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

🇺🇸 Pacific Northwest

Strong, with known trade-offs, and access is getting harder Reliability flags found
Tier 2 Strong · Composite 69/100, #7 of 79 markets (fundamentals 75 minus a reliability dock) · Outlook Negative · High confidence · how we score

Cheap, clean hydro and a proven hub. It sits just below the top tier because the BPA connection queue is tightening: the fundamentals are excellent, but the path to actually connect is getting harder.

See live grid data →
One market,
four reads
BuildTier 2Siting ratingSellGrade BOfftakePlanRisingLoad 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 Pacific Northwest →
Demand
14,000 MW
Structural baseline, June 2026
Wholesale price
25/MWh
Structural baseline, June 2026
Carbon intensity
80 g/kWh
Structural baseline, June 2026
Low-carbon share
87%
Structural baseline, June 2026
The same market, read four ways

Pacific Northwest is a moderate market to sell power into

Grade B (Moderate)
Offtake score 67/100
Demand 41, build feasibility 55, 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 130 GW in the interconnection queue (the line to connect to the grid), typical wait 55 months.
Regulatory momentum
Mixed, stable. BPA is federally administered and outside FERC's Section 206 orders; it has paused its long-term queue under a Grid Access Transformation Project and is weighing readiness requirements and a 13 MW large-load threshold. Transmission is available except in data-centre pockets like central Oregon and the Portland metro, where about 18 GW of BPA's 24 GW load request is data centres.
See it on the Offtake Grade →

Pacific Northwest: little room at system level, rising demand pressure

Little room 33/100
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 (Little 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
130 GW requested; about 32.5 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 →

Pacific Northwest is not yet covered for a held exposure

SITING SCREEN ONLY
Pacific Northwest 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 →

Regulatory momentum

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

Why: BPA is federally administered and outside FERC's Section 206 orders; it has paused its long-term queue under a Grid Access Transformation Project and is weighing readiness requirements and a 13 MW large-load threshold. Transmission is available except in data-centre pockets like central Oregon and the Portland metro, where about 18 GW of BPA's 24 GW load request is data centres.

What would change the read: The Grid Access Transformation reform reopening a clear queue with firm connection dates for large loads.

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%55

Access is tightening: the BPA interconnection queue is lengthening as demand surges.

Availability25%83

High availability: abundant, firm hydro across the Northwest.

Cost25%90

Cheap power: among the lowest US wholesale costs.

Momentum15%70

Proven momentum: long-established hyperscale clusters (central Washington, Oregon).

Carbon5%88

Clean grid (~70 g), hydro-led.

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 75 is reduced to 69, a deduction of 6 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

A dayslong cold snap over Martin Luther King weekend in January 2024 brought the region dangerously close to rolling outages.

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

event-based

Historical utility-territory delivery performance: No reliability flags found

Average customer interruption (SAIDI) of 152.68 minutes per year in 2024, excluding major event days as filed.

measured · EIA Form 861, Schedules 3B and 3C (annual electric power industry report) (two major-event methods, IEEE; respondent-defined, customer-weighted blend of 51 of 55 territories, 98% 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. mixed methods: IEEE 96%; respondent-defined 4% of customers. Major event days are excluded throughout; the methods differ only in how those days are identified, a smaller difference than the spread between the utilities themselves. Constituents below carry their own standard. 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
Puget Sound Energy Inc (WA)203.01,240,043IEEE 1366
Portland General Electric Co (OR)133.0942,296IEEE 1366
PacifiCorp (OR)107.57638,000IEEE 1366
Idaho Power Co (ID)164.01621,746IEEE 1366
City of Seattle - (WA) (WA)110.8537,470IEEE 1366
PUD No 1 of Snohomish County (WA)181.4386,741IEEE 1366
Avista Corp (WA)112.0270,134IEEE 1366
PUD No 1 of Clark County - (WA) (WA)59.0233,669IEEE 1366
City of Tacoma - (WA) (WA)80.45179,969IEEE 1366
Avista Corp (ID)165.0145,203IEEE 1366
PacifiCorp (WA)101.99138,254IEEE 1366
City of Eugene - (OR) (OR)65.26102,048IEEE 1366
PacifiCorp (ID)129.4489,035IEEE 1366
PUD No 1 of Benton County (WA)39.556,863IEEE 1366
PUD No 1 of Cowlitz County (WA)125.654,257IEEE 1366
PUD No 1 of Chelan County (WA)95.2351,143IEEE 1366
Inland Power & Light Company (WA)278.048,046IEEE 1366
PUD No 1 of Grays Harbor County (WA)202.045,710IEEE 1366
PUD No 3 of Mason County (WA)269.3436,547own method
PUD No 1 of Lewis County (WA)604.7435,583IEEE 1366
Peninsula Light Company (WA)136.0735,518IEEE 1366
PUD No 1 of Franklin County (WA)55.435,015own method
Kootenai Electric Cooperative (ID)125.0434,499IEEE 1366
PUD No 1 of Clallam County (WA)213.133,769own method
City of Springfield - (OR) (OR)11.6133,147IEEE 1366
City of Idaho Falls - (ID) (ID)72.432,782IEEE 1366
Oregon Trail El Cons Coop, Inc (OR)142.1531,823own method
City of Richland - (WA) (WA)94.027,563IEEE 1366
Consumers Power, Inc (OR)354.123,819IEEE 1366
PUD No 1 of Okanogan County (WA)110.122,175own method
Midstate Electric Coop, Inc (OR)369.021,517own method
PUD No 1 of Jefferson County (WA)424.021,166IEEE 1366
Columbia River Peoples Ut Dist (OR)54.5420,817IEEE 1366
Salem Electric - (OR) (OR)19.6620,556own method
Idaho Power Co (OR)434.7920,146IEEE 1366
Northern Lights, Inc (ID)1219.719,609own method
Umatilla Electric Coop Assn (OR)99.0619,473IEEE 1366
Coos-Curry Electric Coop, Inc (OR)181.318,713IEEE 1366
Fall River Rural Elec Coop Inc (ID)6.7818,225IEEE 1366
Benton Rural Electric Assn (WA)156.0116,453IEEE 1366
Orcas Power & Light Coop (WA)212.515,251IEEE 1366
PUD No 1 of Klickitat County (WA)384.014,254own method
Lane Electric Coop Inc (OR)826.413,468own method
City of Centralia - (WA) (WA)55.6610,745IEEE 1366
Northern Wasco County PUD (OR)34.8410,490IEEE 1366
Big Bend Electric Coop, Inc (WA)191.779,477IEEE 1366
United Electric Co-op, Inc - (ID) (ID)40.337,513IEEE 1366
Columbia Rural Elec Assn, Inc (WA)213.96,507IEEE 1366
Clatskanie Peoples Util Dist (OR)517.864,777IEEE 1366
Salmon River Electric Coop Inc (ID)198.883,056IEEE 1366
Northern Lights, Inc (WA)0.8914own method

