
290 g/kWh
Structural baseline, June 2026
Low-carbon share
50%
Structural baseline, June 2026
The same market, read four ways

Northern Virginia (PJM) is a moderate market to sell power into

Grade B (Moderate)
Offtake score 58/100
Demand 60, build feasibility 30, 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
A 100 MW load on our standard case pays about $82.63/MWh delivered here. A competitive supply offer works against that level.
Forward capacity (firm supply promised for future years) price
$333.44 per MW-day (2027/28 delivery year); forward cost pressure Severe.
Queue depth (generation and storage)
About 144 GW in the interconnection queue (the line to connect to the grid), typical wait 72 months.
For new supply
PJM's reopened first-ready-first-served queue drew about 220 GW in its first cycle (106 GW gas, 67 GW storage), so the build pathway for new supply is genuinely open.
Regulatory momentum
Mixed, worsening. FERC preliminarily found PJM's large-load tariff unjust (Section 206) and a DOE order allows curtailing data centres as a class; co-location and cost-allocation economics are in flux.
Beyond the grid
Community and land-use permitting is now decisive here: after residents raised water, noise and Civil War heritage concerns, courts voided the roughly 2,100-acre Prince William Digital Gateway approvals and the county stopped defending them in 2026, ending what would have been one of the world's largest campuses.
Scheduled to change
By Oct 2026: FERC decision on PJM's Interim Resource Adequacy Service filing (PJM Inside Lines).
See it on the Offtake Grade →

Northern Virginia (PJM): effectively full at system level, heavy demand pressure

Effectively full 19/100
System-level room, not local capacity
Local capacity at the point of connectionPublished as constrainedcounty and service area, with named dated relief projects Β· Dominion Energy Virginia

Dominion's contracted capacity pipeline rose from roughly 40 GW in early 2025 to about 47.1 GW by October 2025, pushing connection waits out by years, and a constraint in Loudoun County suppressed new connections outright. Dated relief is under way: the Golden-to-Mars 500 kV loop serves more than 40 new substations, and the Culpeper Technology Zone project adds about 1.2 GW for three of six new AI sites. Dominion publishes no per-substation capacity map for large load.

How to check for your site: Submit through Dominion's Data Center Requests process for a site-specific capacity position. Do NOT read Dominion's Hosting Capacity Tool as load capacity: it models additional generation on distribution feeders.

Source: Data Center Requests, Dominion Energy Virginia. An operator publishing capacity is not the same as us having checked your bus.
Two reads for a grid planner: how much room the system as a whole looks to have (Effectively full), and how hard demand is already pushing (Heavy). The first is a market-level estimate from connection ease, forward adequacy and reliability margin. It is not local deliverability. Local capacity for this market IS addressed below, from an operator publication. Confirm local capacity with the utility before relying on it.
Generation and storage queue
144 GW requested; about 36.0 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: tight for a large new load.
Load Pipeline Reality → Where demand is hungry → Connection friction →

Grid Risk Annex BETA

Watch
Needs structuring or mitigants · grid strength 48/100
A cited, dated grid-risk read on Northern Virginia (PJM) for a capital provider, the banks and private-credit lenders, infrastructure funds and insurers holding or underwriting a power or data-centre exposure here. Drop it into a credit memo and watch each factor over the life of the exposure.
Read it against your asset. For a load asset (Buy), weight connection access and energization timing. For a generation or offtake asset (Sell), weight offtake demand, curtailment (being told to cut output or consumption) and cost realisation. For a grid or transmission asset (Move), weight load-pipeline reality and buildout risk.
Rating and track record
PGIQ Tier 2 Strong, outlook Negative, High confidence. Scored on a public, dated, falsifiable record you can cite in a credit memo.
Delivery reliability
Reliability flags found in the bulk and local outage record we reviewed.
Future firm supply
Future firm supply: tight.
Cost certainty
Recurring cost about $82.63/MWh, a tariff-derived point estimate rather than a band for the standard 100 MW case, basis administered. Excludes connection capital.
Regulatory / stroke-of-pen
Mixed, worsening. FERC preliminarily found PJM's large-load tariff unjust (Section 206) and a DOE order allows curtailing data centres as a class; co-location and cost-allocation economics are in flux.
Execution risk
144 GW in the generation and storage queue, about 75% historically withdrawn, the risk the project or load actually energizes on time.
Ongoing monitor
Track this market's rating actions as a covenant-style monitor over the life of the exposure.
Monitoring plan
Covenant-style triggers to watch over the life of the exposure: a change in the PGIQ rating or outlook; a dated regulatory move (stroke-of-pen risk); a capacity-auction or cost-band shift; a forward firm-supply adequacy warning; and a rise in queue drop-out or connection friction. Track them on this market page, or as Analyst Desk alerts.
Sources: PJM reopened queue · Dominion data-center load, EIA · Virginia Business · Newsweek
This is a directional grid-risk screen, not a credit rating, and not investment, engineering or procurement advice.
The formatted, cited Grid Risk Annex export is an Analyst Desk feature.See the Grid Exposure Monitor →

