1

ATTACHMENT 1 TO DECLARATION OF SAM NAPOLITANO

Clean Air Interstate Rule, Acid Rain Program, and Former NOx Budget 

Trading Program 2010 Progress Report
Clean Air Interstate Rule, Acid Rain Program, and Former NOx Budget Trading Program 2010 Progress Report | Progress Reports | Clean Air Markets | Air & Radiation | US EPA

http://www.epa.gov/airmarkets/progress/ARPCAIR10_01.html[10/6/2011 11:36:32 AM]

You are here: EPA Home Air & Radiation Clean Air Markets Progress Reports Clean Air Interstate Rule, Acid Rain Program, and Former NOx Budget

Trading Program 2010 Progress Report SO2 and NOx Emissions, Compliance, and Market Analyses Report

Clean Air Markets

Recent Additions | Contact Us Search: All EPA This Area

Some of the files that

constitute this report are

provided in Excel spreadsheet

format. Open it with your

installed version of Excel or

download a free copy of the

Microsoft Excel viewer.

Download Graphics and

Source Data

Clean Air Interstate Rule, Acid Rain Program, and Former NOx

Budget Trading Program 2010 Progress Report

SO2 and NOx Emissions, Compliance, and Market Analyses

Report

CAIR Litigation and the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule | CAIR, ARP, and NBP Affected States and Units |

Emission Reductions | CAIR and ARP Program Compliance | Controls and Monitoring | Market Activity

The Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) and the Acid Rain Program (ARP) are both cap and trade programs

designed to reduce emissions of sulfur dioxide (SO2) and nitrogen oxides (NOx) from power plants. On July

6, 2011, EPA finalized the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR), which will replace CAIR starting in 2012.

The CSAPR will require 27 states in the eastern half of the U.S. to improve significantly air quality by

reducing power plant emissions of SO2 and NOx that cross state lines and contribute to smog (ground-level

ozone) and soot (fine particle pollution) in other states. The first phase of compliance begins January 1,

2012 for SO2 and annual NOx reductions and May 1, 2012 for ozone season NOx reductions. Additional SO2

reductions are required by sixteen Group 1 states in 2014 to eliminate their contribution to downwind air

quality problems.

CAIR, which will be implemented through 2011, also addresses regional interstate transport of ozone and

fine particle (PM2.5) pollution. CAIR requires certain eastern states to limit annual emissions of NOx and SO2, which contribute to the

formation of ozone and PM2.5. It also requires certain states to limit ozone season NOx emissions, which contribute to the formation of

smog during the summer ozone season (May to September). CAIR includes three separate cap and trade programs to achieve the required

reductions: the CAIR NOx ozone season trading program, the CAIR NOx annual trading program, and the CAIR SO2 annual trading

program. The CAIR NOx ozone season and annual programs began in 2009, while the CAIR SO2 annual program began in 2010. All three

programs will be implemented through the 2011 compliance periods. The CSAPR will replace CAIR starting in 2012. The reduction in ozone

and PM2.5 formation resulting from implementation of CAIR provides health benefits as well as improved visibility in national parks and

improvements in freshwater aquatic ecosystems in the eastern U.S.

The ARP, established under Title IV of the 1990 Clean Air Act (CAA) Amendments, requires major emission reductions of SO2 and NOx, the

primary precursors of acid rain, from the power sector. The SO2 program sets a permanent cap on the total amount of SO2 that may be

emitted by electric generating units (EGUs) in the contiguous United States. The program is phased in, with the final 2010 SO2 cap set at

8.95 million tons, a level of about one-half of the emissions from the power sector in 1980. NOx reductions under the ARP are achieved

through a program that applies to a subset of coal-fired EGUs and is closer to a traditional, rate-based regulatory system. Since the

program began in 1995, the ARP has achieved significant emission reductions.

The NOx Budget Trading Program (NBP) operated from 2003 to 2008. The NBP was a cap and trade

program that required NOx emission reductions from power plants and industrial units in the eastern U.S.

during the summer months.

Figure 1 contains important milestones for CAIR, ARP, CSAPR, and the former NBP.

Figure 1: History of CAIR, ARP, CSAPR, and Former NBP

Source: EPA, 2011

For the first time, EPA is combining emissions and compliance data for both CAIR and the ARP into one report to more holistically show

Air & Radiation

Home

Clean Air Markets

Home

Basic Information

Where You Live

About Acid Rain

Doing Business

With Us

Programs and

Regulations

Progress and

Results

Cap and Trade

Allowance Trading

Emissions

Monitoring

Data and Maps

Environmental

Issues

Resource Center

Meetings and

Workshops

Related Links

Share
Clean Air Interstate Rule, Acid Rain Program, and Former NOx Budget Trading Program 2010 Progress Report | Progress Reports | Clean Air Markets | Air & Radiation | US EPA

http://www.epa.gov/airmarkets/progress/ARPCAIR10_01.html[10/6/2011 11:36:32 AM]

reductions in power sector emissions of SO2 and NOx and the collective effect of these regional programs on human health and the

environment. Over the next several months, EPA will release a series of reports summarizing progress in 2010 under both CAIR and the

ARP. This first report presents 2010 data on combined emission reductions and compliance results for CAIR and the ARP. This report also

presents some historic NBP emissions data and evaluates shared progress under these programs in 2010 by analyzing emission reductions

and market activity. A forthcoming report will compare changes in emissions to changes in a variety of human health and environmental

indicators. For more information on the CSAPR, please visit the CSAPR website. For more information on CAIR, please visit the CAIR

website. For more information on the ARP, please visit the ARP website. For more information on the NBP, please visit the NOx Budget

Trading Program/NOx SIP Call website.

Top of page

CAIR Litigation and the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule

CAIR was finalized in 2005. However, in July 2008, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit granted several petitions for review of

CAIR, finding significant flaws in the rule. Subsequently, in December 2008, the court issued a ruling to keep CAIR and the CAIR Federal

Implementation Plans (FIPs) — including the CAIR trading programs — in place temporarily until EPA issues new rules to replace the CAIR

and the CAIR FIPs.

On July 6, 2011, EPA finalized the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) to replace CAIR. This rule responds to the court’s concerns and

fulfills the “good neighbor” provision of the Clean Air Act by addressing the problem of air pollution that is transported across state

boundaries.

In a separate but related regulatory action, EPA also issued a supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (SNPR) to require six states —

Iowa, Kansas, Michigan, Missouri, Oklahoma, and Wisconsin — to make summertime NOx reductions under the CSAPR ozone-season

control program. Finalizing this supplemental proposal would bring the total number of covered states under the CSAPR to 28.

Visit the CSAPR website for more information.

Top of page

CAIR, ARP, and NBP Affected States and Units

Affected States

The ARP is a nationwide program affecting large fossil fuel-fired power plants across the country. CAIR covers 27 eastern states and the

District of Columbia (D.C.) and requires reductions in annual emissions of SO2 and NOx from 24 states and D.C. (to achieve improvements

in fine particle pollution in downwind areas) and emission reductions of NOx during the ozone season from 25 states and D.C. (to achieve

improvements in ozone pollution in downwind areas). The former NBP affected 20 eastern states and D.C. State coverage for CAIR, ARP,

and NBP is shown in Figure 2.

Figure 2: CAIR, ARP, and NBP States

Note: In November 2009, EPA finalized a rule staying the requirements of CAIR for Minnesota. Minnesota is therefore not currently included in the CAIR annual

SO2 and NOx programs.

Source: EPA, 2011

Affected Units

The CAIR SO2 and NOx annual programs generally apply to large EGUs — boilers, turbines, and combined cycle units that primarily burn
Clean Air Interstate Rule, Acid Rain Program, and Former NOx Budget Trading Program 2010 Progress Report | Progress Reports | Clean Air Markets | Air & Radiation | US EPA

http://www.epa.gov/airmarkets/progress/ARPCAIR10_01.html[10/6/2011 11:36:32 AM]

fossil fuels to generate electricity for sale. The CAIR NOx ozone season program includes EGUs as well as, in some states, large industrial

units that produce electricity or steam primarily for internal use and that have been carried over from the NBP. Examples of these units are

boilers and turbines at heavy manufacturing facilities, such as paper mills, petroleum refineries, and iron and steel production facilities.

These units also include steam plants at institutional settings, such as large universities or hospitals.

In 2010, there were 3,349 affected EGUs at 955 facilities in the CAIR SO2 and NOx annual programs and 3,309 EGUs and industrial facility

units at 953 facilities in the CAIR NOx ozone season program (see Table 1, below). The variation in the number of units covered under the

programs is due to the difference in states that are included in each program (see Figure 2, above). The CAIR programs cover a range of

unit types, including units that operate year round to provide baseload power to the electric grid as well as units that provide power on

peak demand days only and may not operate at all during some years.

The SO2 requirements under the ARP apply to the 3,613 large (greater than 25 megawatts) fossil fuel-fired combustion units that serve a

generator that provides electricity for sale at 1,241 facilities across the country. The vast majority of ARP SO2 emissions result from coalfired EGUs, although the program also applies to oil and gas units. Of the 3,349 units in the CAIR SO2 program, 2,626 (78 percent) were

also covered by the ARP in 2010. The other units are largely fossil fuel generation units that entered SO2 control under the broader

applicability requirements of CAIR.

The ARP also requires NOx emission reductions for older, large coal-fired EGUs by limiting their NOx emission rate (expressed in

lb/mmBtu). The goal of the NOx program is to limit NOx emission levels from the affected coal-fired boilers so that their emissions are at

least two million tons less than the projected level for the year 2000 without implementation of Title IV. In 2010, 956 units at 379 facilities

were subject to the ARP NOx program.

Table 1: Affected Units in CAIR and ARP, 2010

Fuel ARP SO2 Program ARP NOx Program CAIR NOx Ozone 

Season Program

CAIR NOx and SO2

Annual Programs

Coal EGUs 1,055 944 875 922

Gas EGUs 2,333 10 1,657 1,945

Oil EGUs 200 0 555 463

Industrial Units 0 0 203 0

Unclassified EGUs 9 0 1 4

Other Fuel EGUs 16 2 18 15

Total Units 3,613 956 3,309 3,349

Notes:

“Unclassified” units have not submitted a fuel type in their monitoring plan and did not report emissions.

“Other” fuel refers to units that burn waste, wood, petroleum coke, tire-derived fuel, etc.

Source: EPA, 2011

Top of page

Emission Reductions

Milestone Years for Measuring Progress under CAIR and ARP

1980: The Clean Air Act specified that annual SO2 emissions be cut to 10 million tons below the

1980 level

1990: Baseline emission levels for the ARP

1995: First year of the ARP (Phase 1)

2000: Phase 2 of the ARP

2005: Baseline emission levels for CAIR

2008: “Training year” for CAIR NOx monitoring. Units participating in the two CAIR NOx trading

programs were required to monitor and report their emissions, but were not required to hold

allowances for compliance

2009: First year of CAIR NOx annual and CAIR NOx ozone season programs (Phase 1). “Training

year” for CAIR SO2 monitoring

2010: First year of CAIR SO2 annual program (Phase 1)

Overall Trends

Table 2, below, shows a large reduction in annual SO2 and NOx emissions from CAIR and ARP sources between 2005 and 2010. Tons of

SO2 emitted fell 49 percent from the 2005 level, and annual NOx emissions dropped 42 percent. During this same period, ozone season

NOx emissions from CAIR sources alone decreased by approximately 27 percent. These reductions occurred while electricity demand

(measured as heat input) remained relatively stable, indicating that the reduction in emissions was not driven by decreased electric

generation. Instead, there was a significant drop in emission rate for sources in all three programs: 49 percent for SO2 sources, 42 percent

for annual NOx sources, and 25 percent for ozone season NOx sources. A drop in emission rate represents an overall increase in the

environmental efficiency of these sources as power generators installed controls, ran their NOx controls year round, switched to different

fuels, or otherwise cut their SO2 and NOx emissions while meeting relatively steady demand for power. Most of the reductions since 2005

are from early reduction incentives and stricter emission limits under CAIR.

Between 2009 and 2010, CAIR and ARP sources continued to reduce their SO2 emissions and emission rate. These reductions occurred

despite an 8 percent increase in demand for electricity. Annual NOx emissions from CAIR and ARP sources, however, rose slightly (4

percent) and in line with a similar increase in heat input (6 percent) during this time. Finally, CAIR sources’ ozone season NO emissions
Clean Air Interstate Rule, Acid Rain Program, and Former NOx Budget Trading Program 2010 Progress Report | Progress Reports | Clean Air Markets | Air & Radiation | US EPA

http://www.epa.gov/airmarkets/progress/ARPCAIR10_01.html[10/6/2011 11:36:32 AM]

x

increased considerably (20 percent) as demand for electricity at these facilities rose substantially (more than 16 percent). Despite these

increases in NOx emissions as sources ran their controls less often, facilities were still below both the CAIR NOx ozone season and CAIR

NOx annual budgets for the year.

Visit EPA’s Quarterly Emissions Tracking site for the most up-to-date emissions and control data for sources in the ARP.

Table 2: Comparison of Emissions, Emission Rates, and Heat Input for CAIR, ARP, and NBP Sources, 2000–

2010

CAIR and ARP Annual SO2 Trends

SO2 Emissions (thousand tons) SO2 Rate (lb/mmBtu) Heat Input (billion mmBtu)

Primary Fuel 2000 2005 2008 2009 2010 2000 2005 2008 2009 2010 2000 2005 2008 2009 2010

Coal 10,707 9,835 7,514 5,653 5,089 1.04 0.95 0.74 0.63 0.53 20.67 20.77 20.25 18.02 19.29

Gas 28 36 10 6 7 0.02 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.71 5.35 6.22 6.50 7.19

Oil 464 347 83 54 44 0.76 0.71 0.35 0.29 0.21 1.22 0.98 0.47 0.37 0.41

Other 1 4 9 8 26 0.23 0.27 0.28 0.27 0.53 0.01 0.03 0.06 0.06 0.10

Total 11,201 10,223 7,616 5,722 5,166 0.88 0.75 0.56 0.46 0.38 25.61 27.13 27.00 24.95 26.99

CAIR and ARP Annual NOx Trends

NOx Emissions (thousand tons) NOx Rate (lb/mmBtu) Heat Input (billion mmBtu)

Primary Fuel 2000 2005 2008 2009 2010 2000 2005 2008 2009 2010 2000 2005 2008 2009 2010

Coal 4,586 3,356 2,816 1,847 1,922 0.44 0.32 0.28 0.20 0.20 20.67 20.77 20.25 18.27 19.29

Gas 321 142 130 133 139 0.17 0.05 0.04 0.04 0.04 3.71 5.35 6.22 6.71 7.19

Oil 195 129 46 34 34 0.32 0.26 0.19 0.18 0.17 1.22 0.98 0.47 0.38 0.41

Other 2 6 5 5 7 0.26 0.42 0.16 0.12 0.13 0.01 0.03 0.06 0.09 0.10

Total 5,104 3,633 2,996 2,020 2,102 0.40 0.27 0.22 0.16 0.16 25.61 27.13 27.00 25.45 26.99

NBP Ozone Season NOx Trends

NOx Emissions (thousand tons) NOx Rate (lb/mmBtu) Heat Input (billion mmBtu)

Primary Fuel 2000 2005 2008 2000 2005 2008 2000 2005 2008

Coal 1,111 494 456 0.46 0.19 0.19 4.85 5.10 4.93

Gas 15 23 17 0.08 0.05 0.04 0.37 0.85 0.85

Oil 34 32 9 0.21 0.21 0.14 0.32 0.31 0.13

Other 0 0 0 0.74 0.50 0.13 0.00 0.00 0.01

Total 1,160 549 482 0.42 0.18 0.16 5.54 6.27 5.91

CAIR Ozone Season NOx Trends

NOx Emissions (thousand tons) NOx Rate (lb/mmBtu) Heat Input (billion mmBtu)

Primary Fuel 2000 2005 2008 2009 2010 2000 2005 2008 2009 2010 2000 2005 2008 2009 2010

Coal 1,398 695 625 442 527 0.45 0.22 0.20 0.17 0.18 6.19 6.31 6.14 5.21 5.85

Gas 62 43 34 33 42 0.15 0.06 0.05 0.04 0.04 0.84 1.47 1.40 1.53 1.96

Oil 83 72 28 19 22 0.29 0.27 0.20 0.18 0.16 0.57 0.53 0.28 0.21 0.27

Other 1 2 2 2 2 0.15 0.17 0.14 0.14 0.12 0.02 0.02 0.03 0.02 0.04

Total 1,545 812 689 495 594 0.41 0.20 0.18 0.14 0.15 7.62 8.33 7.85 6.97 8.12

Notes:

The data shown here for the annual programs and the NBP reflect totals for those facilities required to comply with each program in each respective year. This

means that CAIR NOx annual program facilities are not included in the annual NOx data for 2005 or 2008, and CAIR SO2 annual program facilities are not

included in the annual SO2 data for 2005, 2008, or 2009.

The CAIR NOx ozone season table includes emissions and heat input data for 2005 that were reported under other programs. For facilities that were not

covered by another program and did not report 2005 emissions, their reported emissions for 2008 were substituted.

2008 was a “training year” for facilities covered by the CAIR NOx annual and ozone season programs.

2009 was a monitoring and reporting “training year” for facilities covered by the CAIR SO2 annual program.

Fuel type represents primary fuel type; units might combust more than one fuel.

Totals may not reflect the sum of individual rows due to rounding.

Each year’s total emission rate does not equal the arithmetic mean of the four fuel-specific rates, as each facility influences the annual emission rate in

proportion to its heat input, and heat input is unevenly distributed across the fuel categories.

EPA data in these tables and used elsewhere in this report are current as of July 2011, and may differ from past or future reports as a result of resubmissions

by sources and ongoing data quality assurance activities.

Source: EPA, 2011

SO2 Emission Reductions
Clean Air Interstate Rule, Acid Rain Program, and Former NOx Budget Trading Program 2010 Progress Report | Progress Reports | Clean Air Markets | Air & Radiation | US EPA

http://www.epa.gov/airmarkets/progress/ARPCAIR10_01.html[10/6/2011 11:36:32 AM]

Figure 3, below, shows that the CAIR SO2 program continues and complements the ARP’s history of SO2 emission reductions. In 2010, the

first year of operation of the CAIR SO2 trading program, sources in both the CAIR SO2 annual program and the ARP together reduced SO2

emissions by over 10 million tons (67 percent) from 1990 levels (before implementation of the ARP), 6 million tons (54 percent) from 2000

levels (ARP Phase 2), and 5 million tons (49 percent) from 2005 levels (before implementation of CAIR). All ARP and CAIR sources together

emitted a total of 5.2 million tons of SO2 in 2010, well below the ARP’s statutory annual cap of 8.95 million tons.

Annual SO2 emissions from sources in the CAIR SO2 program alone fell from 9 million tons in 2005 to 4.4 million tons in 2010, a 51

percent reduction. Between 2009 and 2010, SO2 emissions fell 123,000 tons, or 6 percent. However, the 2010 emissions total is higher

than the CAIR SO2 program’s state budget total of 3.6 million tons, indicating that affected sources used banked allowances carried over

from the ARP for compliance with CAIR (see Table 3, below).

ARP units alone emitted 5.1 million tons of SO2 in 2010, meaning that ARP sources reduced emissions by 10.6 million tons (67 percent)

from 1990 levels and 12.1 milllion tons (70 percent) from 1980 levels.

Figure 3: SO2 Emissions from CAIR SO2 Annual Program and ARP Sources, 1980–2010

Note: For CAIR units not in the ARP, the 2009 annual SO2 emissions were applied retroactively for each pre-CAIR year following the year in which the unit began

operating.

Source: EPA, 2011

The states with the highest emitting sources in 1990 have generally seen the greatest SO2 reductions under the ARP, and this trend

continues under CAIR (see Figure 4, below). Most of these states are upwind of the areas the ARP and CAIR were designed to protect, and

reductions have resulted in important environmental and health benefits over a large region.

From 1990 to 2010, annual SO2 emissions in the nationwide ARP dropped in 40 states and D.C. by a total of approximately 10.5 million

tons. In contrast, annual SO2 emissions increased by a total of only 30,700 tons in eight states (Idaho, Louisiana, Montana, North Dakota,

Nebraska, Oregon, Rhode Island, and Vermont) from 1990 to 2010.

Between 2005 and 2010, annual SO2 emissions fell in all 27 states in the CAIR region with the exception of Arkansas and D.C., which

increased emissions by a total of only 933 tons. Sixteen states and D.C. exceeded their state SO2 emission budgets.

Figure 4: State-by-State Annual SO2 Emission Levels for CAIR and ARP Sources, 1990–2010
Clean Air Interstate Rule, Acid Rain Program, and Former NOx Budget Trading Program 2010 Progress Report | Progress Reports | Clean Air Markets | Air & Radiation | US EPA

http://www.epa.gov/airmarkets/progress/ARPCAIR10_01.html[10/6/2011 11:36:32 AM]

Note: State-level data shown in this map are available for download.

Source: EPA, 2011

Thirty-five ARP units installed SO2 controls in 2010, reducing their collective SO2 emission rate from 1.15 lb/mmBtu in January to 0.10

lb/mmBtu in December. The remaining sources in the ARP reported a steady annual SO2 rate of about 0.41 lb/mmBtu (see Figure 5,

below). Had these newly-controlled units maintained their collective annual 2009 emission rate of 1.20 lb/mmBtu through 2010, their

estimated emissions would have remained around a half million tons. In actuality, the 35 units emitted 64 percent less SO2 in 2010 than in

2009 by adding scrubbers, contributing about half of the total program-wide reduction of 600,000 tons between 2009 and 2010. Because

the new controls were installed at different times throughout 2010, the annual reduction reflects only partial operation, and the overall

benefits of the new systems will be even greater in 2011.

Figure 5: Monthly SO2 Emission Rates, 2010

Source: EPA, 2011

NOx Emission Reductions

Ozone Season NOx Reductions

Figure 6, below, shows ozone season NOx emissions from 1990 to the present for CAIR and NBP sources. In 2010, the second year of the

CAIR NOx ozone season program, sources from both CAIR and the former NBP, together with a small number of sources that were

previously in the NBP but did not enter CAIR, reduced their overall NOx emissions from 816,000 tons in 2005 (before implementation of

CAIR) to 599,000 tons in 2010, a decrease of 27 percent. NOx emissions were nearly 1.5 million tons lower (71 percent) than in 1990 and

860,000 tons lower (59 percent) than in 2000 (before implementation of the NBP).
Clean Air Interstate Rule, Acid Rain Program, and Former NOx Budget Trading Program 2010 Progress Report | Progress Reports | Clean Air Markets | Air & Radiation | US EPA

http://www.epa.gov/airmarkets/progress/ARPCAIR10_01.html[10/6/2011 11:36:32 AM]

Between 2005 and 2010, ozone season NOx emissions from sources in the CAIR program alone have fallen 211,000 tons, a decrease of 22

percent. From 2009 to 2010, however, ozone season NOx emissions from sources in the CAIR NOx ozone season program increased by

99,000 tons (20 percent) as sources operated controls less often and electricity demand rose. Despite the year-over-year increase, ozone

season NOx emissions totaled 594,000 tons in 2010, 5 percent below the 2010 regional emission budget of 624,698 tons.

Figure 6: Ozone Season NOx Emissions from CAIR and NBP Sources, 1990–2010

Note: For CAIR units not in the NBP, the 2008 NOx emissions were applied retroactively to 1990 and 2000 if the unit operated in the previous year’s ozone

season.

Source: EPA, 2011

The average NOx emission rate is a key measure of program effectiveness. While emissions may vary year to year due to changes in

electricity demand the average ozone season NOx emission rate has fallen every year since 2004 — except 2010. The driver of the increase

in rate was coal-fired units with add-on controls. The NOx emission rate at these units, which are historically responsible for the deepest

reductions, increased as a group over 14 percent from 2009 to 2010.

Ozone season NOx mass emissions rose about 99,000 tons between 2009 and 2010. Nearly a third of the increase (28,192 tons) resulted

from fifty coal-fired units with add-on controls that posted significantly poorer performance in 2010. These fifty units “dialed back” control

removal efficiency or even turned installed controls off. At 24 units, the 2010 NOx emission rate was double that of 2009. In an emissions

trading program, operators of plants are assumed to optimize operations by balancing the costs of fuel, allowances, and running controls.

For example, the relatively low cost of gas drove the 35 percent increase in gas-fired generation in 2010. Similarly, the drop in allowance

prices could lead to a higher NOx emission rate. EPA expects the average NOx emission rate to continue to improve in future years under

the regulatory certainty provided by CSAPR. The higher NOx allowance prices that should exist in 2012 under CSAPR would provide

incentive for sources to improve the effectiveness of existing pollution controls.

Between 2005 and 2010, ozone season NOx emissions from CAIR and former NBP sources fell in every state participating in the CAIR NOx

ozone season program except Pennsylvania, Arkansas, Kentucky, and D.C. (see Figure 7, below), where emissions increased by a total of

15,000 tons. In the 2010 ozone season, the total emissions from participating sources were about 31,000 tons below the regional emission

budget. Sixteen states had emissions below their allowance budgets, collectively by about 80,000 tons. Another ten states exceeded their

2010 budgets by a total of about 49,000 tons, indicating that, on an aggregate basis, sources within those states covered a portion of their

emissions with allowances banked from earlier years, transferred from an out-of-state account, or purchased from the market.

Figure 7: State-by-State Ozone Season NOx Emission Levels from CAIR Sources, 2000–2010
Clean Air Interstate Rule, Acid Rain Program, and Former NOx Budget Trading Program 2010 Progress Report | Progress Reports | Clean Air Markets | Air & Radiation | US EPA

http://www.epa.gov/airmarkets/progress/ARPCAIR10_01.html[10/6/2011 11:36:32 AM]

Notes:

State-level data shown in this map is available for download.

The 2000 and 2005 ozone season values reflect data that were reported under other programs (ARP and NBP). For facilities that were not covered by another

program and did not report 2000 or 2005 emissions, their reported emissions for the earliest subsequent year (usually the 2008 training year) were substituted.

Source: EPA, 2011

In addition to the CAIR NOx ozone season program and the former NBP, prior programs such as the Ozone Transport Commission’s (OTC)

NOx Budget Program and current regional and state NOx emission control programs have also contributed significantly to the ozone season

NOx reductions achieved by sources in 2010.

High Electric Demand Days

Ozone season demand for electricity is driven by economic conditions and weather. Figure 8, below, compares 2009 and 2010 ozone

season daily NOx emissions and generation (as measured by gross megawatt hours), and highlights the ten days of each year's peak

generation. Comparing the ten peak generation days in 2009 to 2010, generation increased 14 percent, NOx emissions grew

proportionately (17 percent), while the NOx emission rate increased by less than two percent. The fact that the NOx rate during the ten

days of highest electric demand remained below the ozone season average implies that the increased demand did not result in less

efficient, higher-emitting units being called into service, as had historically been the case.

Figure 8: Ozone Season Daily NOx Emissions and Generation
Clean Air Interstate Rule, Acid Rain Program, and Former NOx Budget Trading Program 2010 Progress Report | Progress Reports | Clean Air Markets | Air & Radiation | US EPA

http://www.epa.gov/airmarkets/progress/ARPCAIR10_01.html[10/6/2011 11:36:32 AM]

Source: EPA, 2011

Annual NOx Reductions

Figure 9, below, shows that from 1990 to 2010, annual NOx emissions from CAIR and ARP units together dropped by about 4.3 million

tons to 2.1 million tons, a decrease of 67 percent. In 2010, the second year of the CAIR NOx annual program, NOx emissions from all ARP

and CAIR units were 1.5 million tons lower (42 percent) than in 2005 and 3 million tons lower (59 percent) than in 2000.

Emissions from CAIR NOx annual program sources alone were 1.43 million tons in 2010, 73,000 tons (5 percent) below the 2010 CAIR NOx

annual program’s regional budget of 1.5 million tons. Annual NOx emissions were 1.2 million tons lower (47 percent) than in 2005, but
Clean Air Interstate Rule, Acid Rain Program, and Former NOx Budget Trading Program 2010 Progress Report | Progress Reports | Clean Air Markets | Air & Radiation | US EPA

http://www.epa.gov/airmarkets/progress/ARPCAIR10_01.html[10/6/2011 11:36:32 AM]

were 115,000 tons (9 percent) higher than in 2009. This recent increase was largely a result of sources not operating NOx controls as often

and increased demand for electricity.

ARP sources emitted 2.1 million tons of NOx in 2010. This level is 6 million tons less than the projected level in 2000 without the ARP, and

triple the Title IV NOx emission reduction objective.

Although the ARP and CAIR NOx programs were responsible for a large portion of these annual NOx reductions, other programs — such as

the NBP, the OTC NOx Budget Program, and other regional and state NOx emission control programs — also contributed significantly to the

annual NOx reductions achieved by sources in 2010.

Figure 9: Annual NOx Emissions from CAIR and ARP Sources, 1990–2010

Note: For CAIR units not in the ARP in 1990, 2000, and 2005, the 2008 annual NOx emissions were applied retroactively for each pre-CAIR year following the

year in which the unit began operating.

Source: EPA, 2011

Figure 10, below, shows that, compared with 2005, before implementation of CAIR, sources in the CAIR NOx annual program continued to

reduce year-round emissions in 2010 as program participants operated NOx control devices on EGUs outside the summer months. From

2005 to 2010, NOx emissions from units in the CAIR NOx annual program and ARP fell 42 percent, while heat input remained stable, falling

less than one percent.

Figure 10: Monthly Emissions and Heat Input from CAIR NOx Annual Program Sources, 2005 vs. 2010

Note: The CAIR NOx annual program had not begun in 2005, so the set of participating units from 2008 was used as the 2005 baseline in this figure. Facilities

that were not covered by the ARP did not report emissions in 2005. For these facilities, the earliest subsequent reported values, usually from the 2008 CAIR

training year, were substituted.

Source: EPA, 2011

From 1990 to 2010, all states participating in the CAIR NOx annual program decreased their emissions, as indicated in Figure 11, below.

Comparing 2005 to 2010, all states in the CAIR region emitted less NOx except Delaware and D.C., which increased their NOx emissions by

855 tons. The total NOx emissions from participating sources in 2010 were about 55,000 tons below the regional emission budget of

1,490,264 tons. Ten states and D.C. exceeded their 2010 budgets by a total of about 109,000 tons, indicating that, on an aggregate basis,

sources within those states covered a portion of their emissions with allowances banked from earlier years, transferred from an out-ofstate account, or purchased from the market.

Figure 11: State-by-State Annual NOx Emission Levels for CAIR and ARP Sources, 1990–2010
Clean Air Interstate Rule, Acid Rain Program, and Former NOx Budget Trading Program 2010 Progress Report | Progress Reports | Clean Air Markets | Air & Radiation | US EPA

http://www.epa.gov/airmarkets/progress/ARPCAIR10_01.html[10/6/2011 11:36:32 AM]

Note: State-level data shown in this map is available for download.

Source: EPA, 2011

Top of page

CAIR and ARP Program Compliance

SO2 Programs

Because SO2 allowances from the ARP are used by sources to comply with the CAIR SO2 annual program, compliance results for both

programs are displayed together in this report. Table 3, below, shows how ARP and CAIR allowances were used. All ARP and CAIR SO2

facilities were in compliance with both programs and held enough allowances to cover their SO2 emissions.

Table 3: CAIR and ARP SO2 Allowance Reconciliation Summary, 2010

Total Allowances Held (1995–2010 Vintage) 21,505,185 

 Affected Facility Accounts: 14,599,394

 Other (General and Non-Affected Facility Accounts): 6,905,791

Allowances Deducted for Acid Rain Compliance* 5,081,366

Penalty Allowance Deductions (2011 Vintage) 0

Banked Allowances (prior to CAIRSO2 deductions) 16,423,819

 Affected Facility Accounts: 9,518,028

 Other (General and Non-Affected Facility Accounts): 6,905,791

Acid Rain Program Allowances Deducted for CAIR SO2 Compliance 1,188,678

Banked Allowances 15,235,141

 Affected Facility Accounts: 8,329,350

 Other (General and Non-Affected Facility Accounts): 6,905,791

*Includes 6,111 allowances deducted from opt-ins for reduced utilization.

Compliance Results

As of July 2, 2011, the reported 2010 SO2 emissions by CAIR and ARP

sources totaled 5,166,487 tons. Because of variation in rounding

conventions, changes due to resubmissions by sources, and allowance

compliance issues at certain units, this number is lower than the sums of

emissions used for reconciliation purposes shown in Table 3, above.

Therefore, the allowance totals deducted for actual emissions in Table 3

differ from the number of emissions shown elsewhere in this report.

CAIR and ARP SO2 Programs

Reported emissions (tons): 5,166,487

Compliance issues, rounding, and report resubmission

adjustments (tons): –45,912

Emissions not covered by allowances (tons): 0
Clean Air Interstate Rule, Acid Rain Program, and Former NOx Budget Trading Program 2010 Progress Report | Progress Reports | Clean Air Markets | Air & Radiation | US EPA

http://www.epa.gov/airmarkets/progress/ARPCAIR10_01.html[10/6/2011 11:36:32 AM]

Additional vintage 2010 allowances deducted for CAIR: +1,143,358

Total allowances deducted for emissions (includes some 2 for

1 CAIR deductions: 6,263,933

2010 was the first year for compliance with the CAIR SO2 program. Under this program, allowances are used to cover emissions based on

the vintage year of the allowances, with pre–2010 vintage allowances used at 1 allowance for 1 ton of SO2 emissions, and 2010 vintage

allowances used at 2 allowances for 1 ton. For facilities covered by both CAIR and the ARP, reconciliation is a two-step process. First, ARP

deductions are made. Then, any additional deductions to comply with the CAIR SO2 program are made. The additional deductions under

CAIR could be to cover the 2 for 1 use of 2010 allowances or to cover emissions for units that are subject to CAIR, but not the ARP.

In 2010, almost 22 million SO2 allowances were available for compliance under both programs (9 million vintage 2010 and almost 13

million banked from prior years). Just over 5 million allowances were deducted for ARP compliance and an additional 1.2 million allowances

were deducted to complete reconciliation for CAIR. After reconciliation for both programs, over 15.2 million ARP SO2 allowances were

banked and carried forward to the 2011 compliance year.

Top of page

NOx Programs

CAIR NOx Compliance Results

Tables 4 and 5, below, show how NOx allowances were used in 2010. All covered facilities were in compliance with the CAIR NOx annual

and ozone season programs and held enough allowances to cover their NOx emissions.

Table 4: CAIR NOx Ozone Season Allowance Reconciliation Summary, 2010

Total Allowances Held (2003–2010 Vintage) 1,002,016 

 Affected Facility Accounts: 873,775

 Other (General, State Holding and Non-Affected Facility Accounts): 128,241

Allowances Deducted for CAIR NOx Ozone Season Trading Program 587,127

Penalty Allowance Deductions (2011 Vintage) 0

Banked Allowances 414,889

 Affected Facility Accounts: 286,648

 Other (General, State Holding and Non-Affected Facility Accounts): 128,241

Table 5: CAIR NOx Annual Allowance Reconciliation Summary, 2010

Total Allowances Held (2009–2010 Vintage) 1,823,717 

 Affected Facility Accounts: 1,723,440

 Other (General, State Holding and Non-Affected Facility Accounts): 100,277

Allowances Deducted for CAIR NOx Annual Trading Program 1,420,621

Penalty Allowance Deductions (2011 Vintage) 0

Banked Allowances 403,096

 Affected Facility Accounts: 302,819

 Other (General, State Holding and Non-Affected Facility Accounts): 100,277

Compliance Results

As of July 3, 2011, the reported 2010 ozone season NOx emissions by

CAIR sources totaled 593,669 tons, and annual emissions totaled

1,427,301 tons. Because of variation in rounding conventions, changes

due to resubmissions by sources, and allowance compliance issues at

certain units, these numbers are different from the sums of emissions

used for reconciliation purposes shown in Table 4 (ozone season

reconciliation) and Table 5 (annual reconciliation). Therefore, the

allowance totals deducted for actual emissions in Tables 4 and 5 differ

from the number of emissions shown elsewhere in this report.

CAIR NOx Ozone Season

Reported emissions (tons): 593,669

Compliance issues, rounding, and report resubmission

adjustments (tons): –6,542

Emissions not covered by allowances (tons): 0

Total allowances deducted for emissions: 587,127

CAIR NOx Annual Program

Reported emissions (tons): 1,427,301

Compliance issues, rounding, and report resubmission

adjustments (tons): -6,680

Emissions not covered by allowances (tons): 0

Total allowances deducted for emissions: 1,420,621
Clean Air Interstate Rule, Acid Rain Program, and Former NOx Budget Trading Program 2010 Progress Report | Progress Reports | Clean Air Markets | Air & Radiation | US EPA

http://www.epa.gov/airmarkets/progress/ARPCAIR10_01.html[10/6/2011 11:36:32 AM]

On May 1, 2009, the NBP transitioned to the CAIR NOx ozone season program and transferred a total of 275,367 allowances from the NBP

to the CAIR NOx ozone season program. By the end of the 2009 ozone season, 392,799 allowances were banked and available for program

compliance in 2010. Because NOx emissions in the 2010 ozone season were below the CAIR budget, sources were able to bank additional

allowances, leaving 414,889 allowances available for use in 2011.

Under the CAIR NOx annual program, 342,975 allowances were carried over from 2009. Because annual NOx emissions in 2010 were also

below the CAIR budget, after reconciliation, 403,096 allowances remained in the bank to be carried over into 2011.

ARP NOx Compliance Results

The ARP NOx Program does not impose a cap on NOx emissions and does not rely on allowance trading. The program allows affected

sources to comply either by meeting a unit-specific emission rate or by including two or more units in an emission rate averaging plan.

These options provide affected sources with the flexibility to meet the NOx emission reduction requirements in a cost-effective manner. In

2010, all 956 units that were subject to the ARP NOx Program achieved compliance.

Top of page

Controls and Monitoring

To meet the ARP and CAIR emission reduction targets, some sources opt to install control technologies. A wide set of controls are available

to help reduce emissions. The following is an analysis of controls on ARP and CAIR program coal-fired units and CAIR NOx program

combined cycle units in 2010.

SO2 Controls in 2010

The wide variety of SO2 control options available to sources includes switching to low sulfur coal or employing various types of flue gas

desulfurization units (FGDs), such as fluidized bed limestone units. FGDs on coal-fired generators are the principal means of controlling

SO2. As discussed in detail above, 35 units in the ARP added new SO2 controls in 2010. Sources added FGDs at 34 of the units in the CAIR

SO2 annual program. Across both programs the share of generation, measured in megawatt hours (MWh), at controlled units was 60

percent of coal-fired generation in 2010 (see Table 6, below).

Table 6: SO2 Controls in 2010 on Coal-Fired Units in the ARP and CAIR Annual SO2 Program

SO2 Control Type Number of Units Share of Units Share of MWh Generation

FGD 427 38% 59%

Other 44 4% 1%

Uncontrolled 643 58% 39%

Note: Due to rounding, percentages shown may not add up to 100%.

Source: EPA, 2011

NOx Controls in 2010

Sources have a variety of options by which to reduce NOx emissions. New selective catalytic reduction units (SCRs), the most efficient NOx

controls, were installed at five generation units under the CAIR NOx ozone season program in 2010. Units with add-on controls — SCR or

selective non-catalytic reduction (SNCR) — accounted for nearly two-thirds of coal-fired generation (59 percent) and 80 percent of

generation at combined cycle units (gas- or oil-fired). Although 124 coal-fired units and 15 combined cycle units remain uncontrolled, they

represent only two percent of coal-fired generation and one percent of combined cycle generation under the CAIR NOx ozone season

program (see Table 7, below).

Table 7: NOx Controls in 2010 CAIR NOx Ozone Season Program

NOx Control Type Number of Coal-Fired Units Share of Coal-Fired

MWh Generation

Number of Combined Cycle

Units (Gas- or Oil-Fired)

Share of Combined Cycle 

(Gas- or Oil-Fired)

MWh Generation

Combustion 446 37% 66 13%

Non-Controlled 124 2% 15 1%

Other Control 38 1% 91 6%

SCR 207 51% 317 80%

SNCR 127 8% 0 0%

Note: Due to rounding, percentages shown may not add up to 100%.

Source: EPA, 2011

Seven sources in the CAIR NOx annual program installed add-on controls in 2010. The 347 coal-fired units with add-on controls (either

SCRs or SNCRs) generated 57 percent of annual generation, and the 379 combined cycle units with SCRs generated 75 percent of annual

generation (see Table 8, below). Similar to the CAIR NOx ozone season program, uncontrolled units represent two percent of coal-fired

generation and one percent of combined cycle generation under the CAIR NOx annual program.

Table 8: NOx Controls in 2010 CAIR NOx Annual Program

Share of Combined Cycle 
Clean Air Interstate Rule, Acid Rain Program, and Former NOx Budget Trading Program 2010 Progress Report | Progress Reports | Clean Air Markets | Air & Radiation | US EPA

http://www.epa.gov/airmarkets/progress/ARPCAIR10_01.html[10/6/2011 11:36:32 AM]

NOx Control Type Number of Coal-Fired Units Share of Coal-Fired

MWh Generation

Number of Combined Cycle

Units (Gas- or Oil-Fired) (Gas- or Oil-Fired)

MWh Generation

Combustion 436 38% 120 20%

Non-Controlled 99 2% 19 1%

Other Control 40 2% 88 4%

SCR 222 49% 379 75%

SNCR 125 8% 0 0%

Note: Due to rounding, percentages shown may not add up to 100%.

