← computeheatrate.com SUBSCRIBE ON SUBSTACK →
CHR Index · Quarterly Reference Values

CHR Reference Values, Q2 2026

The maximum electricity price each AI workload tier can profitably sustain, derived from GPU-level economics using exclusively public data.

Hans Royal

Contact: LinkedIn

Published: June 2026

Methodology: Royal, H. (2026), SSRN Abstract ID 6322318

Previous quarter: Q1 2026

Next update: Q3 2026 (September)


~$8,000/MWh
Blended CHR (Revenue-Weighted Average)
Approximately 160x the gas heat rate benchmark (~$50/MWh)
↑ +27% from Q1 2026 ($6,350)
~$50
Gas Heat Rate
Traditional supply-side benchmark for U.S. wholesale markets.
~$8,000
Blended CHR (Q2)
Revenue-weighted demand-side tolerance ceiling for AI workloads.
$6,350
Blended CHR (Q1)
Previous quarter. Increase driven by frontier, mid-tier, and enterprise contracted API pricing shifts.

What Changed This Quarter


The Q2 blended CHR increased approximately 27% quarter-over-quarter, driven by five developments: (1) significant upward movement in frontier API pricing, particularly OpenAI's launch of GPT-5.5 at $5/$30 per million tokens (output pricing tripled versus GPT-5); (2) mid-tier API pricing firming as GPT-5.4 replaced GPT-5 as the production workhorse at $2.50/$15, a +32% increase in blended token pricing; (3) the agentic AI tier solidifying with Anthropic's launch of Managed Agents and Claude Code reaching $2.5B in annualized revenue; (4) the commodity inference tier achieving positive standalone CHR for the first time, as GPT-5.4 Nano displaced legacy mini models at higher price points; and (5) enterprise contracted catching up to mid-tier repricing with a +36% CHR increase as Q1 contract renewals incorporated higher base rates. The training tier was unchanged.

The direction is unambiguous: the compute market is moving toward higher-value, higher-price-tolerance workloads faster than the supply side can respond. The frontier ceiling is rising, the mid-tier is thickening, and the agentic tier is emerging as the largest single category of deployed commercial inference.

CHR by Workload Type


Workload TierR(w) $/MWhCne $/MWhCHR $/MWhvs. Q1
Frontier Inference (Opus 4.7/GPT-5.5)$83,250$4,250$60,770↑ 13.3%
Mid-Tier Inference (Sonnet 4.6/GPT-5.4)$19,500$4,250$11,730↑ 44.5%
Enterprise Agentic AI$16,500$4,500$9,230↑ 14.2%
Enterprise Contracted$6,500$4,250$1,730↑ 36.3%
Commodity Inference (mini/nano)*$5,700$3,800$1,465↑ 83%
Frontier Model Training*$2,000$5,200~$500†Flat
Blended Average (Q2 2026)~$14,800$4,350~$8,000↑ 27%

Gas heat rate benchmark: ~$50/MWh. *Non-electricity costs differentiated by infrastructure tier. †Standalone CHR is negative; effective CHR reflects portfolio-level cross-subsidization (see Royal, 2026). Commodity inference achieves positive standalone CHR for the first time in Q2, reflecting the upward shift in budget model pricing. 30% required margin applied. Q2 R(w) values derived from first-principles re-calculation using May 2026 API pricing. Model references updated to current flagship tiers (Opus 4.7, GPT-5.5, Gemini 3.1 Pro).

Methodology: Blended CHR Weighting


The blended CHR is a consumption-weighted average across six workload tiers, where weights reflect each tier's estimated share of deployed commercial inference electricity consumption. The scope is "deployed commercial inference environment": facilities actively serving customer workloads. Training clusters, internal research, and pre-deployment testing are excluded from the primary weighting but represented in the training tier at a small allocation.