Regulatory momentum

The regulatory and permitting environment is increasingly the binding variable for a new large load.
Mixed↓ worsening

Why: FERC preliminarily found PJM's large-load tariff unjust (Section 206) and a DOE order allows curtailing data centres as a class; co-location and cost-allocation economics are in flux.

What would change the read: The FERC process settling on workable co-location and cost-allocation rules for large loads.

For new supply: PJM's reopened first-ready-first-served queue drew about 220 GW in its first cycle (106 GW gas, 67 GW storage), so the build pathway for new supply is genuinely open.

Beyond the grid: Community and land-use permitting is now decisive here: after residents raised water, noise and Civil War heritage concerns, courts voided the roughly 2,100-acre Prince William Digital Gateway approvals and the county stopped defending them in 2026, ending what would have been one of the world's largest campuses. Virginia Business Newsweek

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%42

Access is the binding constraint: a severe PJM interconnection queue, capacity-price spikes, and multi-year waits. Hyperscalers still execute via Dominion (~47 GW contracted pipeline), which earns the override; new greenfield entry is hard.

Availability25%45

Tight availability: load growth of 30+ GW by 2030 is outrunning new supply.

Cost25%74

Current filed-tariff costs are lower than previously estimated, while scheduled GS-5 obligations, tightening PJM capacity conditions and large-load connection requirements continue to weigh on the outlook.

Momentum15%92

Unmatched momentum: ~4 GW operational and ~1 GW added a year, the world's #1 market.

Carbon5%58

Carbon moderate (~280 g), gas-led with growing renewables.

Default weights, which lean toward cost and access rather than carbon: Access 30 Β· Availability 25 Β· Cost 25 Β· Momentum 15 Β· 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 59 is reduced to 52, a deduction of 7 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

Winter Storm Elliott (Dec 2022) drove nearly 46,000 MW of forced outages in PJM, about 25% of installed capacity, prompting PJM's first conservation call since 2014 and a warning that rotating outages were a real risk.

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

event-based Β· PJM Winter Storm Elliott report

One operator’s filing, but not the whole market. Other operators serve load here and are not in this figure, so a site in one of their territories gets nothing from it. It tops out at Comparable (M2) and cannot carry a Project Case. major event days identified by the respondent's own method, not IEEE 1366; comparable within this market, not across standards. 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 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.

Forward resource adequacy (assessed): Tight

Reserve margins are tightening as data-center demand surges: the 2025 capacity auction cleared at the $333/MW-day cap with an installed reserve margin (the supply cushion above expected peak demand) near 14.8%, below the 20% target, and FERC members flagged reliability concerns. Mitigants include possible retirement deferrals and a lower forecast peak.

