Table 1 Specification and main assumptions of the power trade scenarios examined in this study

Scenario	Trade between Ethiopia and Sudan	Trade between Ethiopia and Egypt	Assumptions
Washington draft proposal	100 MW	No trade	• GERD is assumed to target 1,600 MW and generate at full capacity (that is, 5,150 MW) only if reservoir storage reaches 72 bcm (that is, 97% of storage capacity). GERD generation is adjusted based on energy supply–demand balance. • A minimum daily environmental flow of 43 million m³ downstream is maintained when physically possible. • Ethiopia prioritizes power export to Sudan and Egypt over Kenya, Djibouti and Tanzania. GERD water releases follow the drought mitigation measures specified in the Washington draft proposal.
Low trade	200 MW	100 MW	• GERD is assumed to target 1,600 MW and generate at full capacity (that is, 5,150 MW) only if reservoir storage reaches 72 bcm (that is, 97% of capacity). GERD generation is adjusted based on energy supply–demand balance. • A minimum daily environmental flow of 43 million m³ downstream is always maintained when physically possible. • Ethiopia prioritizes power exports to Sudan and Egypt over Kenya, Djibouti and Tanzania.
Medium–low trade	300 MW	200 MW
Medium–high trade	400 MW	300 MW
High trade	500 MW	400 MW

In all scenarios we assume the following based on published feasibility studies^29,30,31. (1) Ethiopia supplies 400 MW to Kenya, 300 MW to Djibouti and 300 MW to Tanzania. (2) There is no change to existing and planned power trade and transmission interconnection between either countries in the northern portion of the EAPP (Egypt, Libya and Sudan) or those in the southern portion (Kenya, Tanzania, Uganda, DRC, Burundi and Rwanda). The transmission line between Sudan and Egypt is assumed to be upgraded from the existing capacity, to comply with Ethiopia’s assumed power trade agreement. Further details are provided in Methods.

Quick links

Search