CHRblended = Σ wi · CHRi
Revenue-weighted blend across workload tiers. Weights sum to 1.0.
Workload TierWeightBasis
Frontier Inference1%Small share of total deployed MWh; highest-capability models used selectively
Mid-Tier Inference30%Workhorse production models (Sonnet, GPT-5.4, Gemini Pro) serving high-volume API traffic
Enterprise Agentic AI37%Multi-step agentic workflows, coding agents, orchestrated tool-use sessions
Enterprise Contracted29%Fixed-price enterprise deployments, private model hosting, dedicated inference
Commodity Inference1.5%Budget models (Haiku, Nano, Flash-Lite); high query count, minimal per-query MWh
Frontier Training1.5%Active training runs as share of total deployed compute at any given time

Weights derived from hyperscaler earnings disclosures, published API traffic estimates, and industry surveys (McKinsey, Goldman Sachs, IEA). Q2 2026 uses Q1 weights for time-series comparability. Formal weight review scheduled for Q4 2026; any revision will be disclosed one quarter in advance. Sensitivity: shifting 3pp from Enterprise Contracted to Enterprise Agentic AI moves the blended CHR by approximately +$250/MWh.

The robustness of the blend is notable: computing the blended CHR using only the four tiers with positive standalone values yields a result within 2% of the full six-tier blend, because the high-revenue workloads dominate the revenue-weighted average regardless of how the low-revenue tiers are weighted.

Empirical Validation


CHR Repricing Is Measurable in Market Data

The core regression in Royal (2026) decomposes LMP at each settlement point into component drivers (natural gas prices, renewables, weather, and a data center load proxy), estimated using OLS with heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors clustered at the settlement point level. The coefficient on the data center load proxy represents the marginal price impact ($/MWh per GW of weighted data center capacity) attributable to data center demand concentration.

PJM’s Base Residual Auction results for three consecutive delivery years provide independent corroboration: the 2025/2026 auction cleared at $269.92/MW-day (roughly 10x the prior year), the 2026/2027 auction at $329.17/MW-day (hitting the FERC-approved cap), and the 2027/2028 auction again at the cap of $333.44/MW-day. Three consecutive record-high capacity auctions, driven by a single demand class, represent a market signal consistent with the structural repricing thesis.

Full specification and results are in the SSRN working paper (Royal, 2026; revised June 4, 2026).

Citations & Published References


PJM Interconnection (May 6, 2026)
PJM published “Powering Reliability Through Market Design,” a 70-page white paper signed by CEO David Mills. On pages 49–50, PJM cited Hans Royal and the Compute Heat Rate by name, using the workload tier decomposition to frame proposed ORDC reform at $1,000–1,900/MWh. Three proposed reform paths depend on CHR as the demand-side framework. (PDF)
RTO Insider (April 14, 2026)
Peter Kelly-Detwiler published “A New Metric Related to Data Centers and Electricity That May Matter” in RTO Insider, the first major trade publication coverage of the CHR framework. Kelly-Detwiler contextualized CHR against ERCOT’s 319 GW demand forecast and EPRI’s Flex Mosaic demand response framework, noting that the metric captures the price at which data centers would choose not to consume power. (RTO Insider | Author’s site)
Oxford / Electricity Market Design (June 2, 2026)
Farhad Billimoria (Oxford, Aurora Energy Research; 291 Google Scholar citations) cited CHR in “Demand-side hedging and market participation: looking back, looking forward” (The Power Game, Substack), placing it alongside Schweppe, Oren, Chao & Wilson, and Kiesling in the demand-side market design literature. Billimoria noted that CHR establishes demand-side willingness to pay exceeding existing price caps by an order of magnitude, requiring “a potentially new paradigm.” (Link)
Quinbrook Infrastructure Partners (June 4, 2026)
Scott Burns, SVP of Commercial and Product at Quintrace (Quinbrook’s energy tracing platform), cited CHR by name in a published LinkedIn analysis of behind-the-meter economics, identifying it as “the most defensible answer” to the question of how much speed-to-power is worth. Burns connected the framework to capital deployment decisions around BTM gas generation and U.S. gas price convergence toward global levels. (LinkedIn)
Energy.Media Podcast (May 21, 2026)
Peter Perri III published a dedicated podcast episode and accompanying newsletter: “Hans Royal Just Broke the Forward Curves on the Podcast.” Full-length interview covering CHR methodology, workload tier decomposition, and forward curve implications. (YouTube | Spotify | Newsletter)

Market Event Log


Significant market developments since Q1 2026, analyzed through the CHR framework:

NV Energy / Lake Tahoe (Nevada/California)
NV Energy (Berkshire Hathaway) cutting off 75% of Liberty Utilities' power supply to redirect capacity to AI data centers. 49,000 Lake Tahoe residents have less than one year to find replacement power. Data centers used 22% of Nevada electricity in 2024; projected 35% by 2030. First community explicitly displaced by CHR economics.
Entergy / Meta (Louisiana)
$57B capex plan (33% increase in one quarter). 5.2 GW of new natural gas generation for a single customer. MISO South emerging as a significant new hub.
NIPSCO / Amazon (Indiana)
GenCo subsidiary created for dedicated data center generation. $77/month residential bill increase. 16 GW pipeline (17x current capacity).
AEP Ohio
12.2 GW of off-tariff data center load, exceeding AEP Ohio's entire existing load base. 2 GW behind-the-meter not deducted from demand forecast.
ERCOT Demand Projections
368 GW statewide demand projected by 2032 (4x current peak of 85.5 GW), with 228 GW of non-crypto data center load. Even after filtering for paper megawatts, surviving projects are the highest-CHR load: the queue's own attrition concentrates demand toward the most price-inelastic operators.

The Formula


CHRw = (Rw − Cnon-elec) / (1 + m)
The Compute Heat Rate for workload type w. m = 0.30 (required return margin).

Where Rw is the revenue per MWh of compute for workload type w, Cnon-elec is the non-electricity operating cost (cooling, networking, real estate, labor, amortized hardware), and m is the required return margin (30%), applied as a markup on electricity cost. All inputs derived from public data. Full derivation including the GPU throughput-to-MWh conversion chain is documented in Royal (2026), SSRN Abstract ID 6322318.

Data Sources


GPU specifications and benchmarks: NVIDIA documentation (H100, B200, GB200); MLPerf inference benchmarks.
API pricing (Q2 2026): Anthropic (Opus 4.7: $5/$25; Sonnet 4.6: $3/$15 per million tokens), OpenAI (GPT-5.5: $5/$30; GPT-5.4: $2.50/$15), Google (Gemini 3.1 Pro: $2/$12; Gemini 2.5 Pro: $1.25/$10). Verified May 2026.
Cloud compute rates: AWS, Google Cloud, Azure published on-demand GPU instance pricing.
Infrastructure costs: Cushman & Wakefield, JLL data center market reports; hyperscaler SEC filings.
Energy data: EIA (Henry Hub natural gas spot prices, wholesale electricity data).
Regression data: PJM LMP data (public), ERCOT settlement point prices (public), EIA-930, interconnection queue filings.

All inputs are exclusively public data. No proprietary or confidential data sources are used in the CHR calculation.

Suggested Citation


When referencing CHR values from this publication:

Royal, H. (2026). "CHR Reference Values, Q2 2026." Published at computeheatrate.com, June 2026.

Underlying methodology:

Royal, Hans, The Compute Heat Rate: Quantifying AI-Driven Electricity Price Tolerance and Its Implications for Wholesale Market Repricing (February 28, 2026). Available at SSRN: http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.6322318

Methodology Note


The Compute Heat Rate (CHR) is independent research by Hans Royal. The full methodology, including the four-link R(w) derivation chain, non-electricity cost decomposition, worked examples, and sensitivity analysis, is available at computeheatrate.com and in Royal (2026), SSRN (Abstract ID 6322318, revised June 4, 2026).

CHR values are updated quarterly as underlying data changes (GPU specifications, API pricing, cloud compute rates, facility cost benchmarks). Workload weights are held constant for time-series comparability; formal weight review is scheduled semi-annually, with any revision disclosed one quarter in advance. Material intra-quarter changes may trigger interim updates.

The CHR does not constitute investment advice, a price forecast, or a recommendation. It is an analytical framework measuring demand-side electricity price tolerance.

CHR Reference Values, Q1 2026

The maximum electricity price each AI workload tier can profitably sustain, derived from GPU-level economics using exclusively public data.

Hans Royal

Contact: LinkedIn

Published: March 2026

Methodology: Royal, H. (2026), SSRN Abstract ID 6322318

Next quarter: Q2 2026


$6,350/MWh
Blended CHR (Revenue-Weighted Average)
Approximately 127x the gas heat rate benchmark (~$50/MWh)
~$50
Gas Heat Rate ($/MWh)
Traditional supply-side price-setting benchmark for U.S. wholesale electricity markets.
$6,350
Blended CHR ($/MWh)
Demand-side tolerance ceiling for AI data center workloads. The price at which the marginal AI operator curtails.