What this means: A large new load should expect genuine exposure to forced power cuts (curtailment), price spikes, and delays in getting connected, and should design in backup power or firm supply contracts.

assessed Β· PJM capacity prices hit record (Utility Dive) Β· NERC 2024 LTRA (PJM elevated-risk)

Contractual service terms: firm with take or pay

Virginia's regulator approved a separate rate class and tariff (GS-5) for the largest loads, effective 1 January 2027. Service is firm, and it is bought on a 14-year contract that includes a four-year ramp. The customer pays monthly the higher of actual demand or a minimum: 85% of contracted transmission and distribution demand, and 60% of contracted generation. Ceasing operations before term triggers exit fees equal to the minimum demand charges over the unexpired term. There is limited relief: contracted demand can be cut by 20% with 36 months notice without exit fees, and by up to 50% if the released capacity can be reallocated to another customer. Before that, the contracting chain itself carries cost: $250,000 at engineering agreement, then a construction agreement under which the customer reimburses 100% of costs incurred if the project is cancelled before energization. The commercial risk here is not curtailment. It is that you pay for capacity you reserved and did not use, and that the reservation itself is expensive to unwind.

What the service contract promises, as distinct from how the system has performed · GS-5 Large-Load Rate Class Report, Dominion Energy (May 2026)

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: High. 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 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.
Tightening
Demand pressure
Fast load growth competing for the same capacity.
New supply in motion
About 36.0 GW of the generation and storage queue is likely to reach operation after historical withdrawal.
Can new supply arrive
PJM's reopened first-ready-first-served queue drew about 220 GW in its first cycle (106 GW gas, 67 GW storage), so the build pathway for new supply is genuinely open.
Future firm supply
Future firm supply: tight.

What this means: The supply picture looks likely to tighten; a new load should lock firm supply early and expect competition for capacity.

Reliability metrics

Delivery reliability (measured)

The average customer loses about 131.3 minutes of power per year (2024). This is the standard regulator outage measure (SAIDI); lower means a more reliable grid.

One operator’s record, not the whole market. No single customer experiences this figure as a market average: other operators serve load here and are not in it.

Source: EIA Form 861, Schedules 3B and 3C (annual electric power industry report) (major event days identified by the respondent's own method, not IEEE 1366, customer-weighted blend of 1 of 1 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

144 GW

Typical wait

72 months

What builds the 72-month wait

36
12
18
Application & cluster entry6 mo
System impact / cluster study36 mo
Facilities agreement12 mo
Construction & energization18 mo
Typical time to energization72 months
How the typical connection wait breaks down by stage. Stages overlap in practice and vary by project; the split is our estimate anchored to the operator process, and the total is the representative time to energization. Anchored to the operator process (PJM speed-to-power, RMI).

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/northern-virginia 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.

Forward cost anchor

Siting a load is a decade-long cost bet, so the forward cost of firm capacity matters more than today's spot price. This is the public capacity-auction clearing price, the market's own forward read, not a paywalled forward curve.

Forward cost pressure

Severe

Latest capacity clearing price

$333.44 per MW-day

2027/28 delivery year

Trend: Rising to the ceiling: cleared at the regulator-approved cap, with the region short of its reliability requirement for the first time.

PJM's capacity auction cleared at a record $333.44 per MW-day for 2027/28, the maximum allowed, and for the first time the whole region fell short of its reliability target. The forward cost of firm capacity is at its historical ceiling, driven by data-center load outpacing new supply.

Source: PJM 2027/28 Base Residual Auction (RTO Insider). A derived indicator: we publish the public clearing price and our read, never paywalled exchange data.

Seller view: This capacity clearing price is a direct revenue signal for new supply: a rising trend supports the build thesis, a falling one is a warning.

Recurring cost

What a large electricity user pays for power here on one declared case, 100 MW contracted demand, 95% load factor, HV service, per megawatt-hour. Not the wholesale price and not the sticker tariff: energy plus the grid, delivery and other charges that land on the bill. This market is priced from a filed tariff rather than triangulated, so it is published as a point estimate for one defined customer rather than as a range.
Current tariff-derived estimate
$82.63/MWh delivered

Current tariff-derived estimate for a 100 MW, 95% load-factor customer taking transmission-voltage service under Dominion GS-4.