Source: EPA, 2011

Continuous Emission Monitoring Systems

Accurate and consistent emissions monitoring is the foundation of a cap and trade system. EPA has developed detailed procedures (40 CFR

Part 75) to ensure that sources monitor and report emissions with a high degree of precision, accuracy, reliability, and consistency.

Sources use continuous emission monitoring systems (CEMS) or other approved methods. Part 75 requires sources to conduct stringent

quality assurance tests of their monitoring systems, such as daily and quarterly calibration tests and a semiannual or annual relative

accuracy test audit. These tests ensure that sources report accurate data and provide assurance to market participants that a ton of

emissions measured at one facility is equivalent to a ton measured at a different facility.

While many CAIR units with low levels of emissions did not have to use CEMS, the vast majority of NOx emissions — over 99 percent —

were measured by CEMS. Similarly, CEMS monitored over 99 percent of SO2 emissions including 100 percent from coal-fired units and 18

percent from oil-fired units. Coal-fired units were required to use CEMS for NOx concentration and stack gas flow rate to calculate and

record their NOx mass emissions. Oil-fired and gas-fired units could use a NOx CEMS in conjunction with a fuel flow meter to determine

NOx mass emissions. Alternatively, for oil-fired and gas-fired units that either operated infrequently or had very low NOx emissions, Part

75 provided low-cost alternatives to conservatively estimate NOx mass emissions. The relatively low percentage for oil-fired units with

CEMS is consistent with the decline in oil-fired heat input, as most of these units were used infrequently and qualified for reduced

monitoring.

Top of page

Market Activity

SO2 Allowance Market in 2010

Over the first decade of the ARP, allowance prices were stable and significantly lower than projected. When CAIR was proposed in late

2003, allowance prices were influenced by the more stringent CAIR SO2 budget and the new compliance deadlines. With the start of the

CAIR SO2 program in 2010, the Acid Rain SO2 market essentially has become the CAIR SO2 market. See Table 9, below, for a summary of

the 2010 SO2 allowance market.

Table 9: SO2 Allowance Market in Brief (close of 2010)

Total Value of the SO2 Allowance Market: $290 million 

Average Nominal Price: $19 per ton

Total Allowance Volume (Allowable Emissions): 15,233,537

Note: Total value of allowance market is a snapshot based on the average nominal price as of December 2010 ($19/ton) and total allowance volume available for

2010 compliance.

Source: EPA, 2011 and CantorCO2e Market Price Index, 2011

NOx Allowance Markets in 2010

The 2010 CAIR NOx ozone season allowance market continued its price decline from the previous year closing at the end of December at

$30 per ton (see Figure 12). The annual NOx allowance price, as reported by the CantorCO2e Market Price Index, climbed briefly to $716

early in 2010 and then declined to $325 per ton by the end of the year.

Figure 12: NOx Annual and Ozone Season Allowance Spot Price (Prompt Vintage), January — December

2010

Note: Prompt vintage is the vintage for the current compliance year.

Source: EPA, 2011 and CantorCO2e Market Price Index, 2011
Clean Air Interstate Rule, Acid Rain Program, and Former NOx Budget Trading Program 2010 Progress Report | Progress Reports | Clean Air Markets | Air & Radiation | US EPA

http://www.epa.gov/airmarkets/progress/ARPCAIR10_01.html[10/6/2011 11:36:32 AM]

EPA Home Privacy and Security Notice Contact Us

http://www.epa.gov/airmarkets/progress/ARPCAIR10_01.html

Print As-Is

Last updated on Thursday, October 06, 2011

In 2010, the second year of the CAIR ozone season and annual NOx programs, CAIR sources emitted about 594,000 tons of NOx during the

ozone season (May through September), a 20 percent increase from 2009 levels, but still below the overall budget. CAIR sources emitted

about 31,000 tons less than their overall ozone season budget, resulting in about 415,000 banked allowances. Not surprisingly, the

downward tendency of ozone season allowance prices continued through most of 2010. Emissions of CAIR annual NOx were 1.4 million

tons, about 82,000 tons less than the overall budget. The CAIR annual NOx bank grew to more than 400,000 allowances.

Generally, sources in a cap and trade program may consider several emission reduction alternatives and are allowed to trade allowances as

part of their compliance strategies. By allowing trades, the overall market can achieve emission targets at a lower cost than through a

command and control program because abatement costs are not the same for all sources. A market for emission allowances will emerge,

and the allowance price will reflect the marginal cost of emission reductions. Emission control decisions will be made based on the cost of

control options relative to the market price of allowances. The allowance price motivates those who have relatively low cost opportunities

for emission reductions to make those investments and then sell their surplus allowances to those with higher marginal abatement costs.

Looking at the CAIR NOx ozone season allowance market, it has been EPA’s expectation that the CAIR annual NOx cap would be the

binding constraint and absorb most of the capital costs of controls (i.e., SCRs), while the NOx ozone season allowance prices would

primarily be driven by operating costs. As expected, the current CAIR NOx allowance prices are below the total expected control cost.

However, in the middle of 2010, CAIR annual NOx allowance prices dipped below $500 per ton — the variable SCR cost and theoretical

floor price — and remained there through the rest of the year.

Transaction Types and Volumes

Allowance transfer activity includes two types of transfers: EPA transfers to accounts and private transactions. EPA transfers to accounts

include the initial allocation of allowances by states or EPA, as well as transfers into accounts related to special set-asides. This category

does not include transfers due to allowance retirements. Private transactions include all transfers initiated by authorized account

representatives for any compliance or general account purposes.

To help better understand the trends in market performance and transfer history, EPA classifies private transfers of allowance transactions

into two categories:

Transfers between separate and distinct economic entities, which may include companies with contractual relationships such as

power purchase agreements, but excludes parent-subsidiary types of relationships. These transfers are categorized broadly as

“economically significant trades.”

Transfers within a company or between related entities (e.g., holding company transfers between a unit compliance account and

any account held by a company with an ownership interest in the unit).

While all transactions are important to proper market operation, EPA follows trends in the economically significant transaction category

with particular interest because these transactions represent an actual exchange of assets between unaffiliated participants. In 2010, about

a third of each program’s traded allowances were exchanged between unrelated parties, often with a broker facilitating the trade (see

Table 10, below).

Table 10: 2010 Allowance Transfers under CAIR and ARP

Program Transfer Type Number of 

Allowances Transferred

Share of 

Program Allowances Transferred

CAIR NOx Ozone Season Distinct Organizations 132,854 36%

Related Organizations 237,151 64%

CAIR NOx Annual Distinct Organizations 344,758 39%

Related Organizations 540,267 61%

ARP and CAIR SO2 Annual Distinct Organizations 3,009,858 33%

Related Organizations 6,056,910 66%

Note: Due to rounding, percentages shown may not add up to 100%.

Source: EPA, 2011

Brokers play an important role in the emissions allowance markets. They primarily facilitate and conduct trades between willing buyers and

sellers, undertaking the direct costs of identifying trading partners and transacting sales at a price acceptable to both parties. In the

allowance trading market, the fees charged by brokerage firms are often considered to be transaction costs. These costs associated with

buying and selling allowances are generally low.

Top of page
1

ATTACHMENT 2 TO DECLARATION OF SAM NAPOLITANO

Garland Power & Light Activates Two Generation Units for ERCOT 

Garland, TX, August 23, 2011
Garland Power & Light Activates Two Generation Units

for ERCOT

Garland, TX, August 23, 2011 – Garland Power & Light (GP&L) has activated Spencer Units

#4 and #5 and officially released them to ERCOT to help reduce the risk of rotating outages on

the electric grid in Texas.

Around-the-clock efforts returned the gas-fired units to service from their mothballed state. Unit

#5 was turned over to ERCOT at midnight Sunday for Monday operation. Unit #4 was turned

over at midnight Monday for Tuesday operation. If needed, ERCOT can call on these units to

provide power to the grid to avoid emergencies. They will not displace units that were already

on-line and bidding into the market.

"The state continues to experience extremely high temperatures and the demand for power

remains high. We're pleased that our units are now available as a resource for ERCOT," said

GP&L's Electric Utility Director Ray Schwertner.

The units were originally targeted for return to service this Friday, but GP&L made these units

available sooner. "It's a tribute to our dedicated and highly skilled employees that we already

have these units on-line," said Schwertner.

As the units came on-line, ERCOT CEO Trip Doggett expressed appreciation to Schwertner for

GP&L's efforts in bringing the units back earlier than expected.

The Spencer units are located in Denton, Texas, and the power they generate will support load

in the North Texas region. Each of the units has a 61 megawatt (MW) capacity.

Background reference: http://www.ercot.com/news/press_releases/show/424

For more information, contact:

Elizabeth Kimbrough

Electric Marketing Manager

Garland Power & Light

972-205-2364

ekimbrough@garlandpower-light.org

Welcome To Garland Power & Light http://www.garlandpower-light.org/news/2011UnitActivation.html

1 of 1 9/12/2011 2:58 PM
1

ATTACHMENT 3 TO DECLARATION OF SAM NAPOLITANO

Report on the Capacity, Demand, and Reserves in the ERCOT Region, May 

2011 (June 9, 2011 Revision 2)
Report on the Capacity Capacity, Demand, 

in the E
Tab Notes 

Disclaimer Please read. Definitions List of definitions Changes from 2010 CDR (December Update) List of changes from the 2010 CDR (December Update) SummerSummary Shows load forecast, generation resources, and reserve margin for Summer 2011 through SSummerCapacities Lists units and their capabilities used in determining the generation resources in the SummeWinterSummary Shows load forecast, generation resources, and reserve margin for Winter 2011 through W

WinterCapacities Lists units and their capabilities used in determining the generation resources in the Winter 

LongTermProjections Graphs of capacity and demand through 2031 

SummerFuelTypes Lists generation fuel types by MW and by percentage for Summer 2011 through Summer 2

WinterFuelTypes Lists generation fuel types by MW and by percentage for Winter 2011 through Winter 2020 

SummerLoadbyCounty Shows estimated Summer non-coincident load by county for 2011 through 2020 

SummerGenerationbyCounty Shows Summer generation by county for 2011 through 2020 

SummerImport-ExportbyCounty Shows calculated import or export by county for Summer 2011 through Summer 2020 

WinterLoadbyCounty Shows estimated Winter non-coincident load by county for 2011 through 2020 

WinterGenerationbyCounty Shows Winter generation by county for 2011 through 2020 

WinterImport-ExportbyCounty Shows calculated import or export by county for Winter 2011 through Winter 2020 

 Contents 
Disclaimer

CDR WORKING PAPER

FOR PLANNING PURPOSES ONLY

This ERCOT Working Paper has been prepared for specific ERCOT and market participant purposes and has been developeby ERCOT market participants. The data may contain errors or become obsolete and thereby affect the conclusions and opinPaper. ERCOT MAKES NO WARRANTY, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING ANY WARRANTY OF MERCHANTABILITY ANY PARTICULAR PURPOSE, AND DISCLAIMS ANY AND ALL LIABILITY WITH RESPECT TO THE ACCURACY OF SAMFITNESS OR APPROPRIATENESS OF SAME FOR ANY PARTICULAR USE. THIS ERCOT WORKING PAPER IS SUPPLFAULTS. The specific suitability for any use of the Working Paper and its accuracy should be confirmed by each ERCOT macontributed data for this Working Paper.This Working Paper is based on data submitted by ERCOT market participants as part of their Annual Load Data Request (Aresource asset registration and on data in the EIA-411. As such, this data is updated on an ongoing basis, which means that rendered obsolete without notice.

3
Available Mothballed Generation

Effective Load-Carrying Capability (ELCC) of Wind Generation Forecast ZoneLaaRs (Loads acting as resources)Mothballed CapacityMothballed UnitNet Dependable CapabilityMaximum sustainable capability of a generation resource as demonstrated by performance testing.Non-Synchronous TieA generation resource for which a generation entity has submitted a Notification of Suspension of Operations, for which ERCOexecute an RMR agreement, and for which the generation entity has not announced retirement of the generation resource.Any non-synchronous transmission interconnection between ERCOT and non-ERCOT electric power systemsThe difference in the available mothballed generation (see definition above) and the total mothballed capacity. This value is zeSummer CDR Report because there isn't enough time to return those units to service before the start of the summer.

Definitions

The probability that a mothballed unit will return to service, as provided by its owner, multiplied by the capacity of the unit. Retuconsidered protected information under the ERCOT Protocols and therefore are not included in this report.The amount of wind generation that the Generation Adequacy Task Force (GATF) has recommended to be included in the CDthe nameplate capacity listed in the Unit Capacities tables, both installed capacity and planned capacity.Load capable of reducing or increasing the need for electrical energy or providing Ancillary Services to the ERCOT System, as Protocols, Section 6, Ancillary Services. These Resources may provide the following Ancillary Services: Responsive Reserve Reserve Service, Replacement Reserve Service, and Regulation Service. The Resources must be registered and qualified by scheduled by a Qualified Scheduling EntityForecast Zones have the same boundaries as the 2003 ERCOT Congestion Management Zones. Each Resource will be mapduring the registration process.

4
Other Potential Resources

Capacity resources that include one of the following: • Remaining "mothballed" capacity not included as resources in the reserve margin calculation • Remaining DC tie capacity not included as resources in the reserve margin calculation, andPlanned Units in Full Interconnection Study PhasePrivate NetworksReliability Must-Run (RMR) UnitSigned IA (Interconnection Agreement)Switchable UnitAn agreement that sets forth requirements for physical connection between an eligible transmission service customer and a traservice provider A generation resource that can be connected to either the ERCOT transmission grid or a grid outside the ERCOT Region. • New generating units that have initiated full transmission interconnection studies through the ERCOT generation interconthat new wind units would be included based on the appropriate discounted capacity value applied to existing wind generating To connect new generation to the ERCOT grid, a generation developer must go through a set procedure. The first step is a higto determine the effects of adding the new generation on the transmission system. The second step is the full interconnection sdetailed studies done by the transmission owners to determine the effects of the addition of new generation on the transmissioAn electric network connected to the ERCOT transmission grid that contains load that is not directly metered by ERCOT (i.e., lonetted with internal generation).A generation resource unit operated under the terms of an agreement with ERCOT that would not otherwise be operated excepnecessary to provide voltage support, stability or management of localized transmission constraints under first contingency crit

5
1 This report now incorporates a ten year planning horizon pursuant to recently approved Planning Guide 002.

234 Energy efficiency impacts based on 82R-SB1125 requirement for 0.4% of peak demand56

INR SiteName Capacity Fuel Former COD New COD

06INR0022c Penascal Wind Farm 3 202 Wind Dec 2012 Dec 201310INR0022 Pondera King Power Project 1,380 Gas Jun 2014 Jun 201512INR0016a Las Brisas Energy Center Phase 1 620 Other Jul 2015 Oct 201512INR0016b Las Brisas Energy Center Phase 2 620 Other Jul 2016 Oct 201614INR0002 Coleto Creek Unit 2 660 Coal Jan 2016 Jan 2017

Revision 1 2-Jun-11 Corrected double entry of a gas unit additionRevision 2 9-Jun-11 Corrected formulas that computed Winter potential resource totals

Changes from 2010 CDR (December Update)

An increase in Operational Units capacity is due to the return to service of Greens Bayou 5, the addition of the Jack County Gas units, and the Lufkin Units that are still in the interconnection study process are required to keep their planned in-service dates updated; Any updates provided by developnot explicitly survey all of these units, as they do not count toward the reserve margins.The 2011 forecast is included. The key inputs for this forecast are: 1) Moody's base economic forecast and 2) normalized weather. The 2011 forecapeak demands when compared to the 2010 forecast. The 2010 forecast utilized Moody's low economic forecast to better reflect prevailing economic ERCOT surveyed all generators with Interconnection Agreements to update in-service dates; The committed projects shown on the table below have operations date:

6
Load Forecast: 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 

Total Summer Peak Demand, MW 63,898 65,665 67,757 70,540 72,591 74,198 75,365 76,654 

 less LAARs Serving as Responsive Reserve, MW 1,063 1,063 1,063 1,063 1,063 1,063 1,063 1,063  less LAARs Serving as Non-Spinning Reserve, MW 00000000 less Emergency Interruptible Load Service 421 463 509 560 616 678 745 820  less Energy Efficiency Programs (per SB1125) 128 259 395 536 681 829 980 1133 Firm Load Forecast, MW 62,286 63,880 65,790 68,381 70,231 71,628 72,576 73,638 

Resources: 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 

Installed Capacity, MW 63,859 63,859 63,859 63,859 63,859 63,859 63,859 63,859 Capacity from Private Networks, MW 5,023 5,071 5,074 5,074 5,074 5,074 5,074 5,074 Effective Load-Carrying Capability (ELCC) of Wind Generation, MW 822 822 822 822 822 822 822 822 RMR Units to be under Contract, MW 00000000Operational Generation, MW 69,704 69,752 69,755 69,755 69,755 69,755 69,755 69,755 50% of Non-Synchronous Ties, MW 553 553 553 553 553 553 553 553 Switchable Units, MW 2,962 2,962 2,962 2,962 2,962 2,962 2,962 2,962 Available Mothballed Generation , MW 0 110 146 164 181 198 198 198 Planned Units (not wind) with Signed IA and Air Permit, MW 260 1,940 1,940 2,720 4,880 5,500 6,780 6,780 ELCC of Planned Wind Units with Signed IA, MW 13 65 113 131 131 131 131 131 Total Resources, MW 73,492 75,382 75,469 76,284 78,461 79,099 80,379 80,379 less Switchable Units Unavailable to ERCOT, MW 317 317 317 317 317 31700

less Retiring Units MW 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

2011 Report on the Capacity, Demand, and Reserves in the ERCOT Region

Summer Summary 

less Retiring Units, MW 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Resources, MW 73,175 75,065 75,152 75,967 78,144 78,782 80,379 80,379 Reserve Margin 17.5% 17.5% 14.2% 11.1% 11.3% 10.0% 10.8% 9.2% (Resources - Firm Load Forecast)/Firm Load Forecast 

553 11,200 12,281 15,232 15,932 18,693 19,394 19,395 

Mothballed Capacity , MW 0 2,447 2,411 2,393 2,376 2,359 2,359 2,359 50% of Non-Synchronous Ties, MW 553 553 553 553 553 553 554 555 Planned Units in Full Interconnection Study Phase, MW 0 8,200 9,317 12,285 13,003 15,781 16,481 16,481 

Other Potential Resources:

7
2010 Report on the Capacity, Demand, and Reserves in the ERCOT Region

Summer Summary

65,000

70,00075,00080,00085,00090,000

MW Summer Loads and Resources

50,00055,00060,000

,

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 

Firm Load Forecast Resources Forecast + Reserve Margin

8
Units used in determining the generation resources in the Summer Summary

Unit Name Unit Code County Fuel Forecast Zone Year In Service 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 

Coastal Plains RDF _AV_DG1 Galveston Biomass Houston 2003 6.7 6.7 6.7 6.7 6.7 6.7 Atascocita 1 _HB_DG1 Harris Biomass Houston 2003 10.1 10.1 10.1 10.1 10.1 10.1 

Bluebonnet 1 _LB_DG1 Harris Biomass Houston 2003 3.9 3.9 3.9 3.9 3.9 3.9 

Amistad Hydro 1 AMISTAD_AMISTAG1 Val Verde Hydro South 1983 37.9 37.9 37.9 37.9 37.9 37.9 

Amistad Hydro 2 AMISTAD_AMISTAG2 Val Verde Hydro South 1983 37.9 37.9 37.9 37.9 37.9 37.9 

AES Deepwater APD_APD_PS1 Harris Other Houston 2010 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 

Atkins 7 ATKINS_ATKINSG7 Brazos Gas North 1973 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 

Austin 1 AUSTPL_AUSTING1 Travis Hydro South 1940 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 

Austin 2 AUSTPL_AUSTING2 Travis Hydro South 1940 9.0 9.0 9.0 9.0 9.0 9.0 ExTex La Porte Pwr Stn (AirPro) 1 AZ_AZ_G1 Harris Gas Houston 2009 38.0 38.0 38.0 38.0 38.0 38.0 

ExTex La Porte Pwr Stn (AirPro) 2 AZ_AZ_G2 Harris Gas Houston 2009 38.0 38.0 38.0 38.0 38.0 38.0 

ExTex La Porte Pwr Stn(AirPro) 3 AZ_AZ_G3 Harris Gas Houston 2009 38.0 38.0 38.0 38.0 38.0 38.0 

ExTex La Porte Pwr Stn (AirPro) 4 AZ_AZ_G4 Harris Gas Houston 2009 38.0 38.0 38.0 38.0 38.0 38.0 

B M Davis 1 B_DAVIS_B_DAVIG1 Nueces Gas South 1974 335.0 335.0 335.0 335.0 335.0 335.0 

B M Davis 2 B_DAVIS_B_DAVIG2 Nueces Gas South 1976 308.0 308.0 308.0 308.0 308.0 308.0 

B M Davis 3 B_DAVIS_B_DAVIG3 Nueces Gas South 2009 175.1 175.1 175.1 175.1 175.1 175.1 

B M Davis 4 B_DAVIS_B_DAVIG4 Nueces Gas South 2009 175.1 175.1 175.1 175.1 175.1 175.1 

Bastrop Energy Center 1 BASTEN_GTG1100 Bastrop Gas South 2002 150.0 150.0 150.0 150.0 150.0 150.0 

Bastrop Energy Center 2 BASTEN_GTG2100 Bastrop Gas South 2002 150.0 150.0 150.0 150.0 150.0 150.0 

Bastrop Energy Center 3 BASTEN_ST0100 Bastrop Gas South 2002 233.0 233.0 233.0 233.0 233.0 233.0 

Big Brown 1 BBSES_UNIT1 Freestone Coal North 1971 600.0 600.0 600.0 600.0 600.0 600.0 

Big Brown 2 BBSES_UNIT2 Freestone Coal North 1972 595.0 595.0 595.0 595.0 595.0 595.0 

Bosque County Peaking 1 BOSQUESW_BSQSU_1 Bosque Gas North 2000 153.0 153.0 153.0 153.0 153.0 153.0 

Bosque County Peaking 2 BOSQUESW_BSQSU_2 Bosque Gas North 2000 153.0 153.0 153.0 153.0 153.0 153.0 

Bosque County Peaking 3 BOSQUESW BSQSU 3 Bosque Gas North 2001 154.0 154.0 154.0 154.0 154.0 154.0 

Unit Capacities - Summer

Operational capacities are based on unit testing. Other capacities are based on information provided by the plant owners. This list includes MW available to the grid from private network (self-serve) units. units that have registered with ERCOT. Data without unit names are for private network units or are planned generation that is not public.Bosque County Peaking 3 BOSQUESW_BSQSU_3 Bosque Gas North 2001 154.0 154.0 154.0 154.0 154.0 154.0 Bosque County Peaking 4 BOSQUESW_BSQSU_4 Bosque Gas North 2001 83.0 83.0 83.0 83.0 83.0 83.0 

Bosque County Unit 5 BOSQUESW_BSQSU_5 Bosque Gas North 2009 240.0 240.0 240.0 240.0 240.0 240.0 

A von Rosenberg 1-CT1 BRAUNIG_AVR1_CT1 Bexar Gas South 2000 145.0 145.0 145.0 145.0 145.0 145.0 

A von Rosenberg 1-CT2 BRAUNIG_AVR1_CT2 Bexar Gas South 2000 145.0 145.0 145.0 145.0 145.0 145.0 

A von Rosenberg 1-ST1 BRAUNIG_AVR1_ST Bexar Gas South 2000 160.0 160.0 160.0 160.0 160.0 160.0 

V H Braunig 1 BRAUNIG_VHB1 Bexar Gas South 1966 215.0 215.0 215.0 215.0 215.0 215.0 V H Braunig 2 BRAUNIG_VHB2 Bexar Gas South 1968 220.0 220.0 220.0 220.0 220.0 220.0 V H Braunig 3 BRAUNIG_VHB3 Bexar Gas South 1970 412.0 412.0 412.0 412.0 412.0 412.0 V H Braunig 5 BRAUNIG_VHB6CT5 Bexar Gas South 2009 48.0 48.0 48.0 48.0 48.0 48.0 

V H Braunig 6 BRAUNIG_VHB6CT6 Bexar Gas South 2009 48.0 48.0 48.0 48.0 48.0 48.0 

V H Braunig 7 BRAUNIG_VHB6CT7 Bexar Gas South 2009 48.0 48.0 48.0 48.0 48.0 48.0 

V H Braunig 8 BRAUNIG_VHB6CT8 Bexar Gas South 2009 48.0 48.0 48.0 48.0 48.0 48.0 

Buchanan 1 BUCHAN_BUCHANG1 Llano Hydro South 1938 18.0 18.0 18.0 18.0 18.0 18.0 

Buchanan 2 BUCHAN_BUCHANG2 Llano Hydro South 1938 18.0 18.0 18.0 18.0 18.0 18.0 

Buchanan 3 BUCHAN_BUCHANG3 Llano Hydro South 1950 18.0 18.0 18.0 18.0 18.0 18.0 

Brazos Valley 1 BVE_UNIT1 Ft Bend Gas Houston 2003 163.0 163.0 163.0 163.0 163.0 163.0 

Brazos Valley 2 BVE_UNIT2 Ft Bend Gas Houston 2003 163.0 163.0 163.0 163.0 163.0 163.0 

Brazos Valley 3 BVE_UNIT3 Ft Bend Gas Houston 2003 253.0 253.0 253.0 253.0 253.0 253.0 

J K Spruce 1 CALAVERS_JKS1 Bexar Coal South 1992 555.0 555.0 555.0 555.0 555.0 555.0 

J K Spruce 2 CALAVERS_JKS2 Bexar Coal South 2010 785.0 785.0 785.0 785.0 785.0 785.0 

J T Deely 1 CALAVERS_JTD1 Bexar Coal South 1977 440.0 440.0 440.0 440.0 440.0 440.0 

J T Deely 2 CALAVERS_JTD2 Bexar Coal South 1978 440.0 440.0 440.0 440.0 440.0 440.0 

O W Sommers 1 CALAVERS_OWS1 Bexar Gas South 1972 420.0 420.0 420.0 420.0 420.0 420.0 

9
Units used in determining the generation resources in the Summer Summary

Unit Name Unit Code County Fuel Forecast Zone Year In Service 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 

Unit Capacities - Summer

Operational capacities are based on unit testing. Other capacities are based on information provided by the plant owners. This list includes MW available to the grid from private network (self-serve) units. units that have registered with ERCOT. Data without unit names are for private network units or are planned generation that is not public.

O W Sommers 2 CALAVERS_OWS2 Bexar Gas South 1974 420.0 420.0 420.0 420.0 420.0 420.0 

Canyon 1 CANYHY_CANYHYG1 Comal Hydro South 1989 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 

Canyon 2 CANYHY_CANYHYG2 Comal Hydro South 1989 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 

Colorado Bend Energy Center CBEC_GT1 Wharton Gas Houston 2007 75.0 75.0 75.0 75.0 75.0 75.0 

Colorado Bend Energy Center CBEC_GT2 Wharton Gas Houston 2007 69.0 69.0 69.0 69.0 69.0 69.0 

Colorado Bend Energy Center CBEC_GT3 Wharton Gas Houston 2008 77.0 77.0 77.0 77.0 77.0 77.0 

Colorado Bend Energy Center CBEC_GT4 Wharton Gas Houston 2008 71.0 71.0 71.0 71.0 71.0 71.0 

Colorado Bend Energy Center CBEC_STG1 Wharton Gas Houston 2007 103.0 103.0 103.0 103.0 103.0 103.0 

Colorado Bend Energy Center CBEC_STG2 Wharton Gas Houston 2008 104.0 104.0 104.0 104.0 104.0 104.0 

Cedar Bayou 1 CBY_CBY_G1 Chambers Gas Houston 1970 745.0 745.0 745.0 745.0 745.0 745.0 

Cedar Bayou 2 CBY_CBY_G2 Chambers Gas Houston 1972 749.0 749.0 749.0 749.0 749.0 749.0 

Cedar Bayou 4 CBY4_CT41 Chambers Gas Houston 2009 180.0 180.0 180.0 180.0 180.0 180.0 

Cedar Bayou 5 CBY4_CT42 Chambers Gas Houston 2009 180.0 180.0 180.0 180.0 180.0 180.0 

Cedar Bayou 6 CBY4_ST04 Chambers Gas Houston 2009 190.0 190.0 190.0 190.0 190.0 190.0 

Coleto Creek COLETO_COLETOG1 Goliad Coal South 1980 640.0 640.0 640.0 640.0 640.0 640.0 

Comanche Peak 1 CPSES_UNIT1 Somervell Nuclear North 1990 1210.0 1210.0 1210.0 1210.0 1210.0 1210.0 1

Comanche Peak 2 CPSES_UNIT2 Somervell Nuclear North 1993 1197.0 1197.0 1197.0 1197.0 1197.0 1197.0 1

Small Hydro of Texas 1 CUECPL_UNIT1 Dewitt Hydro South 1992 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 

CVC Channelview 1 CVC_CVC_G1 Harris Gas Houston 2008 156.0 156.0 156.0 156.0 156.0 156.0 

CVC Channelview 2 CVC_CVC_G2 Harris Gas Houston 2008 158.0 158.0 158.0 158.0 158.0 158.0 

CVC Channelview 3 CVC_CVC_G3 Harris Gas Houston 2008 160.0 160.0 160.0 160.0 160.0 160.0 

CVC Channelview 5 CVC_CVC_G5 Harris Gas Houston 2008 122.0 122.0 122.0 122.0 122.0 122.0 

Dansby 1 DANSBY_DANSBYG1 Brazos Gas North 1978 110.0 110.0 110.0 110.0 110.0 110.0 

Dansby 2 DANSBY_DANSBYG2 Brazos Gas North 2004 48.0 48.0 48.0 48.0 48.0 48.0 

Dansby 3 Dansby 3 DANSBY DANSBYG3 DANSBY_DANSBYG3 Brazos Gas North 2010 48.0 48.0 48.0 48.0 48.0 48.0 DeCordova A DCSES_CT10 Hood Gas North 2010 71.0 71.0 71.0 71.0 71.0 71.0 

DeCordova B DCSES_CT20 Hood Gas North 2010 70.0 70.0 70.0 70.0 70.0 70.0 

DeCordova C DCSES_CT30 Hood Gas North 2010 69.0 69.0 69.0 69.0 69.0 69.0 

DeCordova D DCSES_CT40 Hood Gas North 2010 68.0 68.0 68.0 68.0 68.0 68.0 

Deer Park Energy Center 1 DDPEC_GT1 Harris Gas Houston 2002 163.2 163.2 163.2 163.2 163.2 163.2 

Deer Park Energy Center 2 DDPEC_GT2 Harris Gas Houston 2002 157.1 157.1 157.1 157.1 157.1 157.1 

Deer Park Energy Center 3 DDPEC_GT3 Harris Gas Houston 2002 157.5 157.5 157.5 157.5 157.5 157.5 

Deer Park Energy Center 4 DDPEC_GT4 Harris Gas Houston 2002 157.0 157.0 157.0 157.0 157.0 157.0 

Deer Park Energy Center S DDPEC_ST1 Harris Gas Houston 2002 238.2 238.2 238.2 238.2 238.2 238.2 

Decker Creek 1 DECKER_DPG1 Travis Gas South 2000 315.0 315.0 315.0 315.0 315.0 315.0 

Decker Creek 2 DECKER_DPG2 Travis Gas South 2000 420.0 420.0 420.0 420.0 420.0 420.0 

Decker Creek G1 DECKER_DPGT_1 Travis Gas South 2000 48.0 48.0 48.0 48.0 48.0 48.0 

Decker Creek G2 DECKER_DPGT_2 Travis Gas South 2000 48.0 48.0 48.0 48.0 48.0 48.0 

Decker Creek G3 DECKER_DPGT_3 Travis Gas South 2000 48.0 48.0 48.0 48.0 48.0 48.0 

Decker Creek G4 DECKER_DPGT_4 Travis Gas South 2000 48.0 48.0 48.0 48.0 48.0 48.0 

Rhodia Houston Plant DG__HG_2UNITS Harris Other Houston 1970 7.5 7.5 7.5 7.5 7.5 7.5 

Oak Ridge North 1-3 DG__RA_3UNITS Montgomery Other Houston 1993 4.8 4.8 4.8 4.8 4.8 4.8 Fresno Energy DG__SO_1UNIT Fort Bend Other Houston 2010 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 

DFW Gas Recovery DG_BIO2_4UNITS Denton Biomass North 1980 6.4 6.4 6.4 6.4 6.4 6.4 Bio Energy Partners DG_BIOE_2UNITS Denton Gas North 1988 5.6 5.6 5.6 5.6 5.6 5.6 Skyline Landfill Gas DG_FERIS_4UNITS Dallas Other North 2007 6.4 6.4 6.4 6.4 6.4 6.4 

Trinity Oaks LFG DG_KLBRG_1UNIT Dallas Biomass North 2009 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 

GBRA 4 & 5 DG_LKWDT_2UNITS Gonzales Other South 1931 4.8 4.8 4.8 4.8 4.8 4.8 

10
Units used in determining the generation resources in the Summer Summary

Unit Name Unit Code County Fuel Forecast Zone Year In Service 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 

Unit Capacities - Summer

Operational capacities are based on unit testing. Other capacities are based on information provided by the plant owners. This list includes MW available to the grid from private network (self-serve) units. units that have registered with ERCOT. Data without unit names are for private network units or are planned generation that is not public.

Lewisville 1 DG_LWSVL_1UNIT Denton Hydro North 1992 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 McQueeney (Abbott) DG_MCQUE_5UNITS Guadalupe Hydro South 1927 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 Covel Gardens LG Power Stn DG_MEDIN_1UNIT Bexar Other South 2005 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 

Nelson Gardens Landfill 1 DG_PEARS_2UNITS Bexar Other South 1990 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.6 

FW Region LFG Gen Facility 1 DG_RDLML_1UNIT Tarrant Other North 1988 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 RGV Sugar Mill DG_S_SNR_UNIT1 Hidalgo Biomass South 1973 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 

Dunlop (Schumansville) 1 DG_SCHUM_2UNITS Guadalupe Hydro South 1927 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.6 

Austin Landfill Gas DG_SPRIN_4UNITS Travis Other South 1988 6.4 6.4 6.4 6.4 6.4 6.4 

AEDOMG 1 DG_SUMMI_1UNIT Travis Gas South 2004 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 

Tessman Road 1 DG_WALZE_4UNITS Bexar Biomass South 2003 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 

Denison Dam 1 DNDAM_DENISOG1 Grayson Hydro North 1944 40.0 40.0 40.0 40.0 40.0 40.0 

Denison Dam 2 DNDAM_DENISOG2 Grayson Hydro North 1948 40.0 40.0 40.0 40.0 40.0 40.0 

Hidalgo 1 DUKE_DUKE_GT1 Hidalgo Gas South 2000 145.0 145.0 145.0 145.0 145.0 145.0 

Hidalgo 2 DUKE_DUKE_GT2 Hidalgo Gas South 2000 145.0 145.0 145.0 145.0 145.0 145.0 

Hidalgo 3 DUKE_DUKE_ST1 Hidalgo Gas South 2000 170.0 170.0 170.0 170.0 170.0 170.0 

Eagle Pass 1 EAGLE_HY_EAGLE_HY1 Maverick Hydro South 1954 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 

Eagle Pass 2 EAGLE_HY_EAGLE_HY2 Maverick Hydro South 1954 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 

Eagle Pass 3 EAGLE_HY_EAGLE_HY3 Maverick Hydro South 1954 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 

Ennis Power Station 2 ETCCS_CT1 Ellis Gas North 2002 196.0 196.0 196.0 196.0 196.0 196.0 

Ennis Power Station 1 ETCCS_UNIT1 Ellis Gas North 2002 116.0 116.0 116.0 116.0 116.0 116.0 

Falcon Hydro 1 FALCON_FALCONG1 Starr Hydro South 1954 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 

Falcon Hydro 2 FALCON_FALCONG2 Starr Hydro South 1954 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 

Falcon Hydro 3 FALCON_FALCONG3 Starr Hydro South 1954 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 

Thomas C Ferguson 1 FERGUS_FERGUSG1 Llano Gas South 1974 424.0 424.0 424.0 424.0 424.0 424.0 

Calenergy (Falcon Seaboard) 1 Calenergy (Falcon Seaboard) 1 FLCNS UNIT1 FLCNS_UNIT1 Howard Gas West 1987 75.0 75.0 75.0 75.0 75.0 75.0 Calenergy (Falcon Seaboard) 2 FLCNS_UNIT2 Howard Gas West 1987 75.0 75.0 75.0 75.0 75.0 75.0 

Calenergy (Falcon Seaboard) 3 FLCNS_UNIT3 Howard Gas West 1988 70.0 70.0 70.0 70.0 70.0 70.0 

Fayette Power Project 1 FPPYD1_FPP_G1 Fayette Coal South 1979 608.0 608.0 608.0 608.0 608.0 608.0 

Fayette Power Project 2 FPPYD1_FPP_G2 Fayette Coal South 1980 608.0 608.0 608.0 608.0 608.0 608.0 

Fayette Power Project 3 FPPYD2_FPP_G3 Fayette Coal South 1988 445.0 445.0 445.0 445.0 445.0 445.0 

Freestone Energy Center 1 FREC_GT1 Freestone Gas North 2002 152.0 152.0 152.0 152.0 152.0 152.0 

Freestone Energy Center 2 FREC_GT2 Freestone Gas North 2002 152.0 152.0 152.0 152.0 152.0 152.0 

Freestone Energy Center 4 FREC_GT4 Freestone Gas North 2002 152.0 152.0 152.0 152.0 152.0 152.0 

Freestone Energy Center 5 FREC_GT5 Freestone Gas North 2002 152.0 152.0 152.0 152.0 152.0 152.0 

Freestone Energy Center 3 FREC_ST3 Freestone Gas North 2002 175.0 175.0 175.0 175.0 175.0 175.0 

Freestone Energy Center 6 FREC_ST6 Freestone Gas North 2002 175.0 175.0 175.0 175.0 175.0 175.0 

Forney Energy Center GT11 FRNYPP_GT11 Kaufman Gas North 2003 178.2 178.2 178.2 178.2 178.2 178.2 

Forney Energy Center GT12 FRNYPP_GT12 Kaufman Gas North 2003 178.2 178.2 178.2 178.2 178.2 178.2 

Forney Energy Center GT13 FRNYPP_GT13 Kaufman Gas North 2003 178.2 178.2 178.2 178.2 178.2 178.2 

Forney Energy Center GT21 FRNYPP_GT21 Kaufman Gas North 2003 178.2 178.2 178.2 178.2 178.2 178.2 

Forney Energy Center GT22 FRNYPP_GT22 Kaufman Gas North 2003 178.2 178.2 178.2 178.2 178.2 178.2 

Forney Energy Center GT23 FRNYPP_GT23 Kaufman Gas North 2003 178.2 178.2 178.2 178.2 178.2 178.2 

Forney Energy Center STG10 FRNYPP_ST10 Kaufman Gas North 2003 405.0 405.0 405.0 405.0 405.0 405.0 

Forney Energy Center STG20 FRNYPP_ST20 Kaufman Gas North 2003 405.0 405.0 405.0 405.0 405.0 405.0 

Frontera 1 FRONTERA_FRONTEG1 Hidalgo Gas South 1999 141.0 141.0 141.0 141.0 141.0 141.0 

Frontera 2 FRONTERA_FRONTEG2 Hidalgo Gas South 1999 141.0 141.0 141.0 141.0 141.0 141.0 

Frontera 3 FRONTERA_FRONTEG3 Hidalgo Gas South 2000 173.0 173.0 173.0 173.0 173.0 173.0 

Greens Bayou 5 GBY_GBY_5 Harris Gas Houston 1973 406.0 406.0 406.0 406.0 406.0 406.0 

11
Units used in determining the generation resources in the Summer Summary

Unit Name Unit Code County Fuel Forecast Zone Year In Service 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 

Unit Capacities - Summer

Operational capacities are based on unit testing. Other capacities are based on information provided by the plant owners. This list includes MW available to the grid from private network (self-serve) units. units that have registered with ERCOT. Data without unit names are for private network units or are planned generation that is not public.