The Formula


CHRw = (Rw − Cnon-elec) / (1 + m)
The Compute Heat Rate for workload type w. m = 0.30 (required return margin).

Where Rw is the revenue per MWh of compute for workload type w, Cnon-elec is the non-electricity operating cost (cooling, networking, real estate, labor, amortized hardware), and m is the required return margin (30%), applied as a markup on electricity cost.

CHR by Workload Type


Workload TierR(w) $/MWhCnon-elec $/MWhCHR $/MWh
Frontier Inference (Opus/GPT-5 class)$74,000$4,250$53,650
Mid-Tier Inference (Sonnet/GPT-4.1 class)$14,800$4,250$8,120
Enterprise Agentic AI$15,000$4,500$8,080
Enterprise Contracted$5,900$4,250$1,270
Commodity Inference (mini models)*$1,850$3,800~$800†
Frontier Model Training*$2,000$5,200~$500†
Blended Average (Q1 2026)$12,500$4,350$6,350

Gas heat rate benchmark: ~$50/MWh. *Non-electricity costs differentiated by infrastructure tier: commodity inference uses lower-cost air-cooled facilities ($3,800/MWh); frontier training requires liquid cooling, high-bandwidth networking, and denser power delivery ($5,200/MWh). †Standalone CHR is negative; effective CHR reflects portfolio-level cross-subsidization by hyperscale operators (see Royal, 2026 for discussion). 30% required margin applied to all tiers.

Why It Matters


The gas heat rate has governed wholesale electricity price formation for decades: fuel cost divided by thermal efficiency yields the marginal generation cost. The Compute Heat Rate introduces the demand-side analogue: economic value of compute divided by electricity consumption yields the maximum price the operator can rationally pay.

Even the lowest positive-margin workload tier (enterprise contracted, CHR ~$1,270/MWh) implies a price tolerance approximately 25 times the gas heat rate. For the four workload tiers with positive standalone CHR values, AI demand will not curtail at any price level currently observed in U.S. wholesale markets, including extreme scarcity events.

As AI data center load grows from ~4% to 15-25% of regional peak demand at major hubs, this price-inelastic demand class becomes the marginal price-setter in an increasing number of hours. The CHR quantifies the ceiling toward which prices converge. No existing forward curve model incorporates this variable.

Data Sources


GPU specifications and benchmarks: NVIDIA documentation (H100, B200); MLPerf inference benchmarks.
API pricing: Anthropic (Claude Opus 4.5: $5/$25 per million tokens), OpenAI (GPT-5 class: $1.25/$10), Google (Gemini 2.5 Pro: $1.25/$10). Published pricing as of Q1 2026.
Cloud compute rates: AWS, Google Cloud, Azure published on-demand GPU instance pricing.
Infrastructure costs: Cushman & Wakefield, JLL data center market reports; hyperscaler SEC filings (Meta 10-K, Microsoft 10-K, Alphabet 10-K).
Energy data: EIA (Henry Hub natural gas spot prices, wholesale electricity data).

All inputs are exclusively public data. No proprietary or confidential data sources are used in the CHR calculation.

Suggested Citation


When referencing CHR values from this publication:

Royal, H. (2026). "CHR Reference Values, Q1 2026." Published at computeheatrate.com, March 2026.

Underlying methodology:

Royal, Hans, The Compute Heat Rate: Quantifying AI-Driven Electricity Price Tolerance and Its Implications for Wholesale Market Repricing (February 28, 2026). Available at SSRN: http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.6322318

Methodology Note


The Compute Heat Rate (CHR) is independent research by Hans Royal. The full methodology, including workload taxonomy, input derivation, sensitivity analysis, and market implications, is published in Royal (2026), available on SSRN (Abstract ID 6322318).

CHR values are updated quarterly as underlying data changes (GPU specifications, API pricing, cloud compute rates, facility cost benchmarks). Material intra-quarter changes (e.g., significant API price shifts or new GPU releases) may trigger interim updates.

The CHR does not constitute investment advice, a price forecast, or a recommendation. It is an analytical framework measuring demand-side electricity price tolerance.