Dominion Energy Virginia Schedule GS-4, Large General Serviceeffective 2026-01-01riders effective 2026-07-01evidence as of 2026-08-23load factor 95%power factor 0.95transmission, 69 kV and above

Supply assumption. standard utility supply under the bundled regulated tariff; no competitive service provider, no self-supply, no special contract.

Recurring delivered charges included
  • base schedule energy and demand charges
  • all fifteen riders in the current Exhibit of Applicable Riders
  • Virginia consumption tax and GS-4 sales-and-use surcharge
  • reactive demand at the recommended 0.95 power factor

Recurring delivered charges only. Two riders, RGGI and DIST, are currently filed at exactly zero and are carried as applicable-and-zero rather than treated as absent.

Excluded
  • customer-funded connection capital and contributions in aid of construction
  • Rider D, which is a multiplier on that capital rather than a charge on energy or demand
  • any locality-specific consumer utility tax beyond the local component already inside the Virginia consumption tax
  • the Virginia data-centre electricity tax, which applies to a different customer and is published as a scenario

Connection capital and contributions in aid of construction are outside this figure.

Scheduled change · not included above

Rate Schedule GS-5 takes effect 2027-01-01. GS-5 is mandatory for qualifying new load of 25 MW or more at a load factor of at least 75%. Its rate levels for this archetype are not yet established, so it cannot be priced. The current estimate is GS-4 and only GS-4. Virginia State Corporation Commission, PUR-2025-00058.

Scenarios for other customers

These are separate customer cases, not the ends of a cost band. The standard PowerGridIQ archetype is a general large load.

Virginia data-centre tax scenario
$93.63/MWh

Effective 1 July 2026 and scheduled to sunset before 1 July 2028 unless extended. Stated pre-refund. A refund mechanism exists and is not assumed.

Applies to: A qualifying data centre under HB30 Item 3-5.24. This is a DIFFERENT customer from the published PowerGridIQ archetype, which is a general large load and does not automatically incur this tax.

Qualifying offshore-wind contract
-2.82/MWh adjustment

Qualifying offshore-wind contract: Rider OSW adjustment of approximately -$2.82/MWh, before the separately contracted cost of offshore-wind supply and environmental attributes. Net delivered cost is not publicly observable.

Applies to: A qualifying large general service customer under Va. Code 56-585.1:11 A, which requires a 15-year contract to procure offshore-wind supply and environmental attributes. Size alone does not qualify a customer.

Not a delivered-cost total. Removing the rider without adding the separately contracted cost of offshore-wind supply and environmental attributes would understate the customer's total cost.

What builds the $82.63 estimate

Each line below is reconstructed from filed rates for the stated customer class and can be reproduced from the cited tariff.
$20.82
$60.34
Schedule GS-4 base, transmission voltage$20.82
Riders, fifteen filed sheets$60.34
State and local taxes$1.29
Reactive demand (rkVA at 0.95 power factor)$0.18
All-in delivered$82.63 /MWh
How the $82.63/MWh figure is built up, component by component, for 100 MW contracted demand, 95% load factor, HV service. The allocation is our estimate; the total is the midpoint of the compiled band (administered). Recurring cost only: customer-funded connection capital is a separate one-off and is not included. Every line is read from a filed rate sheet rather than allocated from a market price. Riders are the large majority of the total: Rider A (fuel) alone is $37.65/MWh. Two riders, RGGI and DIST, are currently filed at exactly zero and are carried as rates rather than dropped, so a future filing that moves them off zero is not a surprise in a component nobody was watching. Anchored to published figures (Dominion Energy Virginia rates and tariffs). How this is built →

Where the cost lands

$82.63
Low $82.63Midpoint $82.63High $82.63
A band, not a single price: the cheaper end is a well-structured contract on favourable terms, the higher end a less optimised one. The midpoint is our best central read.
What is in the number: Bundled cost-of-service tariff: base schedule, fifteen riders, applicable taxes and a reactive-demand charge. There is no separate wholesale energy or capacity-auction line, because a GS-4 customer does not pay either.