Greens Bayou 73 GBY_GBYGT73 Harris Gas Houston 1976 46.0 46.0 46.0 46.0 46.0 46.0 

Greens Bayou 74 GBY_GBYGT74 Harris Gas Houston 1976 46.0 46.0 46.0 46.0 46.0 46.0 

Greens Bayou 81 GBY_GBYGT81 Harris Gas Houston 1976 46.0 46.0 46.0 46.0 46.0 46.0 

Greens Bayou 82 GBY_GBYGT82 Harris Gas Houston 1976 58.0 58.0 58.0 58.0 58.0 58.0 

Greens Bayou 83 GBY_GBYGT83 Harris Gas Houston 1976 56.0 56.0 56.0 56.0 56.0 56.0 

Greens Bayou 84 GBY_GBYGT84 Harris Gas Houston 1976 58.0 58.0 58.0 58.0 58.0 58.0 

Gibbons Creek 1 GIBCRK_GIB_CRG1 Grimes Coal North 1982 470.0 470.0 470.0 470.0 470.0 470.0 

Sim Gideon 1 GIDEON_GIDEONG1 Bastrop Gas South 1965 136.0 136.0 136.0 136.0 136.0 136.0 

Sim Gideon 2 GIDEON_GIDEONG2 Bastrop Gas South 1968 136.0 136.0 136.0 136.0 136.0 136.0 

Sim Gideon 3 GIDEON_GIDEONG3 Bastrop Gas South 1972 336.0 336.0 336.0 336.0 336.0 336.0 

Graham 1 GRSES_UNIT1 Young Gas West 1960 225.0 225.0 225.0 225.0 225.0 225.0 Graham 2 GRSES_UNIT2 Young Gas West 1969 390.0 390.0 390.0 390.0 390.0 390.0 Guadalupe Gen Stn 1 GUADG_GAS1 Guadalupe Gas South 2000 151.0 151.0 151.0 151.0 151.0 151.0 

Guadalupe Gen Stn 2 GUADG_GAS2 Guadalupe Gas South 2000 151.0 151.0 151.0 151.0 151.0 151.0 

Guadalupe Gen Stn 3 GUADG_GAS3 Guadalupe Gas South 2000 149.0 149.0 149.0 149.0 149.0 149.0 

Guadalupe Gen Stn 4 GUADG_GAS4 Guadalupe Gas South 2000 152.0 152.0 152.0 152.0 152.0 152.0 

Guadalupe Gen Stn 5 GUADG_STM5 Guadalupe Gas South 2000 170.0 170.0 170.0 170.0 170.0 170.0 

Guadalupe Gen Stn 6 GUADG_STM6 Guadalupe Gas South 2000 169.0 169.0 169.0 169.0 169.0 169.0 

Hays Energy Facility 1 HAYSEN_HAYSENG1 Hays Gas South 2002 216.0 216.0 216.0 216.0 216.0 216.0 

Hays Energy Facility 2 HAYSEN_HAYSENG2 Hays Gas South 2002 216.0 216.0 216.0 216.0 216.0 216.0 

Hays Energy Facility 3 HAYSEN_HAYSENG3 Hays Gas South 2002 225.0 225.0 225.0 225.0 225.0 225.0 

Hays Energy Facility 4 HAYSEN_HAYSENG4 Hays Gas South 2002 225.0 225.0 225.0 225.0 225.0 225.0 

Handley 3 HLSES_UNIT3 Tarrant Gas North 1963 395.0 395.0 395.0 395.0 395.0 395.0 

Handley 4 HLSES_UNIT4 Tarrant Gas North 1976 435.0 435.0 435.0 435.0 435.0 435.0 

Handley 5 Handley 5 HLSES UNIT5 HLSES_UNIT5 Tarrant Tarrant Gas North 1977 435.0 435.0 435.0 435.0 435.0 435.0 Inks 1 INKSDA_INKS_G1 Llano Hydro South 1938 14.0 14.0 14.0 14.0 14.0 14.0 

Jack County GenFacility 1 JACKCNTY_CT1 Jack Gas North 2005 142.0 142.0 142.0 142.0 142.0 142.0 

Jack County GenFacility 1 JACKCNTY_CT2 Jack Gas North 2005 142.0 142.0 142.0 142.0 142.0 142.0 

Jack County GenFacility 1 JACKCNTY_STG Jack Gas North 2005 281.0 281.0 281.0 281.0 281.0 281.0 

Laredo Peaking 4 LARDVFTN_G4 Webb Gas South 2008 94.2 94.2 94.2 94.2 94.2 94.2 

Laredo Peaking 5 LARDVFTN_G5 Webb Gas South 2008 94.2 94.2 94.2 94.2 94.2 94.2 

Limestone 1 LEG_LEG_G1 Limestone Coal North 1985 831.0 831.0 831.0 831.0 831.0 831.0 

Limestone 2 LEG_LEG_G2 Limestone Coal North 1986 858.0 858.0 858.0 858.0 858.0 858.0 

Leon Creek Peaking 1 LEON_CRK_LCPCT1 Bexar Gas South 2004 45.0 45.0 45.0 45.0 45.0 45.0 

Leon Creek Peaking 2 LEON_CRK_LCPCT2 Bexar Gas South 2004 45.0 45.0 45.0 45.0 45.0 45.0 

Leon Creek Peaking 3 LEON_CRK_LCPCT3 Bexar Gas South 2004 45.0 45.0 45.0 45.0 45.0 45.0 

Leon Creek Peaking 4 LEON_CRK_LCPCT4 Bexar Gas South 2004 45.0 45.0 45.0 45.0 45.0 45.0 

Lufkin Biomass LFBIO_UNIT1 Angelina Biomass North 2011 45.0 45.0 45.0 45.0 45.0 45.0 

Lake Hubbard 2 LH2SES_UNIT2 Dallas Gas North 2010 524.0 524.0 524.0 524.0 524.0 524.0 

Lake Hubbard 1 LHSES_UNIT1 Dallas Gas North 1970 392.0 392.0 392.0 392.0 392.0 392.0 

Lost Pines 1 LOSTPI_LOSTPGT1 Bastrop Gas South 2001 167.0 167.0 167.0 167.0 167.0 167.0 

Lost Pines 2 LOSTPI_LOSTPGT2 Bastrop Gas South 2001 164.0 164.0 164.0 164.0 164.0 164.0 

Lost Pines 3 LOSTPI_LOSTPST1 Bastrop Gas South 2001 184.0 184.0 184.0 184.0 184.0 184.0 

Lamar Power Project CT11 LPCCS_CT11 Lamar Gas North 2000 166.0 166.0 166.0 166.0 166.0 166.0 

Lamar Power Project CT12 LPCCS_CT12 Lamar Gas North 2000 166.0 166.0 166.0 166.0 166.0 166.0 

Lamar Power Project CT21 LPCCS_CT21 Lamar Gas North 2000 166.0 166.0 166.0 166.0 166.0 166.0 

Lamar Power Project CT22 LPCCS_CT22 Lamar Gas North 2000 166.0 166.0 166.0 166.0 166.0 166.0 

Lamar Power Project STG1 LPCCS_UNIT1 Lamar Gas North 2000 204.3 204.3 204.3 204.3 204.3 204.3 

12
Units used in determining the generation resources in the Summer Summary

Unit Name Unit Code County Fuel Forecast Zone Year In Service 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 

Unit Capacities - Summer

Operational capacities are based on unit testing. Other capacities are based on information provided by the plant owners. This list includes MW available to the grid from private network (self-serve) units. units that have registered with ERCOT. Data without unit names are for private network units or are planned generation that is not public.

Lamar Power Project STG2 LPCCS_UNIT2 Lamar Gas North 2000 204.3 204.3 204.3 204.3 204.3 204.3 

Marble Falls 1 MARBFA_MARBFAG1 Burnet Hydro South 1951 21.0 21.0 21.0 21.0 21.0 21.0 

Marble Falls 2 MARBFA_MARBFAG2 Burnet Hydro South 1951 21.0 21.0 21.0 21.0 21.0 21.0 

Marshall Ford 1 MARSFO_MARSFOG1 Travis Hydro South 1941 36.0 36.0 36.0 36.0 36.0 36.0 

Marshall Ford 2 MARSFO_MARSFOG2 Travis Hydro South 1941 36.0 36.0 36.0 36.0 36.0 36.0 

Marshall Ford 3 MARSFO_MARSFOG3 Travis Hydro South 1941 29.0 29.0 29.0 29.0 29.0 29.0 

Mountain Creek 6 MCSES_UNIT6 Dallas Gas North 1956 120.0 120.0 120.0 120.0 120.0 120.0 

Mountain Creek 7 MCSES_UNIT7 Dallas Gas North 1958 115.0 115.0 115.0 115.0 115.0 115.0 

Mountain Creek 8 MCSES_UNIT8 Dallas Gas North 1967 565.0 565.0 565.0 565.0 565.0 565.0 

Midlothian 1 MDANP_CT1 Ellis Gas North 2001 216.0 216.0 216.0 216.0 216.0 216.0 

Midlothian 2 MDANP_CT2 Ellis Gas North 2001 216.0 216.0 216.0 216.0 216.0 216.0 

Midlothian 3 MDANP_CT3 Ellis Gas North 2001 216.0 216.0 216.0 216.0 216.0 216.0 

Midlothian 4 MDANP_CT4 Ellis Gas North 2001 216.0 216.0 216.0 216.0 216.0 216.0 

Midlothian 5 MDANP_CT5 Ellis Gas North 2002 225.0 225.0 225.0 225.0 225.0 225.0 

Midlothian 6 MDANP_CT6 Ellis Gas North 2002 225.0 225.0 225.0 225.0 225.0 225.0 

Morgan Creek A MGSES_CT1 Mitchell Gas West 1988 68.0 68.0 68.0 68.0 68.0 68.0 

Morgan Creek B MGSES_CT2 Mitchell Gas West 1988 68.0 68.0 68.0 68.0 68.0 68.0 

Morgan Creek C MGSES_CT3 Mitchell Gas West 1988 68.0 68.0 68.0 68.0 68.0 68.0 

Morgan Creek D MGSES_CT4 Mitchell Gas West 1988 68.0 68.0 68.0 68.0 68.0 68.0 

Morgan Creek E MGSES_CT5 Mitchell Gas West 1988 68.0 68.0 68.0 68.0 68.0 68.0 

Morgan Creek F MGSES_CT6 Mitchell Gas West 1988 67.0 67.0 67.0 67.0 67.0 67.0 

R W Miller 1 MIL_MILLERG1 Palo Pinto Gas North 2000 75.0 75.0 75.0 75.0 75.0 75.0 

R W Miller 2 MIL_MILLERG2 Palo Pinto Gas North 2000 120.0 120.0 120.0 120.0 120.0 120.0 

R W Miller 3 MIL_MILLERG3 Palo Pinto Gas North 2000 208.0 208.0 208.0 208.0 208.0 208.0 

R W Miller 4 R W Miller 4 MIL MILLERG4 MIL

_

MILLERG4 Palo Pinto Palo Pinto Gas North 2000 104.0 104.0 104.0 104.0 104.0 104.0 

R W Miller 5 MIL_MILLERG5 Palo Pinto Gas North 2000 104.0 104.0 104.0 104.0 104.0 104.0 

Martin Lake 1 MLSES_UNIT1 Rusk Coal North 1977 805.0 805.0 805.0 805.0 805.0 805.0 

Martin Lake 2 MLSES_UNIT2 Rusk Coal North 1978 810.0 810.0 810.0 810.0 810.0 810.0 

Martin Lake 3 MLSES_UNIT3 Rusk Coal North 1979 810.0 810.0 810.0 810.0 810.0 810.0 

Monticello 1 MNSES_UNIT1 Titus Coal North 1974 565.0 565.0 565.0 565.0 565.0 565.0 

Monticello 2 MNSES_UNIT2 Titus Coal North 1975 565.0 565.0 565.0 565.0 565.0 565.0 

Monticello 3 MNSES_UNIT3 Titus Coal North 1978 760.0 760.0 760.0 760.0 760.0 760.0 

Magic Valley 1 NEDIN_NEDIN_G1 Hidalgo Gas South 2001 190.0 190.0 190.0 190.0 190.0 190.0 

Magic Valley 2 NEDIN_NEDIN_G2 Hidalgo Gas South 2001 190.0 190.0 190.0 190.0 190.0 190.0 

Magic Valley 3 NEDIN_NEDIN_G3 Hidalgo Gas South 2001 210.0 210.0 210.0 210.0 210.0 210.0 

Nueces Bay 7 NUECES_B_NUECESG7 Nueces Gas South 1972 308.0 308.0 308.0 308.0 308.0 308.0 

Nueces Bay 8 NUECES_B_NUECESG8 Nueces Gas South 2009 175.1 175.1 175.1 175.1 175.1 175.1 

Nueces Bay 9 NUECES_B_NUECESG9 Nueces Gas South 2009 175.1 175.1 175.1 175.1 175.1 175.1 

Odessa-Ector Gen Stn C11 OECCS_CT11 Ector Gas West 2001 146.0 146.0 146.0 146.0 146.0 146.0 Odessa-Ector Gen Stn C12 OECCS_CT12 Ector Gas West 2001 139.0 139.0 139.0 139.0 139.0 139.0 Odessa-Ector Gen Stn C21 OECCS_CT21 Ector Gas West 2001 135.0 135.0 135.0 135.0 135.0 135.0 Odessa-Ector Gen Stn C22 OECCS_CT22 Ector Gas West 2001 153.0 153.0 153.0 153.0 153.0 153.0 Odessa-Ector Gen Stn ST1 OECCS_UNIT1 Ector Gas West 2001 210.0 210.0 210.0 210.0 210.0 210.0 

Odessa-Ector Gen Stn ST2 OECCS_UNIT2 Ector Gas West 2001 210.0 210.0 210.0 210.0 210.0 210.0 

Oak Grove SES Unit 1 OGSES_UNIT1A Robertson Coal North 2011 820.0 820.0 820.0 820.0 820.0 820.0 

Oak Grove SES Unit 2 OGSES_UNIT2 Robertson Coal North 2011 796.0 796.0 796.0 796.0 796.0 796.0 

Oklaunion 1 OKLA_OKLA_G1 Wilbarger Coal West 1986 650.0 650.0 650.0 650.0 650.0 650.0 

Ray Olinger 1 OLINGR_OLING_1 Collin Gas North 1967 78.0 78.0 78.0 78.0 78.0 78.0 

13
Units used in determining the generation resources in the Summer Summary

Unit Name Unit Code County Fuel Forecast Zone Year In Service 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 

Unit Capacities - Summer

Operational capacities are based on unit testing. Other capacities are based on information provided by the plant owners. This list includes MW available to the grid from private network (self-serve) units. units that have registered with ERCOT. Data without unit names are for private network units or are planned generation that is not public.

Ray Olinger 2 OLINGR_OLING_2 Collin Gas North 1971 107.0 107.0 107.0 107.0 107.0 107.0 

Ray Olinger 3 OLINGR_OLING_3 Collin Gas North 1975 146.0 146.0 146.0 146.0 146.0 146.0 

Ray Olinger 4 OLINGR_OLING_4 Collin Gas North 2001 75.0 75.0 75.0 75.0 75.0 75.0 

Permian Basin A PB2SES_CT1 Ward Gas West 1988 68.0 68.0 68.0 68.0 68.0 68.0 

Permian Basin B PB2SES_CT2 Ward Gas West 1988 65.0 65.0 65.0 65.0 65.0 65.0 

Permian Basin C PB2SES_CT3 Ward Gas West 1988 68.0 68.0 68.0 68.0 68.0 68.0 

Permian Basin D PB2SES_CT4 Ward Gas West 1990 69.0 69.0 69.0 69.0 69.0 69.0 

Permian Basin E PB2SES_CT5 Ward Gas West 1990 70.0 70.0 70.0 70.0 70.0 70.0 

Pearsall Engine Plant PEARSAL2_ENG1 Frio Gas South 2010 8.4 8.4 8.4 8.4 8.4 8.4 

Pearsall Engine Plant PEARSAL2_ENG10 Frio Gas South 2010 8.4 8.4 8.4 8.4 8.4 8.4 

Pearsall Engine Plant PEARSAL2_ENG11 Frio Gas South 2010 8.4 8.4 8.4 8.4 8.4 8.4 

Pearsall Engine Plant PEARSAL2_ENG12 Frio Gas South 2010 8.4 8.4 8.4 8.4 8.4 8.4 

Pearsall Engine Plant PEARSAL2_ENG13 Frio Gas South 2010 8.4 8.4 8.4 8.4 8.4 8.4 

Pearsall Engine Plant PEARSAL2_ENG14 Frio Gas South 2010 8.4 8.4 8.4 8.4 8.4 8.4 

Pearsall Engine Plant PEARSAL2_ENG15 Frio Gas South 2010 8.4 8.4 8.4 8.4 8.4 8.4 

Pearsall Engine Plant PEARSAL2_ENG16 Frio Gas South 2010 8.4 8.4 8.4 8.4 8.4 8.4 

Pearsall Engine Plant PEARSAL2_ENG17 Frio Gas South 2010 8.4 8.4 8.4 8.4 8.4 8.4 

Pearsall Engine Plant PEARSAL2_ENG18 Frio Gas South 2010 8.4 8.4 8.4 8.4 8.4 8.4 

Pearsall Engine Plant PEARSAL2_ENG19 Frio Gas South 2010 8.4 8.4 8.4 8.4 8.4 8.4 

Pearsall Engine Plant PEARSAL2_ENG2 Frio Gas South 2010 8.4 8.4 8.4 8.4 8.4 8.4 

Pearsall Engine Plant PEARSAL2_ENG20 Frio Gas South 2010 8.4 8.4 8.4 8.4 8.4 8.4 

Pearsall Engine Plant PEARSAL2_ENG21 Frio Gas South 2010 8.4 8.4 8.4 8.4 8.4 8.4 

Pearsall Engine Plant PEARSAL2_ENG22 Frio Gas South 2010 8.4 8.4 8.4 8.4 8.4 8.4 

Pearsall Engine Plant PEARSAL2_ENG23 Frio Gas South 2010 8.4 8.4 8.4 8.4 8.4 8.4 

Pearsall Engine Plant Pearsall Engine Plant PEARSAL2 ENG24 PEARSAL2_ENG24 Frio Gas South 2010 8.4 8.4 8.4 8.4 8.4 8.4 Pearsall Engine Plant PEARSAL2_ENG3 Frio Gas South 2010 8.4 8.4 8.4 8.4 8.4 8.4 

Pearsall Engine Plant PEARSAL2_ENG4 Frio Gas South 2010 8.4 8.4 8.4 8.4 8.4 8.4 

Pearsall Engine Plant PEARSAL2_ENG5 Frio Gas South 2010 8.4 8.4 8.4 8.4 8.4 8.4 

Pearsall Engine Plant PEARSAL2_ENG6 Frio Gas South 2010 8.4 8.4 8.4 8.4 8.4 8.4 

Pearsall Engine Plant PEARSAL2_ENG7 Frio Gas South 2010 8.4 8.4 8.4 8.4 8.4 8.4 

Pearsall Engine Plant PEARSAL2_ENG8 Frio Gas South 2010 8.4 8.4 8.4 8.4 8.4 8.4 

Pearsall Engine Plant PEARSAL2_ENG9 Frio Gas South 2010 8.4 8.4 8.4 8.4 8.4 8.4 

Pearsall 1 PEARSALL_PEARS_1 Frio Gas South 1961 25.0 25.0 25.0 25.0 25.0 25.0 

Pearsall 2 PEARSALL_PEARS_2 Frio Gas South 1961 25.0 25.0 25.0 25.0 25.0 25.0 

Pearsall 3 PEARSALL_PEARS_3 Frio Gas South 1961 25.0 25.0 25.0 25.0 25.0 25.0 

PasGen PSG_PSG_GT2 Harris Gas Houston 2000 161.0 161.0 161.0 161.0 161.0 161.0 

PasGen PSG_PSG_GT3 Harris Gas Houston 2000 161.0 161.0 161.0 161.0 161.0 161.0 

PasGen PSG_PSG_ST2 Harris Gas Houston 2000 177.0 177.0 177.0 177.0 177.0 177.0 

Quail Run Energy STG1 QALSW_GT1 Ector Gas West 2007 74.0 74.0 74.0 74.0 74.0 74.0 

Quail Run Energy GT1 QALSW_GT2 Ector Gas West 2007 74.0 74.0 74.0 74.0 74.0 74.0 

Quail Run Energy GT2 QALSW_GT3 Ector Gas West 2008 72.0 72.0 72.0 72.0 72.0 72.0 

Quail Run Energy STG2 QALSW_GT4 Ector Gas West 2008 72.0 72.0 72.0 72.0 72.0 72.0 

Quail Run Energy GT3 QALSW_STG1 Ector Gas West 2007 102.0 102.0 102.0 102.0 102.0 102.0 

Quail Run Energy GT4 QALSW_STG2 Ector Gas West 2008 98.0 98.0 98.0 98.0 98.0 98.0 

Rayburn 1 RAYBURN_RAYBURG1 Victoria Gas South 1963 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 

Rayburn 10 RAYBURN_RAYBURG10 Victoria Gas South 2003 40.0 40.0 40.0 40.0 40.0 40.0 

Rayburn 2 RAYBURN_RAYBURG2 Victoria Gas South 1963 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 

Rayburn 3 RAYBURN_RAYBURG3 Victoria Gas South 1965 24.0 24.0 24.0 24.0 24.0 24.0 

14
Units used in determining the generation resources in the Summer Summary

Unit Name Unit Code County Fuel Forecast Zone Year In Service 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 

Unit Capacities - Summer

Operational capacities are based on unit testing. Other capacities are based on information provided by the plant owners. This list includes MW available to the grid from private network (self-serve) units. units that have registered with ERCOT. Data without unit names are for private network units or are planned generation that is not public.

Rayburn 7 RAYBURN_RAYBURG7 Victoria Gas South 2003 50.0 50.0 50.0 50.0 50.0 50.0 

Rayburn 8 RAYBURN_RAYBURG8 Victoria Gas South 2003 50.0 50.0 50.0 50.0 50.0 50.0 

Rayburn 9 RAYBURN_RAYBURG9 Victoria Gas South 2003 50.0 50.0 50.0 50.0 50.0 50.0 

Rio Nogales 1 RIONOG_CT1 Guadalupe Gas South 2002 154.0 154.0 154.0 154.0 154.0 154.0 

Rio Nogales 2 RIONOG_CT2 Guadalupe Gas South 2002 154.0 154.0 154.0 154.0 154.0 154.0 

Rio Nogales 3 RIONOG_CT3 Guadalupe Gas South 2002 154.0 154.0 154.0 154.0 154.0 154.0 

Rio Nogales 4 RIONOG_ST1 Guadalupe Gas South 2002 323.0 323.0 323.0 323.0 323.0 323.0 

Sandhill Energy Center 5A SANDHSYD_SH_5A Travis Gas South 2004 155.0 155.0 155.0 155.0 155.0 155.0 

Sandhill Energy Center 5C SANDHSYD_SH_5C Travis Gas South 2004 145.0 145.0 145.0 145.0 145.0 145.0 

Sandhill Energy Center 1 SANDHSYD_SH1 Travis Gas South 2001 45.0 45.0 45.0 45.0 45.0 45.0 

Sandhill Energy Center 2 SANDHSYD_SH2 Travis Gas South 2001 45.0 45.0 45.0 45.0 45.0 45.0 

Sandhill Energy Center 3 SANDHSYD_SH3 Travis Gas South 2001 45.0 45.0 45.0 45.0 45.0 45.0 

Sandhill Energy Center 4 SANDHSYD_SH4 Travis Gas South 2001 45.0 45.0 45.0 45.0 45.0 45.0 

Sandhill Energy Center 6 SANDHSYD_SH6 Travis Gas South 2010 45.0 45.0 45.0 45.0 45.0 45.0 

Sandhill Energy Center 7 SANDHSYD_SH7 Travis Gas South 2010 45.0 45.0 45.0 45.0 45.0 45.0 

San Miguel 1 SANMIGL_SANMIGG1 Atascosa Coal South 1982 391.0 391.0 391.0 391.0 391.0 391.0 

Stryker Creek 1 SCSES_UNIT1A Cherokee Gas North 1958 171.0 171.0 171.0 171.0 171.0 171.0 

Stryker Creek 2 SCSES_UNIT2 Cherokee Gas North 1965 502.0 502.0 502.0 502.0 502.0 502.0 

Sandow 5 SD5SES_UNIT5 Milam Coal South 2010 570.0 570.0 570.0 570.0 570.0 570.0 

Silas Ray 10 SILASRAY_SILAS_10 Cameron Gas South 2004 48.0 48.0 48.0 48.0 48.0 48.0 

Silas Ray 5 SILASRAY_SILAS_5 Cameron Gas South 1951 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 

Silas Ray 6 SILASRAY_SILAS_6 Cameron Gas South 1961 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 

Silas Ray 9 SILASRAY_SILAS_9 Cameron Gas South 1996 38.0 38.0 38.0 38.0 38.0 38.0 

San Jacinto SES 1 SJS_SJS_G1 Harris Gas Houston 1995 81.0 81.0 81.0 81.0 81.0 81.0 

San Jacinto SES 2 San Jacinto SES 2 SJS SJS G2 SJS

_

SJS

_

G2 Harris Gas Houston Houston 1995 81.0 81.0 81.0 81.0 81.0 81.0 

Sam Bertron 3 SRB_SRB_G3 Harris Gas Houston 1959 230.0 230.0 230.0 230.0 230.0 230.0 

Sam Bertron 4 SRB_SRB_G4 Harris Gas Houston 1960 230.0 230.0 230.0 230.0 230.0 230.0 

Sam Bertron T2 SRB_SRBGT_2 Harris Gas Houston 1967 13.0 13.0 13.0 13.0 13.0 13.0 

Greenville Engine Plant STEAM_ENGINE_1 Hunt Gas North 2010 8.4 8.4 8.4 8.4 8.4 8.4 

Greenville Engine Plant STEAM_ENGINE_2 Hunt Gas North 2010 8.4 8.4 8.4 8.4 8.4 8.4 

Greenville Engine Plant STEAM_ENGINE_3 Hunt Gas North 2010 8.4 8.4 8.4 8.4 8.4 8.4 

Powerlane Plant 2 STEAM_STEAM_2 Hunt Gas North 1967 26.0 26.0 26.0 26.0 26.0 26.0 

Powerlane Plant 3 STEAM_STEAM_3 Hunt Gas North 1978 41.0 41.0 41.0 41.0 41.0 41.0 

Powerlane Plant 1 STEAM1A_STEAM_1 Hunt Gas North 2009 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 

South Texas 1 STP_STP_G1 Matagorda Nuclear South 1988 1362.0 1362.0 1362.0 1362.0 1362.0 1362.0 1

South Texas 2 STP_STP_G2 Matagorda Nuclear South 1989 1362.0 1362.0 1362.0 1362.0 1362.0 1362.0 1Johnson County GenFacility 1 TEN_CT1 Johnson Gas North 1997 163.0 163.0 163.0 163.0 163.0 163.0 

Johnson County GenFacility 2 TEN_STG Johnson Gas North 1997 106.0 106.0 106.0 106.0 106.0 106.0 

Texas Gulf Sulphur TGF_TGFGT_1 Wharton Gas Houston 1985 70.0 70.0 70.0 70.0 70.0 70.0 

T H Wharton G1 THW_THWGT_1 Harris Gas Houston 1967 13.0 13.0 13.0 13.0 13.0 13.0 

T H Wharton 31 THW_THWGT31 Harris Gas Houston 1972 57.0 57.0 57.0 57.0 57.0 57.0 

T H Wharton 32 THW_THWGT32 Harris Gas Houston 1972 57.0 57.0 57.0 57.0 57.0 57.0 

T H Wharton 33 THW_THWGT33 Harris Gas Houston 1972 57.0 57.0 57.0 57.0 57.0 57.0 

T H Wharton 34 THW_THWGT34 Harris Gas Houston 1972 57.0 57.0 57.0 57.0 57.0 57.0 

T H Wharton 41 THW_THWGT41 Harris Gas Houston 1972 57.0 57.0 57.0 57.0 57.0 57.0 

T H Wharton 42 THW_THWGT42 Harris Gas Houston 1972 57.0 57.0 57.0 57.0 57.0 57.0 

T H Wharton 43 THW_THWGT43 Harris Gas Houston 1974 57.0 57.0 57.0 57.0 57.0 57.0 

T H Wharton 44 THW_THWGT44 Harris Gas Houston 1974 57.0 57.0 57.0 57.0 57.0 57.0 

15
Units used in determining the generation resources in the Summer Summary

Unit Name Unit Code County Fuel Forecast Zone Year In Service 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 

Unit Capacities - Summer

Operational capacities are based on unit testing. Other capacities are based on information provided by the plant owners. This list includes MW available to the grid from private network (self-serve) units. units that have registered with ERCOT. Data without unit names are for private network units or are planned generation that is not public.

T H Wharton 51 THW_THWGT51 Harris Gas Houston 1975 57.0 57.0 57.0 57.0 57.0 57.0 

T H Wharton 52 THW_THWGT52 Harris Gas Houston 1975 57.0 57.0 57.0 57.0 57.0 57.0 

T H Wharton 53 THW_THWGT53 Harris Gas Houston 1975 57.0 57.0 57.0 57.0 57.0 57.0 

T H Wharton 54 THW_THWGT54 Harris Gas Houston 1975 57.0 57.0 57.0 57.0 57.0 57.0 

T H Wharton 55 THW_THWGT55 Harris Gas Houston 1975 57.0 57.0 57.0 57.0 57.0 57.0 

T H Wharton 56 THW_THWGT56 Harris Gas Houston 1975 57.0 57.0 57.0 57.0 57.0 57.0 

T H Wharton 3 THW_THWST_3 Harris Gas Houston 1974 104.0 104.0 104.0 104.0 104.0 104.0 T H Wharton 4 THW_THWST_4 Harris Gas Houston 1974 104.0 104.0 104.0 104.0 104.0 104.0 Twin Oaks 1 TNP_ONE_TNP_O_1 Robertson Coal North 1990 156.0 156.0 156.0 156.0 156.0 156.0 

Twin Oaks 2 TNP_ONE_TNP_O_2 Robertson Coal North 1991 156.0 156.0 156.0 156.0 156.0 156.0 

Paris Energy Center 1 TNSKA_GT1 Lamar Gas North 1989 76.0 76.0 76.0 76.0 76.0 76.0 

Paris Energy Center 2 TNSKA_GT2 Lamar Gas North 1989 76.0 76.0 76.0 76.0 76.0 76.0 

Paris Energy Center 3 TNSKA_STG Lamar Gas North 1990 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 Baytown 1 TRN_DG1 Chambers Biomass Houston 2003 3.9 3.9 3.9 3.9 3.9 3.9 

Trinidad 6 TRSES_UNIT6 Henderson Gas North 1965 226.0 226.0 226.0 226.0 226.0 226.0 

Texas City 1 TXCTY_CTA Galveston Gas Houston 2000 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 

Texas City 2 TXCTY_CTB Galveston Gas Houston 2000 93.0 93.0 93.0 93.0 93.0 93.0 

Texas City 3 TXCTY_CTC Galveston Gas Houston 2000 93.0 93.0 93.0 93.0 93.0 93.0 

Texas City 4 TXCTY_ST Galveston Gas Houston 2000 128.0 128.0 128.0 128.0 128.0 128.0 

Victoria Power Station 5 VICTORIA_VICTORG5 Victoria Gas South 2009 125.0 125.0 125.0 125.0 125.0 125.0 

Victoria Power Station 6 VICTORIA_VICTORG6 Victoria Gas South 2009 160.0 160.0 160.0 160.0 160.0 160.0 

W A Parish 1 WAP_WAP_G1 Ft. Bend Gas Houston 1958 174.0 174.0 174.0 174.0 174.0 174.0 

W A Parish 2 WAP_WAP_G2 Ft. Bend Gas Houston 1958 174.0 174.0 174.0 174.0 174.0 174.0 

W A Parish 3 WAP_WAP_G3 Ft. Bend Gas Houston 1961 278.0 278.0 278.0 278.0 278.0 278.0 

W A Parish 4 W A Parish 4 WAP WAP G4 WAP

_

WAP

_

G4 Ft. Bend Ft. Bend Gas Houston Houston 1968 552.0 552.0 552.0 552.0 552.0 552.0 

W A Parish 5 WAP_WAP_G5 Ft. Bend Coal Houston 1977 645.0 645.0 645.0 645.0 645.0 645.0 

W A Parish 6 WAP_WAP_G6 Ft. Bend Coal Houston 1978 650.0 650.0 650.0 650.0 650.0 650.0 

W A Parish 7 WAP_WAP_G7 Ft. Bend Coal Houston 1980 565.0 565.0 565.0 565.0 565.0 565.0 

W A Parish 8 WAP_WAP_G8 Ft. Bend Coal Houston 1982 610.0 610.0 610.0 610.0 610.0 610.0 

W A Parish T1 WAP_WAPGT_1 Ft. Bend Gas Houston 1967 13.0 13.0 13.0 13.0 13.0 13.0 

Wise-Tractebel Power Proj. 1 WCPP_CT1 Wise Gas North 2004 212.0 212.0 212.0 212.0 212.0 212.0 

Wise-Tractebel Power Proj. 2 WCPP_CT2 Wise Gas North 2004 212.0 212.0 212.0 212.0 212.0 212.0 

Wise-Tractebel Power Proj. 3 WCPP_ST1 Wise Gas North 2004 241.0 241.0 241.0 241.0 241.0 241.0 

Wichita Falls 1 WFCOGEN_UNIT1 Wichita Gas West 1987 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 

Wichita Falls 2 WFCOGEN_UNIT2 Wichita Gas West 1987 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 

Wichita Falls 3 WFCOGEN_UNIT3 Wichita Gas West 1987 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 

Wichita Falls 4 WFCOGEN_UNIT4 Wichita Gas West 1987 17.0 17.0 17.0 17.0 17.0 17.0 

Wolf Hollow Power Proj. 1 WHCCS_CT1 Hood Gas North 2002 212.5 212.5 212.5 212.5 212.5 212.5 

Wolf Hollow Power Proj. 2 WHCCS_CT2 Hood Gas North 2002 212.5 212.5 212.5 212.5 212.5 212.5 

Wolf Hollow Power Proj. 3 WHCCS_STG Hood Gas North 2002 280.0 280.0 280.0 280.0 280.0 280.0 

Winchester Power Park 1 WIPOPA_WPP_G1 Fayette Gas South 2010 44.8 44.8 44.8 44.8 44.8 44.8 

Winchester Power Park 2 WIPOPA_WPP_G2 Fayette Gas South 2010 44.8 44.8 44.8 44.8 44.8 44.8 

Winchester Power Park 3 WIPOPA_WPP_G3 Fayette Gas South 2010 44.8 44.8 44.8 44.8 44.8 44.8 

Winchester Power Park 4 WIPOPA_WPP_G4 Fayette Gas South 2010 44.8 44.8 44.8 44.8 44.8 44.8 

Granite Shoals 1 WIRTZ_WIRTZ_G1 Burnet Hydro South 1951 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 

Granite Shoals 2 WIRTZ_WIRTZ_G2 Burnet Hydro South 1951 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 

Whitney 1 WND_WHITNEY1 Bosque Hydro North 1953 15.0 15.0 15.0 15.0 15.0 15.0 

Whitney 2 WND_WHITNEY2 Bosque Hydro North 1953 15.0 15.0 15.0 15.0 15.0 15.0 

16
Units used in determining the generation resources in the Summer Summary

Unit Name Unit Code County Fuel Forecast Zone Year In Service 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 

Unit Capacities - Summer

Operational capacities are based on unit testing. Other capacities are based on information provided by the plant owners. This list includes MW available to the grid from private network (self-serve) units. units that have registered with ERCOT. Data without unit names are for private network units or are planned generation that is not public.Operational 63,859 63,859 63,859 63,859 63,859 63,859 6

Gas Houston 12.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 

Gas Houston 74.0 74.0 74.0 74.0 74.0 74.0 

Gas Houston 531.1 531.1 531.1 531.1 531.1 531.1 Gas Houston 74.0 74.0 74.0 74.0 74.0 74.0 

Gas Houston 620.0 620.0 620.0 620.0 620.0 620.0 Gas Houston 300.0 300.0 300.0 300.0 300.0 300.0 Gas Houston 166.0 166.0 166.0 166.0 166.0 166.0 Gas West 17.5 17.5 17.5 17.5 17.5 17.5 

Gas South 352.0 352.0 352.0 352.0 352.0 352.0 Gas South 5.0 5.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 Gas Houston 269.0 269.0 269.0 269.0 269.0 269.0 Gas Houston 280.0 280.0 280.0 280.0 280.0 280.0 Gas Houston 215.0 215.0 215.0 215.0 215.0 215.0 Gas Houston 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Gas South 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Gas Houston 70.0 70.0 70.0 70.0 70.0 70.0 

Gas South 50.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Gas South 400.0 400.0 400.0 400.0 400.0 400.0 Gas South 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Gas Houston 110.0 110.0 110.0 110.0 110.0 110.0 Gas South 25.0 25.0 25.0 25.0 25.0 25.0 

Gas South 33.4 33.4 33.4 33.4 33.4 33.4 

Gas Houston Houston 485.0 485.0 485.0 485.0 485.0 485.0 Gas Houston 325.0 325.0 325.0 325.0 325.0 325.0 Coal South 575.0 575.0 575.0 575.0 575.0 575.0 Gas South 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Gas Houston 15.0 15.0 15.0 15.0 15.0 15.0 

Gas South 15.0 15.0 15.0 15.0 15.0 15.0 

Gas Houston 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 

Generation from Private Use Networks 5,023.0 5,071.0 5,074.0 5,074.0 5,074.0 5,074.0 5RMR 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Eagle Pass DC Tie Maverick Other South 36.0 36.0 36.0 36.0 36.0 36.0 

East DC Tie Fannin Other North 600.0 600.0 600.0 600.0 600.0 600.0 

Laredo VFT DC Tie Webb Other South 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 

North DC Tie Wilbarger Other West 220.0 220.0 220.0 220.0 220.0 220.0 

Sharyland DC Tie Hidalgo Other South 150.0 150.0 150.0 150.0 150.0 150.0 

DC-Ties 1,106.0 1,106.0 1,106.0 1,106.0 1,106.0 1,106.0 1Kiamichi Energy Facility 1CT101 KMCHI_1CT101 Fannin Gas North 2003 153.0 153.0 153.0 153.0 153.0 153.0 

Kiamichi Energy Facility 1CT201 KMCHI_1CT201 Fannin Gas North 2003 155.0 155.0 155.0 155.0 155.0 155.0 

Kiamichi Energy Facility 1ST KMCHI_1ST Fannin Gas North 2003 315.0 315.0 315.0 315.0 315.0 315.0 

Kiamichi Energy Facility 2CT101 KMCHI_2CT101 Fannin Gas North 2003 153.0 153.0 153.0 153.0 153.0 153.0 

Kiamichi Energy Facility 2CT201 KMCHI_2CT201 Fannin Gas North 2003 155.0 155.0 155.0 155.0 155.0 155.0 

Kiamichi Energy Facility 2ST KMCHI_2ST Fannin Gas North 2003 315.0 315.0 315.0 315.0 315.0 315.0 

17
Units used in determining the generation resources in the Summer Summary

Unit Name Unit Code County Fuel Forecast Zone Year In Service 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 

Unit Capacities - Summer

Operational capacities are based on unit testing. Other capacities are based on information provided by the plant owners. This list includes MW available to the grid from private network (self-serve) units. units that have registered with ERCOT. Data without unit names are for private network units or are planned generation that is not public.

