DC
/

Compare PJM vs ERCOT vs MISO

Side-by-side capacity, pipeline, the announced-vs-documented gap, time to power and evidence coverage. MW figures are floors: they sum only facilities that disclose a figure, so a low number with low coverage means “not collected”, not “small”. Data as of Oct 12, 2026.

Comparison of PJM, ERCOT, MISO
MetricPJMERCOTMISO
Facilities tracked763176153
Power online (floor)
Operating sites with a figure; evidence mix below
8.53 GW
EstimatedModeled, measured from satellite imagery, inferred from community mapping, or computed by this site. Not a disclosed figure.100%
1.82 GW
AnnouncedStated by the company or reported in the press; not yet backed by a filing or grid record.11%EstimatedModeled, measured from satellite imagery, inferred from community mapping, or computed by this site. Not a disclosed figure.89%
2.05 GW
EstimatedModeled, measured from satellite imagery, inferred from community mapping, or computed by this site. Not a disclosed figure.100%
Pipeline (floor)
Planned MW at sites under construction or planned
3.7 GW5.85 GW13.09 GW
Announced
Largest MW reported by a company, utility, government or press source
14.51 GW10.16 GW18.23 GW
Documented
Per site: grid-backed MW, or operational + under-construction MW
15.09 GW6.41 GW12.92 GW
Announced, no grid/construction/operating record
Sites announced ≥ 100 MW with nothing documented yet
5.4 GW3.36 GW2.05 GW
Pending MW: < 1 year
Announced minus operational, by time-to-power bucket
2.03 GW3.69 GW1.9 GW
Pending MW: 1–2 years
Announced minus operational, by time-to-power bucket
2.42 GW3.01 GW10.49 GW
Pending MW: 2–4 years
Announced minus operational, by time-to-power bucket
5.47 GW2.16 GW4.75 GW
Pending MW: 4+ years
Announced minus operational, by time-to-power bucket
———
Pending MW: Insufficient evidence
Announced minus operational, by time-to-power bucket
———
Facilities with a power figure17% (132)12% (21)15% (23)
Facilities with confirmed evidence63% (484)8% (14)7% (10)