Current tariff-derived estimate for a 100 MW, 95% load-factor customer taking transmission-voltage service under Dominion GS-4. This replaces a withdrawn band that was materially too high; see the correction record. GS-4 is the CURRENT tariff. Schedule GS-5 is a scheduled change effective 1 January 2027, is mandatory for qualifying new load, and is NOT included in this estimate.

This market's band is free here; the ranked cross-market table with every market's precise midpoint is the Analyst Desk. See the ranked view.

Basis: triangulated from public sources, in US dollars per MWh delivered to a large high-load-factor load, excluding refundable taxes. Sources: Dominion Energy Virginia rates and tariffs Β· Virginia SCC, Dominion biennial review PUR-2025-00058.

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

Cost basis changes on a known date

The proceeding is concluded. GS-5 begins 1 January 2027. Projects expected to take service under the new regime should plan against its mandatory contract and minimum-payment requirements now.

Instrument: Rate Schedule GS-5, Virginia State Corporation Commission, PUR-2025-00058, final order November 2025 (Dominion biennial review)
Effective: 2027-01-01 · Decision status: final
Applies to: 25 MW or more on a contiguous site AND a load factor of at least 75%. Mandatory for qualifying NEW customers, not elective.
Today: Observable and published. Schedule GS-4, filed 2025-12-09 and effective 2026-01-01, is a bundled cost-of-service tariff that a 100 MW transmission-voltage load takes today. The delivered cost is built from that schedule, the fifteen riders in the current Exhibit of Applicable Riders and applicable Virginia taxes, and published as a point estimate rather than a band.
From the effective date: Partial. The rate CLASS, its effective date and its contractual rules are final. The $/kW and $/kWh charges the archetype would pay are not yet established here, so a delivered-cost band cannot be built from this alone.
Terms against the standard case: Minimum charges of 85% of contracted distribution and transmission demand and 60% of generation demand do not bind a 95% load factor archetype, whose actual demand sits above every floor. The 14-year term, collateral and exit fees are real commitments and are not a $/MWh figure.

Still unresolved

  • GS-5 rate levels for the archetype's voltage and demand.
  • How the 14-year contract term and exit fees price into a siting decision.
  • Whether the GS-5 rebuild, when its rates are set, reproduces the GS-4 result or moves it.

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: M3connection: M3reliability: M2carbon: M2regulatory: M2local capacity: M4
Against a Standardized Project Case, the binding field is reliability. That is what a standardized case would turn on here; a readiness result for your own project depends on your own requirements, siting and utility, which this market-level read does not know.
Read against other uses: Discovery and monitoring: M3 Β· Market comparison: M2 Β· Project Case with a carbon requirement: M2 Β· Conditional site diligence: M2.
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

High

4 of 4 data layers measured

Coverage

Full

3 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) (major event days identified by the respondent's own method, not IEEE 1366, customer-weighted blend of 1 of 1 territories, 100% of customers, regional context only)
Forward costmeasured2027/28 delivery yearFreshPJM 2027/28 Base Residual Auction (RTO Insider)
Interconnection queuemeasuredend-2025 (LBNL 2026)FreshLBNL Queued Up 2026
Realized costmeasured2026FreshDominion Energy Virginia rates and tariffs

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

  • Recurring cost about $82.63/MWh, a tariff-derived point estimate rather than a band, basis administered, against the 100 MW archetype
  • Historical utility-territory delivery performance 131.3 minutes per year (2024)
  • Historical bulk-system performance (event-based)
  • Forward resource adequacy (assessed)
  • Contractual service terms (reported)
  • Typical interconnection wait about 72 months (generation and storage queue, not a load wait)

What is open

  • Designed site resilience

How service and connection are organized

Territories in this market, each with its own filed record: Virginia Electric & Power Co. Which one serves a given site depends on where that site is.
Who runs the connection process: PJM Interconnection (regional transmission organisation), via New Service Request, plus the serving utility's own large-load process. PJM runs transmission interconnection; the distribution-level large-load path runs through the serving utility and its state regulator. Where the process starts.

Credible ranges today

  • Cost about $82.63/MWh, a tariff-derived point estimate rather than a band (administered)
  • Schedule: interconnection queues here run about 72 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

  • Saturation and access are deteriorating for new build.
  • Rising power and capacity cost.