Tenaska-Frontier 1 FTR_FTR_G1 Grimes Gas North 2000 160.0 160.0 160.0 160.0 160.0 160.0 

Tenaska-Frontier 2 FTR_FTR_G2 Grimes Gas North 2000 160.0 160.0 160.0 160.0 160.0 160.0 

Tenaska-Frontier 3 FTR_FTR_G3 Grimes Gas North 2000 160.0 160.0 160.0 160.0 160.0 160.0 

Tenaska-Frontier 4 FTR_FTR_G4 Grimes Gas North 2000 390.0 390.0 390.0 390.0 390.0 390.0 

Tenaska-Gateway 1 TGCCS_CT1 Rusk Gas North 2001 156.0 156.0 156.0 156.0 156.0 156.0 

Tenaska-Gateway 2 TGCCS_CT2 Rusk Gas North 2001 135.0 135.0 135.0 135.0 135.0 135.0 

Tenaska-Gateway 3 TGCCS_CT3 Rusk Gas North 2001 153.0 153.0 153.0 153.0 153.0 153.0 

Tenaska-Gateway 4 TGCCS_UNIT4 Rusk Gas North 2001 402.0 402.0 402.0 402.0 402.0 402.0 

Switchable Resources 2,962.0 2,962.0 2,962.0 2,962.0 2,962.0 2,962.0 2Kunitz Wind KUNITZ_WIND_LGE Culberson Wind West 1995 39.8 39.8 39.8 39.8 39.8 39.8 

Texas Big Spring SGMTN_SIGNALMT Howard Wind West 1999 34.3 34.3 34.3 34.3 34.3 34.3 

West Texas Wind Energy SW_MESA_SW_MESA Upton Wind West 1999 74.2 74.2 74.2 74.2 74.2 74.2 

Indian Mesa Wind Farm INDNNWP_INDNNWP Pecos Wind West 2001 82.5 82.5 82.5 82.5 82.5 82.5 

King Mountain NE KING_NE_KINGNE Upton Wind West 2001 79.3 79.3 79.3 79.3 79.3 79.3 

King Mountain NW KING_NW_KINGNW Upton Wind West 2001 79.3 79.3 79.3 79.3 79.3 79.3 

King Mountain SE KING_SE_KINGSE Upton Wind West 2001 40.3 40.3 40.3 40.3 40.3 40.3 

King Mountain SW KING_SW_KINGSW Upton Wind West 2001 79.3 79.3 79.3 79.3 79.3 79.3 

Pecos Wind (Woodward 1) WOODWRD1_WOODWRD1 Pecos Wind West 2001 82.5 82.5 82.5 82.5 82.5 82.5 

Pecos Wind (Woodward 2) WOODWRD2_WOODWRD2 Pecos Wind West 2001 77.2 77.2 77.2 77.2 77.2 77.2 

Trent Wind Farm TRENT_TRENT Nolan Wind West 2001 150.0 150.0 150.0 150.0 150.0 150.0 Desert Sky Wind Farm 1 INDNENR_INDNENR Pecos Wind West 2002 84.0 84.0 84.0 84.0 84.0 84.0 

Desert Sky Wind Farm 2 INDNENR_INDNENR_2 Pecos Wind West 2002 76.5 76.5 76.5 76.5 76.5 76.5 

Green Mountain Energy 1 BRAZ_WND_WND1 Scurry Wind West 2003 99.0 99.0 99.0 99.0 99.0 99.0 

Green Mountain Energy 2 Green Mountain Energy 2 BRAZ WND WND2 BRAZ_WND_WND2 Scurry Wind West 2003 61.0 61.0 61.0 61.0 61.0 61.0 Sweetwater Wind 1 SWEETWND_WND1 Nolan Wind West 2003 36.6 36.6 36.6 36.6 36.6 36.6 

Callahan Wind CALLAHAN_WND1 Callahan Wind West 2004 114.0 114.0 114.0 114.0 114.0 114.0 

Sweetwater Wind 3 SWEETWN2_WND2 Nolan Wind West 2004 97.5 97.5 97.5 97.5 97.5 97.5 

Horse Hollow Wind 1 H_HOLLOW_WND1 Taylor Wind West 2005 213.0 213.0 213.0 213.0 213.0 213.0 

Sweetwater Wind 4 SWEETWN3_WND3 Nolan Wind West 2005 129.0 129.0 129.0 129.0 129.0 129.0 

Buffalo Gap Wind Farm 1 BUFF_GAP_UNIT1 Taylor Wind West 2006 120.6 120.6 120.6 120.6 120.6 120.6 

Horse Hollow Wind 2 HHOLLOW2_WIND1 Taylor Wind West 2006 184.0 184.0 184.0 184.0 184.0 184.0 

Horse Hollow Wind 3 HHOLLOW3_WND_1 Taylor Wind West 2006 223.5 223.5 223.5 223.5 223.5 223.5 

Horse Hollow Wind 4 HHOLLOW4_WND1 Taylor Wind West 2006 115.0 115.0 115.0 115.0 115.0 115.0 

Mesquite Wind LNCRK_G83 Shackelford Wind West 2006 200.0 200.0 200.0 200.0 200.0 200.0 

Red Canyon RDCANYON_RDCNY1 Borden Wind West 2006 84.0 84.0 84.0 84.0 84.0 84.0 

Sweetwater Wind 2 SWEETWN2_WND24 Nolan Wind West 2006 15.9 15.9 15.9 15.9 15.9 15.9 

Barton Chapel Wind BRTSW_BCW1 Jack Wind North 2007 120.0 120.0 120.0 120.0 120.0 120.0 

Buffalo Gap Wind Farm 2 BUFF_GAP_UNIT2 Taylor Wind West 2007 232.5 232.5 232.5 232.5 232.5 232.5 

Camp Springs 1 CSEC_CSECG1 Scurry Wind West 2007 134.4 134.4 134.4 134.4 134.4 134.4 

Camp Springs 2 CSEC_CSECG2 Scurry Wind West 2007 123.6 123.6 123.6 123.6 123.6 123.6 

Capricorn Ridge Wind 1 CAPRIDGE_CR1 Sterling Wind West 2007 214.5 214.5 214.5 214.5 214.5 214.5 

Capricorn Ridge Wind 3 CAPRIDGE_CR2 Sterling Wind West 2007 149.5 149.5 149.5 149.5 149.5 149.5 

Forest Creek Wind Farm MCDLD_FCW1 Glasscock Wind West 2007 124.2 124.2 124.2 124.2 124.2 124.2 

Post Oak Wind 1 LNCRK2_G871 Shackelford Wind West 2007 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 

Post Oak Wind 2 LNCRK2_G872 Shackelford Wind West 2007 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 

Snyder Wind Farm ENAS_ENA1 Scurry Wind West 2007 63.0 63.0 63.0 63.0 63.0 63.0 

Sweetwater Wind 5 SWEETWN4_WND5 Nolan Wind West 2007 79.2 79.2 79.2 79.2 79.2 79.2 

18
Units used in determining the generation resources in the Summer Summary

Unit Name Unit Code County Fuel Forecast Zone Year In Service 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 

Unit Capacities - Summer

Operational capacities are based on unit testing. Other capacities are based on information provided by the plant owners. This list includes MW available to the grid from private network (self-serve) units. units that have registered with ERCOT. Data without unit names are for private network units or are planned generation that is not public.

Sweetwater Wind 6 SWEETWN4_WND4B Nolan Wind West 2007 103.7 103.7 103.7 103.7 103.7 103.7 

Sweetwater Wind 7 SWEETWN4_WND4A Nolan Wind West 2007 117.8 117.8 117.8 117.8 117.8 117.8 

Whirlwind Energy WEC_WECG1 Floyd Wind West 2007 60.0 60.0 60.0 60.0 60.0 60.0 

Wolfe Flats DG_TURL_UNIT1 Hall Wind West 2007 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 Buffalo Gap Wind Farm 3 BUFF_GAP_UNIT3 Taylor Wind West 2008 170.2 170.2 170.2 170.2 170.2 170.2 

Capricorn Ridge Wind 2 CAPRIDGE_CR3 Sterling Wind West 2008 186.0 186.0 186.0 186.0 186.0 186.0 

Capricorn Ridge Wind 4 CAPRIDG4_CR4 Sterling Wind West 2008 112.5 112.5 112.5 112.5 112.5 112.5 

Champion Wind Farm CHAMPION_UNIT1 Nolan Wind West 2008 126.5 126.5 126.5 126.5 126.5 126.5 

Elbow Creek Wind Project ELB_ELBCREEK Howard Wind West 2008 122.0 122.0 122.0 122.0 122.0 122.0 

Goat Wind GOAT_GOATWIND Sterling Wind West 2008 80.0 80.0 80.0 80.0 80.0 80.0 

Hackberry Wind Farm HWF_HWFG1 Shackelford Wind West 2008 166.0 166.0 166.0 166.0 166.0 166.0 

Inadale Wind INDL_INADALE1 Nolan Wind West 2008 197.0 197.0 197.0 197.0 197.0 197.0 

McAdoo Wind Farm MWEC_G1 Dickens Wind West 2008 150.0 150.0 150.0 150.0 150.0 150.0 

Ocotillo Wind Farm OWF_OWF Howard Wind West 2008 58.8 58.8 58.8 58.8 58.8 58.8 

Panther Creek 1 PC_NORTH_PANTHER1 Howard Wind West 2008 142.5 142.5 142.5 142.5 142.5 142.5 

Panther Creek 2 PC_SOUTH_PANTHER2 Howard Wind West 2008 115.5 115.5 115.5 115.5 115.5 115.5 

Pyron Wind Farm PYR_PYRON1 Scurry Wind West 2008 249.0 249.0 249.0 249.0 249.0 249.0 

Roscoe Wind Farm TKWSW1_ROSCOE Nolan Wind West 2008 209.0 209.0 209.0 209.0 209.0 209.0 

Sand Bluff Wind Farm MCDLD_SBW1 Glasscock Wind West 2008 90.0 90.0 90.0 90.0 90.0 90.0 

Sherbino I KEO_KEO_SM1 Pecos Wind West 2008 150.0 150.0 150.0 150.0 150.0 150.0 

Silver Star FLTCK_SSI Eastland Wind North 2008 60.0 60.0 60.0 60.0 60.0 60.0 

South Trent Wind Farm STWF_T1 Nolan Wind West 2008 101.2 101.2 101.2 101.2 101.2 101.2 

Stanton Wind Energy SWEC_G1 Martin Wind West 2008 123.6 123.6 123.6 123.6 123.6 123.6 

TSTC West Texas Wind DG_ROSC2_1UNIT Nolan Wind West 2008 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 

Turkey Track Wind Energy Center Turkey Track Wind Energy Center TTWEC G1 TTWEC_G1 Nolan Wind West 2008 175.0 175.0 175.0 175.0 175.0 175.0 Wolfe Ridge WHTTAIL_WR1 Cooke Wind North 2008 112.5 112.5 112.5 112.5 112.5 112.5 

Bull Creek Wind Plant BULLCRK_WND1 Borden Wind West 2009 89.0 89.0 89.0 89.0 89.0 89.0 

Bull Creek Wind Plant BULLCRK_WND2 Borden Wind West 2009 91.0 91.0 91.0 91.0 91.0 91.0 

Horse Hollow Wind 1 HHGT_HHOLLOW1 Kendall Wind South 2009 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

Horse Hollow Wind 2 HHGT_HHOLLOW2 Kendall Wind South 2009 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

Horse Hollow Wind 3 HHGT_HHOLLOW3 Kendall Wind South 2009 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

Horse Hollow Wind 4 HHGT_HHOLLOW4 Kendall Wind South 2009 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

Horse Hollow Wind Callahan HHGT_CALLAHAN Kendall Wind South 2009 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

Langford Wind Power LGD_LANGFORD Tom Green Wind West 2009 150.0 150.0 150.0 150.0 150.0 150.0 

Loraine Windpark I LONEWOLF_G1 Mitchell Wind West 2009 50.0 50.0 50.0 50.0 50.0 50.0 

Loraine Windpark II LONEWOLF_G2 Mitchell Wind West 2009 51.0 51.0 51.0 51.0 51.0 51.0 

Loraine Windpark III LONEWOLF_G3 Mitchell Wind West 2011 26.0 26.0 26.0 26.0 26.0 26.0 

Loraine Windpark IV LONEWOLF_G4 Mitchell Wind West 2011 24.0 24.0 24.0 24.0 24.0 24.0 

Notrees-1 NWF_NWF1 Winkler Wind West 2009 152.6 152.6 152.6 152.6 152.6 152.6 

Panther Creek 3 PC_SOUTH_PANTHER3 Howard Wind West 2009 199.5 199.5 199.5 199.5 199.5 199.5 

Papalote Creek Wind Farm PAP1_PAP1 San Patricio Wind South 2009 179.9 179.9 179.9 179.9 179.9 179.9 

Penascal Wind PENA_UNIT1 Kenedy Wind South 2009 160.8 160.8 160.8 160.8 160.8 160.8 

Penascal Wind PENA_UNIT2 Kenedy Wind South 2009 141.6 141.6 141.6 141.6 141.6 141.6 

Cedro Hill Wind CEDROHIL_CHW1 Webb Wind South 2010 150.0 150.0 150.0 150.0 150.0 150.0 

Delaware Mountain Wind Farm KUNITZ_WIND_NWP Culberson Wind West 2010 28.5 28.5 28.5 28.5 28.5 28.5 

Goat Wind 2 GOAT_GOATWIN2 Sterling Wind West 2010 69.6 69.6 69.6 69.6 69.6 69.6 

Gulf Wind I TGW_T1 Kenedy Wind South 2010 141.6 141.6 141.6 141.6 141.6 141.6 

Gulf Wind II TGW_T2 Kenedy Wind South 2010 141.6 141.6 141.6 141.6 141.6 141.6 

19
Units used in determining the generation resources in the Summer Summary

Unit Name Unit Code County Fuel Forecast Zone Year In Service 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 

Unit Capacities - Summer

Operational capacities are based on unit testing. Other capacities are based on information provided by the plant owners. This list includes MW available to the grid from private network (self-serve) units. units that have registered with ERCOT. Data without unit names are for private network units or are planned generation that is not public.

Papalote Creek Wind COTTON_PAP2 San Patricio Wind South 2010 200.1 200.1 200.1 200.1 200.1 200.1 

Penascal Wind PENA_UNIT3 Kenedy Wind South 2010 100.8 100.8 100.8 100.8 100.8 100.8 

WIND 9,452 9,452 9,452 9,452 9,452 9,452 Atkins 3 ATKINS_ATKINSG3 Brazos Gas North 1954 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 

-

Atkins 4 ATKINS_ATKINSG4 Brazos Gas North 1958 22.0 22.0 22.0 22.0 22.0 

-

Atkins 5 ATKINS_ATKINSG5 Brazos Gas North 1965 25.0 25.0 25.0 25.0 25.0 

-

Atkins 6 ATKINS_ATKINSG6 Brazos Gas North 1969 50.0 50.0 50.0 50.0 50.0 

-

AES Deepwater APD_APD_G1 Harris Other Houston 1986 138.0 138.0 138.0 138.0 138.0 

-

C E Newman 5 NEWMAN_NEWMA_5 Dallas Gas North 1963 37.0 37.0 37.0 37.0 37.0 

-

Leon Creek 3 LEON_CRK_LCP3G3 Bexar Gas South 1953 56.0 56.0 56.0 56.0 56.0 

-

Leon Creek 4 LEON_CRK_LCP4G4 Bexar Gas South 1959 88.0 88.0 88.0 88.0 88.0 

-

North Texas 1 NTX_NTX_1 Parker Gas North 1958 18.0 18.0 18.0 18.0 18.0 

-

North Texas 2 NTX_NTX_2 Parker Gas North 1958 18.0 18.0 18.0 18.0 18.0 

-

North Texas 3 NTX_NTX_3 Parker Gas North 1963 39.0 39.0 39.0 39.0 39.0 

-

Permian Basin 6 PBSES_UNIT6 Ward Gas West 2009 515.0 515.0 515.0 515.0 515.0 

-

Sam Bertron 1 SRB_SRB_G1 Harris Gas Houston 1958 174.0 174.0 174.0 174.0 174.0 

-

Sam Bertron 2 SRB_SRB_G2 Harris Gas Houston 1956 174.0 174.0 174.0 174.0 174.0 

-

Spencer 4 SPNCER_SPNCE_4 Denton Gas North 1966 61.0 61.0 61.0 61.0 61.0 

-

Spencer 5 SPNCER_SPNCE_5 Denton Gas North 1973 61.0 61.0 61.0 61.0 61.0 

-

Valley 1 VLSES_UNIT1 Fannin Gas North 1962 174.0 174.0 174.0 174.0 174.0 

-

Valley 2 VLSES_UNIT2 Fannin Gas North 1967 520.0 520.0 520.0 520.0 520.0 

-

Valley 3 VLSES_UNIT3 Fannin Gas North 1971 375.0 375.0 375.0 375.0 375.0 

-

Mothballed Resources - 2,557.0 2,557.0 2,557.0 2,557.0 2,557.0 2

Nacogdoches Project 09INR0007 Nacogdoches Biomass 100.0 - 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 

 

Sandy Creek 1 09INR0001 McLennan Coal 925.0 - 925.0 925.0 925.0 925.0 

 

CFB Power Plant Units 11&12 09INR0029 Calhoun Coal 260.0 260.0 260.0 260.0 260.0 260.0 

 

Coleto Creek Unit 2 14INR0002 Goliad Coal - - - - - 

- 

Panda Temple Power 10INR0020b Bell Gas - - - 780.0 - 780.0 

 

Panda Temple Power 10INR0020a Bell Gas - - 780.0 - 780.0 780.0 

 

Jack County 2 10INR0010 Jack Gas 565.0 - 565.0 565.0 565.0 565.0 

 

Pondera King Power Project 10INR0022 Harris Gas - - - 1,380.0 - 1,380.0 1,

 

Las Brisas Energy Center 12INR0016a Nueces Other - - - - 620.0 - 

 

Las Brisas Energy Center 12INR0016b Nueces Other - - - - - - 

RRE Austin Solar 11INR0086 Travis Solar 60.0 - 60.0 60.0 60.0 60.0 

 

FRV AE Solar 10INR0082 Travis Solar 30.0 - 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 

 

New Units with Signed IA and Air Permit 1,940.0 260.0 1,940.0 2,720.0 4,880.0 5,500.0 6,

 

Gunsight Mountain 08INR0018 Howard Wind - - 120.0 120.0 120.0 120.0 

 

Los Vientos 11INR0033 Cameron Wind - - 400.0 400.0 400.0 400.0 

 

Archer-Young 08INR0062 Young Wind 250.0 - 250.0 250.0 250.0 250.0 

 

Penascal Wind Farm 3 06INR0022c Kenedy Wind - - 202.0 - 202.0 202.0 

 

Sherbino Mesa Wind Farm 2 06INR0012b Pecos Wind 150.0 150.0 150.0 150.0 150.0 150.0 

 

Magic Valley Wind Project 10INR0060 Willacy Wind 202.0 - 202.0 202.0 202.0 202.0 

WKN Mozart 09INR0061 Kent Wind - - 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 

 

Senate Wind Project 08INR0011 Jack Wind 150.0 - 150.0 150.0 150.0 150.0 

 

20
Units used in determining the generation resources in the Summer Summary

Unit Name Unit Code County Fuel Forecast Zone Year In Service 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 

Unit Capacities - Summer

Operational capacities are based on unit testing. Other capacities are based on information provided by the plant owners. This list includes MW available to the grid from private network (self-serve) units. units that have registered with ERCOT. Data without unit names are for private network units or are planned generation that is not public.

New Wind Generation 752.0 150.0 1,302.0 1,504.0 1,504.0 1,504.0 1,

 

Pampa Energy Center 07INR0004 Gray Coal 165.0 - 165.0 165.0 165.0 165.0 

 

White Stallion Energy Center 14INR0005 Matagorda Coal - - 1,200.0 - 1,200.0 1,200.0 1,

 

Comanche Peak 3 and 4 15INR0002 Somervel Nuclear - - - - - - 

 

STP 3 and 4 15INR0008 Matagorda Nuclear - - - - 2,700.0 - 2,

 

Potential Public Non-Wind Resources 165.0 - 165.0 1,365.0 1,365.0 4,065.0 4,

 

Throckmorton Wind Farm 12INR0003 Throckmorton Wind 400.0 - 400.0 400.0 400.0 400.0 

 

Buffalo Gap 4 and 5 08INR0065 Nolan Wind 465.0 - 465.0 465.0 465.0 465.0 

 

2W Whatley Phase 1 11INR0084 Ector Wind 45.0 - 45.0 45.0 45.0 45.0 

B&B Panhandle Wind 09INR0024 Carson Wind 1,001.0 - 1,001.0 1,001.0 1,001.0 1,001.0 1,

 

Fort Concho Wind Farm 12INR0004 Tom Green Wind 400.0 - 400.0 400.0 400.0 400.0 

 

Scurry County Wind III 09INR0037 Scurry Wind 350.0 - 350.0 350.0 350.0 350.0 

 

M Bar Wind 08INR0038 Andrews Wind 194.0 - 194.0 194.0 194.0 194.0 

 

Gatesville Wind Farm 09INR0034 Coryell Wind 200.0 - 200.0 200.0 200.0 200.0 

 

Pistol Hill Energy Center 08INR0025 Ector Wind 300.0 - 300.0 300.0 300.0 300.0 

 

2W Whatley Phase 2 12INR0043 Ector Wind - - 290.0 290.0 290.0 290.0 

 

Potential Public Wind Resources 3,355.0 - 3,645.0 3,645.0 3,645.0 3,645.0 3,

 

11INR0037 Smith Biomass 50.0 - 50.0 50.0 50.0 50.0 

14INR0003 Nolan Coal - - 850.0 - 850.0 850.0 

 

11INR0075 Fort Bend Coal 15.0 - 15.0 15.0 15.0 15.0 

 

10INR0032 Navarro Gas 775.0 - 775.0 775.0 775.0 775.0 

 

10INR0029 10INR0029 Hood Gas - 810.0 810.0 810.0 810.0 810.0 

11INR0040 Freestone Gas - 640.0 640.0 640.0 640.0 640.0 

 

11INR0006 Lamar Gas 579.0 - 579.0 579.0 579.0 579.0 

 

09INR0031 Ector Gas 275.0 - 275.0 275.0 275.0 275.0 

 

09INR0050 Fannin Gas 1,200.0 - 1,200.0 1,200.0 1,200.0 1,200.0 1,

 

12INR0007 Lamar Gas 296.0 - 296.0 296.0 296.0 296.0 

 

10INR0021 Grayson Gas 646.0 - 646.0 646.0 646.0 646.0 

 

10INR0018 Madison Gas 550.0 - 550.0 550.0 550.0 550.0 

 

13INR0021 Llano Gas - - - 600.0 - 600.0 

 

13INR0028 Hale Gas - - 392.0 - 392.0 392.0 

 

13INR0023 Ector Gas - - 240.0 240.0 240.0 240.0 

 

11INR0049 Wharton Gas 275.0 - 275.0 275.0 275.0 275.0 

 

11INR0071 Harris Gas 7.0 - 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 

 

16INR0002 Brazoria Other - - - - - 

- 

10INR0089 Harris Other 40.0 - 40.0 40.0 40.0 40.0 

 

10INR0080 Presidio Solar 144.0 - 144.0 144.0 144.0 144.0 

 

10INR0085 Ector Solar 40.0 - 40.0 40.0 40.0 40.0 

 

11INR0094 Kent Solar 100.0 - 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 

 

12INR0057 Ector Solar - - 40.0 40.0 40.0 40.0 

 

11INR0090 Howard Solar 60.0 - 60.0 60.0 60.0 60.0 

 

15INR0011b Borden Solar - - - - 38.0 - 

 

11INR0070 Reeves Solar 50.0 - 50.0 50.0 50.0 50.0 

 

11INR0061 Presidio Solar 90.0 - 90.0 90.0 90.0 90.0 

 

11INR0060 Tom Green Solar 90.0 - 90.0 90.0 90.0 90.0 

 

21
Units used in determining the generation resources in the Summer Summary

Unit Name Unit Code County Fuel Forecast Zone Year In Service 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 

Unit Capacities - Summer

Operational capacities are based on unit testing. Other capacities are based on information provided by the plant owners. This list includes MW available to the grid from private network (self-serve) units. units that have registered with ERCOT. Data without unit names are for private network units or are planned generation that is not public.

11INR0058 Pecos Solar - 135.0 135.0 135.0 135.0 135.0 

 

Potential Non-Public Non-Wind Resources 6,867.0 - 7,147.0 8,389.0 8,989.0 9,027.0 9,

 

07INR0013 Coke Wind 200.0 - 200.0 200.0 200.0 200.0 

 

08INR0019a Gray Wind - - 250.0 - 250.0 250.0 

 

08INR0019b Gray Wind - - 250.0 - 250.0 250.0 

 

08INR0019c Gray Wind - - 250.0 - 250.0 250.0 

 

08INR0020 Eastland Wind 200.0 - 200.0 200.0 200.0 200.0 

 

08INR0031 Childress Wind 100.0 - 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 

 

08INR0041 Coke Wind - - 200.0 200.0 200.0 200.0 

 

08INR0042 Coke Wind - - 200.0 200.0 200.0 200.0 

 

08INR0049 Clay Wind - - 50.0 50.0 50.0 50.0 

 

09INR0025 Concho Wind - - 180.0 180.0 180.0 180.0 

 

09INR0041 Mitchell Wind - - 300.0 300.0 300.0 300.0 

 

09INR0048 Jack Wind 100.0 - 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 

 

09INR0051 Borden Wind - - 249.0 249.0 249.0 249.0 

 

09INR0054 Stonewall Wind 148.5 - 148.5 148.5 148.5 148.5 

 

09INR0058 Howard Wind - - 250.0 250.0 250.0 250.0 

 

09INR0073 Scurry Wind - - 200.0 - 200.0 200.0 

 

09INR0074 Motley Wind 70.0 - 70.0 70.0 70.0 70.0 

 

09INR0077 Reagan Wind - - 500.0 - 500.0 500.0 

 

10INR0008 Pecos Wind 500.0 - 500.0 500.0 500.0 500.0 

 

10INR0009 Castro Wind - - 300.0 - 300.0 300.0 

 

10INR0013 Upton Wind 400.0 - 400.0 400.0 400.0 400.0 

 

10INR0015 10INR0015 Mitchell Mitchell Wind -- - 350.0 350.0 350.0 

10INR0016 Childress Wind - 150.0 150.0 150.0 150.0 150.0 

 

10INR0019 Deaf Smith Wind 609.0 - 609.0 609.0 609.0 609.0 

 

10INR0023 Haskell Wind 386.0 - 386.0 386.0 386.0 386.0 

 

10INR0024 Briscoe Wind - - 2,940.0 2,940.0 2,940.0 2,940.0 2,

 

10INR0033 Armstrong Wind 399.0 - 399.0 399.0 399.0 399.0 

 

10INR0041 Floyd Wind 135.0 - 135.0 135.0 135.0 135.0 

 

10INR0042 Mason Wind 170.0 - 170.0 170.0 170.0 170.0 

 

10INR0048 Hardeman Wind 1,000.0 - 1,000.0 1,000.0 1,000.0 1,000.0 1,

 

10INR0051 Brazoria Wind 200.0 - 200.0 200.0 200.0 200.0 

 

10INR0052a Knox Wind 21.0 - 21.0 21.0 21.0 21.0 

 

10INR0054 Palo Pinto Wind 36.0 - 36.0 36.0 36.0 36.0 

 

10INR0056 Borden Wind - - 249.0 249.0 249.0 249.0 

 

10INR0062a Pecos Wind 80.0 - 80.0 80.0 80.0 80.0 

 

10INR0062b Pecos Wind - - 220.0 220.0 220.0 220.0 

 

10INR0077 Callahan Wind - - 101.0 101.0 101.0 101.0 

 

10INR0079 Nolan Wind 60.0 - 60.0 60.0 60.0 60.0 

 

10INR0081a Clay Wind 30.4 - 30.4 30.4 30.4 30.4 

 

10INR0081b Clay Wind 19.2 - 19.2 19.2 19.2 19.2 

 

11INR0013 Mills Wind - - 150.0 - 150.0 150.0 

 

11INR0019 Upton Wind 200.0 - 200.0 200.0 200.0 200.0 

 

11INR0025 Crockett Wind 400.0 - 400.0 400.0 400.0 400.0 

 

11INR0029 Throckmorton Wind 200.0 - 200.0 200.0 200.0 200.0 

 

11INR0039 Starr Wind 201.0 - 201.0 201.0 201.0 201.0 

 

22
Units used in determining the generation resources in the Summer Summary

Unit Name Unit Code County Fuel Forecast Zone Year In Service 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 

Unit Capacities - Summer

Operational capacities are based on unit testing. Other capacities are based on information provided by the plant owners. This list includes MW available to the grid from private network (self-serve) units. units that have registered with ERCOT. Data without unit names are for private network units or are planned generation that is not public.

11INR0043 Coke Wind - 300.0 300.0 300.0 300.0 300.0 

 

11INR0047 Deaf Smith Wind 600.0 - 600.0 600.0 600.0 600.0 

 

11INR0050 Crosby Wind 149.0 - 149.0 149.0 149.0 149.0 

 

11INR0054 San Patricio Wind 161.0 - 161.0 161.0 161.0 161.0 

 

11INR0057 Cameron Wind 165.0 - 165.0 165.0 165.0 165.0 

 

11INR0062 Nueces Wind 149.0 - 149.0 149.0 149.0 149.0 

 

11INR0065 Nueces Wind 240.0 - 240.0 240.0 240.0 240.0 

 

11INR0067 Cameron Wind - - 78.0 78.0 78.0 78.0 

 

11INR0076 Archer Wind 94.0 - 94.0 94.0 94.0 94.0 

 

11INR0079a Clay Wind 200.0 - 200.0 200.0 200.0 200.0 

 

11INR0081 Live Oak Wind - - 72.0 72.0 72.0 72.0 

 

11INR0082A Val Verde Wind - - 50.0 - 50.0 50.0 

 

11INR0082B Val Verde Wind - - 150.0 150.0 150.0 150.0 

 

11INR0083A Crockett Wind - - 50.0 - 50.0 50.0 

 

11INR0083B Crockett Wind - - 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 

 

11INR0085 Nolan Wind 106.0 - 106.0 106.0 106.0 106.0 

 

11INR0091 Webb Wind 92.0 - 92.0 92.0 92.0 92.0 

 

12INR0002a Briscoe Wind - - 200.0 - 200.0 200.0 

 

12INR0002b Briscoe Wind - - - 200.0 - 200.0 

 

12INR0002c Briscoe Wind - - - - 350.0 - 

 

12INR0005 Floyd Wind - - 1,100.0 1,100.0 1,100.0 1,100.0 1,

 

12INR0018 Gray Wind - - 500.0 500.0 500.0 500.0 

 

12INR0026 Randall Wind - - 400.0 400.0 400.0 400.0 

 

12INR0027 Gray Wind - - 200.0 200.0 200.0 200.0 

 

12INR0029 12INR0029 Swisher Swisher Wind - - 500.0 500.0 500.0 500.0 

12INR0033 Motley Wind - 150.0 150.0 150.0 150.0 150.0 

 

12INR0034 Borden Wind - - 342.0 342.0 342.0 342.0 

 

12INR0035 Nueces Wind - - 249.0 249.0 249.0 249.0 

 

12INR0042 Deaf Smith Wind 400.0 - 400.0 400.0 400.0 400.0 

 

12INR0045 Kleberg Wind 135.0 - 135.0 135.0 135.0 135.0 

 

12INR0053 Crockett Wind 615.0 - 615.0 615.0 615.0 615.0 

 

12INR0072 Kinney Wind - - 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 

 

12INR0075 Wilbarger Wind 499.0 - 499.0 499.0 499.0 499.0 

 

13INR0004 Deaf Smith Wind - - 500.0 - 500.0 500.0 

 

13INR0005 Carson Wind - - - 600.0 600.0 600.0 

 

13INR0006 Gray Wind - - 750.0 - 750.0 750.0 

 

13INR0007 Pecos Wind - - 200.0 - 200.0 200.0 

 

13INR0010a Parmer Wind - - 200.0 200.0 200.0 200.0 

 

13INR0010b Parmer Wind - - 500.0 - 500.0 500.0 

 

13INR0010c Parmer Wind - - - 500.0 - 500.0 

 

13INR0016 Deaf Smith Wind - - 250.5 - 250.5 250.5 

 

13INR0017 Childress Wind - - 200.0 - 200.0 200.0 

 

13INR0020a Glasscock Wind - - 200.0 200.0 200.0 200.0 

 

13INR0020b Glasscock Wind - - - 150.0 150.0 150.0 

 

13INR0025 Randall Wind - - 150.0 - 150.0 150.0 

 

13INR0026 Oldham Wind - - 201.0 - 201.0 201.0 

 

13INR0036 Hidalgo Wind - - 200.0 200.0 200.0 200.0 

 

14INR0001 Pecos Wind - - - 500.0 - 500.0 

 

23
Units used in determining the generation resources in the Summer Summary

Unit Name Unit Code County Fuel Forecast Zone Year In Service 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 

Unit Capacities - Summer

Operational capacities are based on unit testing. Other capacities are based on information provided by the plant owners. This list includes MW available to the grid from private network (self-serve) units. units that have registered with ERCOT. Data without unit names are for private network units or are planned generation that is not public.

14INR0006 Floyd Wind - - - 151.0 - 151.0 

 

15INR0011a Borden Wind - - - - 112.0 - 

 

Potential Non-Public Wind Resources - 10,070.1 19,400.1 25,451.6 26,802.6 27,264.6 27,

 

Excluded Resources, per notification from developerCobisa-Greenville 06INR0006 Hunt Gas - - 1,792.0 - 1,792.0 1,792.0 1,

 

24
2011 Report on the Capacity, Demand, and Reserves in the ERCOT Region

Winter Summary 

Load Forecast: 2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 2015/16 2016/17 2017/18 2

Total Winter Peak Demand, MW 49,957 51,343 53,472 55,126 56,398 58,733 59,330  less LAARs Serving as Responsive Reserve, MW 1,063 1,063 1,063 1,063 1,063 1,063 1,063  less LAARs Serving as Non-Spinning Reserve, MW 00000 00

 less Emergency Interruptible Load Service 421 463 509 560 616 678 745  less Energy Efficiency Programs (per SB1125) 128 259 395 536 681 829 980 

Firm Load Forecast, MW Firm Load Forecast, MW 48,345 49,558 51,505 52,967 54,038 56,163 56,541 

Resources: 2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 2015/16 2016/17 2017/18 2

Installed Capacity, MW 66,531 66,531 66,531 66,531 66,531 66,531 66,531 Capacity from Private Networks, MW 5,103 5,134 5,134 5,134 5,134 5,134 5,134 Effective Load-Carrying Capability (ELCC) of Wind Generation, MW 822 822 822 822 822 822 822 RMR Units to be under Contract, MW 00000 00

Operational Generation, M

W 72,456 72,487 72,487 72,487 72,487 72,487 72,487 

50% of Non-Synchronous Ties, MW 553 553 553 553 553 553 553 Switchable Units, MW 3,168 3,168 3,168 3,168 3,168 3,168 3,168 Available Mothballed Generation , MW 110 110 100 100 100 100 100 Planned Units (not wind) with Signed IA and Air Permit, MW 825 1,940 1,940 2,720 5,500 6,120 6,780 ELCC of Planned Wind Units with Signed IA, MW 13 65 113 131 131 131 131 Total Resources, M

W 77,125 78,323 78,361 79,159 81,939 82,559 83,219 

less Switchable Units Unavailable to ERCOT MW less Switchable Units Unavailable to ERCOT, MW 317 317 317 317 317 317 0 less Retiring Units, MW 00000 00Resources, MW 76,808 78,006 78,044 78,842 81,622 82,242 83,219 Reserve Margin 58.9% 57.4% 51.5% 48.9% 51.0% 46.4% 47.2% (Resources - Firm Load Forecast)/Firm Load Forecast 

3,000 11,200 12,327 15,295 16,013 18,791 19,492 

Mothballed Capacity , MW 2,447 2,447 2,457 2,457 2,457 2,457 2,457 50% of Non-Synchronous Ties, MW 553 553 553 553 553 553 554 Planned Units in Full Interconnection Study Phase, MW 0 8,200 9,317 12,285 13,003 15,781 16,481 

Other Potential Resources:

25
2011 Report on the Capacity, Demand, and Reserves in the ERCOT Region

Winter Loads and Resources

85,00090,000

MW

54992.897 56372.218 58587.156 60250.185 61468.23 63885.412 64315.96 65

75,00080,00085,00060 00065,00070,00050 00055,00060,00040,000

45,00050,000

40,000

2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 2015/16 2016/17 2017/18 2018/19 

Firm Load Forecast Resources Forecast + Reserve Margin

26
Unit Name Unit Code County Fuel Forecast Zone 2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 2015/16 2016/17 20

A von Rosenberg 1-CT1 BRAUNIG_AVR1_CT1 Bexar Gas South 2000 178.0 178.0 178.0 178.0 178.0 178.0 A von Rosenberg 1-CT2 BRAUNIG_AVR1_CT2 Bexar Gas South 2000 178.0 178.0 178.0 178.0 178.0 178.0 A von Rosenberg 1-ST1 BRAUNIG_AVR1_ST Bexar Gas South 2000 184.0 184.0 184.0 184.0 184.0 184.0 

AEDOMG 1 DG_SUMMI_1UNIT Travis Gas South 2004 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 

AES Deepwater APD_APD_PS1 Harris Other Houston 2010 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 

Amistad Hydro 1 AMISTAD_AMISTAG1 Val Verde Hydro South 1983 37.9 37.9 37.9 37.9 37.9 37.9 

Amistad Hydro 2 AMISTAD_AMISTAG2 Val Verde Hydro South 1983 37.9 37.9 37.9 37.9 37.9 37.9 

Atascocita 1 _HB_DG1 Harris Biomass Houston 2003 10.1 10.1 10.1 10.1 10.1 10.1 Atkins 7 ATKINS_ATKINSG7 Brazos Gas North 1973 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 Austin 1 AUSTPL_AUSTING1 Travis Hydro South 1940 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 Austin 2 AUSTPL_AUSTING2 Travis Hydro South 1940 9.0 9.0 9.0 9.0 9.0 9.0 Austin Landfill Gas DG_SPRIN_4UNITS Travis Other South 1988 6.4 6.4 6.4 6.4 6.4 6.4 

B M Davis 1 B_DAVIS_B_DAVIG1 Nueces Gas South 1974 335.0 335.0 335.0 335.0 335.0 335.0 

B M Davis 2 B_DAVIS_B_DAVIG2 Nueces Gas South 1976 332.0 332.0 332.0 332.0 332.0 332.0 

B M Davis 3 B_DAVIS_B_DAVIG3 Nueces Gas South 2009 176.0 176.0 176.0 176.0 176.0 176.0 

B M Davis 4 B_DAVIS_B_DAVIG4 Nueces Gas South 2009 176.0 176.0 176.0 176.0 176.0 176.0 

Bastrop Energy Center 1 BASTEN_GTG1100 Bastrop Gas South 2002 167.0 167.0 167.0 167.0 167.0 167.0 Bastrop Energy Center 2 BASTEN_GTG2100 Bastrop Gas South 2002 167.0 167.0 167.0 167.0 167.0 167.0 Bastrop Energy Center 3 BASTEN_ST0100 Bastrop Gas South 2002 234.0 234.0 234.0 234.0 234.0 234.0 

Baytown 1 TRN_DG1 Chambers Biomass Houston 2003 3.9 3.9 3.9 3.9 3.9 3.9 

Big Brown 1 BBSES_UNIT1 Freestone Coal North 1971 606.0 606.0 606.0 606.0 606.0 606.0 Big Brown 2 BBSES_UNIT2 Freestone Coal North 1972 602.0 602.0 602.0 602.0 602.0 602.0 Bio Energy Partners DG_BIOE_2UNITS Denton Gas North 1988 5.6 5.6 5.6 5.6 5.6 5.6 Bluebonnet 1 _LB_DG1 Harris Biomass Houston 2003 3.9 3.9 3.9 3.9 3.9 3.9 

Bosque County Peaking 1 BOSQUESW BSQSU 1 Bosque Gas North 2000 176 0 176 0 176 0 176 0 176 0 176 0 Units used in determining the generation resources in the Winter Summary

Unit Capacities - Winter

Operational capacities are based on unit testing. Other capacities are based on information provided by the plant owners. This list includes MW available to the grid from private network (self-servegeneration units that have registered with ERCOT. Data without unit names are for private network units or are planned generation that is not public.Bosque County Peaking 1 BOSQUESW_BSQSU_1 Bosque Gas North 2000 176.0 176.0 176.0 176.0 176.0 176.0 Bosque County Peaking 2 BOSQUESW_BSQSU_2 Bosque Gas North 2000 175.0 175.0 175.0 175.0 175.0 175.0 

Bosque County Peaking 3 BOSQUESW_BSQSU_3 Bosque Gas North 2001 160.0 160.0 160.0 160.0 160.0 160.0 

Bosque County Peaking 4 BOSQUESW_BSQSU_4 Bosque Gas North 2001 83.0 83.0 83.0 83.0 83.0 83.0 Bosque County Unit 5 BOSQUESW_BSQSU_5 Bosque Gas North 2009 245.0 245.0 245.0 245.0 245.0 245.0 

Brazos Valley 1 BVE_UNIT1 Ft Bend Gas Houston 2003 170.0 170.0 170.0 170.0 170.0 170.0 

Brazos Valley 2 BVE_UNIT2 Ft Bend Gas Houston 2003 170.0 170.0 170.0 170.0 170.0 170.0 

Brazos Valley 3 BVE_UNIT3 Ft Bend Gas Houston 2003 267.0 267.0 267.0 267.0 267.0 267.0 

Buchanan 1 BUCHAN_BUCHANG1 Llano Hydro South 1938 18.0 18.0 18.0 18.0 18.0 18.0 

Buchanan 2 BUCHAN_BUCHANG2 Llano Hydro South 1938 18.0 18.0 18.0 18.0 18.0 18.0 

Buchanan 3 BUCHAN_BUCHANG3 Llano Hydro South 1950 18.0 18.0 18.0 18.0 18.0 18.0 

Calenergy (Falcon Seaboard) 1 FLCNS_UNIT1 Howard Gas West 1987 75.0 75.0 75.0 75.0 75.0 75.0 

Calenergy (Falcon Seaboard) 2 FLCNS_UNIT2 Howard Gas West 1987 75.0 75.0 75.0 75.0 75.0 75.0 Calenergy (Falcon Seaboard) 3 FLCNS_UNIT3 Howard Gas West 1988 70.0 70.0 70.0 70.0 70.0 70.0 Canyon 1 CANYHY_CANYHYG1 Comal Hydro South 1989 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 

Canyon 2 CANYHY_CANYHYG2 Comal Hydro South 1989 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 

Cedar Bayou 1 CBY_CBY_G1 Chambers Gas Houston 1970 745.0 745.0 745.0 745.0 745.0 745.0 

Cedar Bayou 2 CBY_CBY_G2 Chambers Gas Houston 1972 749.0 749.0 749.0 749.0 749.0 749.0 

Cedar Bayou 4 CBY4_CT41 Chambers Gas Houston 2009 205.0 205.0 205.0 205.0 205.0 205.0 

Cedar Bayou 5 CBY4_CT42 Chambers Gas Houston 2009 205.0 205.0 205.0 205.0 205.0 205.0 

Cedar Bayou 6 CBY4_ST04 Chambers Gas Houston 2009 205.0 205.0 205.0 205.0 205.0 205.0 

Coastal Plains RDF _AV_DG1 Galveston Biomass Houston 2003 6.7 6.7 6.7 6.7 6.7 6.7 

Coleto Creek COLETO_COLETOG1 Goliad Coal South 1980 640.0 640.0 640.0 640.0 640.0 640.0 

27
Unit Name Unit Code County Fuel Forecast Zone 2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 2015/16 2016/17 20

Units used in determining the generation resources in the Winter Summary

Unit Capacities - Winter

Operational capacities are based on unit testing. Other capacities are based on information provided by the plant owners. This list includes MW available to the grid from private network (self-servegeneration units that have registered with ERCOT. Data without unit names are for private network units or are planned generation that is not public.Colorado Bend Energy Center CBEC_GT4 Wharton Gas Houston 2008 83.0 83.0 83.0 83.0 83.0 83.0 Colorado Bend Energy Center CBEC_GT2 Wharton Gas Houston 2007 84.0 84.0 84.0 84.0 84.0 84.0 Colorado Bend Energy Center CBEC_GT1 Wharton Gas Houston 2007 88.0 88.0 88.0 88.0 88.0 88.0 Colorado Bend Energy Center CBEC_GT3 Wharton Gas Houston 2008 88.0 88.0 88.0 88.0 88.0 88.0 Colorado Bend Energy Center CBEC_STG1 Wharton Gas Houston 2007 105.0 105.0 105.0 105.0 105.0 105.0 

Colorado Bend Energy Center CBEC_STG2 Wharton Gas Houston 2008 108.0 108.0 108.0 108.0 108.0 108.0 

Comanche Peak 1 CPSES_UNIT1 Somervell Nuclear North 1990 1230.0 1230.0 1230.0 1230.0 1230.0 1230.0 1

Comanche Peak 2 CPSES_UNIT2 Somervell Nuclear North 1993 1218.0 1218.0 1218.0 1218.0 1218.0 1218.0 1

Covel Gardens LG Power Stn DG_MEDIN_1UNIT Bexar Other South 2005 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 CVC Channelview 1 CVC_CVC_G1 Harris Gas Houston 2008 180.0 180.0 180.0 180.0 180.0 180.0 

CVC Channelview 2 CVC_CVC_G2 Harris Gas Houston 2008 175.0 175.0 175.0 175.0 175.0 175.0 

CVC Channelview 3 CVC_CVC_G3 Harris Gas Houston 2008 174.0 174.0 174.0 174.0 174.0 174.0 

CVC Channelview 5 CVC_CVC_G5 Harris Gas Houston 2008 118.0 118.0 118.0 118.0 118.0 118.0 

Dansby 1 DANSBY_DANSBYG1 Brazos Gas North 1978 110.0 110.0 110.0 110.0 110.0 110.0 

Dansby 2 DANSBY_DANSBYG2 Brazos Gas North 2004 48.0 48.0 48.0 48.0 48.0 48.0 Dansby 3 DANSBY_DANSBYG3 Brazos Gas North 2010 48.0 48.0 48.0 48.0 48.0 48.0 Decker Creek 1 DECKER_DPG1 Travis Gas South 2000 320.0 320.0 320.0 320.0 320.0 320.0 

Decker Creek 2 DECKER_DPG2 Travis Gas South 2000 428.0 428.0 428.0 428.0 428.0 428.0 

Decker Creek G1 DECKER_DPGT_1 Travis Gas South 2000 54.0 54.0 54.0 54.0 54.0 54.0 Decker Creek G2 DECKER_DPGT_2 Travis Gas South 2000 54.0 54.0 54.0 54.0 54.0 54.0 Decker Creek G3 DECKER_DPGT_3 Travis Gas South 2000 54.0 54.0 54.0 54.0 54.0 54.0 Decker Creek G4 DECKER_DPGT_4 Travis Gas South 2000 54.0 54.0 54.0 54.0 54.0 54.0 DeCordova A DCSES_CT10 Hood Gas North 2010 80.0 80.0 80.0 80.0 80.0 80.0 DeCordova B DCSES_CT20 Hood Gas North 2010 79.0 79.0 79.0 79.0 79.0 79.0 

DeCordova C DeCordova C DCSES CT30 DCSES

_

CT30 Hood Gas North 2010 78 0. 78 0. 78 0. 78 0. 78 0. 78 0. 