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): Tight

The Northwest holds most US hydro capacity, so a dry hydro year combined with an extended cold snap is the region's rolling-blackout risk; BPA has warned of a widening resource gap and took large drought-driven revenue losses.

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 · PNW energy-shortage risk in extreme conditions (Spokesman) · Drought cuts PNW hydropower (EIA)

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-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 (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.
Tightening
Demand pressure
Fast load growth competing for the same capacity.
New supply in motion
About 32.5 GW of the generation and storage queue is likely to reach operation after historical withdrawal.
Can new supply arrive
Regulatory momentum mixed, stable.
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 152.68 minutes of power per year (2024). This is the standard regulator outage measure (SAIDI); lower means a more reliable grid.

Averaged across 51 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) (two major-event methods, IEEE; respondent-defined, customer-weighted blend of 51 of 55 territories, 98% 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

130 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/pacific-northwest 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 (#305). The published band was derived from the Bonneville Power Administration priority-firm rate, which a new large load cannot obtain: federal hydro allocations are largely committed and a new customer would pay a market premium above the federal rate. A tariff the standard archetype cannot purchase may not set a delivered-cost band.

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 delivered-cost band is rebuilt from a source a new 100 MW high-load-factor customer could actually contract, with a stated cost boundary, effective date, method and confidence, reconciled like every other published market. 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: M2local 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) (two major-event methods, IEEE; respondent-defined, customer-weighted blend of 51 of 55 territories, 98% 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 152.68 minutes per year (2024)
  • Historical bulk-system performance (event-based)
  • Forward resource adequacy (assessed)
  • Typical interconnection wait about 55 months (generation and storage queue, not a load wait)

What is open

  • Contractual service terms (would change the answer)
  • Designed site resilience
  • cost evidence (would change the answer)
  • local_capacity evidence

How service and connection are organized

Territories in this market, each with its own filed record: Puget Sound Energy Inc, Portland General Electric Co, PacifiCorp, Idaho Power Co, City of Seattle - (WA), PUD No 1 of Snohomish County, Avista Corp, PUD No 1 of Clark County - (WA). 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

  • BPA interconnection backlog.
  • Hydrological variability.

Outlook drivers

↑ Upgrade triggers

  • BPA expands transmission and clears the queue.
  • Continued hydro-backed clean-power advantage attracts firm tenants.

↓ Downgrade triggers

  • Queue and transmission constraints harden.
  • Dry-year hydro variability.

Key risks

Peer comparison

Trades like
Quebec / Norway (cheap clean hydro)
Ahead
on cost
Behind
ERCOT on access

Evidence behind this rating

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

Seattle enacts a one-year data-centre siting moratorium ✓ Supports the rating
Jun 2026AccessMateriality: low

Seattle City Council passed a one-year moratorium on siting data centres above 20 MVA (Jun 2026) pending a study of grid, land-use and ratepayer impacts.

Source: Seattle City Light ↗
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 Pacific Northwest
Be notified the moment this market's PGIQ Rating, outlook, or a material development changes. Free while we validate demand.

Rating history

Jun 2026
AffirmedSeattle's siting moratorium is consistent with the existing negative outlook; localised, not system-wide. Tier affirmed.
Trigger: Seattle data-centre moratorium (Jun 2026)
June 2026
New ratingNew rating: Tier 2 Strong assigned.
🔒 The full time series behind Pacific Northwest, 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 Pacific Northwest'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 Pacific Northwest →
Demand
14,000 MW
Structural baseline, June 2026
System demand across the market.
Wholesale price
25/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
80 g/kWh
Structural baseline, June 2026
Derived from the fuel mix. Never directly measured.
Low-carbon share
87%
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
79%
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
32,000 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
500 MW
Structural baseline, June 2026
Modelled. No live interchange feed exists.
Exports
2,000 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 Pacific Northwest?

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 Pacific Northwest? Browse every market or see conditions across every region.

How does Pacific Northwest compare to every other market?

This page is our full read on Pacific Northwest 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 Pacific Northwest 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 →