Outlook drivers

↑ Upgrade triggers

  • PJM queue reform (first-ready, first-served) materially shortens new connection timelines.
  • Large new supply (gas, nuclear, SMRs) energizes in-zone.

↓ Downgrade triggers

  • Capacity prices and local moratoria pressure push new entrants out.
  • Reliability or ratepayer backlash tightens large-load rules.

Scheduled to change

Dated, already-announced events that will affect a large load sited here, in date order. These are published facts with sources, not our forecasts, and they matter most when your energization date is years out.
By Oct 2026
FERC decision on PJM's Interim Resource Adequacy Service filing
PJM asked for acceptance within 60 days of its 13 Aug 2026 filing. Acceptance would put new large loads without their own capacity first in line for curtailment and exclude them from procured capacity need from 2029/2030.
PJM Inside Lines
Outstanding
FERC ruling on the abeyance requests in the six large-load Section 206 dockets
All six RTOs asked on 28 Jul and 3 Aug 2026 to pause their proceedings for 90 days. Until the Commission rules, the 17 Aug 2026 response deadline and everything downstream of it are unsettled.
Federal Register, FERC notice, Docket EL26-67-000
Sep 2026
PJM Reliability Backstop Procurement targeted to commence 30 Sep 2026
The one-time procurement that determines whether a new large load is covered by acquired capacity or falls into IRAS curtailment. PJM's proposal for it is itself still before FERC.
PJM Inside Lines

Key risks

Peer comparison

Trades like
Dublin (world-tier hub, gated entry)
Ahead of
ERCOT on openness
Behind
few on strategic importance

Evidence behind this rating

The real-world events that test our Tier 2 call for Northern Virginia (PJM): 4 support it and 6 challenge it. Each is dated and cited, so you can check the rating against what is actually happening on the ground.

PJM files its large-load framework: Interim Resource Adequacy Service, a Large Load Registry, and curtailment ahead of paid demand responseANNOUNCED β–² Challenges the rating
Aug 2026AccessMateriality: high

PJM filed with FERC on 13 Aug 2026 an Interim Resource Adequacy Service (IRAS) covering new Large Loads that neither bring their own capacity nor have it covered through the Reliability Backstop Procurement. In a supply emergency PJM would direct affected zones to reduce or transfer demand from those loads before calling on Load Management customers who are paid in advance to curtail, and before any action affecting residential consumers. PJM would build and maintain a Large Load Registry of all Large Loads, existing and new, and share it with states, utilities and regulators. From the 2029/2030 capacity auction, new Large Loads that bring no new supply would be excluded from the future need PJM procures against. PJM states that of 32 GW of forecast demand growth between 2024 and 2030, 30 GW is data centres. Retail cost allocation and load-reduction plans are left to the states, which is where the framework can stall. PJM asked FERC to accept within 60 days. This is a proposal, not a rule: it is unaccepted, and the six large-load Section 206 proceedings it sits alongside are still awaiting a Commission ruling on the abeyance requests filed in early August.

Power to a buyer: Nothing added to supply, and it can subtract from firm service. IRAS is a curtailment and registry regime, not generation. It changes nothing physically; if FERC accepts it within the requested 60 days, a new large load without its own capacity is first in line to be cut in an emergency, ahead of paid demand response.
Source: PJM Inside Lines β†—
PJM opens a review of interconnection reliability rules for data centers after the 3.8 GW Virginia load tripANNOUNCED β–² Challenges the rating
Aug 2026AccessMateriality: med

PJM said on 11 Aug 2026 it is evaluating changes to interconnection reliability requirements for computational loads including data centers and crypto mining, after roughly 3.8 GW of load tripped offline in Dominion's zone on 22 Jul 2026 following a 230 kV fault, the largest such event in PJM history. Candidate requirements cover voltage and frequency ride-through, on-site generation behaviour, and reconnection after disturbances. PJM restored its area control error within nine minutes against a 30 minute NERC requirement. Revises the earlier 3 GW figure for the same event.