DeCordova D DCSES_CT40 Hood Gas North 2010 77.0 77.0 77.0 77.0 77.0 77.0 Deer Park Energy Center 1 DDPEC_GT1 Harris Gas Houston 2002 185.5 185.5 185.5 185.5 185.5 185.5 Deer Park Energy Center 2 DDPEC_GT2 Harris Gas Houston 2002 182.9 182.9 182.9 182.9 182.9 182.9 Deer Park Energy Center 3 DDPEC_GT3 Harris Gas Houston 2002 173.6 173.6 173.6 173.6 173.6 173.6 Deer Park Energy Center 4 DDPEC_GT4 Harris Gas Houston 2002 186.6 186.6 186.6 186.6 186.6 186.6 Deer Park Energy Center S DDPEC_ST1 Harris Gas Houston 2002 290.2 290.2 290.2 290.2 290.2 290.2 Denison Dam 1 DNDAM_DENISOG1 Grayson Hydro North 1944 40.0 40.0 40.0 40.0 40.0 40.0 

Denison Dam 2 DNDAM_DENISOG2 Grayson Hydro North 1948 40.0 40.0 40.0 40.0 40.0 40.0 

DFW Gas Recovery DG_BIO2_4UNITS Denton Biomass North 1980 6.4 6.4 6.4 6.4 6.4 6.4 Dunlop (Schumansville) 1 DG_SCHUM_2UNITS Guadalupe Hydro South 1927 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.6 Eagle Pass 1 EAGLE_HY_EAGLE_HY1 Maverick Hydro South 1954 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 

Eagle Pass 2 EAGLE_HY_EAGLE_HY2 Maverick Hydro South 1954 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 

Eagle Pass 3 EAGLE_HY_EAGLE_HY3 Maverick Hydro South 1954 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 

Ennis Power Station 1 ETCCS_UNIT1 Ellis Gas North 2002 127.0 127.0 127.0 127.0 127.0 127.0 

Ennis Power Station 2 ETCCS_CT1 Ellis Gas North 2002 231.0 231.0 231.0 231.0 231.0 231.0 ExTex La Porte Pwr Stn (AirPro) 1 AZ_AZ_G1 Harris Gas Houston 2009 45.0 45.0 45.0 45.0 45.0 45.0 

ExTex La Porte Pwr Stn (AirPro) 2 AZ_AZ_G2 Harris Gas Houston 2009 45.0 45.0 45.0 45.0 45.0 45.0 

ExTex La Porte Pwr Stn (AirPro) 4 AZ_AZ_G4 Harris Gas Houston 2009 45.0 45.0 45.0 45.0 45.0 45.0 

ExTex La Porte Pwr Stn(AirPro) 3 AZ_AZ_G3 Harris Gas Houston 2009 45.0 45.0 45.0 45.0 45.0 45.0 

Falcon Hydro 1 FALCON_FALCONG1 Starr Hydro South 1954 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Falcon Hydro 2 FALCON_FALCONG2 Starr Hydro South 1954 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Falcon Hydro 3 FALCON_FALCONG3 Starr Hydro South 1954 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 

28
Unit Name Unit Code County Fuel Forecast Zone 2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 2015/16 2016/17 20

Units used in determining the generation resources in the Winter Summary

Unit Capacities - Winter

Operational capacities are based on unit testing. Other capacities are based on information provided by the plant owners. This list includes MW available to the grid from private network (self-servegeneration units that have registered with ERCOT. Data without unit names are for private network units or are planned generation that is not public.Fayette Power Project 1 FPPYD1_FPP_G1 Fayette Coal South 1979 612.0 612.0 612.0 612.0 612.0 612.0 

Fayette Power Project 2 FPPYD1_FPP_G2 Fayette Coal South 1980 612.0 612.0 612.0 612.0 612.0 612.0 

Fayette Power Project 3 FPPYD2_FPP_G3 Fayette Coal South 1988 450.0 450.0 450.0 450.0 450.0 450.0 

Forney Energy Center GT11 FRNYPP_GT11 Kaufman Gas North 2003 188.2 188.2 188.2 188.2 188.2 188.2 

Forney Energy Center GT12 FRNYPP_GT12 Kaufman Gas North 2003 188.2 188.2 188.2 188.2 188.2 188.2 

Forney Energy Center GT13 FRNYPP_GT13 Kaufman Gas North 2003 188.2 188.2 188.2 188.2 188.2 188.2 

Forney Energy Center GT21 FRNYPP_GT21 Kaufman Gas North 2003 188.2 188.2 188.2 188.2 188.2 188.2 

Forney Energy Center GT22 FRNYPP_GT22 Kaufman Gas North 2003 188.2 188.2 188.2 188.2 188.2 188.2 

Forney Energy Center GT23 FRNYPP_GT23 Kaufman Gas North 2003 188.2 188.2 188.2 188.2 188.2 188.2 

Forney Energy Center STG10 FRNYPP_ST10 Kaufman Gas North 2003 405.0 405.0 405.0 405.0 405.0 405.0 

Forney Energy Center STG20 FRNYPP_ST20 Kaufman Gas North 2003 405.0 405.0 405.0 405.0 405.0 405.0 

Freestone Energy Center 1 FREC_GT1 Freestone Gas North 2002 170.0 170.0 170.0 170.0 170.0 170.0 

Freestone Energy Center 2 FREC_GT2 Freestone Gas North 2002 170.0 170.0 170.0 170.0 170.0 170.0 

Freestone Energy Center 3 FREC_ST3 Freestone Gas North 2002 180.0 180.0 180.0 180.0 180.0 180.0 

Freestone Energy Center 4 FREC_GT4 Freestone Gas North 2002 170.0 170.0 170.0 170.0 170.0 170.0 

Freestone Energy Center 5 FREC_GT5 Freestone Gas North 2002 170.0 170.0 170.0 170.0 170.0 170.0 

Freestone Energy Center 6 FREC_ST6 Freestone Gas North 2002 180.0 180.0 180.0 180.0 180.0 180.0 

Fresno Energy DG__SO_1UNIT Fort Bend Other Houston 2010 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 

Frontera 1 FRONTERA_FRONTEG1 Hidalgo Gas South 1999 159.0 159.0 159.0 159.0 159.0 159.0 

Frontera 2 FRONTERA_FRONTEG2 Hidalgo Gas South 1999 159.0 159.0 159.0 159.0 159.0 159.0 

Frontera 3 FRONTERA_FRONTEG3 Hidalgo Gas South 2000 184.0 184.0 184.0 184.0 184.0 184.0 

FW Region LFG Gen Facility 1 DG_RDLML_1UNIT Tarrant Other North 1988 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 

GBRA 4 & 5 DG_LKWDT_2UNITS Gonzales Other South 1931 4.8 4.8 4.8 4.8 4.8 4.8 

Gibbons Creek 1 GIBCRK_GIB_CRG1 Grimes Coal North 1982 470.0 470.0 470.0 470.0 470.0 470.0 

Graham 1 Graham 1 GRSES UNIT1 GRSES

_

UNIT1 Young Gas West 1960 225 0. 225 0. 225 0. 225 0. 225 0. 225 0. 

Graham 2 GRSES_UNIT2 Young Gas West 1969 390.0 390.0 390.0 390.0 390.0 390.0 

Granite Shoals 1 WIRTZ_WIRTZ_G1 Burnet Hydro South 1951 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 

Granite Shoals 2 WIRTZ_WIRTZ_G2 Burnet Hydro South 1951 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 

Greens Bayou 5 GBY_GBY_5 Harris Gas Houston 1973 406.0 406.0 406.0 406.0 406.0 406.0 

Greens Bayou 73 GBY_GBYGT73 Harris Gas Houston 1976 54.0 54.0 54.0 54.0 54.0 54.0 

Greens Bayou 74 GBY_GBYGT74 Harris Gas Houston 1976 54.0 54.0 54.0 54.0 54.0 54.0 

Greens Bayou 81 GBY_GBYGT81 Harris Gas Houston 1976 54.0 54.0 54.0 54.0 54.0 54.0 

Greens Bayou 82 GBY_GBYGT82 Harris Gas Houston 1976 58.0 58.0 58.0 58.0 58.0 58.0 

Greens Bayou 83 GBY_GBYGT83 Harris Gas Houston 1976 64.0 64.0 64.0 64.0 64.0 64.0 

Greens Bayou 84 GBY_GBYGT84 Harris Gas Houston 1976 58.0 58.0 58.0 58.0 58.0 58.0 

Greenville Engine Plant STEAM_ENGINE_1 Hunt Gas North 2010 8.4 8.4 8.4 8.4 8.4 8.4 

Greenville Engine Plant STEAM_ENGINE_2 Hunt Gas North 2010 8.4 8.4 8.4 8.4 8.4 8.4 

Greenville Engine Plant STEAM_ENGINE_3 Hunt Gas North 2010 8.4 8.4 8.4 8.4 8.4 8.4 

Guadalupe Gen Stn 1 GUADG_GAS1 Guadalupe Gas South 2000 169.0 169.0 169.0 169.0 169.0 169.0 

Guadalupe Gen Stn 2 GUADG_GAS2 Guadalupe Gas South 2000 169.0 169.0 169.0 169.0 169.0 169.0 

Guadalupe Gen Stn 3 GUADG_GAS3 Guadalupe Gas South 2000 167.0 167.0 167.0 167.0 167.0 167.0 

Guadalupe Gen Stn 4 GUADG_GAS4 Guadalupe Gas South 2000 170.0 170.0 170.0 170.0 170.0 170.0 

Guadalupe Gen Stn 5 GUADG_STM5 Guadalupe Gas South 2000 178.0 178.0 178.0 178.0 178.0 178.0 Guadalupe Gen Stn 6 GUADG_STM6 Guadalupe Gas South 2000 171.0 171.0 171.0 171.0 171.0 171.0 Handley 3 HLSES_UNIT3 Tarrant Gas North 1963 395.0 395.0 395.0 395.0 395.0 395.0 Handley 4 HLSES_UNIT4 Tarrant Gas North 1976 435.0 435.0 435.0 435.0 435.0 435.0 Handley 5 HLSES_UNIT5 Tarrant Gas North 1977 435.0 435.0 435.0 435.0 435.0 435.0 

29
Unit Name Unit Code County Fuel Forecast Zone 2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 2015/16 2016/17 20

Units used in determining the generation resources in the Winter Summary

Unit Capacities - Winter

Operational capacities are based on unit testing. Other capacities are based on information provided by the plant owners. This list includes MW available to the grid from private network (self-servegeneration units that have registered with ERCOT. Data without unit names are for private network units or are planned generation that is not public.Hays Energy Facility 1 HAYSEN_HAYSENG1 Hays Gas South 2002 237.0 237.0 237.0 237.0 237.0 237.0 

Hays Energy Facility 2 HAYSEN_HAYSENG2 Hays Gas South 2002 237.0 237.0 237.0 237.0 237.0 237.0 

Hays Energy Facility 3 HAYSEN_HAYSENG3 Hays Gas South 2002 247.0 247.0 247.0 247.0 247.0 247.0 

Hays Energy Facility 4 HAYSEN_HAYSENG4 Hays Gas South 2002 247.0 247.0 247.0 247.0 247.0 247.0 

Hidalgo 1 DUKE_DUKE_GT1 Hidalgo Gas South 2000 162.0 162.0 162.0 162.0 162.0 162.0 

Hidalgo 2 DUKE_DUKE_GT2 Hidalgo Gas South 2000 162.0 162.0 162.0 162.0 162.0 162.0 

Hidalgo 3 DUKE_DUKE_ST1 Hidalgo Gas South 2000 170.0 170.0 170.0 170.0 170.0 170.0 

Inks 1 INKSDA_INKS_G1 Llano Hydro South 1938 14.0 14.0 14.0 14.0 14.0 14.0 

J K Spruce 1 CALAVERS_JKS1 Bexar Coal South 1992 565.0 565.0 565.0 565.0 565.0 565.0 

J K Spruce 2 CALAVERS_JKS2 Bexar Coal South 2010 785.0 785.0 785.0 785.0 785.0 785.0 

J T Deely 1 CALAVERS_JTD1 Bexar Coal South 1977 445.0 445.0 445.0 445.0 445.0 445.0 

J T Deely 2 CALAVERS_JTD2 Bexar Coal South 1978 445.0 445.0 445.0 445.0 445.0 445.0 

Jack County GenFacility 1 JACKCNTY_CT1 Jack Gas North 2005 165.0 165.0 165.0 165.0 165.0 165.0 

Jack County GenFacility 1 JACKCNTY_CT2 Jack Gas North 2005 165.0 165.0 165.0 165.0 165.0 165.0 

Jack County GenFacility 1 JACKCNTY_STG Jack Gas North 2005 310.0 310.0 310.0 310.0 310.0 310.0 

Johnson County GenFacility 1 TEN_CT1 Johnson Gas North 1997 177.0 177.0 177.0 177.0 177.0 177.0 

Johnson County GenFacility 2 TEN_STG Johnson Gas North 1997 106.0 106.0 106.0 106.0 106.0 106.0 

Lake Hubbard 1 LHSES_UNIT1 Dallas Gas North 1970 392.0 392.0 392.0 392.0 392.0 392.0 

Lake Hubbard 2 LH2SES_UNIT2 Dallas Gas North 2010 524.0 524.0 524.0 524.0 524.0 524.0 

Lamar Power Project CT11 LPCCS_CT11 Lamar Gas North 2000 176.0 176.0 176.0 176.0 176.0 176.0 

Lamar Power Project CT12 LPCCS_CT12 Lamar Gas North 2000 176.0 176.0 176.0 176.0 176.0 176.0 

Lamar Power Project CT21 LPCCS_CT21 Lamar Gas North 2000 176.0 176.0 176.0 176.0 176.0 176.0 

Lamar Power Project CT22 LPCCS_CT22 Lamar Gas North 2000 176.0 176.0 176.0 176.0 176.0 176.0 

Lamar Power Project STG1 LPCCS_UNIT1 Lamar Gas North 2000 204.3 204.3 204.3 204.3 204.3 204.3 

Lamar Power Project STG2 Lamar Power Project STG2 LPCCS UNIT2 LPCCS_UNIT2 Lamar Gas North 2000 204 3. 204 3. 204 3. 204 3. 204 3. 204 3. Laredo Peaking 4 LARDVFTN_G4 Webb Gas South 2008 98.5 98.5 98.5 98.5 98.5 98.5 

Laredo Peaking 5 LARDVFTN_G5 Webb Gas South 2008 98.5 98.5 98.5 98.5 98.5 98.5 

Leon Creek Peaking 1 LEON_CRK_LCPCT1 Bexar Gas South 2004 48.0 48.0 48.0 48.0 48.0 48.0 

Leon Creek Peaking 2 LEON_CRK_LCPCT2 Bexar Gas South 2004 48.0 48.0 48.0 48.0 48.0 48.0 

Leon Creek Peaking 3 LEON_CRK_LCPCT3 Bexar Gas South 2004 48.0 48.0 48.0 48.0 48.0 48.0 

Leon Creek Peaking 4 LEON_CRK_LCPCT4 Bexar Gas South 2004 48.0 48.0 48.0 48.0 48.0 48.0 

Lewisville 1 DG_LWSVL_1UNIT Denton Hydro North 1992 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 

Limestone 1 LEG_LEG_G1 Limestone Coal North 1985 831.0 831.0 831.0 831.0 831.0 831.0 Limestone 2 LEG_LEG_G2 Limestone Coal North 1986 858.0 858.0 858.0 858.0 858.0 858.0 Lost Pines 1 LOSTPI_LOSTPGT1 Bastrop Gas South 2001 183.0 183.0 183.0 183.0 183.0 183.0 

Lost Pines 2 LOSTPI_LOSTPGT2 Bastrop Gas South 2001 178.0 178.0 178.0 178.0 178.0 178.0 

Lost Pines 3 LOSTPI_LOSTPST1 Bastrop Gas South 2001 193.0 193.0 193.0 193.0 193.0 193.0 Lufkin Biomass LFBIO_UNIT1 Angelina Biomass North 2011 48.2 48.2 48.2 48.2 48.2 48.2 Magic Valley 1 NEDIN_NEDIN_G1 Hidalgo Gas South 2001 250.0 250.0 250.0 250.0 250.0 250.0 Magic Valley 2 NEDIN_NEDIN_G2 Hidalgo Gas South 2001 250.0 250.0 250.0 250.0 250.0 250.0 Magic Valley 3 NEDIN_NEDIN_G3 Hidalgo Gas South 2001 250.0 250.0 250.0 250.0 250.0 250.0 Marble Falls 1 MARBFA_MARBFAG1 Burnet Hydro South 1951 21.0 21.0 21.0 21.0 21.0 21.0 Marble Falls 2 MARBFA_MARBFAG2 Burnet Hydro South 1951 21.0 21.0 21.0 21.0 21.0 21.0 Marshall Ford 1 MARSFO_MARSFOG1 Travis Hydro South 1941 36.0 36.0 36.0 36.0 36.0 36.0 Marshall Ford 2 MARSFO_MARSFOG2 Travis Hydro South 1941 36.0 36.0 36.0 36.0 36.0 36.0 Marshall Ford 3 MARSFO_MARSFOG3 Travis Hydro South 1941 29.0 29.0 29.0 29.0 29.0 29.0 Martin Lake 1 MLSES_UNIT1 Rusk Coal North 1977 815.0 815.0 815.0 815.0 815.0 815.0 

30
Unit Name Unit Code County Fuel Forecast Zone 2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 2015/16 2016/17 20

Units used in determining the generation resources in the Winter Summary

Unit Capacities - Winter

Operational capacities are based on unit testing. Other capacities are based on information provided by the plant owners. This list includes MW available to the grid from private network (self-servegeneration units that have registered with ERCOT. Data without unit names are for private network units or are planned generation that is not public.Martin Lake 2 MLSES_UNIT2 Rusk Coal North 1978 820.0 820.0 820.0 820.0 820.0 820.0 

Martin Lake 3 MLSES_UNIT3 Rusk Coal North 1979 820.0 820.0 820.0 820.0 820.0 820.0 

McQueeney (Abbott) DG_MCQUE_5UNITS Guadalupe Hydro South 1927 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 

Midlothian 1 MDANP_CT1 Ellis Gas North 2001 237.0 237.0 237.0 237.0 237.0 237.0 

Midlothian 2 MDANP_CT2 Ellis Gas North 2001 237.0 237.0 237.0 237.0 237.0 237.0 

Midlothian 3 MDANP_CT3 Ellis Gas North 2001 237.0 237.0 237.0 237.0 237.0 237.0 

Midlothian 4 MDANP_CT4 Ellis Gas North 2001 237.0 237.0 237.0 237.0 237.0 237.0 

Midlothian 5 MDANP_CT5 Ellis Gas North 2002 247.0 247.0 247.0 247.0 247.0 247.0 

Midlothian 6 MDANP_CT6 Ellis Gas North 2002 247.0 247.0 247.0 247.0 247.0 247.0 

Monticello 1 MNSES_UNIT1 Titus Coal North 1974 580.0 580.0 580.0 580.0 580.0 580.0 

Monticello 2 MNSES_UNIT2 Titus Coal North 1975 580.0 580.0 580.0 580.0 580.0 580.0 

Monticello 3 MNSES_UNIT3 Titus Coal North 1978 790.0 790.0 790.0 790.0 790.0 790.0 

Morgan Creek A MGSES_CT1 Mitchell Gas West 1988 81.0 81.0 81.0 81.0 81.0 81.0 

Morgan Creek B MGSES_CT2 Mitchell Gas West 1988 81.0 81.0 81.0 81.0 81.0 81.0 

Morgan Creek C MGSES_CT3 Mitchell Gas West 1988 81.0 81.0 81.0 81.0 81.0 81.0 

Morgan Creek D MGSES_CT4 Mitchell Gas West 1988 81.0 81.0 81.0 81.0 81.0 81.0 

Morgan Creek E MGSES_CT5 Mitchell Gas West 1988 81.0 81.0 81.0 81.0 81.0 81.0 

Morgan Creek F MGSES_CT6 Mitchell Gas West 1988 81.0 81.0 81.0 81.0 81.0 81.0 

Mountain Creek 6 MCSES_UNIT6 Dallas Gas North 1956 122.0 122.0 122.0 122.0 122.0 122.0 

Mountain Creek 7 MCSES_UNIT7 Dallas Gas North 1958 118.0 118.0 118.0 118.0 118.0 118.0 

Mountain Creek 8 MCSES_UNIT8 Dallas Gas North 1967 568.0 568.0 568.0 568.0 568.0 568.0 

Nelson Gardens Landfill 1 DG_PEARS_2UNITS Bexar Other South 1990 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.6 Nueces Bay 7 NUECES_B_NUECESG7 Nueces Gas South 1972 348.0 348.0 348.0 348.0 348.0 348.0 

Nueces Bay 8 NUECES_B_NUECESG8 Nueces Gas South 2009 190.1 190.1 190.1 190.1 190.1 190.1 

Nueces Bay 9 Nueces Bay 9 NUECES B NUECESG9 NUECES_B_NUECESG9 Nueces Gas South 2009 190 1. 190 1. 190 1. 190 1. 190 1. 190 1. O W Sommers 1 CALAVERS_OWS1 Bexar Gas South 1972 420.0 420.0 420.0 420.0 420.0 420.0 O W Sommers 2 CALAVERS_OWS2 Bexar Gas South 1974 420.0 420.0 420.0 420.0 420.0 420.0 Oak Grove SES Unit 1 OGSES_UNIT1A Robertson Coal North 2011 820.0 820.0 820.0 820.0 820.0 820.0 

Oak Grove SES Unit 2 OGSES_UNIT2 Robertson Coal North 2011 796.0 796.0 796.0 796.0 796.0 796.0 Oak Ridge North 1-3 DG__RA_3UNITS Montgomery Other Houston 1993 4.8 4.8 4.8 4.8 4.8 4.8 

Odessa-Ector Gen Stn C11 OECCS_CT11 Ector Gas West 2001 160.0 160.0 160.0 160.0 160.0 160.0 Odessa-Ector Gen Stn C12 OECCS_CT12 Ector Gas West 2001 155.0 155.0 155.0 155.0 155.0 155.0 Odessa-Ector Gen Stn C21 OECCS_CT21 Ector Gas West 2001 151.0 151.0 151.0 151.0 151.0 151.0 Odessa-Ector Gen Stn C22 OECCS_CT22 Ector Gas West 2001 168.0 168.0 168.0 168.0 168.0 168.0 Odessa-Ector Gen Stn ST1 OECCS_UNIT1 Ector Gas West 2001 216.0 216.0 216.0 216.0 216.0 216.0 Odessa-Ector Gen Stn ST2 OECCS_UNIT2 Ector Gas West 2001 216.0 216.0 216.0 216.0 216.0 216.0 Oklaunion 1 OKLA_OKLA_G1 Wilbarger Coal West 1986 650.0 650.0 650.0 650.0 650.0 650.0 

Paris Energy Center 1 TNSKA_GT1 Lamar Gas North 1989 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 

Paris Energy Center 2 TNSKA_GT2 Lamar Gas North 1989 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 

Paris Energy Center 3 TNSKA_STG Lamar Gas North 1990 89.0 89.0 89.0 89.0 89.0 89.0 PasGen PSG_PSG_ST2 Harris Gas Houston 2000 177.0 177.0 177.0 177.0 177.0 177.0 

PasGen PSG_PSG_GT2 Harris Gas Houston 2000 185.0 185.0 185.0 185.0 185.0 185.0 

PasGen PSG_PSG_GT3 Harris Gas Houston 2000 185.0 185.0 185.0 185.0 185.0 185.0 

Pearsall 1 PEARSALL_PEARS_1 Frio Gas South 1961 25.0 25.0 25.0 25.0 25.0 25.0 Pearsall 2 PEARSALL_PEARS_2 Frio Gas South 1961 25.0 25.0 25.0 25.0 25.0 25.0 Pearsall 3 PEARSALL_PEARS_3 Frio Gas South 1961 25.0 25.0 25.0 25.0 25.0 25.0 Pearsall Engine Plant PEARSAL2_ENG1 Frio Gas South 2010 8.4 8.4 8.4 8.4 8.4 8.4 

31
Unit Name Unit Code County Fuel Forecast Zone 2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 2015/16 2016/17 20

Units used in determining the generation resources in the Winter Summary

Unit Capacities - Winter

Operational capacities are based on unit testing. Other capacities are based on information provided by the plant owners. This list includes MW available to the grid from private network (self-servegeneration units that have registered with ERCOT. Data without unit names are for private network units or are planned generation that is not public.Pearsall Engine Plant PEARSAL2_ENG10 Frio Gas South 2010 8.4 8.4 8.4 8.4 8.4 8.4 

Pearsall Engine Plant PEARSAL2_ENG11 Frio Gas South 2010 8.4 8.4 8.4 8.4 8.4 8.4 

Pearsall Engine Plant PEARSAL2_ENG12 Frio Gas South 2010 8.4 8.4 8.4 8.4 8.4 8.4 

Pearsall Engine Plant PEARSAL2_ENG13 Frio Gas South 2010 8.4 8.4 8.4 8.4 8.4 8.4 

Pearsall Engine Plant PEARSAL2_ENG14 Frio Gas South 2010 8.4 8.4 8.4 8.4 8.4 8.4 

Pearsall Engine Plant PEARSAL2_ENG15 Frio Gas South 2010 8.4 8.4 8.4 8.4 8.4 8.4 

Pearsall Engine Plant PEARSAL2_ENG16 Frio Gas South 2010 8.4 8.4 8.4 8.4 8.4 8.4 

Pearsall Engine Plant PEARSAL2_ENG17 Frio Gas South 2010 8.4 8.4 8.4 8.4 8.4 8.4 

Pearsall Engine Plant PEARSAL2_ENG18 Frio Gas South 2010 8.4 8.4 8.4 8.4 8.4 8.4 

Pearsall Engine Plant PEARSAL2_ENG19 Frio Gas South 2010 8.4 8.4 8.4 8.4 8.4 8.4 

Pearsall Engine Plant PEARSAL2_ENG2 Frio Gas South 2010 8.4 8.4 8.4 8.4 8.4 8.4 

Pearsall Engine Plant PEARSAL2_ENG20 Frio Gas South 2010 8.4 8.4 8.4 8.4 8.4 8.4 

Pearsall Engine Plant PEARSAL2_ENG21 Frio Gas South 2010 8.4 8.4 8.4 8.4 8.4 8.4 

Pearsall Engine Plant PEARSAL2_ENG22 Frio Gas South 2010 8.4 8.4 8.4 8.4 8.4 8.4 

Pearsall Engine Plant PEARSAL2_ENG23 Frio Gas South 2010 8.4 8.4 8.4 8.4 8.4 8.4 

Pearsall Engine Plant PEARSAL2_ENG24 Frio Gas South 2010 8.4 8.4 8.4 8.4 8.4 8.4 

Pearsall Engine Plant PEARSAL2_ENG3 Frio Gas South 2010 8.4 8.4 8.4 8.4 8.4 8.4 

Pearsall Engine Plant PEARSAL2_ENG4 Frio Gas South 2010 8.4 8.4 8.4 8.4 8.4 8.4 

Pearsall Engine Plant PEARSAL2_ENG5 Frio Gas South 2010 8.4 8.4 8.4 8.4 8.4 8.4 

Pearsall Engine Plant PEARSAL2_ENG6 Frio Gas South 2010 8.4 8.4 8.4 8.4 8.4 8.4 

Pearsall Engine Plant PEARSAL2_ENG7 Frio Gas South 2010 8.4 8.4 8.4 8.4 8.4 8.4 

Pearsall Engine Plant PEARSAL2_ENG8 Frio Gas South 2010 8.4 8.4 8.4 8.4 8.4 8.4 

Pearsall Engine Plant PEARSAL2_ENG9 Frio Gas South 2010 8.4 8.4 8.4 8.4 8.4 8.4 

Permian Basin A PB2SES_CT1 Ward Gas West 1988 71.0 71.0 71.0 71.0 71.0 71.0 

Permian Basin B Permian Basin B PB2SES CT2 PB2SES

_

CT2 Ward Gas West 1988 71 0. 71 0. 71 0. 71 0. 71 0. 71 0. 

Permian Basin C PB2SES_CT3 Ward Gas West 1988 74.0 74.0 74.0 74.0 74.0 74.0 Permian Basin D PB2SES_CT4 Ward Gas West 1990 75.0 75.0 75.0 75.0 75.0 75.0 Permian Basin E PB2SES_CT5 Ward Gas West 1990 75.0 75.0 75.0 75.0 75.0 75.0 

Powerlane Plant 1 STEAM1A_STEAM_1 Hunt Gas North 2009 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 

Powerlane Plant 2 STEAM_STEAM_2 Hunt Gas North 1967 26.0 26.0 26.0 26.0 26.0 26.0 

Powerlane Plant 3 STEAM_STEAM_3 Hunt Gas North 1978 41.0 41.0 41.0 41.0 41.0 41.0 

Quail Run Energy GT1 QALSW_GT2 Ector Gas West 2007 86.0 86.0 86.0 86.0 86.0 86.0 

Quail Run Energy GT2 QALSW_GT3 Ector Gas West 2008 81.0 81.0 81.0 81.0 81.0 81.0 

Quail Run Energy GT3 QALSW_STG1 Ector Gas West 2007 102.0 102.0 102.0 102.0 102.0 102.0 Quail Run Energy GT4 QALSW_STG2 Ector Gas West 2008 106.0 106.0 106.0 106.0 106.0 106.0 Quail Run Energy STG1 QALSW_GT1 Ector Gas West 2007 84.0 84.0 84.0 84.0 84.0 84.0 

Quail Run Energy STG2 QALSW_GT4 Ector Gas West 2008 81.0 81.0 81.0 81.0 81.0 81.0 

R W Miller 1 MIL_MILLERG1 Palo Pinto Gas North 2000 75.0 75.0 75.0 75.0 75.0 75.0 R W Miller 2 MIL_MILLERG2 Palo Pinto Gas North 2000 120.0 120.0 120.0 120.0 120.0 120.0 

R W Miller 3 MIL_MILLERG3 Palo Pinto Gas North 2000 208.0 208.0 208.0 208.0 208.0 208.0 

R W Miller 4 MIL_MILLERG4 Palo Pinto Gas North 2000 115.0 115.0 115.0 115.0 115.0 115.0 

R W Miller 5 MIL_MILLERG5 Palo Pinto Gas North 2000 115.0 115.0 115.0 115.0 115.0 115.0 

Ray Olinger 1 OLINGR_OLING_1 Collin Gas North 1967 78.0 78.0 78.0 78.0 78.0 78.0 

Ray Olinger 2 OLINGR_OLING_2 Collin Gas North 1971 107.0 107.0 107.0 107.0 107.0 107.0 Ray Olinger 3 OLINGR_OLING_3 Collin Gas North 1975 146.0 146.0 146.0 146.0 146.0 146.0 Ray Olinger 4 OLINGR_OLING_4 Collin Gas North 2001 84.0 84.0 84.0 84.0 84.0 84.0 

Rayburn 1 RAYBURN_RAYBURG1 Victoria Gas South 1963 13.5 13.5 13.5 13.5 13.5 13.5 

32
Unit Name Unit Code County Fuel Forecast Zone 2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 2015/16 2016/17 20

Units used in determining the generation resources in the Winter Summary

Unit Capacities - Winter

Operational capacities are based on unit testing. Other capacities are based on information provided by the plant owners. This list includes MW available to the grid from private network (self-servegeneration units that have registered with ERCOT. Data without unit names are for private network units or are planned generation that is not public.Rayburn 10 RAYBURN_RAYBURG10 Victoria Gas South 2003 40.0 40.0 40.0 40.0 40.0 40.0 Rayburn 2 RAYBURN_RAYBURG2 Victoria Gas South 1963 13.5 13.5 13.5 13.5 13.5 13.5 Rayburn 3 RAYBURN_RAYBURG3 Victoria Gas South 1965 26.0 26.0 26.0 26.0 26.0 26.0 Rayburn 7 RAYBURN_RAYBURG7 Victoria Gas South 2003 50.0 50.0 50.0 50.0 50.0 50.0 Rayburn 8 RAYBURN_RAYBURG8 Victoria Gas South 2003 51.0 51.0 51.0 51.0 51.0 51.0 Rayburn 9 RAYBURN_RAYBURG9 Victoria Gas South 2003 50.0 50.0 50.0 50.0 50.0 50.0 RGV Sugar Mill DG_S_SNR_UNIT1 Hidalgo Biomass South 1973 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 

Rhodia Houston Plant DG__HG_2UNITS Harris Other Houston 1970 7.5 7.5 7.5 7.5 7.5 7.5 

Rio Nogales 1 RIONOG_CT1 Guadalupe Gas South 2002 175.0 175.0 175.0 175.0 175.0 175.0 

Rio Nogales 2 RIONOG_CT2 Guadalupe Gas South 2002 175.0 175.0 175.0 175.0 175.0 175.0 

Rio Nogales 3 RIONOG_CT3 Guadalupe Gas South 2002 175.0 175.0 175.0 175.0 175.0 175.0 

Rio Nogales 4 RIONOG_ST1 Guadalupe Gas South 2002 323.0 323.0 323.0 323.0 323.0 323.0 

Sam Bertron 3 SRB_SRB_G3 Harris Gas Houston 1959 230.0 230.0 230.0 230.0 230.0 230.0 Sam Bertron 4 SRB_SRB_G4 Harris Gas Houston 1960 230.0 230.0 230.0 230.0 230.0 230.0 Sam Bertron T2 SRB_SRBGT_2 Harris Gas Houston 1967 13.0 13.0 13.0 13.0 13.0 13.0 San Jacinto SES 1 SJS_SJS_G1 Harris Gas Houston 1995 81.0 81.0 81.0 81.0 81.0 81.0 San Jacinto SES 2 SJS_SJS_G2 Harris Gas Houston 1995 81.0 81.0 81.0 81.0 81.0 81.0 San Miguel 1 SANMIGL_SANMIGG1 Atascosa Coal South 1982 395.0 395.0 395.0 395.0 395.0 395.0 

Sandhill Energy Center 1 SANDHSYD_SH1 Travis Gas South 2001 48.0 48.0 48.0 48.0 48.0 48.0 Sandhill Energy Center 2 SANDHSYD_SH2 Travis Gas South 2001 48.0 48.0 48.0 48.0 48.0 48.0 Sandhill Energy Center 3 SANDHSYD_SH3 Travis Gas South 2001 48.0 48.0 48.0 48.0 48.0 48.0 Sandhill Energy Center 4 SANDHSYD_SH4 Travis Gas South 2001 48.0 48.0 48.0 48.0 48.0 48.0 Sandhill Energy Center 5A SANDHSYD_SH_5A Travis Gas South 2004 170.0 170.0 170.0 170.0 170.0 170.0 

Sandhill Energy Center 5C SANDHSYD_SH_5C Travis Gas South 2004 155.0 155.0 155.0 155.0 155.0 155.0 

Sandhill Energy Center 6 Sandhill Energy Center 6 SANDHSYD SH6 SANDHSYD_SH6 Travis Gas South 2010 48 0. 48 0. 48 0. 48 0. 48 0. 48 0. Sandhill Energy Center 7 SANDHSYD_SH7 Travis Gas South 2010 48.0 48.0 48.0 48.0 48.0 48.0 Sandow 5 SD5SES_UNIT5 Milam Coal South 2010 570.0 570.0 570.0 570.0 570.0 570.0 Silas Ray 10 SILASRAY_SILAS_10 Cameron Gas South 2004 48.0 48.0 48.0 48.0 48.0 48.0 Silas Ray 5 SILASRAY_SILAS_5 Cameron Gas South 1951 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 

Silas Ray 6 SILASRAY_SILAS_6 Cameron Gas South 1961 21.0 21.0 21.0 21.0 21.0 21.0 

Silas Ray 9 SILASRAY_SILAS_9 Cameron Gas South 1996 49.0 49.0 49.0 49.0 49.0 49.0 

Sim Gideon 1 GIDEON_GIDEONG1 Bastrop Gas South 1965 140.0 140.0 140.0 140.0 140.0 140.0 

Sim Gideon 2 GIDEON_GIDEONG2 Bastrop Gas South 1968 140.0 140.0 140.0 140.0 140.0 140.0 

Sim Gideon 3 GIDEON_GIDEONG3 Bastrop Gas South 1972 340.0 340.0 340.0 340.0 340.0 340.0 

Skyline Landfill Gas DG_FERIS_4UNITS Dallas Other North 2007 6.4 6.4 6.4 6.4 6.4 6.4 

Small Hydro of Texas 1 CUECPL_UNIT1 Dewitt Hydro South 1992 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 

South Texas 1 STP_STP_G1 Matagorda Nuclear South 1988 1375.0 1375.0 1375.0 1375.0 1375.0 1375.0 1

South Texas 2 STP_STP_G2 Matagorda Nuclear South 1989 1375.0 1375.0 1375.0 1375.0 1375.0 1375.0 1

Stryker Creek 1 SCSES_UNIT1A Cherokee Gas North 1958 171.0 171.0 171.0 171.0 171.0 171.0 