Power to a buyer: No supply added or removed. If adopted, ride-through and reconnection requirements raise the engineering bar for connecting a large load in PJM rather than changing how much power exists to serve it.
Source: PJM Inside Lines β†—
All six FERC-jurisdictional RTOs and ISOs request abeyance in FERC's large-load proceedings β–² Challenges the rating
Aug 2026AccessMateriality: med

Each of the six RTOs and ISOs, with their transmission owners, moved to hold its Section 206 show cause proceeding in abeyance: PJM on 28 Jul 2026 for 90 days (EL26-67), and SPP (EL26-68, 95 days), NYISO (EL26-69), MISO (EL26-70), CAISO (EL26-71) and ISO-NE (EL26-72) on 3 Aug 2026 for 90 days. The Commission set an answer period closing 7 Aug 2026. These are requests, not grants. Unless and until FERC rules on them the existing response deadlines stand. US wide in effect; keyed here because Northern Virginia is the largest affected concentration.

Source: Federal Register, FERC notice, Docket EL26-67-000 β†—
Ashburn line fault sends over 3 GW of data center load to backup power in seconds β–² Challenges the rating
Jul 2026AvailabilityMateriality: high

A transmission line in Ashburn faulted and went out of service on 22 Jul 2026, after which data centers' own protection systems transferred them to backup generation. PJM reported more than 3 GW dropped off, about 3% of system demand at the time, producing a measurable frequency change but no reliability impact to the bulk power system. Dominion said no load was shed and that it did not disconnect the sites. A comparable 2024 Northern Virginia event was reported at about 1.5 GW. NERC is reviewing the event.

Source: Reuters β†—
FERC orders NERC to write mandatory reliability standards for data center load integration β–² Challenges the rating
Jul 2026AccessMateriality: med

In Docket RD26-7 (16 Jul 2026) FERC directed NERC to file one or more new or modified mandatory reliability standards governing the integration of computational loads by 31 Dec 2026, to propose registry criteria bringing computational load entities under the mandatory framework, and to file a Phase II work plan by 1 Mar 2027. US wide in effect; keyed here because Northern Virginia is the largest affected concentration.

Source: Willkie on FERC RD26-7 β†—
PJM capacity auction clears at the $325 cap again, 6.8 GW short of the reliability requirement βœ“ Supports the rating
Jul 2026CostMateriality: high

The 2028/29 Base Residual Auction (14 Jul 2026) procured 138,318 MW UCAP but cleared the footprint at the FERC-approved cap of $325/MW-day, 6,821 MW short of the reliability requirement, the second consecutive shortfall year.

Source: PJM Inside Lines β†—
Virginia enacts the first US per-kWh data-center electricity tax at $0.011/kWh βœ“ Supports the rating
Jul 2026CostMateriality: high

The FY2026 budget imposes a consumption tax of $0.011/kWh on all electricity used by Virginia data centers from 1 Jul 2026, including behind-the-meter and self-generated supply, projected at about $600M a year. A structural cost adder in the world's largest market.

Source: Williams Mullen / VA HB30 β†—
Northern Virginia is the world's largest data-center market at ~4 GW, up ~37% in a year β–² Challenges the rating
2025MomentumMateriality: high

Northern Virginia ended 2025 with roughly 4 GW of operating data-center capacity, up about 37% year on year and still the largest such market on earth, about 13% of global operational capacity. Demand keeps choosing the region despite the grid strain, an argument it may merit more than a middling tier, and a live test of whether access can keep pace.

Source: CBRE β†—
DOE emergency order lets PJM curtail data centers as heat pushes demand near the record βœ“ Supports the rating
Jul 2026AvailabilityMateriality: high

A DOE 202(c) order (30 Jun 2026) authorizes PJM to direct curtailment of data centers and other large loads with backup generation as a last resort; the 2 Jul 2026 forecast peak of 166,241 MW approached the 2006 record of 165,563 MW and Pre-Emergency Demand Response was activated.