Stryker Creek 2 SCSES_UNIT2 Cherokee Gas North 1965 502.0 502.0 502.0 502.0 502.0 502.0 

T H Wharton 3 THW_THWST_3 Harris Gas Houston 1974 104.0 104.0 104.0 104.0 104.0 104.0 T H Wharton 31 THW_THWGT31 Harris Gas Houston 1972 57.0 57.0 57.0 57.0 57.0 57.0 

T H Wharton 32 THW_THWGT32 Harris Gas Houston 1972 57.0 57.0 57.0 57.0 57.0 57.0 

T H Wharton 33 THW_THWGT33 Harris Gas Houston 1972 57.0 57.0 57.0 57.0 57.0 57.0 

T H Wharton 34 THW_THWGT34 Harris Gas Houston 1972 57.0 57.0 57.0 57.0 57.0 57.0 

T H Wharton 4 THW_THWST_4 Harris Gas Houston 1974 104.0 104.0 104.0 104.0 104.0 104.0 T H Wharton 41 THW_THWGT41 Harris Gas Houston 1972 57.0 57.0 57.0 57.0 57.0 57.0 

33
Unit Name Unit Code County Fuel Forecast Zone 2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 2015/16 2016/17 20

Units used in determining the generation resources in the Winter Summary

Unit Capacities - Winter

Operational capacities are based on unit testing. Other capacities are based on information provided by the plant owners. This list includes MW available to the grid from private network (self-servegeneration units that have registered with ERCOT. Data without unit names are for private network units or are planned generation that is not public.T H Wharton 42 THW_THWGT42 Harris Gas Houston 1972 57.0 57.0 57.0 57.0 57.0 57.0 T H Wharton 43 THW_THWGT43 Harris Gas Houston 1974 57.0 57.0 57.0 57.0 57.0 57.0 T H Wharton 44 THW_THWGT44 Harris Gas Houston 1974 57.0 57.0 57.0 57.0 57.0 57.0 T H Wharton 51 THW_THWGT51 Harris Gas Houston 1975 57.0 57.0 57.0 57.0 57.0 57.0 T H Wharton 52 THW_THWGT52 Harris Gas Houston 1975 57.0 57.0 57.0 57.0 57.0 57.0 T H Wharton 53 THW_THWGT53 Harris Gas Houston 1975 57.0 57.0 57.0 57.0 57.0 57.0 T H Wharton 54 THW_THWGT54 Harris Gas Houston 1975 57.0 57.0 57.0 57.0 57.0 57.0 T H Wharton 55 THW_THWGT55 Harris Gas Houston 1975 57.0 57.0 57.0 57.0 57.0 57.0 T H Wharton 56 THW_THWGT56 Harris Gas Houston 1975 57.0 57.0 57.0 57.0 57.0 57.0 T H Wharton G1 THW_THWGT_1 Harris Gas Houston 1967 13.0 13.0 13.0 13.0 13.0 13.0 Tessman Road 1 DG_WALZE_4UNITS Bexar Biomass South 2003 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 Texas City 1 TXCTY_CTA Galveston Gas Houston 2000 112.0 112.0 112.0 112.0 112.0 112.0 

Texas City 2 TXCTY_CTB Galveston Gas Houston 2000 106.0 106.0 106.0 106.0 106.0 106.0 

Texas City 3 TXCTY_CTC Galveston Gas Houston 2000 106.0 106.0 106.0 106.0 106.0 106.0 

Texas City 4 TXCTY_ST Galveston Gas Houston 2000 128.0 128.0 128.0 128.0 128.0 128.0 

Texas Gulf Sulphur TGF_TGFGT_1 Wharton Gas Houston 1985 78.0 78.0 78.0 78.0 78.0 78.0 Thomas C Ferguson 1 FERGUS_FERGUSG1 Llano Gas South 1974 425.0 425.0 425.0 425.0 425.0 425.0 

Trinidad 6 TRSES_UNIT6 Henderson Gas North 1965 226.0 226.0 226.0 226.0 226.0 226.0 

Trinity Oaks LFG DG_KLBRG_1UNIT Dallas Biomass North 2009 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 

Twin Oaks 1 TNP_ONE_TNP_O_1 Robertson Coal North 1990 158.0 158.0 158.0 158.0 158.0 158.0 

Twin Oaks 2 TNP_ONE_TNP_O_2 Robertson Coal North 1991 158.0 158.0 158.0 158.0 158.0 158.0 

V H Braunig 1 BRAUNIG_VHB1 Bexar Gas South 1966 220.0 220.0 220.0 220.0 220.0 220.0 

V H Braunig 2 BRAUNIG_VHB2 Bexar Gas South 1968 230.0 230.0 230.0 230.0 230.0 230.0 

V H Braunig 3 BRAUNIG_VHB3 Bexar Gas South 1970 412.0 412.0 412.0 412.0 412.0 412.0 

V H Braunig 5 V H Braunig 5 BRAUNIG VHB6CT5 BRAUNIG_VHB6CT5 Bexar Gas South 2009 48 0. 48 0. 48 0. 48 0. 48 0. 48 0. V H Braunig 6 BRAUNIG_VHB6CT6 Bexar Gas South 2009 48.0 48.0 48.0 48.0 48.0 48.0 V H Braunig 7 BRAUNIG_VHB6CT7 Bexar Gas South 2009 48.0 48.0 48.0 48.0 48.0 48.0 V H Braunig 8 BRAUNIG_VHB6CT8 Bexar Gas South 2009 48.0 48.0 48.0 48.0 48.0 48.0 Victoria Power Station 5 VICTORIA_VICTORG5 Victoria Gas South 2009 132.0 132.0 132.0 132.0 132.0 132.0 

Victoria Power Station 6 VICTORIA_VICTORG6 Victoria Gas South 2009 168.0 168.0 168.0 168.0 168.0 168.0 

W A Parish 1 WAP_WAP_G1 Ft. Bend Gas Houston 1958 169.0 169.0 169.0 169.0 169.0 169.0 W A Parish 2 WAP_WAP_G2 Ft. Bend Gas Houston 1958 169.0 169.0 169.0 169.0 169.0 169.0 W A Parish 3 WAP_WAP_G3 Ft. Bend Gas Houston 1961 273.0 273.0 273.0 273.0 273.0 273.0 W A Parish 4 WAP_WAP_G4 Ft. Bend Gas Houston 1968 552.0 552.0 552.0 552.0 552.0 552.0 W A Parish 5 WAP_WAP_G5 Ft. Bend Coal Houston 1977 648.0 648.0 648.0 648.0 648.0 648.0 

W A Parish 6 WAP_WAP_G6 Ft. Bend Coal Houston 1978 653.0 653.0 653.0 653.0 653.0 653.0 

W A Parish 7 WAP_WAP_G7 Ft. Bend Coal Houston 1980 577.0 577.0 577.0 577.0 577.0 577.0 

W A Parish 8 WAP_WAP_G8 Ft. Bend Coal Houston 1982 610.0 610.0 610.0 610.0 610.0 610.0 

W A Parish T1 WAP_WAPGT_1 Ft. Bend Gas Houston 1967 13.0 13.0 13.0 13.0 13.0 13.0 

Whitney 1 WND_WHITNEY1 Bosque Hydro North 1953 15.0 15.0 15.0 15.0 15.0 15.0 

Whitney 2 WND_WHITNEY2 Bosque Hydro North 1953 15.0 15.0 15.0 15.0 15.0 15.0 

Wichita Falls 1 WFCOGEN_UNIT1 Wichita Gas West 1987 21.0 21.0 21.0 21.0 21.0 21.0 Wichita Falls 2 WFCOGEN_UNIT2 Wichita Gas West 1987 21.0 21.0 21.0 21.0 21.0 21.0 Wichita Falls 3 WFCOGEN_UNIT3 Wichita Gas West 1987 21.0 21.0 21.0 21.0 21.0 21.0 Wichita Falls 4 WFCOGEN_UNIT4 Wichita Gas West 1987 16.0 16.0 16.0 16.0 16.0 16.0 Winchester Power Park 1 WIPOPA_WPP_G1 Fayette Gas South 2010 44.8 44.8 44.8 44.8 44.8 44.8 

Winchester Power Park 2 WIPOPA_WPP_G2 Fayette Gas South 2010 44.8 44.8 44.8 44.8 44.8 44.8 

34
Unit Name Unit Code County Fuel Forecast Zone 2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 2015/16 2016/17 20

Units used in determining the generation resources in the Winter Summary

Unit Capacities - Winter

Operational capacities are based on unit testing. Other capacities are based on information provided by the plant owners. This list includes MW available to the grid from private network (self-servegeneration units that have registered with ERCOT. Data without unit names are for private network units or are planned generation that is not public.Winchester Power Park 3 WIPOPA_WPP_G3 Fayette Gas South 2010 44.8 44.8 44.8 44.8 44.8 44.8 Winchester Power Park 4 WIPOPA_WPP_G4 Fayette Gas South 2010 44.8 44.8 44.8 44.8 44.8 44.8 Wise-Tractebel Power Proj. 1 WCPP_CT1 Wise Gas North 2004 260.0 260.0 260.0 260.0 260.0 260.0 

Wise-Tractebel Power Proj. 2 WCPP_CT2 Wise Gas North 2004 260.0 260.0 260.0 260.0 260.0 260.0 

Wise-Tractebel Power Proj. 3 WCPP_ST1 Wise Gas North 2004 290.0 290.0 290.0 290.0 290.0 290.0 

Wolf Hollow Power Proj. 1 WHCCS_CT1 Hood Gas North 2002 249.0 249.0 249.0 249.0 249.0 249.0 

Wolf Hollow Power Proj. 2 WHCCS_CT2 Hood Gas North 2002 249.0 249.0 249.0 249.0 249.0 249.0 

Wolf Hollow Power Proj. 3 WHCCS_STG Hood Gas North 2002 293.0 293.0 293.0 293.0 293.0 293.0 

Operational 66,531 66,531 66,531 66,531 66,531 66,531 6

Gas Houston 660.0 660.0 660.0 660.0 660.0 660.0 Gas Houston 86.0 86.0 86.0 86.0 86.0 86.0 Gas Houston 185.0 185.0 185.0 185.0 185.0 185.0 Gas Houston 340.0 340.0 340.0 340.0 340.0 340.0 Gas Houston 190.0 190.0 190.0 190.0 190.0 190.0 Gas West 17.5 17.5 17.5 17.5 17.5 17.5 Gas South 381.0 381.0 381.0 381.0 381.0 381.0 Gas South 10.0 13.0 13.0 13.0 13.0 13.0 Gas Houston 287.0 287.0 287.0 287.0 287.0 287.0 Gas Houston 310.0 310.0 310.0 310.0 310.0 310.0 Gas Houston 225.0 225.0 225.0 225.0 225.0 225.0 Gas Houston 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Gas South 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Gas Houston 145.0 145.0 145.0 145.0 145.0 145.0 

Gas South 70 0. 100 0. 100 0. 100 0. 100 0. 100 0. Gas Houston 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Gas South 420.0 420.0 420.0 420.0 420.0 420.0 Gas South 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Gas Houston 120.0 120.0 120.0 120.0 120.0 120.0 Gas South 28.0 28.0 28.0 28.0 28.0 28.0 Gas South 43.2 43.2 43.2 43.2 43.2 43.2 Gas Houston 12.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 Gas Houston 565.0 565.0 565.0 565.0 565.0 565.0 Gas Houston 325.0 325.0 325.0 325.0 325.0 325.0 Coal South 575.0 575.0 575.0 575.0 575.0 575.0 Gas South 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Gas Houston 74.0 74.0 74.0 74.0 74.0 74.0 Gas Houston 15.0 15.0 15.0 15.0 15.0 15.0 Gas South 15.0 15.0 15.0 15.0 15.0 15.0 

Generation from Private Use Networks 5,102.7 5,133.7 5,133.7 5,133.7 5,133.7 5,133.7 5RMR 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Eagle Pass DC Tie Maverick Other South 36.0 36.0 36.0 36.0 36.0 36.0 East DC Tie Fannin Other North 600.0 600.0 600.0 600.0 600.0 600.0 

Laredo VFT DC Tie Webb Other South 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 North DC Tie Wilbarger Other West 220.0 220.0 220.0 220.0 220.0 220.0 

35
Unit Name Unit Code County Fuel Forecast Zone 2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 2015/16 2016/17 20

Units used in determining the generation resources in the Winter Summary

Unit Capacities - Winter

Operational capacities are based on unit testing. Other capacities are based on information provided by the plant owners. This list includes MW available to the grid from private network (self-servegeneration units that have registered with ERCOT. Data without unit names are for private network units or are planned generation that is not public.Sharyland DC Tie Hidalgo Other South 150.0 150.0 150.0 150.0 150.0 150.0 DC-Ties 1,106.0 1,106.0 1,106.0 1,106.0 1,106.0 1,106.0 1Kiamichi Energy Facility 1CT101 KMCHI_1CT101 Fannin Gas North 2003 178.0 178.0 178.0 178.0 178.0 178.0 Kiamichi Energy Facility 1CT201 KMCHI_1CT201 Fannin Gas North 2003 180.0 180.0 180.0 180.0 180.0 180.0 Kiamichi Energy Facility 1ST KMCHI_1ST Fannin Gas North 2003 307.0 307.0 307.0 307.0 307.0 307.0 Kiamichi Energy Facility 2CT101 KMCHI_2CT101 Fannin Gas North 2003 178.0 178.0 178.0 178.0 178.0 178.0 Kiamichi Energy Facility 2CT201 KMCHI_2CT201 Fannin Gas North 2003 180.0 180.0 180.0 180.0 180.0 180.0 Kiamichi Energy Facility 2ST KMCHI_2ST Fannin Gas North 2003 307.0 307.0 307.0 307.0 307.0 307.0 Tenaska-Frontier 1 FTR_FTR_G1 Grimes Gas North 2000 180.0 180.0 180.0 180.0 180.0 180.0 

Tenaska-Frontier 2 FTR_FTR_G2 Grimes Gas North 2000 180.0 180.0 180.0 180.0 180.0 180.0 

Tenaska-Frontier 3 FTR_FTR_G3 Grimes Gas North 2000 180.0 180.0 180.0 180.0 180.0 180.0 

Tenaska-Frontier 4 FTR_FTR_G4 Grimes Gas North 2000 390.0 390.0 390.0 390.0 390.0 390.0 

Tenaska-Gateway 1 TGCCS_CT1 Rusk Gas North 2001 162.0 162.0 162.0 162.0 162.0 162.0 

Tenaska-Gateway 2 TGCCS_CT2 Rusk Gas North 2001 179.0 179.0 179.0 179.0 179.0 179.0 Tenaska-Gateway 3 TGCCS_CT3 Rusk Gas North 2001 178.0 178.0 178.0 178.0 178.0 178.0 Tenaska-Gateway 4 TGCCS_UNIT4 Rusk Gas North 2001 389.0 389.0 389.0 389.0 389.0 389.0 Switchable Resources 3,168.0 3,168.0 3,168.0 3,168.0 3,168.0 3,168.0 3Kunitz Wind KUNITZ_WIND_LGE Culberson Wind West 1995 39.8 39.8 39.8 39.8 39.8 39.8 Texas Big Spring SGMTN_SIGNALMT Howard Wind West 1999 34.3 34.3 34.3 34.3 34.3 34.3 West Texas Wind Energy SW_MESA_SW_MESA Upton Wind West 1999 74.2 74.2 74.2 74.2 74.2 74.2 Indian Mesa Wind Farm INDNNWP_INDNNWP Pecos Wind West 2001 82.5 82.5 82.5 82.5 82.5 82.5 King Mountain NE KING_NE_KINGNE Upton Wind West 2001 79.3 79.3 79.3 79.3 79.3 79.3 

King Mountain NW King Mountain NW KING NW KINGNW KING_NW_KINGNW Upton Wind West 2001 79 3. 79 3. 79 3. 79 3. 79 3. 79 3. King Mountain SE KING_SE_KINGSE Upton Wind West 2001 40.3 40.3 40.3 40.3 40.3 40.3 King Mountain SW KING_SW_KINGSW Upton Wind West 2001 79.3 79.3 79.3 79.3 79.3 79.3 Pecos Wind (Woodward 1) WOODWRD1_WOODWRD1 Pecos Wind West 2001 82.5 82.5 82.5 82.5 82.5 82.5 Pecos Wind (Woodward 2) WOODWRD2_WOODWRD2 Pecos Wind West 2001 77.2 77.2 77.2 77.2 77.2 77.2 Trent Wind Farm TRENT_TRENT Nolan Wind West 2001 150.0 150.0 150.0 150.0 150.0 150.0 

Desert Sky Wind Farm 1 INDNENR_INDNENR Pecos Wind West 2002 84.0 84.0 84.0 84.0 84.0 84.0 

Desert Sky Wind Farm 2 INDNENR_INDNENR_2 Pecos Wind West 2002 76.5 76.5 76.5 76.5 76.5 76.5 

Green Mountain Energy 1 BRAZ_WND_WND1 Scurry Wind West 2003 99.0 99.0 99.0 99.0 99.0 99.0 

Green Mountain Energy 2 BRAZ_WND_WND2 Scurry Wind West 2003 61.0 61.0 61.0 61.0 61.0 61.0 

Sweetwater Wind 1 SWEETWND_WND1 Nolan Wind West 2003 36.6 36.6 36.6 36.6 36.6 36.6 

Callahan Wind CALLAHAN_WND1 Callahan Wind West 2004 114.0 114.0 114.0 114.0 114.0 114.0 

Sweetwater Wind 3 SWEETWN2_WND2 Nolan Wind West 2004 97.5 97.5 97.5 97.5 97.5 97.5 

Horse Hollow Wind 1 H_HOLLOW_WND1 Taylor Wind West 2005 213.0 213.0 213.0 213.0 213.0 213.0 

Sweetwater Wind 4 SWEETWN3_WND3 Nolan Wind West 2005 129.0 129.0 129.0 129.0 129.0 129.0 

Buffalo Gap Wind Farm 1 BUFF_GAP_UNIT1 Taylor Wind West 2006 120.6 120.6 120.6 120.6 120.6 120.6 Horse Hollow Wind 2 HHOLLOW2_WIND1 Taylor Wind West 2006 184.0 184.0 184.0 184.0 184.0 184.0 Horse Hollow Wind 3 HHOLLOW3_WND_1 Taylor Wind West 2006 223.5 223.5 223.5 223.5 223.5 223.5 

Horse Hollow Wind 4 HHOLLOW4_WND1 Taylor Wind West 2006 115.0 115.0 115.0 115.0 115.0 115.0 Mesquite Wind LNCRK_G83 Shackelford Wind West 2006 200.0 200.0 200.0 200.0 200.0 200.0 Red Canyon RDCANYON_RDCNY1 Borden Wind West 2006 84.0 84.0 84.0 84.0 84.0 84.0 

Sweetwater Wind 2 SWEETWN2_WND24 Nolan Wind West 2006 15.9 15.9 15.9 15.9 15.9 15.9 

Barton Chapel Wind BRTSW_BCW1 Jack Wind North 2007 120.0 120.0 120.0 120.0 120.0 120.0 

36
Unit Name Unit Code County Fuel Forecast Zone 2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 2015/16 2016/17 20

Units used in determining the generation resources in the Winter Summary

Unit Capacities - Winter

Operational capacities are based on unit testing. Other capacities are based on information provided by the plant owners. This list includes MW available to the grid from private network (self-servegeneration units that have registered with ERCOT. Data without unit names are for private network units or are planned generation that is not public.Buffalo Gap Wind Farm 2 BUFF_GAP_UNIT2 Taylor Wind West 2007 232.5 232.5 232.5 232.5 232.5 232.5 

Camp Springs 1 CSEC_CSECG1 Scurry Wind West 2007 134.4 134.4 134.4 134.4 134.4 134.4 

Camp Springs 2 CSEC_CSECG2 Scurry Wind West 2007 123.6 123.6 123.6 123.6 123.6 123.6 

Capricorn Ridge Wind 1 CAPRIDGE_CR1 Sterling Wind West 2007 214.5 214.5 214.5 214.5 214.5 214.5 

Capricorn Ridge Wind 3 CAPRIDGE_CR2 Sterling Wind West 2007 149.5 149.5 149.5 149.5 149.5 149.5 

Forest Creek Wind Farm MCDLD_FCW1 Glasscock Wind West 2007 124.2 124.2 124.2 124.2 124.2 124.2 

Post Oak Wind 1 LNCRK2_G871 Shackelford Wind West 2007 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 

Post Oak Wind 2 LNCRK2_G872 Shackelford Wind West 2007 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 

Snyder Wind Farm ENAS_ENA1 Scurry Wind West 2007 63.0 63.0 63.0 63.0 63.0 63.0 Sweetwater Wind 5 SWEETWN4_WND5 Nolan Wind West 2007 79.2 79.2 79.2 79.2 79.2 79.2 Sweetwater Wind 6 SWEETWN4_WND4B Nolan Wind West 2007 103.7 103.7 103.7 103.7 103.7 103.7 

Sweetwater Wind 7 SWEETWN4_WND4A Nolan Wind West 2007 117.8 117.8 117.8 117.8 117.8 117.8 

Whirlwind Energy WEC_WECG1 Floyd Wind West 2007 60.0 60.0 60.0 60.0 60.0 60.0 Wolfe Flats DG_TURL_UNIT1 Hall Wind West 2007 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 Buffalo Gap Wind Farm 3 BUFF_GAP_UNIT3 Taylor Wind West 2008 170.2 170.2 170.2 170.2 170.2 170.2 

Capricorn Ridge Wind 2 CAPRIDGE_CR3 Sterling Wind West 2008 186.0 186.0 186.0 186.0 186.0 186.0 

Capricorn Ridge Wind 4 CAPRIDG4_CR4 Sterling Wind West 2008 112.5 112.5 112.5 112.5 112.5 112.5 

Champion Wind Farm CHAMPION_UNIT1 Nolan Wind West 2008 126.5 126.5 126.5 126.5 126.5 126.5 

Elbow Creek Wind Project ELB_ELBCREEK Howard Wind West 2008 122.0 122.0 122.0 122.0 122.0 122.0 

Goat Wind GOAT_GOATWIND Sterling Wind West 2008 80.0 80.0 80.0 80.0 80.0 80.0 Hackberry Wind Farm HWF_HWFG1 Shackelford Wind West 2008 166.0 166.0 166.0 166.0 166.0 166.0 

Inadale Wind INDL_INADALE1 Nolan Wind West 2008 197.0 197.0 197.0 197.0 197.0 197.0 

McAdoo Wind Farm MWEC_G1 Dickens Wind West 2008 150.0 150.0 150.0 150.0 150.0 150.0 

Ocotillo Wind Farm OWF_OWF Howard Wind West 2008 58.8 58.8 58.8 58.8 58.8 58.8 

Panther Creek 1 Panther Creek 1 PC NORTH PANTHER1 PC

_

NORTH

_

PANTHER1 Howard Wind West 2008 142 5. 142 5. 142 5. 142 5. 142 5. 142 5. 

Panther Creek 2 PC_SOUTH_PANTHER2 Howard Wind West 2008 115.5 115.5 115.5 115.5 115.5 115.5 Pyron Wind Farm PYR_PYRON1 Scurry Wind West 2008 249.0 249.0 249.0 249.0 249.0 249.0 Roscoe Wind Farm TKWSW1_ROSCOE Nolan Wind West 2008 209.0 209.0 209.0 209.0 209.0 209.0 Sand Bluff Wind Farm MCDLD_SBW1 Glasscock Wind West 2008 90.0 90.0 90.0 90.0 90.0 90.0 

Sherbino I KEO_KEO_SM1 Pecos Wind West 2008 150.0 150.0 150.0 150.0 150.0 150.0 

Silver Star FLTCK_SSI Eastland Wind North 2008 60.0 60.0 60.0 60.0 60.0 60.0 South Trent Wind Farm STWF_T1 Nolan Wind West 2008 101.2 101.2 101.2 101.2 101.2 101.2 

Stanton Wind Energy SWEC_G1 Martin Wind West 2008 123.6 123.6 123.6 123.6 123.6 123.6 

TSTC West Texas Wind DG_ROSC2_1UNIT Nolan Wind West 2008 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 

Turkey Track Wind Energy Center TTWEC_G1 Nolan Wind West 2008 175.0 175.0 175.0 175.0 175.0 175.0 

Wolfe Ridge WHTTAIL_WR1 Cooke Wind North 2008 112.5 112.5 112.5 112.5 112.5 112.5 Bull Creek Wind Plant BULLCRK_WND1 Borden Wind West 2009 89.0 89.0 89.0 89.0 89.0 89.0 Bull Creek Wind Plant BULLCRK_WND2 Borden Wind West 2009 91.0 91.0 91.0 91.0 91.0 91.0 Horse Hollow Wind 1 HHGT_HHOLLOW1 Kendall Wind South 2009 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

Horse Hollow Wind 2 HHGT_HHOLLOW2 Kendall Wind South 2009 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

Horse Hollow Wind 3 HHGT_HHOLLOW3 Kendall Wind South 2009 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

Horse Hollow Wind 4 HHGT_HHOLLOW4 Kendall Wind South 2009 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

Horse Hollow Wind Callahan HHGT_CALLAHAN Kendall Wind South 2009 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

Langford Wind Power LGD_LANGFORD Tom Green Wind West 2009 150.0 150.0 150.0 150.0 150.0 150.0 Loraine Windpark I LONEWOLF_G1 Mitchell Wind West 2009 50.0 50.0 50.0 50.0 50.0 50.0 Loraine Windpark II LONEWOLF_G2 Mitchell Wind West 2009 51.0 51.0 51.0 51.0 51.0 51.0 

Loraine Windpark III LONEWOLF_G3 Mitchell Wind West 2011 26.0 26.0 26.0 26.0 26.0 26.0 

37
Unit Name Unit Code County Fuel Forecast Zone 2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 2015/16 2016/17 20

Units used in determining the generation resources in the Winter Summary

Unit Capacities - Winter

Operational capacities are based on unit testing. Other capacities are based on information provided by the plant owners. This list includes MW available to the grid from private network (self-servegeneration units that have registered with ERCOT. Data without unit names are for private network units or are planned generation that is not public.Loraine Windpark IV LONEWOLF_G4 Mitchell Wind West 2011 24.0 24.0 24.0 24.0 24.0 24.0 Notrees-1 NWF_NWF1 Winkler Wind West 2009 152.6 152.6 152.6 152.6 152.6 152.6 

Panther Creek 3 PC_SOUTH_PANTHER3 Howard Wind West 2009 199.5 199.5 199.5 199.5 199.5 199.5 

Papalote Creek Wind Farm PAP1_PAP1 San Patricio Wind South 2009 179.9 179.9 179.9 179.9 179.9 179.9 

Penascal Wind PENA_UNIT1 Kenedy Wind South 2009 160.8 160.8 160.8 160.8 160.8 160.8 

Penascal Wind PENA_UNIT2 Kenedy Wind South 2009 141.6 141.6 141.6 141.6 141.6 141.6 

Cedro Hill Wind CEDROHIL_CHW1 Webb Wind South 2010 150.0 150.0 150.0 150.0 150.0 150.0 

Delaware Mountain Wind Farm KUNITZ_WIND_NWP Culberson Wind West 2010 28.5 28.5 28.5 28.5 28.5 28.5 Goat Wind 2 GOAT_GOATWIN2 Sterling Wind West 2010 69.6 69.6 69.6 69.6 69.6 69.6 Gulf Wind I TGW_T1 Kenedy Wind South 2010 141.6 141.6 141.6 141.6 141.6 141.6 Gulf Wind II TGW_T2 Kenedy Wind South 2010 141.6 141.6 141.6 141.6 141.6 141.6 

Papalote Creek Wind COTTON_PAP2 San Patricio Wind South 2010 200.1 200.1 200.1 200.1 200.1 200.1 

Penascal Wind PENA_UNIT3 Kenedy Wind South 2010 100.8 100.8 100.8 100.8 100.8 100.8 

WIND 9,452 9,452 9,452 9,452 9,452 9,452 Atkins 3 ATKINS_ATKINSG3 Brazos Gas North 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 

Atkins 4 ATKINS_ATKINSG4 Brazos Gas North 22.0 22.0 22.0 22.0 22.0 22.0 

Atkins 5 ATKINS_ATKINSG5 Brazos Gas North 25.0 25.0 25.0 25.0 25.0 25.0 

Atkins 6 ATKINS_ATKINSG6 Brazos Gas North 50.0 50.0 50.0 50.0 50.0 50.0 

AES Deepwater APD_APD_G1 Harris Other Houston 138.0 138.0 138.0 138.0 138.0 138.0 

C E Newman 5 NEWMAN_NEWMA_5 Dallas Gas North 37.0 37.0 37.0 37.0 37.0 37.0 

Leon Creek 3 LEON_CRK_LCP3G3 Bexar Gas South 56.0 56.0 56.0 56.0 56.0 56.0 

Leon Creek 4 LEON_CRK_LCP4G4 Bexar Gas South 88.0 88.0 88.0 88.0 88.0 88.0 

North Texas 1 NTX_NTX_1 Parker Gas North 18.0 18.0 18.0 18.0 18.0 18.0 

N th T 2 North Texas 2 NTX NTX 2 NTX

_

NTX

_

2 P k ar er Gas N th or 18 0. 18 0. 18 0. 18 0. 18 0. 18 0. 

North Texas 3 NTX_NTX_3 Parker Gas North 39.0 39.0 39.0 39.0 39.0 39.0 

Permian Basin 6 PBSES_UNIT6 Ward Gas West 515.0 515.0 515.0 515.0 515.0 515.0 

Sam Bertron 1 SRB_SRB_G1 Harris Gas Houston 174.0 174.0 174.0 174.0 174.0 174.0 Sam Bertron 2 SRB_SRB_G2 Harris Gas Houston 174.0 174.0 174.0 174.0 174.0 174.0 Spencer 4 SPNCER_SPNCE_4 Denton Gas North 61.0 61.0 61.0 61.0 61.0 61.0 Spencer 5 SPNCER_SPNCE_5 Denton Gas North 61.0 61.0 61.0 61.0 61.0 61.0 Valley 1 VLSES_UNIT1 Fannin Gas North 174.0 174.0 174.0 174.0 174.0 174.0 Valley 2 VLSES_UNIT2 Fannin Gas North 520.0 520.0 520.0 520.0 520.0 520.0 Valley 3 VLSES_UNIT3 Fannin Gas North 375.0 375.0 375.0 375.0 375.0 375.0 Mothballed Resources 2,557.0 2,557.0 2,557.0 2,557.0 2,557.0 2,557.0 2Nacogdoches Project 09INR0007 Nacogdoches Biomass 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 

- 

Sandy Creek 1 09INR0001 McLennan Coal 925.0 925.0 925.0 925.0 925.0 

- 

CFB Power Plant Units 11&12 09INR0029 Calhoun Coal 260.0 260.0 260.0 260.0 260.0 

260.0 

Coleto Creek Unit 2 14INR0002 Goliad Coal - - - - - - 

 

Panda Temple Power 10INR0020b Bell Gas - - - - 780.0 780.0 

 

Panda Temple Power 10INR0020a Bell Gas - - - 780.0 780.0 780.0 

 

Jack County 2 10INR0010 Jack Gas 565.0 565.0 565.0 565.0 565.0 

565.0 

Pondera King Power Project 10INR0022 Harris Gas - - - - 1,380.0 1,380.0 1,

 

Las Brisas Energy Center 12INR0016a Nueces Other - - - - 620.0 620.0 

 

Las Brisas Energy Center 12INR0016b Nueces Other - - - - - 620.0 

 

38
Unit Name Unit Code County Fuel Forecast Zone 2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 2015/16 2016/17 20

Units used in determining the generation resources in the Winter Summary

Unit Capacities - Winter

Operational capacities are based on unit testing. Other capacities are based on information provided by the plant owners. This list includes MW available to the grid from private network (self-servegeneration units that have registered with ERCOT. Data without unit names are for private network units or are planned generation that is not public.RRE Austin Solar 11INR0086 Travis Solar - 60 60 60 60 60 

 

FRV AE Solar 10INR0082 Travis Solar 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 

 

-

New Units with Signed IA and Air Permit 1,940.0 1,940.0 2,720.0 5,500.0 6,120.0 6,

 

825.0

Gunsight Mountain 08INR0018 Howard Wind - - 120.0 120.0 120.0 120.0 

 

Los Vientos 11INR0033 Cameron Wind - - 400.0 400.0 400.0 400.0 

 

Archer-Young 08INR0062 Young Wind 250.0 250.0 250.0 250.0 250.0 

- 

Penascal Wind Farm 3 06INR0022c Kenedy Wind - - - 202.0 202.0 202.0 

 

Sherbino Mesa Wind Farm 2 06INR0012b Pecos Wind 150.0 150.0 150.0 150.0 150.0 

150.0 

WKN Mozart 09INR0061 Kent Wind - 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 

 

- 

Magic Valley Wind Project 10INR0060 Willacy Wind 202.0 202.0 202.0 202.0 202.0 

- 

Senate Wind Project 08INR0011 Jack Wind 150.0 150.0 150.0 150.0 150.0 

- 

New Wind Generation 752.0 1,302.0 1,504.0 1,504.0 1,504.0 1,

 

150.0

Pampa Energy Center 07INR0004 Gray Coal 165.0 165.0 165.0 165.0 165.0 

- 

White Stallion Energy Center 14INR0005 Matagorda Coal - - - 1,200.0 1,200.0 1,200.0 1,

 

Comanche Peak 3 and 4 15INR0002 Somervel Nuclear - - - - - 

 

- 

STP 3 and 4 15INR0008 Matagorda Nuclear - - - - - 2,700.0 2,

 

Potential Public Non-Wind Resources 165.0 165.0 1,365.0 1,365.0 4,065.0 4,

 

-

Throckmorton Wind Farm 12INR0003 Throckmorton Wind 400.0 400.0 400.0 400.0 400.0 

- 

Buffalo Gap 4 and 5 08INR0065 Nolan Wind 465.0 465.0 465.0 465.0 465.0 

- 

2W Whatley Phase 1 11INR0084 Ector Wind 45.0 45.0 45.0 45.0 45.0 

 

-

B&B Panhandle Wind 09INR0024 Carson Wind 1,001.0 1,001.0 1,001.0 1,001.0 1,001.0 1,

 

-

Fort Concho Wind Farm Fort Concho Wind Farm 12INR0004 12INR0004 Tom Green Tom Green Wind - 400 0. 400 0. 400 0. 400 0. 400 0. 

Scurry County Wind III 09INR0037 Scurry Wind 350.0 350.0 350.0 350.0 350.0 

- 

M Bar Wind 08INR0038 Andrews Wind 194.0 194.0 194.0 194.0 194.0 

- 

Gatesville Wind Farm 09INR0034 Coryell Wind 200.0 200.0 200.0 200.0 200.0 

- 

Pistol Hill Energy Center 08INR0025 Ector Wind 300.0 300.0 300.0 300.0 300.0 

- 

2W Whatley Phase 2 12INR0043 Ector Wind - - 290.0 290.0 290.0 290.0 

 

Potential Public Wind Resources 3,355.0 3,645.0 3,645.0 3,645.0 3,645.0 3,

 

-

11INR0037 Smith Biomass 50.0 50.0 50.0 50.0 50.0 

 

-

14INR0003 Nolan Coal - - - 850.0 850.0 850.0 

 

11INR0075 Fort Bend Coal 15.0 15.0 15.0 15.0 15.0 

 

-

10INR0032 Navarro Gas - 775.0 775.0 775.0 775.0 775.0 

 

10INR0029 Hood Gas 810.0 810.0 810.0 810.0 810.0 

- 

11INR0040 Freestone Gas 640.0 640.0 640.0 640.0 640.0 

- 

11INR0006 Lamar Gas 579.0 579.0 579.0 579.0 579.0 

- 

09INR0031 Ector Gas 275.0 275.0 275.0 275.0 275.0 

- 

09INR0050 Fannin Gas 1,200.0 1,200.0 1,200.0 1,200.0 1,200.0 1,

 

-

12INR0007 Lamar Gas 296.0 296.0 296.0 296.0 296.0 

- 

10INR0021 Grayson Gas 646.0 646.0 646.0 646.0 646.0 

- 

10INR0018 Madison Gas 550 550 550 550 550 

 

-

13INR0021 Llano Gas - - - 600 600 

 

-

13INR0028 Hale Gas - - 392 392 392 

 

-

13INR0023 Ector Gas - 240 240 240 240 

 

-

39
Unit Name Unit Code County Fuel Forecast Zone 2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 2015/16 2016/17 20

Units used in determining the generation resources in the Winter Summary

Unit Capacities - Winter

Operational capacities are based on unit testing. Other capacities are based on information provided by the plant owners. This list includes MW available to the grid from private network (self-servegeneration units that have registered with ERCOT. Data without unit names are for private network units or are planned generation that is not public.

11INR0049 Wharton Gas - 275 275 275 275 275 

 

11INR0071 Harris Gas - 7 7 7 7 7 

 

16INR0002 Brazoria Other - - - - - - 

 

10INR0089 Harris Other - 40 40 40 40 40 

 

10INR0080 Presidio Solar - 144 144 144 144 144 

 

10INR0085 Ector Solar - 40 40 40 40 40 

 

11INR0094 Kent Solar - 100 100 100 100 100 

 

12INR0057 Ector Solar - - 40 40 40 40 

 

11INR0090 Howard Solar - 60 60 60 60 60 

 

15INR0011b Borden Solar - - - - - 38 

 

11INR0070 Reeves Solar - 50 50 50 50 50 

 

11INR0061 Presidio Solar - 90 90 90 90 90 

 

11INR0060 Tom Green Solar - 90 90 90 90 90 

 

11INR0058 Pecos Solar 135 135 135 135 135 

 

-

Potential Non-Public Non-Wind Resources 6,867.0 7,147.0 8,389.0 8,989.0 9,027.0 9,

 

-

07INR0013 Coke Wind 200 200 200 200 200 

 

-

08INR0019a Gray Wind - - 250 250 250 

 

-

08INR0019b Gray Wind - - 250 250 250 

 

-

08INR0019c Gray Wind - - 250 250 250 

 

-

08INR0020 Eastland Wind 200 200 200 200 200 

 

-

08INR0031 Childress Wind 100 100 100 100 100 

 

-

08INR0041 Coke Wind - 200 200 200 200 

 

-

08INR0042 Coke Wind - 200 200 200 200 

 

-

08INR0049 08INR0049 Clay Wind - - 50 50 50 50 

09INR0025 Concho Wind - - 180 180 180 180 

 

09INR0041 Mitchell Wind - - 300 300 300 300 

 

09INR0048 Jack Wind - 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 09INR0051 Borden Wind - 0 249 249 249 249 09INR0054 Stonewall Wind 148.5 148.5 148.5 148.5 148.5 

-

09INR0058 Howard Wind - 0 250 250 250 250 09INR0073 Scurry Wind - 0 0 200 200 200 09INR0074 Motley Wind - 70 70 70 70 70 09INR0077 Reagan Wind - 0 0 500 500 500 10INR0008 Pecos Wind 500 500 500 500 500 

-

10INR0009 Castro Wind - 0 0 300 300 300 10INR0013 Upton Wind 400 400 400 400 400 

-

10INR0015 Mitchell Wind - 0 0 350 350 350 10INR0016 Childress Wind 150 150 150 150 150 

-

10INR0019 Deaf Smith Wind 609 609 609 609 609 

-

10INR0023 Haskell Wind 386 386 386 386 386 

-

10INR0024 Briscoe Wind - 0 2940 2940 2940 2940 10INR0033 Armstrong Wind 399 399 399 399 399 

-

10INR0041 Floyd Wind 135 135 135 135 135 

-

10INR0042 Mason Wind 170 170 170 170 170 

-

10INR0048 Hardeman Wind 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 

-

10INR0051 Brazoria Wind 200 200 200 200 200 

-

40
Unit Name Unit Code County Fuel Forecast Zone 2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 2015/16 2016/17 20

Units used in determining the generation resources in the Winter Summary

Unit Capacities - Winter

Operational capacities are based on unit testing. Other capacities are based on information provided by the plant owners. This list includes MW available to the grid from private network (self-servegeneration units that have registered with ERCOT. Data without unit names are for private network units or are planned generation that is not public.

10INR0052a Knox Wind - 21 21 21 21 21 

10INR0054 Palo Pinto Wind - 36 36 36 36 36 

10INR0056 Borden Wind - 0 249 249 249 249 

10INR0062a Pecos Wind - 80 80 80 80 80 

10INR0062b Pecos Wind - 0 220 220 220 220 

10INR0077 Callahan Wind - 0 101 101 101 101 

10INR0079 Nolan Wind - 60 60 60 60 60 

10INR0081a Clay Wind 30.4 30.4 30.4 30.4 30.4 

-

10INR0081b Clay Wind 19.2 19.2 19.2 19.2 19.2 

-

11INR0013 Mills Wind - 0 0 150 150 150 

11INR0019 Upton Wind 200 200 200 200 200 

-

11INR0025 Crockett Wind 400 400 400 400 400 

-

11INR0029 Throckmorton Wind 200 200 200 200 200 

-

11INR0039 Starr Wind 201 201 201 201 201 

-

11INR0043 Coke Wind 300 300 300 300 300 

-

11INR0047 Deaf Smith Wind 600 600 600 600 600 

-

11INR0050 Crosby Wind 149 149 149 149 149 

-

11INR0054 San Patricio Wind 161 161 161 161 161 

-

11INR0057 Cameron Wind 165 165 165 165 165 

-

11INR0062 Nueces Wind 149 149 149 149 149 

-

11INR0065 Nueces Wind 240 240 240 240 240 

-

11INR0067 Cameron Wind - 0 78 78 78 78 

11INR0076 Archer Wind - 94 94 94 94 94 11INR0079a Clay Wind 200 200 200 200 200 

-

11INR0081 11INR0081 Live Oak Live Oak Wind - 0 72 72 72 72 11INR0082A Val Verde Wind - 0 0 50 50 50 11INR0082B Val Verde Wind - 0 150 150 150 150 11INR0083A Crockett Wind - 0 0 50 50 50 11INR0083B Crockett Wind - 0 100 100 100 100 11INR0085 Nolan Wind 106 106 106 106 106 

-

11INR0091 Webb Wind - 92 92 92 92 92 12INR0002a Briscoe Wind - 0 0 200 200 200 

12INR0002b Briscoe Wind - 0 0 0 200 200 

12INR0002c Briscoe Wind - 0 0 0 0 350 12INR0005 Floyd Wind - 0 1100 1100 1100 1100 

12INR0018 Gray Wind - 0 500 500 500 500 

12INR0026 Randall Wind - 0 400 400 400 400 12INR0027 Gray Wind - 0 200 200 200 200 

12INR0029 Swisher Wind - 0 500 500 500 500 12INR0033 Motley Wind 150 150 150 150 150 

-

12INR0034 Borden Wind - 0 342 342 342 342 

12INR0035 Nueces Wind - 0 249 249 249 249 12INR0042 Deaf Smith Wind 400 400 400 400 400 

-

12INR0045 Kleberg Wind 135 135 135 135 135 

-

12INR0053 Crockett Wind 615 615 615 615 615 

-

12INR0072 Kinney Wind - 0 100 100 100 100 

12INR0075 Wilbarger Wind 499 499 499 499 499 

-

41
Unit Name Unit Code County Fuel Forecast Zone 2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 2015/16 2016/17 20

Units used in determining the generation resources in the Winter Summary

Unit Capacities - Winter

Operational capacities are based on unit testing. Other capacities are based on information provided by the plant owners. This list includes MW available to the grid from private network (self-servegeneration units that have registered with ERCOT. Data without unit names are for private network units or are planned generation that is not public.

13INR0004 Deaf Smith Wind - 0 0 500 500 500 13INR0005 Carson Wind - 0 0 600 600 600 

13INR0006 Gray Wind - 0 0 750 750 750 

13INR0007 Pecos Wind - 0 0 200 200 200 

13INR0010a Parmer Wind - 0 200 200 200 200 

13INR0010b Parmer Wind - 0 0 500 500 500 

13INR0010c Parmer Wind - 0 0 0 500 500 

13INR0016 Deaf Smith Wind - 0 0 250.5 250.5 250.5 

13INR0017 Childress Wind - 0 0 200 200 200 13INR0020a Glasscock Wind - 0 200 200 200 200 13INR0020b Glasscock Wind - 0 0 150 150 150 13INR0025 Randall Wind - 0 0 150 150 150 

13INR0026 Oldham Wind - 0 0 201 201 201 13INR0036 Hidalgo Wind - 0 200 200 200 200 

14INR0001 Pecos Wind - 0 0 0 500 500 

14INR0006 Floyd Wind - 0 0 0 151 151 

15INR0011a Borden Wind - 0 0 0 0 112 

Potential Non-Public Wind Resources - 0 0 0 0 0 

- 19,400.1 25,451.6 26,802.6 27,264.6 27,

 

10,070.1

42
Long-Term Projections

MW ERCOT GENERATION CAPACITY AND DEMAND PROJECTIONS

96,750

104,8

100 000

110,000

120,000 Total Requirement (Peak + 13.75% Reserve Margin)

Peak demand Capacity less units 50 years old or olderCapacity less units 40 years old or olderCapacity less units 30 years old or older

08 0

81,477

89,263

78,473

85,055

92,1

80,00090,000

100,000

70,850

62,286

71,628

70,882

69,362

65,093

57 740

65,093

57,740 60,000

70,000

57,740

48,7

48,777

43,495

37,4

48,777

43,495

37,419 35,440 30 000

40,00050,000

21,9

20,00030,000

2011 2016 2021 2026 2031

43
Long-Term Projections

90,000

MW POSSIBLE ERCOT GENERATION CAPACITY NEEDED 

(including reserve margin)

77,975

70,00080,000

Capacity needed less units 30 years old or olderCapacity needed less units 40 years old or olderCapacity needed less units 50 years old or older

49,481

58,479

50,424

62,48

50,000 51,12760,000

37,421

23,176

38,123

21 808

36,178

30,00040,000

6,445

21,808

10,00020,000

0

2016 2021 2026 2031

44
Fuel Type 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 

Biomass 94 194 194 194 194 194 194 194 194 

Coal 19,034 19,959 19,959 19,959 19,959 19,959 20,619 20,619 20,619 Natural Gas 46,943 47,665 47,705 48,502 50,679 50,697 51,014 51,014 51,014 Nuclear 5,131 5,131 5,131 5,131 5,131 5,131 5,131 5,131 5,131 

Other 601 601 601 601 601 1,221 1,841 1,841 1,841 

Hydro 537 537 537 537 537 537 537 537 537 

Wind 835 888 933 953 953 953 953 953 953 

Solar - 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 

Total 73,174 75,065 75,150 75,967 78,144 78,781 80,378 80,378 80,378 

Fuel Type 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 

Biomass 0.1% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% Coal 26.0% 26.6% 26.6% 26.3% 25.5% 25.3% 25.7% 25.7% 25.7% Natural Gas 64.2% 63.5% 63.5% 63.8% 64.9% 64.4% 63.5% 63.5% 63.5% Nuclear 7.0% 6.8% 6.8% 6.8% 6.6% 6.5% 6.4% 6.4% 6.4% Other 0.8% 0.8% 0.8% 0.8% 0.8% 1.5% 2.3% 2.3% 2.3% Hydro 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% Wind 1.1% 1.2% 1.2% 1.3% 1.2% 1.2% 1.2% 1.2% 1.2% Solar 0.0% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 

Summer Fuel Types - ERCOT

Fuel type is based on the primary fuel. Capacities of the wind units are included at 8.7%. The amounts available for the grid according to infthe owners of the private network (self-serve) units and the distributed generation units that have registered with ERCOT are included. 

In MW

In Percentages

45
Fuel Type 2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 2015/16 2016/17 2017/18 2018/19 2019/2

Biomass 97 197 197 197 197 197 197 197 19

Coal 19,196 20,121 20,121 20,121 20,121 20,121 20,781 20,781 20,78

Natural Gas 50,344 50,374 50,364 51,144 53,304 53,304 53,621 53,621 53,62Nuclear 5,198 5,198 5,198 5,198 5,198 5,198 5,198 5,198 5,19

Other 601 601 601 601 1,221 1,841 1,841 1,841 1,84

Hydro 537 537 537 537 537 537 537 537 53

Wind 835 888 933 953 953 953 953 953 95

Solar - 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 9

Total 76,808 78,005 78,041 78,840 81,620 82,240 83,217 83,217 83,21

Fuel Type 2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 2015/16 2016/17 2017/18 2018/19 2019/2

Biomass 0.1% 0.3% 0.3% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2

Coal 25.0% 25.8% 25.8% 25.5% 24.7% 24.5% 25.0% 25.0% 25.0Natural Gas 65.5% 64.6% 64.5% 64.9% 65.3% 64.8% 64.4% 64.4% 64.4Nuclear 6.8% 6.7% 6.7% 6.6% 6.4% 6.3% 6.2% 6.2% 6.2Other 0.8% 0.8% 0.8% 0.8% 1.5% 2.2% 2.2% 2.2% 2.2Hydro 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6Wind 1.1% 1.1% 1.2% 1.2% 1.2% 1.2% 1.1% 1.1% 1.1Solar 0.0% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1

Winter Fuel Types - ERCOT

Fuel type is based on the primary fuel. Capacities of the wind units are included at 8.7%. The amounts available for the grid according to infothe owners of the private network (self-serve) units and the distributed generation units that have registered with ERCOT are included. 

In MW

In Percentages

46
County 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 20

Anderson 135 138 141 144 146 148 150 152 1Andrews 150 153 157 159 162 164 166 169 1Angelina 238 243 249 253 257 260 265 268 2Aransas 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 60 Archer 24 24 25 25 26 26 27 27 Atascosa 80 81 83 85 86 87 89 90 Austin 91 93 96 97 99 100 102 103 1Bandera 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 Bastrop 174 177 182 185 188 190 193 196 1Baylor 55555555Bee 57 58 60 61 62 63 64 65 Bell 728 745 763 776 787 797 810 822 8Bexar 4,221 4,316 4,420 4,496 4,564 4,618 4,698 4,762 4,8Blanco 28 29 30 30 31 31 32 32 Borden 33333333Bosque 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 Brazoria 1,971 2,015 2,064 2,099 2,131 2,156 2,193 2,223 2,2Brazos 551 564 577 587 596 603 613 622 6Brewster 19 19 20 20 20 21 21 21 Brooks 19 19 20 20 20 21 21 21 Brown 114 117 120 122 124 125 127 129 1Burleson 30 31 32 32 33 33 34 34 Burnet 124 126 129 132 134 135 138 139 1Caldwell 103 106 108 110 112 113 115 117 1Calhoun 85 87 89 91 92 93 95 96 Callahan 42 43 44 44 45 45 46 47 Cameron 685 701 718 730 741 750 763 773 7The loads shown are the projected coincident loads of the individual delivery points from the 2011 ALDRs and do not incluloads. The ALDR values were used to compute a percentage of load by county, and the percentage was applied to the foERCOT coincident peak. The values shown here are used in the Summer import/export calculations.

Summer Load by County

Summer Load, MW

47
County 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 20

The loads shown are the projected coincident loads of the individual delivery points from the 2011 ALDRs and do not incluloads. The ALDR values were used to compute a percentage of load by county, and the percentage was applied to the foERCOT coincident peak. The values shown here are used in the Summer import/export calculations.

Summer Load by County

Summer Load, MW

Chambers 451 461 472 480 487 493 501 508 5Cherokee 91 93 96 97 99 100 102 103 1Childress 15 15 15 16 16 16 16 17 Clay 25 25 26 26 27 27 28 28 Coke 21 22 22 23 23 23 24 24 Coleman 36 37 37 38 39 39 40 40 Collin 2,280 2,330 2,387 2,428 2,465 2,494 2,537 2,571 2,6Colorado 80 82 84 85 87 88 89 90 Comal 347 355 364 370 376 380 387 392 3Comanche 41 42 43 44 45 45 46 46 Concho 13 13 13 14 14 14 14 14 Cooke 126 129 132 134 136 138 140 142 1Coryell 107 109 112 114 115 117 119 120 1Cottle 44444445Crane 83 85 87 88 90 91 92 93 Crockett 39 40 41 42 43 43 44 44 Crosby 22222222Culberson 55555566Dallas 7,681 7,853 8,043 8,182 8,305 8,403 8,548 8,664 8,7Dawson 67 69 71 72 73 74 75 76 Delta 12 12 12 12 13 13 13 13 Denton 2,093 2,140 2,192 2,230 2,263 2,290 2,329 2,361 2,3Dewitt 71 72 74 75 77 77 79 80 Dickens 88888889Dimmit 18 18 18 19 19 19 20 20 Duval 47 48 49 50 50 51 52 53 Eastland 58 59 61 62 63 63 65 65 Ector 423 432 443 450 457 463 471 477 4

48
County 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 20

The loads shown are the projected coincident loads of the individual delivery points from the 2011 ALDRs and do not incluloads. The ALDR values were used to compute a percentage of load by county, and the percentage was applied to the foERCOT coincident peak. The values shown here are used in the Summer import/export calculations.

Summer Load by County

Summer Load, MW

Edwards 9 9 9 9 9 10 10 10 Ellis 582 595 609 620 629 637 648 656 6Erath 105 108 110 112 114 115 117 119 1Falls 47 48 49 50 50 51 52 53 Fannin 72 73 75 77 78 79 80 81 Fayette 78 80 82 83 85 86 87 88 Fisher 24 24 25 25 25 26 26 27 Floyd 00000000Foard 33333344Fort Bend 1,269 1,297 1,328 1,351 1,372 1,388 1,412 1,431 1,4Franklin 33333333Freestone 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 Frio 33 34 35 35 36 36 37 37 Galveston 1,381 1,411 1,446 1,471 1,493 1,510 1,536 1,557 1,5Gillespie 66 68 69 70 71 72 74 75 Glasscock 19 20 20 20 21 21 21 22 Goliad 21 22 22 23 23 23 24 24 Gonzales 59 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 Grayson 445 455 466 474 482 487 496 502 5Grimes 20 20 21 21 21 22 22 22 Guadalupe 253 258 264 269 273 276 281 285 2Hall 55555566Hamilton 21 22 22 23 23 23 24 24 Hardeman 16 17 17 17 18 18 18 18 Harris 12,701 12,985 13,300 13,529 13,733 13,894 14,134 14,327 14,5Haskell 26 27 27 28 28 29 29 29 Hays 431 441 452 459 466 472 480 486 4Henderson 161 164 168 171 174 176 179 181 1

49
County 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 20

The loads shown are the projected coincident loads of the individual delivery points from the 2011 ALDRs and do not incluloads. The ALDR values were used to compute a percentage of load by county, and the percentage was applied to the foERCOT coincident peak. The values shown here are used in the Summer import/export calculations.

Summer Load by County

Summer Load, MW

Hidalgo 1,213 1,241 1,271 1,292 1,312 1,327 1,350 1,369 1,3Hill 98 100 103 104 106 107 109 110 1Hood 224 229 235 239 242 245 249 253 2Hopkins 112 114 117 119 121 122 125 126 1Houston 40 41 42 42 43 43 44 45 Howard 114 117 119 121 123 125 127 129 1Hunt 242 248 254 258 262 265 270 273 2Irion 11 11 11 11 11 12 12 12 Jack 22 23 23 23 24 24 25 25 Jackson 37 37 38 39 40 40 41 41 Jeff Davis 44444444Jim Hogg 33333344Jim Wells 84 86 88 89 91 92 93 95 Johnson 344 352 361 367 372 377 383 388 3Jones 45 46 47 48 49 49 50 51 Karnes 28 29 30 30 31 31 32 32 Kaufman 284 290 297 303 307 311 316 320 3Kendall 102 104 107 109 110 112 114 115 1Kenedy 11111122Kent 54 56 57 58 59 60 61 61 Kerr 133 136 139 142 144 146 148 150 1Kimble 15 15 15 16 16 16 16 17 King 88888889Kinney 66666666Kleberg 75 77 79 80 81 82 84 85 Knox 21 21 22 22 23 23 23 24 La Salle 15 15 15 15 16 16 16 16 Lamar 155 158 162 165 167 169 172 174 1

50
County 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 20

The loads shown are the projected coincident loads of the individual delivery points from the 2011 ALDRs and do not incluloads. The ALDR values were used to compute a percentage of load by county, and the percentage was applied to the foERCOT coincident peak. The values shown here are used in the Summer import/export calculations.

Summer Load by County

Summer Load, MW

Lampasas 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 Lavaca 38 39 40 41 41 42 42 43 Lee 36 36 37 38 39 39 40 40 Leon 62 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 Limestone 66 68 69 70 71 72 74 75 Live Oak 76 78 79 81 82 83 84 86 Llano 69 71 72 74 75 76 77 78 Loving 88889999Madison 44555555Martin 30 31 32 32 33 33 34 34 Mason 12 12 13 13 13 13 13 14 Matagorda 141 144 148 150 153 154 157 159 1Maverick 84 86 88 90 91 92 94 95 Mcculloch 29 30 31 31 32 32 33 33 Mclennan 720 736 754 767 779 788 802 813 8Mcmullen 88889999Medina 201 205 210 214 217 220 223 227 2Menard 66666677Midland 363 371 380 386 392 397 404 409 4Milam 67 69 70 72 73 74 75 76 Mills 9 9 10 10 10 10 10 10 Mitchell 21 22 22 23 23 23 24 24 Montague 66 67 69 70 71 72 73 74 Montgomery 229 235 240 244 248 251 255 259 2Motley 44444444Nacogdoches 164 167 172 174 177 179 182 185 1Navarro 188 192 197 200 203 205 209 212 2Nolan 56 57 59 60 61 61 62 63 

51
County 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 20

The loads shown are the projected coincident loads of the individual delivery points from the 2011 ALDRs and do not incluloads. The ALDR values were used to compute a percentage of load by county, and the percentage was applied to the foERCOT coincident peak. The values shown here are used in the Summer import/export calculations.

Summer Load by County

Summer Load, MW

Nueces 995 1,017 1,042 1,060 1,076 1,089 1,107 1,122 1,1Palo Pinto 85 87 89 91 92 93 95 96 Parker 340 347 356 362 367 371 378 383 3Pecos 93 95 97 99 100 101 103 104 1Presidio 11 11 11 11 11 12 12 12 Rains 26 26 27 27 28 28 29 29 Reagan 16 16 17 17 17 18 18 18 Real 11 11 11 11 11 12 12 12 Red River 25 25 26 26 27 27 28 28 Reeves 35 36 37 38 38 39 39 40 Refugio 23 23 24 24 24 25 25 25 Robertson 32 33 34 34 35 35 36 36 Rockwall 256 262 268 273 277 280 285 289 2Runnels 32 33 33 34 35 35 36 36 Rusk 77788888San Patricio 139 143 146 149 151 153 155 157 1San Saba 13 13 13 13 14 14 14 14 Schleicher 14 14 15 15 15 15 15 16 Scurry 111 114 116 118 120 122 124 125 1Shackelford 14 14 14 15 15 15 15 16 Smith 601 614 629 640 650 657 669 678 6Somervell 28 28 29 29 30 30 31 31 Starr 68 70 72 73 74 75 76 77 Stephens 67 69 70 72 73 74 75 76 Sterling 12 12 12 13 13 13 13 13 Stonewall 66677777Sutton 18 18 19 19 19 20 20 20 Tarrant 5,328 5,447 5,579 5,675 5,760 5,828 5,929 6,010 6,0

52
County 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 20

The loads shown are the projected coincident loads of the individual delivery points from the 2011 ALDRs and do not incluloads. The ALDR values were used to compute a percentage of load by county, and the percentage was applied to the foERCOT coincident peak. The values shown here are used in the Summer import/export calculations.

Summer Load by County

Summer Load, MW

Taylor 362 371 380 386 392 397 403 409 4Terrell 22222222Throckmorton 88888999Titus 00000000Tom Green 270 276 282 287 291 295 300 304 3Travis 2,547 2,604 2,667 2,713 2,754 2,786 2,834 2,873 2,9Upton 23 24 25 25 25 26 26 26 Uvalde 54 55 57 58 59 59 60 61 Val Verde 90 92 95 96 98 99 101 102 1Van Zandt 64 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 Victoria 261 266 273 278 282 285 290 294 2Waller 198 202 207 211 214 216 220 223 2Ward 70 72 74 75 76 77 78 79 Washington 117 119 122 124 126 128 130 132 1Webb 429 439 449 457 464 469 477 484 4Wharton 112 115 118 120 121 123 125 127 1Wichita 410 420 430 437 444 449 457 463 4Wilbarger 36 37 38 38 39 40 40 41 Willacy 37 38 39 39 40 40 41 42 Williamson 1,064 1,088 1,115 1,134 1,151 1,164 1,184 1,201 1,2Wilson 74 76 78 79 80 81 83 84 Winkler 46 47 48 49 49 50 51 52 Wise 209 213 219 222 226 228 232 235 2Wood 78888888Young 61 62 64 65 66 67 68 69 Zapata 27 28 29 29 30 30 30 31 Zavala 20 20 21 21 22 22 22 23 

53
County 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2

Anderson - - - - - - - - 

 

Andrews - - - - - - - - 

 

Angelina 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 

 

Aransas - - - - - - - - 

 

Archer - - - - - - - - 

 

Atascosa 391 391 391 391 391 391 391 391 

 

Austin - - - - - - - - 

 

Bandera - - - - - - - - 

 

Bastrop 1,656 1,656 1,656 1,656 1,656 1,656 1,656 1,656 1,

 

Baylor - - - - - - - - 

 

Bee - - - - - - - - 

 

Bell - - - 780 1,560 1,560 1,560 1,560 1,

 

Bexar 4,753 4,753 4,753 4,753 4,753 4,753 4,753 4,753 4,

 

Blanco - - - - - - - - 

 

Borden 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 

 

Bosque 813 813 813 813 813 813 813 813 

 

Brazoria 399 399 399 399 399 399 399 399 

 

Brazos 226 226 226 226 226 226 226 226 

 

Brewster - - - - - - - - 

 

Brooks - - - - - - - - 

 

Brown - - - - - - - - 

 

Burleson - - - - - - - - 

 

Burnet 102 102 102 102 102 102 102 102 

 

Caldwell - - - - - - - - 

 

Calhoun 353 403 403 403 403 403 403 403 

 

Callahan 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 

 

Cameron 116 116 151 151 151 151 151 151 

 

Chambers 2,668 2,668 2,668 2,668 2,668 2,668 2,668 2,668 2,

 

Cherokee 673 673 673 673 673 673 673 673 

 

These values are used in the summer import/export calculations for each county. Capacities for mothballed units are included as thcapacity of the unit. Capacities for the wind units are at 8.7%. These values include the amount available for the grid according infowners of the private network units and the distributed generation units that have registered with ERCOT.

Summer Generation by County

Summer Generation, MW

54
County 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2

These values are used in the summer import/export calculations for each county. Capacities for mothballed units are included as thcapacity of the unit. Capacities for the wind units are at 8.7%. These values include the amount available for the grid according infowners of the private network units and the distributed generation units that have registered with ERCOT.

Summer Generation by County

Summer Generation, MW

Childress - - - - - - - - 

 

Clay - - - - - - - - 

 

Coke - - - - - - - - 

 

Coleman - - - - - - - - 

 

Collin 406 406 406 406 406 406 406 406 

 

Colorado - - - - - - - - 

 

Comal 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 

 

Comanche - - - - - - - - 

 

Concho - - - - - - - - 

 

Cooke 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 

 

Coryell - - - - - - - - 

 

Cottle - - - - - - - - 

 

Crane - - - - - - - - 

 

Crockett - - - - - - - - 

 

Crosby - - - - - - - - 

 

Culberson 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 

 

Dallas 1,726 1,726 1,726 1,726 1,726 1,726 1,726 1,726 1,

 

Dawson - - - - - - - - 

 

Delta - - - - - - - - 

 

Denton 15 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 

 

Dewitt 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 

 

Dickens 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 

 

Dimmit - - - - - - - - 

 

Duval - - - - - - - - 

 

Eastland 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 

 

Ector 1,485 1,485 1,485 1,485 1,485 1,485 1,485 1,485 1,

 

Edwards - - - - - - - - 

 

Ellis 1,626 1,626 1,626 1,626 1,626 1,626 1,626 1,626 1,

 

Erath - - - - - - - - 

 

Falls - - - - - - - - 

 

55
County 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2

These values are used in the summer import/export calculations for each county. Capacities for mothballed units are included as thcapacity of the unit. Capacities for the wind units are at 8.7%. These values include the amount available for the grid according infowners of the private network units and the distributed generation units that have registered with ERCOT.

Summer Generation by County

Summer Generation, MW

Fannin 1,546 1,546 1,581 1,593 1,605 1,617 1,617 1,617 1,

 

Fayette 1,840 1,840 1,840 1,840 1,840 1,840 1,840 1,840 1,

 

Fisher - - - - - - - - 

 

Floyd 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 

 

Foard - - - - - - - - 

 

Fort Bend 4,242 4,242 4,242 4,242 4,242 4,242 4,242 4,242 4,

 

Franklin - - - - - - - - 

 

Freestone 2,153 2,153 2,153 2,153 2,153 2,153 2,153 2,153 2,

 

Frio 278 278 278 278 278 278 278 278 

 

Galveston 967 967 967 967 967 967 967 967 

 

Gillespie - - - - - - - - 

 

Glasscock 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 

 

Goliad 640 640 640 640 640 640 1,300 1,300 1,

 

Gonzales 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 

 

Grayson 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 

 

Grimes 1,023 1,023 1,023 1,023 1,023 1,023 1,340 1,340 1,

 

Guadalupe 1,739 1,739 1,739 1,739 1,739 1,739 1,739 1,739 1,

 

Hall 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 

 

Hamilton - - - - - - - - 

 

Hardeman - - - - - - - - 

 

Harris 6,495 6,568 6,568 6,568 7,948 7,948 7,948 7,948 7,

 

Haskell - - - - - - - - 

 

Hays 882 882 882 882 882 882 882 882 

 

Henderson 226 226 226 226 226 226 226 226 

 

Hidalgo 1,585 1,585 1,585 1,585 1,585 1,585 1,585 1,585 1,

 

Hill - - - - - - - - 

 

Hood 983 983 983 983 983 983 983 983 

 

Hopkins - - - - - - - - 

 

Houston - - - - - - - - 

 

Howard 296 296 307 307 307 307 307 307 

 

56
County 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2

These values are used in the summer import/export calculations for each county. Capacities for mothballed units are included as thcapacity of the unit. Capacities for the wind units are at 8.7%. These values include the amount available for the grid according infowners of the private network units and the distributed generation units that have registered with ERCOT.

Summer Generation by County

Summer Generation, MW

Hunt 112 112 112 112 112 112 112 112 

 

Irion - - - - - - - - 

 

Jack 575 1,154 1,154 1,154 1,154 1,154 1,154 1,154 1,

 

Jackson - - - - - - - - 

 

Jeff Davis - - - - - - - - 

 

Jim Hogg - - - - - - - - 

 

Jim Wells - - - - - - - - 

 

Johnson 269 269 269 269 269 269 269 269 

 

Jones - - - - - - - - 

 

Karnes - - - - - - - - 

 

Kaufman 1,879 1,879 1,879 1,879 1,879 1,879 1,879 1,879 1,

 

Kendall - - - - - - - - 

 

Kenedy 60 60 60 77 77 77 77 77 

 

Kent - - - - - - - - 

 

Kerr - - - - - - - - 

 

Kimble - - - - - - - - 

 

King - - - - - - - - 

 

Kinney - - - - - - - - 

 

Kleberg - - - - - - - - 

 

Knox - - - - - - - - 

 

La Salle - - - - - - - - 

 

Lamar 1,312 1,312 1,312 1,312 1,312 1,312 1,312 1,312 1,

 

Lampasas - - - - - - - - 

 

Lavaca - - - - - - - - 

 

Lee - - - - - - - - 

 

Leon - - - - - - - - 

 

Limestone 1,689 1,689 1,689 1,689 1,689 1,689 1,689 1,689 1,

 

Live Oak - - - - - - - - 

 

Llano 492 492 492 492 492 492 492 492 

 

Loving - - - - - - - - 

 

57
County 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2

These values are used in the summer import/export calculations for each county. Capacities for mothballed units are included as thcapacity of the unit. Capacities for the wind units are at 8.7%. These values include the amount available for the grid according infowners of the private network units and the distributed generation units that have registered with ERCOT.

Summer Generation by County

Summer Generation, MW

Madison - - - - - - - - 

 

Martin 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 

 

Mason - - - - - - - - 

 

Matagorda 2,724 2,724 2,724 2,724 2,724 2,724 2,724 2,724 2,

 

Maverick 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 

 

Mcculloch - - - - - - - - 

 

Mclennan - 925 925 925 925 925 925 925 

 

Mcmullen - - - - - - - - 

 

Medina - - - - - - - - 

 

Menard - - - - - - - - 

 

Midland - - - - - - - - 

 

Milam 1,145 1,145 1,145 1,145 1,145 1,145 1,145 1,145 1,

 

Mills - - - - - - - - 

 

Mitchell 420 420 420 420 420 420 420 420 

 

Montague - - - - - - - - 

 

Montgomery 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 

 

Motley - - - - - - - - 

 

Nacogdoches - 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 

 

Navarro - - - - - - - - 

 

Nolan 134 134 134 134 134 134 134 134 

 

Nueces 2,042 2,042 2,045 2,045 2,045 2,665 3,285 3,285 3,

 

Palo Pinto 611 611 611 611 611 611 611 611 

 

Parker 10 10 - - - - - - 

 

Pecos 61 61 61 61 61 61 61 61 

 

Presidio - - - - - - - - 

 

Rains - - - - - - - - 

 

Reagan - - - - - - - - 

 

Real - - - - - - - - 

 

Red River - - - - - - - - 

 

Reeves - - - - - - - - 

 

58
County 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2

These values are used in the summer import/export calculations for each county. Capacities for mothballed units are included as thcapacity of the unit. Capacities for the wind units are at 8.7%. These values include the amount available for the grid according infowners of the private network units and the distributed generation units that have registered with ERCOT.

Summer Generation by County

Summer Generation, MW

Refugio - - - - - - - - 

 

Robertson 1,928 1,928 1,928 1,928 1,928 1,928 1,928 1,928 1,

 

Rockwall - - - - - - - - 

 

Runnels - - - - - - - - 

 

Rusk 3,271 3,271 3,271 3,271 3,271 3,271 3,271 3,271 3,

 

San Patricio 433 433 433 433 433 433 433 433 

 

San Saba - - - - - - - - 

 

Schleicher - - - - - - - - 

 

Scurry 64 64 64 64 64 64 64 64 

 

Shackelford 49 49 49 49 49 49 49 49 

 

Smith - - - - - - - - 

 

Somervell 2,407 2,407 2,407 2,407 2,407 2,407 2,407 2,407 2,

 

Starr 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 

 

Stephens - - - - - - - - 

 

Sterling 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 

 

Stonewall - - - - - - - - 

 

Sutton - - - - - - - - 

 

Tarrant 1,267 1,267 1,267 1,267 1,267 1,267 1,267 1,267 1,

 

Taylor 110 110 110 110 110 110 110 110 

 

Terrell - - - - - - - - 

 

Throckmorton - - - - - - - - 

 

Titus 1,890 1,890 1,890 1,890 1,890 1,890 1,890 1,890 1,

 

Tom Green 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 

 

Travis 1,626 1,656 1,656 1,656 1,656 1,656 1,656 1,656 1,

 

Upton 31 31 31 31 31 31 31 31 

 

Uvalde - - - - - - - - 

 

Val Verde 76 76 76 76 76 76 76 76 

 

Van Zandt - - - - - - - - 

 

Victoria 521 521 521 521 521 521 521 521 

 

Waller - - - - - - - - 

 

59
County 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2

These values are used in the summer import/export calculations for each county. Capacities for mothballed units are included as thcapacity of the unit. Capacities for the wind units are at 8.7%. These values include the amount available for the grid according infowners of the private network units and the distributed generation units that have registered with ERCOT.

Summer Generation by County

Summer Generation, MW

Ward 340 340 351 356 361 367 367 367 

 

Washington - - - - - - - - 

 

Webb 252 252 252 252 252 252 252 252 

 

Wharton 569 569 569 569 569 569 569 569 

 

Wichita 77 77 77 77 77 77 77 77 

 

Wilbarger 760 760 760 760 760 760 760 760 

 

Willacy - 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 

 

Williamson - - - - - - - - 

 

Wilson - - - - - - - - 

 

Winkler 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 

 

Wise 665 665 665 665 665 665 665 665 

 

Wood - - - - - - - - 

 

Young 615 637 637 637 637 637 637 637 

 

Zapata - - - - - - - - 

 

Zavala - - - - - - - - 

 

60
Import: The county has less generation than load and must import generation.

Export: The county has more generation than load and is able to export generation.County 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 

Anderson -135.0 -138.0 -141.4 -143.8 -146.0 -147.7 -150.2 -152.3 -Andrews -149.5 -152.9 -156.6 -159.3 -161.7 -163.6 -166.4 -168.7 -Angelina -192.9 -198.2 -204.1 -208.4 -212.2 -215.3 -219.7 -223.4 -2Aransas -53.6 -54.8 -56.1 -57.1 -57.9 -58.6 -59.6 -60.5 Archer -23.8 -24.4 -25.0 -25.4 -25.8 -26.1 -26.5 -26.9 Atascosa 311.3 309.5 307.5 306.1 304.8 303.8 302.3 301.1 2Austin -91.3 -93.3 -95.6 -97.2 -98.7 -99.8 -101.6 -102.9 -Bandera -56.6 -57.8 -59.2 -60.2 -61.1 -61.9 -62.9 -63.8 Bastrop 1482.5 1478.6 1474.3 1471.2 1468.4 1466.2 1462.9 1460.3 14Baylor -4.5 -4.6 -4.8 -4.8 -4.9 -5.0 -5.1 -5.1 Bee -57.2 -58.5 -59.9 -60.9 -61.8 -62.6 -63.6 -64.5 Bell -728.3 -744.6 -762.6 4.2 772.5 763.3 749.5 738.5 7

Bexar 531.1 436.8 332.3 256.2 188.4 134.7 55.0 -9.0 

Blanco -28.3 -29.0 -29.7 -30.2 -30.6 -31.0 -31.5 -31.9 Borden 20.3 20.3 20.2 20.1 20.1 20.1 20.0 20.0 Bosque 761.1 760.0 758.7 757.7 756.9 756.2 755.3 754.5 7Brazoria -1571.7 -1615.8 -1664.5 -1700.1 -1731.7 -1756.8 -1794.0 -1823.9 -18Brazos -325.2 -337.5 -351.2 -361.1 -370.0 -377.0 -387.4 -395.7 -4Brewster -19.0 -19.4 -19.9 -20.2 -20.5 -20.7 -21.1 -21.4 Brooks -18.8 -19.2 -19.7 -20.0 -20.3 -20.5 -20.9 -21.2 Brown -114.4 -116.9 -119.8 -121.8 -123.7 -125.1 -127.3 -129.0 -Burleson -30.4 -31.1 -31.9 -32.4 -32.9 -33.3 -33.9 -34.3 Burnet -21.6 -24.4 -27.4 -29.7 -31.7 -33.2 -35.6 -37.4 Caldwell -103.4 -105.7 -108.3 -110.2 -111.8 -113.2 -115.1 -116.7 -Calhoun 267.8 315.9 313.8 312.3 310.9 309.8 308.2 306.9 3

Summer Import/Export, MW

Summer Import/Export by County 

This data is presented for example only. It is a calculation of the generation in the county less the projected coincident load in the true values will depend on actual load levels and actual generation dispatch.

61
Import: The county has less generation than load and must import generation.

Export: The county has more generation than load and is able to export generation.County 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 

Summer Import/Export, MW

Summer Import/Export by County 

This data is presented for example only. It is a calculation of the generation in the county less the projected coincident load in the true values will depend on actual load levels and actual generation dispatch.Callahan -31.7 -32.6 -33.6 -34.4 -35.1 -35.6 -36.4 -37.0 Cameron -569.4 -584.7 -566.9 -579.3 -590.3 -599.0 -611.9 -622.3 -6Chambers 2217.3 2207.3 2196.1 2188.0 2180.8 2175.0 2166.5 2159.7 2Cherokee 581.7 579.7 577.4 575.8 574.3 573.2 571.5 570.1 5Childress -14.8 -15.1 -15.5 -15.7 -16.0 -16.2 -16.4 -16.7 Clay -24.8 -25.3 -25.9 -26.4 -26.8 -27.1 -27.6 -27.9 Coke -21.2 -21.7 -22.2 -22.6 -22.9 -23.2 -23.6 -23.9 Coleman -35.7 -36.5 -37.4 -38.0 -38.6 -39.1 -39.7 -40.3 Collin -1873.5 -1924.4 -1980.9 -2022.0 -2058.6 -2087.6 -2130.6 -2165.2 -22Colorado -80.0 -81.8 -83.8 -85.2 -86.5 -87.5 -89.0 -90.3 Comal -341.3 -349.1 -357.7 -364.0 -369.5 -374.0 -380.5 -385.8 -3Comanche -41.2 -42.1 -43.1 -43.9 -44.5 -45.0 -45.8 -46.4 Concho -12.7 -13.0 -13.3 -13.5 -13.7 -13.9 -14.1 -14.3 Cooke -115.9 -118.7 -121.8 -124.1 -126.1 -127.7 -130.1 -132.0 -Coryell -106.8 -109.2 -111.8 -113.8 -115.5 -116.8 -118.9 -120.5 -Cottle -4.0 -4.1 -4.2 -4.3 -4.3 -4.4 -4.4 -4.5 Crane -82.9 -84.7 -86.8 -88.3 -89.6 -90.6 -92.2 -93.5 Crockett -39.4 -40.2 -41.2 -41.9 -42.6 -43.1 -43.8 -44.4 Crosby -1.8 -1.8 -1.9 -1.9 -1.9 -2.0 -2.0 -2.0 Culberson 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.3 Dallas -5955.7 -6127.4 -6317.5 -6456.0 -6579.4 -6677.1 -6822.0 -6938.6 -70Dawson -67.3 -68.8 -70.5 -71.7 -72.8 -73.7 -74.9 -76.0 Delta -11.6 -11.9 -12.2 -12.4 -12.6 -12.7 -12.9 -13.1 Denton -2078.6 -2100.3 -2152.1 -2189.9 -2223.5 -2250.2 -2289.6 -2321.4 -23Dewitt -69.8 -71.3 -73.1 -74.4 -75.5 -76.4 -77.7 -78.8 Dickens 5.5 5.4 5.2 5.0 4.9 4.8 4.7 4.6 

62
Import: The county has less generation than load and must import generation.

Export: The county has more generation than load and is able to export generation.County 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 

Summer Import/Export, MW

Summer Import/Export by County 

This data is presented for example only. It is a calculation of the generation in the county less the projected coincident load in the true values will depend on actual load levels and actual generation dispatch.Dimmit -17.6 -18.0 -18.4 -18.8 -19.0 -19.3 -19.6 -19.9 Duval -46.7 -47.7 -48.9 -49.7 -50.5 -51.1 -52.0 -52.7 Eastland -52.8 -54.1 -55.5 -56.6 -57.5 -58.2 -59.3 -60.2 Ector 1062.1 1052.6 1042.1 1034.5 1027.7 1022.3 1014.4 1007.9 10Edwards -8.8 -9.0 -9.2 -9.3 -9.5 -9.6 -9.7 -9.9 Ellis 1044.0 1031.0 1016.6 1006.1 996.7 989.3 978.3 969.5 9Erath -105.2 -107.5 -110.1 -112.0 -113.7 -115.0 -117.0 -118.6 -Falls -46.7 -47.7 -48.9 -49.7 -50.5 -51.1 -52.0 -52.7 Fannin 1474.1 1472.5 1506.1 1516.7 1527.5 1538.5 1537.1 1536.0 15Fayette 1761.7 1759.9 1758.0 1756.6 1755.3 1754.3 1752.8 1751.7 17Fisher -23.6 -24.1 -24.7 -25.1 -25.5 -25.8 -26.2 -26.6 Floyd 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 Foard -3.2 -3.2 -3.3 -3.4 -3.4 -3.5 -3.5 -3.6 Fort Bend 2973.1 2944.7 2913.3 2890.5 2870.1 2853.9 2830.0 2810.8 27Franklin -3.0 -3.1 -3.1 -3.2 -3.2 -3.3 -3.3 -3.4 Freestone 2099.1 2097.9 2096.5 2095.6 2094.7 2094.0 2093.0 2092.2 20Frio 244.4 243.7 242.9 242.3 241.8 241.3 240.7 240.2 2Galveston -413.8 -444.7 -478.8 -503.7 -525.9 -543.5 -569.5 -590.5 -6Gillespie -66.1 -67.6 -69.2 -70.4 -71.5 -72.3 -73.6 -74.6 Glasscock -0.6 -1.1 -1.5 -1.9 -2.2 -2.4 -2.8 -3.1 Goliad 618.8 618.3 617.8 617.4 617.0 616.8 1276.4 1276.1 12Gonzales -54.6 -56.0 -57.4 -58.5 -59.5 -60.2 -61.3 -62.2 Grayson -365.4 -375.4 -386.4 -394.4 -401.6 -407.3 -415.7 -422.4 -4Grimes 1003.2 1002.7 1002.2 1001.9 1001.6 1001.3 1317.9 1317.6 13Guadalupe 1486.1 1480.4 1474.2 1469.6 1465.6 1462.3 1457.6 1453.7 14Hall -4.1 -4.2 -4.3 -4.4 -4.5 -4.6 -4.7 -4.7 

63
Import: The county has less generation than load and must import generation.

Export: The county has more generation than load and is able to export generation.County 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 