Source: PJM Inside Lines β†—
FERC orders all six US RTOs to justify or reform large-load tariffs
Jun 2026AccessMateriality: high

Section 206 show-cause orders (18 Jun 2026) preliminarily find each RTO/ISO tariff unjust and unreasonable for large-load integration; 60 days to respond (due 17 Aug 2026), covering study speed, cost allocation, co-location and behind-the-meter generation.

Source: FERC β†—
PJM's reopened, reformed queue draws 220 GW in its first cycle
Apr 2026AccessMateriality: med

811 projects (106 GW gas, 67 GW storage) under the first-ready, first-served reform, which aims to speed connections in the world's largest market.

Source: PJM Inside Lines β†—
PJM capacity auction clears at the price cap with a 6.6 GW reliability shortfall βœ“ Supports the rating
Dec 2025CostMateriality: high

The 2027/28 Base Residual Auction (17 Dec 2025) cleared the whole footprint at the FERC-approved cap of $333.44/MW-day, the first auction where the entire RTO fell short of the reliability requirement; PJM attributes ~5,100 MW of forecast load growth to data centers.

Source: PJM Inside Lines β†—
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.
πŸ”” Get alerts for Northern Virginia (PJM)
Be notified the moment this market's PGIQ Rating, outlook, or a material development changes. Free while we validate demand.

Rating history

Aug 2026
AffirmedTier holds. The 22 Jul event caused no reliability impact and the sites behaved as designed, but the scale doubled versus 2024 and the correlated behaviour of a whole cluster is now a planning input rather than customer behaviour. Taken with the FERC direction to NERC, this confirms rather than changes the Availability call: dense, strained, and increasingly governed by rules written specifically for it. The market remains under review on the separate cost grounds already logged.
Trigger: 3 GW-plus data center load transfer after the Ashburn line fault, 22 Jul 2026; FERC Docket RD26-7, 16 Jul 2026
Jun 2026
Under reviewFERC's preliminary finding that PJM's tariff is unjust for large loads puts co-location and cost-allocation economics directly in play; direction uncertain pending the 60-day response and any rulemaking. Tier held for now, flagged for review.
Trigger: FERC Section 206 show-cause order (18 Jun 2026)
Jul 2026
Under reviewTwo high-materiality negatives in one cycle: capacity cleared at the cap with a first-ever RTO-wide 6.6 GW reliability shortfall (Cost, Availability), and emergency authority to curtail data centers as a class (Availability, with Access read-through). Review continues; direction uncertain until the 2028/29 auction clears, tier could hold or move down one notch.
Trigger: 2027/28 BRA shortfall at cap (17 Dec 2025) plus DOE 202(c) large-load curtailment order (30 Jun 2026); 2028/29 BRA results due 14 Jul 2026
Jul 2026
Under reviewA statewide $0.011/kWh consumption tax stacks on capacity prices at the cap and DOE-ordered curtailment exposure; direction of the Cost pillar is clearly negative, tier impact under assessment.
Trigger: Virginia data-center electricity tax effective 1 Jul 2026
Jul 2026
AffirmedA second consecutive capacity auction at the price cap confirms the structural cost pressure already reflected in the tier. Tier holds.
Trigger: 2028/29 BRA clears at the $325/MW-day cap with a 6.8 GW shortfall, 14 Jul 2026
June 2026
New ratingNew rating: Tier 2 Strong assigned (momentum override).
πŸ”’ The full time series behind Northern Virginia (PJM), 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 Northern Virginia (PJM)'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 Northern Virginia (PJM) →
Demand
65,000 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
290 g/kWh
Structural baseline, June 2026
Derived from the fuel mix. Never directly measured.
Low-carbon share
50%
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
16%
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
145,000 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
3,000 MW
Structural baseline, June 2026
Modelled. No live interchange feed exists.
Exports
1,000 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 Northern Virginia (PJM)?

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 Northern Virginia (PJM)? Browse every market or see conditions across every region.

How does Northern Virginia (PJM) compare to every other market?

This page is our full read on Northern Virginia (PJM) 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 Northern Virginia (PJM) 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 β†’