Summer Import/Export, MW

Summer Import/Export by County 

This data is presented for example only. It is a calculation of the generation in the county less the projected coincident load in the true values will depend on actual load levels and actual generation dispatch.Hamilton -21.3 -21.8 -22.3 -22.7 -23.1 -23.3 -23.8 -24.1 Hardeman -16.2 -16.6 -17.0 -17.2 -17.5 -17.7 -18.0 -18.3 Harris -6206.9 -6417.6 -6732.0 -6961.0 -5785.0 -5946.7 -6186.3 -6379.0 -65Haskell -26.1 -26.7 -27.3 -27.8 -28.2 -28.6 -29.1 -29.5 Hays 450.7 441.1 430.4 422.6 415.7 410.2 402.1 395.5 3Henderson 65.4 61.8 57.8 54.9 52.3 50.3 47.3 44.8 Hidalgo 371.1 344.0 313.9 292.1 272.6 257.1 234.2 215.8 Hill -97.9 -100.1 -102.5 -104.3 -105.9 -107.1 -109.0 -110.4 -Hood 758.9 753.9 748.3 744.3 740.7 737.9 733.6 730.2 7Hopkins -111.9 -114.4 -117.2 -119.2 -121.0 -122.4 -124.5 -126.2 -Houston -39.7 -40.6 -41.5 -42.3 -42.9 -43.4 -44.1 -44.7 Howard 182.0 179.5 187.2 185.1 183.3 181.8 179.7 178.0 Hunt -130.0 -135.5 -141.4 -145.8 -149.7 -152.8 -157.4 -161.0 -Irion -10.6 -10.8 -11.1 -11.3 -11.5 -11.6 -11.8 -12.0 Jack 553.0 1131.5 1130.9 1130.5 1130.2 1129.9 1129.5 1129.1 1Jackson -36.6 -37.4 -38.3 -39.0 -39.6 -40.1 -40.7 -41.3 Jeff Davis -3.9 -3.9 -4.0 -4.1 -4.2 -4.2 -4.3 -4.3 Jim Hogg -3.1 -3.2 -3.3 -3.4 -3.4 -3.4 -3.5 -3.5 Jim Wells -83.9 -85.8 -87.9 -89.4 -90.7 -91.8 -93.4 -94.6 Johnson -75.4 -83.1 -91.6 -97.8 -103.4 -107.8 -114.3 -119.5 -Jones -45.2 -46.2 -47.3 -48.1 -48.8 -49.4 -50.3 -51.0 Karnes -28.4 -29.0 -29.7 -30.2 -30.7 -31.0 -31.6 -32.0 Kaufman 1595.0 1588.7 1581.6 1576.5 1571.9 1568.3 1563.0 1558.7 15Kendall -102.1 -104.4 -106.9 -108.8 -110.4 -111.7 -113.7 -115.2 -Kenedy 58.3 58.3 58.3 75.8 75.8 75.8 75.8 75.8 Kent -54.4 -55.6 -57.0 -57.9 -58.8 -59.5 -60.5 -61.4 

64
Import: The county has less generation than load and must import generation.

Export: The county has more generation than load and is able to export generation.County 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 

Summer Import/Export, MW

Summer Import/Export by County 

This data is presented for example only. It is a calculation of the generation in the county less the projected coincident load in the true values will depend on actual load levels and actual generation dispatch.Kerr -133.1 -136.1 -139.4 -141.8 -143.9 -145.6 -148.1 -150.1 -Kimble -14.7 -15.1 -15.4 -15.7 -15.9 -16.1 -16.4 -16.6 King -7.6 -7.8 -8.0 -8.1 -8.2 -8.3 -8.5 -8.6 Kinney -5.7 -5.8 -6.0 -6.1 -6.1 -6.2 -6.3 -6.4 Kleberg -75.2 -76.9 -78.8 -80.1 -81.3 -82.3 -83.7 -84.9 Knox -20.9 -21.4 -21.9 -22.3 -22.6 -22.9 -23.3 -23.6 La Salle -14.5 -14.8 -15.2 -15.5 -15.7 -15.9 -16.2 -16.4 Lamar 1157.0 1153.5 1149.7 1146.9 1144.4 1142.5 1139.5 1137.2 1Lampasas -51.9 -53.1 -54.4 -55.3 -56.1 -56.8 -57.8 -58.5 Lavaca -38.2 -39.0 -40.0 -40.7 -41.3 -41.8 -42.5 -43.1 Lee -35.6 -36.4 -37.3 -38.0 -38.5 -39.0 -39.6 -40.2 Leon -62.2 -63.6 -65.1 -66.2 -67.2 -68.0 -69.2 -70.1 Limestone 1622.9 1621.4 1619.8 1618.6 1617.5 1616.7 1615.5 1614.5 16Live Oak -75.8 -77.5 -79.4 -80.8 -82.0 -83.0 -84.4 -85.5 Llano 423.0 421.4 419.7 418.5 417.3 416.5 415.2 414.1 4Loving -7.9 -8.1 -8.3 -8.5 -8.6 -8.7 -8.8 -9.0 Madison -4.4 -4.5 -4.6 -4.7 -4.7 -4.8 -4.9 -4.9 Martin -19.4 -20.0 -20.8 -21.3 -21.8 -22.2 -22.8 -23.2 Mason -12.1 -12.4 -12.7 -12.9 -13.1 -13.2 -13.5 -13.6 Matagorda 2582.9 2579.7 2576.2 2573.7 2571.4 2569.6 2567.0 2564.8 25Maverick -60.2 -62.0 -64.1 -65.6 -67.0 -68.1 -69.6 -70.9 Mcculloch -29.5 -30.1 -30.9 -31.4 -31.9 -32.2 -32.8 -33.2 Mclennan -720.4 188.5 170.7 157.7 146.1 137.0 123.4 112.5 

Mcmullen -7.9 -8.1 -8.3 -8.5 -8.6 -8.7 -8.8 -9.0 Medina -200.8 -205.3 -210.3 -213.9 -217.2 -219.7 -223.5 -226.5 -2Menard -5.9 -6.0 -6.1 -6.3 -6.3 -6.4 -6.5 -6.6 

65
Import: The county has less generation than load and must import generation.

Export: The county has more generation than load and is able to export generation.County 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 

Summer Import/Export, MW

Summer Import/Export by County 

This data is presented for example only. It is a calculation of the generation in the county less the projected coincident load in the true values will depend on actual load levels and actual generation dispatch.Midland -362.7 -370.8 -379.7 -386.3 -392.1 -396.7 -403.6 -409.1 -4Milam 1077.7 1076.2 1074.5 1073.3 1072.2 1071.4 1070.1 1069.1 10Mills -9.2 -9.4 -9.7 -9.8 -10.0 -10.1 -10.3 -10.4 Mitchell 398.6 398.1 397.6 397.2 396.9 396.6 396.2 395.9 3Montague -65.7 -67.2 -68.8 -70.0 -71.0 -71.9 -73.1 -74.1 Montgomery -224.6 -229.7 -235.4 -239.5 -243.2 -246.1 -250.5 -253.9 -2Motley -3.7 -3.8 -3.9 -4.0 -4.0 -4.1 -4.2 -4.2 Nacogdoches -163.8 -67.5 -71.5 -74.5 -77.1 -79.2 -82.3 -84.8 Navarro -187.8 -191.9 -196.6 -200.0 -203.0 -205.4 -208.9 -211.8 -2Nolan 78.0 76.7 75.4 74.3 73.4 72.7 71.7 70.8 Nueces 1046.7 1024.5 1002.9 984.9 968.9 1576.3 2177.5 2162.4 2Palo Pinto 526.0 524.1 522.0 520.4 519.1 518.0 516.4 515.1 5Parker -330.0 -337.6 -355.5 -361.6 -367.1 -371.4 -377.8 -383.0 -3Pecos -31.4 -33.5 -35.8 -37.4 -38.9 -40.1 -41.9 -43.3 Presidio -10.6 -10.8 -11.1 -11.3 -11.4 -11.6 -11.8 -11.9 Rains -25.8 -26.4 -27.0 -27.5 -27.9 -28.2 -28.7 -29.1 Reagan -16.1 -16.5 -16.9 -17.2 -17.4 -17.6 -17.9 -18.2 Real -10.6 -10.8 -11.1 -11.3 -11.4 -11.6 -11.8 -11.9 Red River -24.8 -25.4 -26.0 -26.4 -26.8 -27.1 -27.6 -28.0 Reeves -35.3 -36.1 -37.0 -37.6 -38.2 -38.6 -39.3 -39.8 Refugio -22.6 -23.1 -23.6 -24.0 -24.4 -24.7 -25.1 -25.5 Robertson 1895.7 1895.0 1894.2 1893.6 1893.1 1892.7 1892.1 1891.6 18Rockwall -256.3 -262.0 -268.4 -273.0 -277.1 -280.4 -285.2 -289.1 -2Runnels -32.0 -32.7 -33.5 -34.1 -34.6 -35.0 -35.6 -36.1 Rusk 3263.9 3263.8 3263.6 3263.5 3263.4 3263.3 3263.1 3263.0 32San Patricio 293.7 290.6 287.1 284.6 282.4 280.6 278.0 275.8 2

66
Import: The county has less generation than load and must import generation.

Export: The county has more generation than load and is able to export generation.County 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 

Summer Import/Export, MW

Summer Import/Export by County 

This data is presented for example only. It is a calculation of the generation in the county less the projected coincident load in the true values will depend on actual load levels and actual generation dispatch.San Saba -12.6 -12.9 -13.2 -13.4 -13.6 -13.8 -14.0 -14.2 Schleicher -13.9 -14.2 -14.5 -14.8 -15.0 -15.2 -15.5 -15.7 Scurry -47.7 -50.2 -53.0 -55.0 -56.7 -58.2 -60.3 -62.0 Shackelford 35.4 35.1 34.8 34.5 34.3 34.1 33.9 33.7 Smith -600.8 -614.2 -629.1 -639.9 -649.6 -657.2 -668.6 -677.7 -6Somervell 2379.4 2378.8 2378.1 2377.6 2377.2 2376.8 2376.3 2375.9 23Starr -32.3 -33.8 -35.5 -36.8 -37.9 -38.7 -40.0 -41.1 Stephens -67.2 -68.7 -70.4 -71.6 -72.7 -73.5 -74.8 -75.8 Sterling 58.8 58.5 58.2 58.0 57.8 57.7 57.5 57.3 Stonewall -6.1 -6.3 -6.4 -6.5 -6.6 -6.7 -6.8 -6.9 Sutton -17.8 -18.2 -18.7 -19.0 -19.3 -19.5 -19.8 -20.1 Tarrant -4061.4 -4180.5 -4312.3 -4408.4 -4494.0 -4561.8 -4662.3 -4743.2 -48Taylor -253.0 -261.1 -270.0 -276.6 -282.4 -287.0 -293.8 -299.3 -3Terrell -1.9 -1.9 -2.0 -2.0 -2.0 -2.1 -2.1 -2.1 Throckmorton -7.9 -8.0 -8.2 -8.4 -8.5 -8.6 -8.7 -8.9 Titus 1890.0 1890.0 1890.0 1890.0 1890.0 1890.0 1890.0 1890.0 18Tom Green -256.5 -262.5 -269.2 -274.1 -278.4 -281.8 -286.9 -291.0 -2Travis -920.7 -947.6 -1010.6 -1056.5 -1097.5 -1129.9 -1177.9 -1216.6 -12Upton 7.3 6.8 6.2 5.8 5.4 5.1 4.6 4.3 Uvalde -54.3 -55.5 -56.8 -57.8 -58.7 -59.4 -60.4 -61.2 Val Verde -14.6 -16.6 -18.8 -20.5 -21.9 -23.1 -24.8 -26.1 Van Zandt -64.1 -65.6 -67.2 -68.3 -69.3 -70.2 -71.4 -72.3 Victoria 260.3 254.5 248.0 243.3 239.2 235.8 230.9 227.0 2Waller -197.7 -202.1 -207.0 -210.6 -213.7 -216.3 -220.0 -223.0 -2Ward 269.8 268.2 277.2 281.3 285.5 290.0 288.6 287.6 2Washington -116.8 -119.4 -122.3 -124.4 -126.3 -127.8 -130.0 -131.8 -

67
Import: The county has less generation than load and must import generation.

Export: The county has more generation than load and is able to export generation.County 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 

Summer Import/Export, MW

Summer Import/Export by County 

This data is presented for example only. It is a calculation of the generation in the county less the projected coincident load in the true values will depend on actual load levels and actual generation dispatch.Webb -177.6 -187.2 -197.8 -205.5 -212.4 -217.9 -226.0 -232.5 -2Wharton 456.7 454.2 451.4 449.4 447.6 446.1 444.0 442.3 4Wichita -333.4 -342.5 -352.7 -360.1 -366.7 -371.9 -379.7 -385.9 -3Wilbarger 723.9 723.0 722.2 721.5 720.9 720.5 719.8 719.2 7Willacy -36.9 -20.1 -21.0 -21.7 -22.3 -22.8 -23.5 -24.0 Williamson -1064.4 -1088.2 -1114.6 -1133.8 -1150.8 -1164.4 -1184.5 -1200.6 -12Wilson -74.4 -76.1 -77.9 -79.3 -80.5 -81.4 -82.8 -83.9 Winkler -32.4 -33.4 -34.6 -35.4 -36.1 -36.7 -37.6 -38.3 Wise 456.3 451.6 446.4 442.7 439.3 436.7 432.7 429.5 4Wood -7.4 -7.6 -7.8 -7.9 -8.0 -8.1 -8.3 -8.4 Young 554.2 574.6 573.1 572.0 571.0 570.2 569.1 568.2 5Zapata -27.3 -27.9 -28.6 -29.1 -29.5 -29.9 -30.4 -30.8 

68
County 2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 2015/16 2016/17 2017/18 2018/19 

Anderson 154 157 160 162 164 167 170 171 

Andrews 123 125 127 129 131 133 135 137 

Angelina 203 206 209 212 215 219 222 225 

Aransas 59 60 61 62 62 63 64 65 

Archer 22 23 23 23 24 24 24 25 

Atascosa 77 78 79 80 81 83 84 85 

Austin 83 84 86 87 88 90 91 92 

Bandera 65 66 68 69 69 71 72 72 

Bastrop 163 165 168 171 173 176 179 180 

Baylor 4 4 4 4 4 4 5 5 

Bee 50 51 52 53 53 54 55 56 Bell 746 758 770 782 791 806 818 826 

Bexar 2,783 2,829 2,875 2,918 2,953 3,007 3,055 3,084 

Blanco 33 34 34 35 35 36 36 37 

Borden 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 

Bosque 43 44 44 45 45 46 47 47 

Brazoria 1,648 1,675 1,702 1,728 1,749 1,781 1,809 1,826 

Brazos 374 380 386 392 396 404 410 414 

Brewster 19 19 20 20 20 21 21 21 

Brooks 17 17 18 18 18 18 19 19 Brown 96 97 99 100 102 103 105 106 

Burleson 29 29 30 30 31 31 32 32 

Burnet 121 123 125 127 128 131 133 134 

Caldwell 95 97 98 100 101 103 104 105 

Calhoun 73 74 75 76 77 78 80 80 

Callahan 36 37 38 38 39 39 40 40 

Cameron 634 645 655 665 673 685 696 703 

Winter Load, MW

The loads shown are the projected coincident loads of the individual delivery points from the 2011 ALDRs and do not incThe ALDR values were used to compute a percentage of load by county, and the percentage was applied to the forecas

peak. The values shown here are used in the Winter import/export calculations.

Winter Load by County

69
County 2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 2015/16 2016/17 2017/18 2018/19 

Winter Load, MW

The loads shown are the projected coincident loads of the individual delivery points from the 2011 ALDRs and do not inc

The ALDR values were used to compute a percentage of load by county, and the percentage was applied to the forecaspeak. The values shown here are used in the Winter import/export calculations.

Winter Load by County

Chambers 370 376 382 388 393 400 406 410 

Cherokee 70 71 72 73 74 76 77 78 

Childress 10 10 10 10 10 11 11 11 

Clay 21 22 22 22 22 23 23 23 

Coke 14 14 14 15 15 15 15 15 

Coleman 30 30 31 31 31 32 32 33 

Collin 1,410 1,433 1,456 1,478 1,496 1,524 1,548 1,562 

Colorado 68 69 70 71 72 74 75 75 

Comal 327 333 338 343 347 354 359 363 

Comanche 36 36 37 38 38 39 39 40 

Concho 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 

Cooke 113 115 117 118 120 122 124 125 

Coryell 99 100 102 104 105 107 108 109 

Cottle 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 

Crane 73 74 76 77 78 79 80 81 

Crockett 30 30 31 31 32 32 33 33 Crosby 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 

Culberson 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 

Dallas 5,365 5,453 5,542 5,625 5,693 5,890 5,797 5,945 

Dawson 32 32 33 33 34 34 35 35 

Delta 9 9 10 10 10 10 10 10 

Denton 1,313 1,335 1,356 1,377 1,393 1,419 1,442 1,455 

Dewitt 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 

Dickens 6 6 6 7 7 7 7 7 

Dimmit 11 11 11 11 12 12 12 12 

Duval 47 48 49 49 50 51 52 52 

Eastland 50 50 51 52 53 54 54 55 

Ector 298 303 308 312 316 322 327 330 

70
County 2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 2015/16 2016/17 2017/18 2018/19 

Winter Load, MW

The loads shown are the projected coincident loads of the individual delivery points from the 2011 ALDRs and do not inc

The ALDR values were used to compute a percentage of load by county, and the percentage was applied to the forecaspeak. The values shown here are used in the Winter import/export calculations.

Winter Load by County

Edwards 9 9 9 9 10 10 10 10 Ellis 676 687 698 708 717 730 742 749 

Erath 94 95 97 98 100 102 103 104 

Falls 39 40 41 41 42 43 43 44 

Fannin 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 

Fayette 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 

Fisher 24 24 25 25 25 26 26 27 

Floyd - - - - - - - - 

Foard 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 

Fort Bend 620 630 640 650 658 670 680 687 

Franklin 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 

Freestone 50 50 51 52 53 54 54 55 Frio 23 23 24 24 24 25 25 25 Galveston 1,066 1,083 1,101 1,118 1,131 1,152 1,170 1,181 

Gillespie 61 62 63 64 64 66 67 67 

Glasscock 13 13 14 14 14 14 14 15 Goliad 24 24 24 25 25 25 26 26 

Gonzales 50 51 52 53 53 54 55 56 

Grayson 369 375 381 387 391 405 408 

398

Grimes 23 23 24 24 24 25 25 25 

Guadalupe 275 279 284 288 292 297 302 305 

Hall 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 

Hamilton 16 16 17 17 17 17 18 18 

Hardeman 11 11 11 11 11 12 12 12 

Harris 8,806 8,950 9,096 9,233 9,344 9,515 9,667 9,757 

Haskell 15 16 16 16 16 17 17 17 

Hays 344 349 355 360 365 371 377 381 

Henderson 161 163 166 168 170 174 176 178 

71
County 2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 2015/16 2016/17 2017/18 2018/19 

Winter Load, MW

The loads shown are the projected coincident loads of the individual delivery points from the 2011 ALDRs and do not inc

The ALDR values were used to compute a percentage of load by county, and the percentage was applied to the forecaspeak. The values shown here are used in the Winter import/export calculations.

Winter Load by County

Hidalgo 1,080 1,097 1,115 1,132 1,145 1,166 1,185 1,196 

Hill 89 90 92 93 94 96 98 98 

Hood 194 198 201 204 206 210 213 215 

Hopkins 96 98 100 101 102 104 106 107 

Houston 27 27 28 28 29 29 30 30 

Howard 75 76 77 78 79 81 82 83 

Hunt 216 220 223 227 229 234 237 240 

Irion 10 10 10 10 10 11 11 11 

Jack 18 18 18 19 19 19 20 20 

Jackson 34 35 35 36 36 37 37 38 

Jeff Davis 5 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 

Jim Hogg 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 

Jim Wells 84 86 87 88 89 91 92 93 Johnson 345 351 357 362 366 373 379 383 

Jones 39 40 41 41 42 43 43 44 Karnes 24 25 25 26 26 26 27 27 Kaufman 317 322 327 332 336 343 348 351 

Kendall 105 107 108 110 111 113 115 116 

Kenedy 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 

2

Kent 46 47 48 49 49 50 51 52 

Kerr 140 142 145 147 149 151 154 155 

Kimble 15 16 16 16 16 17 17 17 

King 7 7 7 7 7 8 8 8 

Kinney 5 5 6 6 6 6 6 6 

Kleberg 52 53 54 55 56 57 57 58 

Knox 10 10 10 10 10 10 11 11 

La Salle 14 15 15 15 15 15 16 16 

Lamar 127 129 131 133 135 138 140 141 

72
County 2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 2015/16 2016/17 2017/18 2018/19 

Winter Load, MW

The loads shown are the projected coincident loads of the individual delivery points from the 2011 ALDRs and do not inc

The ALDR values were used to compute a percentage of load by county, and the percentage was applied to the forecaspeak. The values shown here are used in the Winter import/export calculations.

Winter Load by County

Lampasas 50 51 52 53 53 54 55 56 

Lavaca 30 30 31 31 32 32 33 33 

Lee 30 30 31 31 32 32 33 33 

Leon 53 54 55 55 56 57 58 59 

Limestone 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 

Live Oak 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 

Llano 76 78 79 80 81 83 84 85 

Loving 5 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 

Madison 5 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 

Martin 20 20 20 21 21 21 22 22 

Mason 11 11 11 11 12 12 12 12 Matagorda 119 121 123 125 127 129 131 132 

Maverick 77 79 80 81 82 84 85 86 Mcculloch 21 21 22 22 22 23 23 23 

Mclennan 580 590 600 609 616 627 637 643 

Mcmullen 8 8 8 8 8 8 9 9 

Medina 157 160 162 165 167 170 173 174 

Menard 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 

Midland 221 224 228 231 234 242 245 

238

Milam 59 60 61 62 62 64 65 65 

Mills 8 8 8 8 8 8 9 9 

Mitchell 17 17 17 17 18 18 18 18 

Montague 53 54 55 56 57 58 58 59 

Montgomery 173 176 179 182 184 187 190 192 

Motley 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 

Nacogdoches 130 132 134 136 138 140 142 144 

Navarro 151 154 156 159 160 163 166 168 

Nolan 44 45 45 46 47 48 48 49 

73
County 2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 2015/16 2016/17 2017/18 2018/19 

Winter Load, MW

The loads shown are the projected coincident loads of the individual delivery points from the 2011 ALDRs and do not inc

The ALDR values were used to compute a percentage of load by county, and the percentage was applied to the forecaspeak. The values shown here are used in the Winter import/export calculations.

Winter Load by County

Nueces 832 846 860 873 883 899 914 922 

Palo Pinto 69 70 71 73 73 75 76 77 

Parker 360 366 372 378 382 389 396 399 

Pecos 68 69 70 71 72 74 75 76 

Presidio 11 11 11 11 11 12 12 12 

Rains 18 19 19 19 19 20 20 20 

Reagan 15 15 15 16 16 16 16 17 

Real 12 12 12 13 13 13 13 13 

Red River 22 22 22 23 23 23 24 24 

Reeves 17 17 18 18 18 19 19 19 

Refugio 22 22 22 23 23 23 24 24 

Robertson 24 25 25 26 26 26 27 27 

Rockwall 243 247 251 255 258 263 267 270 

Runnels 26 26 26 27 27 28 28 28 

Rusk 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 

San Patricio 149 152 154 156 158 161 164 165 

San Saba 11 11 11 11 12 12 12 12 Schleicher 11 11 11 11 11 12 12 12 

Scurry 87 89 90 92 93 96 97 

94

Shackelford 11 11 11 11 11 12 12 12 

Smith 444 451 459 465 471 480 487 492 

Somervell 27 27 27 28 28 29 29 29 

Starr 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 

Stephens 55 55 56 57 58 59 60 60 

Sterling 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 

Stonewall 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 

Sutton 16 16 17 17 17 17 18 18 

Tarrant 4,057 4,124 4,191 4,254 4,305 4,384 4,454 

4,495

74
County 2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 2015/16 2016/17 2017/18 2018/19 

Winter Load, MW

The loads shown are the projected coincident loads of the individual delivery points from the 2011 ALDRs and do not inc

The ALDR values were used to compute a percentage of load by county, and the percentage was applied to the forecaspeak. The values shown here are used in the Winter import/export calculations.

Winter Load by County

Taylor 252 256 260 264 267 272 276 279 

Terrell 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 

Throckmorton 7 7 7 7 7 7 8 8 

Titus - - - - - - - - 

Tom Green 190 193 196 199 202 205 209 211 

Travis 1,526 1,551 1,576 1,600 1,619 1,648 1,675 1,690 

Upton 14 14 14 14 15 15 15 15 

Uvalde 47 47 48 49 50 50 51 52 

Val Verde 76 78 79 80 81 83 84 85 

Van Zandt 63 64 65 66 66 68 69 69 

Victoria 203 207 210 213 216 220 223 225 

Waller 152 154 157 159 161 164 167 168 

Ward 48 49 50 50 51 52 53 53 Washington 94 96 98 99 100 102 104 105 

Webb 343 349 355 360 364 371 377 380 

Wharton 100 102 104 105 106 108 110 111 

Wichita 271 275 280 284 287 293 297 300 

Wilbarger 22 22 22 23 23 23 24 24 

Willacy 30 31 31 32 32 33 33 

32

Williamson 710 722 733 744 753 767 779 787 

Wilson 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 

Winkler 41 41 42 43 43 44 45 45 

Wise 212 215 219 222 225 229 233 235 

Young 44 45 45 46 47 47 48 49 

Zapata 27 27 28 28 28 29 29 30 

Zavala 18 19 19 19 20 20 20 20 

75
County 2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 2015/16 2016/17 2017/18 2018/19 201

Anderson - - - - - - - - 

 

Andrews - - - - - - - - 

 

Angelina 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 

 

Aransas - - - - - - - - 

 

Archer - - - - - - - - 

 

Atascosa 395 395 395 395 395 395 395 395 

 

Austin - - - - - - - - 

 

Bandera - - - - - - - - 

 

Bastrop 1,742 1,742 1,742 1,742 1,742 1,742 1,742 1,742 1

 

Baylor - - - - - - - - 

 

Bee - - - - - - - - 

 

Bell - - - 780 1,560 1,560 1,560 1,560 1

 

Bexar 4,890 4,890 4,890 4,890 4,890 4,890 4,890 4,890 4

 

Blanco - - - - - - - - 

 

Borden 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 

 

Bosque 869 869 869 869 869 869 869 869 

 

Brazoria 411 411 411 411 411 411 411 411 

 

Brazos 226 226 226 226 226 226 226 226 

 

Brewster - - - - - - - - 

 

Brooks - - - - - - - - 

 

Brown - - - - - - - - 

 

Burleson - - - - - - - - 

 

Burnet 102 102 102 102 102 102 102 102 

 

Caldwell - - - - - - - - 

 

Calhoun 376 406 406 406 406 406 406 406 

 

Callahan 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 

 

Cameron 128 128 163 163 163 163 163 163 

 

Winter Generation by County

These values are used in the summer import/export calculations for each county. Capacities for mothballed units are included acapacity of the unit. Capacities for the wind units are at 8.7%. These values include the amount available for the grid according from the owners of the private network units and the distributed generation units that have registered with ERCOT.

Winter Generation, MW

76
County 2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 2015/16 2016/17 2017/18 2018/19 201

Winter Generation by County

These values are used in the summer import/export calculations for each county. Capacities for mothballed units are included acapacity of the unit. Capacities for the wind units are at 8.7%. These values include the amount available for the grid according from the owners of the private network units and the distributed generation units that have registered with ERCOT.

Winter Generation, MW

Chambers 2,298 2,298 2,298 2,298 2,298 2,298 2,298 2,298 2

 

Cherokee 673 673 673 673 673 673 673 673 

 

Childress - - - - - - - - 

 

Clay - - - - - - - - 

 

Coke - - - - - - - - 

 

Coleman - - - - - - - - 

 

Collin 415 415 415 415 415 415 415 415 

 

Colorado - - - - - - - - 

 

Comal 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 

 

Comanche - - - - - - - - 

 

Concho - - - - - - - - 

 

Cooke 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 

 

Coryell - - - - - - - - 

 

Cottle - - - - - - - - 

 

Crane - - - - - - - - 

 

Crockett - - - - - - - - 

 

Crosby - - - - - - - - 

 

Culberson 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 

 

Dallas 1,734 1,734 1,734 1,734 1,734 1,734 1,734 1,734 1

 

Dawson - - - - - - - - 

 

Delta - - - - - - - - 

 

Denton 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 

 

Dewitt 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 

 

Dickens 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 

 

Dimmit - - - - - - - - 

 

Duval - - - - - - - - 

 

Eastland 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 

 

Ector 1,606 1,606 1,606 1,606 1,606 1,606 1,606 1,606 1

 

77
County 2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 2015/16 2016/17 2017/18 2018/19 201

Winter Generation by County

These values are used in the summer import/export calculations for each county. Capacities for mothballed units are included acapacity of the unit. Capacities for the wind units are at 8.7%. These values include the amount available for the grid according from the owners of the private network units and the distributed generation units that have registered with ERCOT.

Winter Generation, MW

Edwards - - - - - - - - 

 

Ellis 1,800 1,800 1,800 1,800 1,800 1,800 1,800 1,800 1

 

Erath - - - - - - - - 

 

Falls - - - - - - - - 

 

Fannin 1,630 1,630 1,630 1,630 1,630 1,630 1,630 1,630 1

 

Fayette 1,853 1,853 1,853 1,853 1,853 1,853 1,853 1,853 1

 

Fisher - - - - - - - - 

 

Floyd 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 

 

Foard - - - - - - - - 

 

Fort Bend 4,273 4,273 4,273 4,273 4,273 4,273 4,273 4,273 4

 

Franklin - - - - - - - - 

 

Freestone 2,248 2,248 2,248 2,248 2,248 2,248 2,248 2,248 2

 

Frio 278 278 278 278 278 278 278 278 

 

Galveston 1,134 1,134 1,134 1,134 1,134 1,134 1,134 1,134 1

 

Gillespie - - - - - - - - 

 

Glasscock 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 

 

Goliad 640 640 640 640 640 640 1,300 1,300 1

 

Gonzales 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 

 

Grayson 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 

 

Grimes 1,083 1,083 1,083 1,083 1,083 1,083 1,400 1,400 1

 

Guadalupe 1,884 1,884 1,884 1,884 1,884 1,884 1,884 1,884 1

 

Hall 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 

 

Hamilton - - - - - - - - 

 

Hardeman - - - - - - - - 

 

Harris 7,161 7,159 7,159 7,159 8,539 8,539 8,539 8,539 8

 

Haskell - - - - - - - - 

 

Hays 968 968 968 968 968 968 968 968 

 

Henderson 226 226 226 226 226 226 226 226 

 

78
County 2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 2015/16 2016/17 2017/18 2018/19 201

Winter Generation by County

These values are used in the summer import/export calculations for each county. Capacities for mothballed units are included acapacity of the unit. Capacities for the wind units are at 8.7%. These values include the amount available for the grid according from the owners of the private network units and the distributed generation units that have registered with ERCOT.

Winter Generation, MW

Hidalgo 1,826 1,826 1,826 1,826 1,826 1,826 1,826 1,826 1

 

Hill - - - - - - - - 

 

Hood 1,105 1,105 1,105 1,105 1,105 1,105 1,105 1,105 1

 

Hopkins - - - - - - - - 

 

Houston - - - - - - - - 

 

Howard 296 296 307 307 307 307 307 307 

 

Hunt 112 112 112 112 112 112 112 112 

 

Irion - - - - - - - - 

 

Jack 1,235 1,249 1,249 1,249 1,249 1,249 1,249 1,249 1

 

Jackson - - - - - - - - 

 

Jeff Davis - - - - - - - - 

 

Jim Hogg - - - - - - - - 

 

Jim Wells - - - - - - - - 

 

Johnson 283 283 283 283 283 283 283 283 

 

Jones - - - - - - - - 

 

Karnes - - - - - - - - 

 

Kaufman 1,939 1,939 1,939 1,939 1,939 1,939 1,939 1,939 1

 

Kendall - - - - - - - - 

 

Kenedy 60 60 60 77 77 77 77 77 

 

Kent - - - - - - - - 

 

Kerr - - - - - - - - 

 

Kimble - - - - - - - - 

 

King - - - - - - - - 

 

Kinney - - - - - - - - 

 

Kleberg - - - - - - - - 

 

Knox - - - - - - - - 

 

La Salle - - - - - - - - 

 

Lamar 1,376 1,376 1,376 1,376 1,376 1,376 1,376 1,376 1

 

79
County 2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 2015/16 2016/17 2017/18 2018/19 201

Winter Generation by County

These values are used in the summer import/export calculations for each county. Capacities for mothballed units are included acapacity of the unit. Capacities for the wind units are at 8.7%. These values include the amount available for the grid according from the owners of the private network units and the distributed generation units that have registered with ERCOT.

Winter Generation, MW

Lampasas - - - - - - - - 

 

Lavaca - - - - - - - - 

 

Lee - - - - - - - - 

 

Leon - - - - - - - - 

 

Limestone 1,689 1,689 1,689 1,689 1,689 1,689 1,689 1,689 1

 

Live Oak - - - - - - - - 

 

Llano 493 493 493 493 493 493 493 493 

 

Loving - - - - - - - - 

 

Madison - - - - - - - - 

 

Martin 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 

 

Mason - - - - - - - - 

 

Matagorda 2,750 2,750 2,750 2,750 2,750 2,750 2,750 2,750 2

 

Maverick 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 

 

McCulloch - - - - - - - - 

 

McLennan - 925 925 925 925 925 925 925 

 

McMullen - - - - - - - - 

 

Medina - - - - - - - - 

 

Menard - - - - - - - - 

 

Midland - - - - - - - - 

 

Milam 1,145 1,145 1,145 1,145 1,145 1,145 1,145 1,145 1

 

Mills - - - - - - - - 

 

Mitchell 499 499 499 499 499 499 499 499 

 

Montague - - - - - - - - 

 

Montgomery 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 

 

Motley - - - - - - - - 

 

Nacogdoches - 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 

 

Navarro - - - - - - - - 

 

Nolan 134 134 134 134 134 134 134 134 

 

80
County 2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 2015/16 2016/17 2017/18 2018/19 201

Winter Generation by County

These values are used in the summer import/export calculations for each county. Capacities for mothballed units are included acapacity of the unit. Capacities for the wind units are at 8.7%. These values include the amount available for the grid according from the owners of the private network units and the distributed generation units that have registered with ERCOT.

Winter Generation, MW

Nueces 2,181 2,184 2,184 2,184 2,804 3,424 3,424 3,424 3

 

Palo Pinto 633 633 633 633 633 633 633 633 

 

Parker 10 10 - - - - - - 

 

Pecos 61 61 61 61 61 61 61 61 

 

Presidio - - - - - - - - 

 

Rains - - - - - - - - 

 

Reagan - - - - - - - - 

 

Real - - - - - - - - 

 

Red River - - - - - - - - 

 

Reeves - - - - - - - - 

 

Refugio - - - - - - - - 

 

Robertson 1,932 1,932 1,932 1,932 1,932 1,932 1,932 1,932 1

 

Rockwall - - - - - - - - 

 

Runnels - - - - - - - - 

 

Rusk 3,363 3,363 3,363 3,363 3,363 3,363 3,363 3,363 3

 

San Patricio 453 453 453 453 453 453 453 453 

 

San Saba - - - - - - - - 

 

Schleicher - - - - - - - - 

 

Scurry 64 64 64 64 64 64 64 64 

 

Shackelford 49 49 49 49 49 49 49 49 

 

Smith - - - - - - - - 

 

Somervell 2,448 2,448 2,448 2,448 2,448 2,448 2,448 2,448 2

 

Starr 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 

 

Stephens - - - - - - - - 

 

Sterling 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 

 

Stonewall - - - - - - - - 

 

Sutton - - - - - - - - 

 

Tarrant 1,267 1,267 1,267 1,267 1,267 1,267 1,267 1,267 1

 

81
County 2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 2015/16 2016/17 2017/18 2018/19 201

Winter Generation by County

These values are used in the summer import/export calculations for each county. Capacities for mothballed units are included acapacity of the unit. Capacities for the wind units are at 8.7%. These values include the amount available for the grid according from the owners of the private network units and the distributed generation units that have registered with ERCOT.

Winter Generation, MW

Taylor 110 110 110 110 110 110 110 110 

 

Terrell - - - - - - - - 

 

Throckmorton - - - - - - - - 

 

Titus 1,950 1,950 1,950 1,950 1,950 1,950 1,950 1,950 1

 

Tom Green 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 

 

Travis 1,706 1,736 1,736 1,736 1,736 1,736 1,736 1,736 1

 

Upton 31 31 31 31 31 31 31 31 

 

Uvalde - - - - - - - - 

 

Val Verde 76 76 76 76 76 76 76 76 

 

Van Zandt - - - - - - - - 

 

Victoria 544 544 544 544 544 544 544 544 

 

Waller - - - - - - - - 

 

Ward 366 366 366 366 366 366 366 366 

 

Washington - - - - - - - - 

 

Webb 260 260 260 260 260 260 260 260 

 

Wharton 634 634 634 634 634 634 634 634 

 

Wichita 79 79 79 79 79 79 79 79 

 

Wilbarger 760 760 760 760 760 760 760 760 

 

Willacy - 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 

 

Williamson - - - - - - - - 

 

Wilson - - - - - - - - 

 

Winkler 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 

 

Wise 810 810 810 810 810 810 810 810 

 

Young 615 637 637 637 637 637 637 637 

 

Zapata - - - - - - - - 

 

Zavala - - - - - - - - 

 

82
Import: The county has less generation than load and must import generation

Export: The county has more generation than load and is able to export generationCounty 2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 2015/16 2016/17 2017/18 2018/19 201

Anderson -154.5 -157.0 -159.6 -162.0 -163.9 -166.9 -169.6 -171.2 -1Andrews -123.4 -125.4 -127.5 -129.4 -130.9 -133.3 -135.5 -136.7 -1Angelina -154.5 -157.8 -161.1 -164.3 -166.8 -170.8 -174.3 -176.3 -1Aransas -58.7 -59.6 -60.6 -61.5 -62.3 -63.4 -64.4 -65.0 Archer -22.2 -22.5 -22.9 -23.2 -23.5 -23.9 -24.3 -24.5 Atascosa 318.5 317.2 316.0 314.8 313.8 312.3 311.0 310.2 3Austin -83.1 -84.4 -85.8 -87.1 -88.1 -89.7 -91.2 -92.0 Bandera -65.4 -66.4 -67.5 -68.5 -69.3 -70.6 -71.7 -72.4 Bastrop 1579.4 1576.7 1574.0 1571.5 1569.4 1566.3 1563.5 1561.8 15Baylor -4.1 -4.2 -4.2 -4.3 -4.4 -4.4 -4.5 -4.5 Bee -50.3 -51.2 -52.0 -52.8 -53.4 -54.4 -55.3 -55.8 Bell -745.6 -757.8 -770.1 -1.7 768.9 754.4 741.5 733.9 7

Bexar 2106.6 2061.1 2015.0 1971.7 1936.6 1882.7 1834.4 1806.0 17Blanco -33.0 -33.5 -34.1 -34.6 -35.0 -35.7 -36.2 -36.6 Borden 21.3 21.3 21.3 21.3 21.2 21.2 21.2 21.2 Bosque 826.1 825.4 824.7 824.1 823.5 822.7 821.9 821.5 8Brazoria -1237.2 -1264.1 -1291.4 -1317.0 -1337.9 -1369.8 -1398.3 -1415.2 -14Brazos -147.6 -153.7 -159.9 -165.7 -170.4 -177.7 -184.1 -188.0 -1Brewster -19.0 -19.3 -19.7 -20.0 -20.2 -20.6 -20.9 -21.1 Brooks -17.0 -17.2 -17.5 -17.8 -18.0 -18.3 -18.6 -18.8 Brown -95.7 -97.2 -98.8 -100.3 -101.5 -103.4 -105.0 -106.0 -1Burleson -28.8 -29.3 -29.8 -30.2 -30.6 -31.2 -31.6 -31.9 Burnet -19.0 -21.0 -23.0 -24.8 -26.4 -28.7 -30.8 -32.0 Caldwell -95.2 -96.7 -98.3 -99.8 -101.0 -102.8 -104.5 -105.5 -1Calhoun 303.4 332.2 331.0 329.8 328.9 327.5 326.3 325.5 3

Winter Import/Export by County 

This data is presented for example only. It is a calculation of the generation in the county less the projected coincident load in thtrue values will depend on actual load levels and actual generation dispatch.

Winter Import/Export, MW

83
Import: The county has less generation than load and must import generation

Export: The county has more generation than load and is able to export generationCounty 2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 2015/16 2016/17 2017/18 2018/19 201

Winter Import/Export by County 

This data is presented for example only. It is a calculation of the generation in the county less the projected coincident load in thtrue values will depend on actual load levels and actual generation dispatch.

Winter Import/Export, MW

Callahan -26.5 -27.1 -27.7 -28.3 -28.7 -29.5 -30.1 -30.5 Cameron -506.3 -516.7 -492.4 -502.2 -510.2 -522.5 -533.5 -540.0 -5Chambers 1927.7 1921.7 1915.5 1909.8 1905.1 1897.9 1891.5 1887.7 18Cherokee 602.9 601.8 600.6 599.5 598.7 597.3 596.1 595.4 5Childress -9.8 -10.0 -10.2 -10.3 -10.4 -10.6 -10.8 -10.9 Clay -21.2 -21.5 -21.9 -22.2 -22.5 -22.9 -23.3 -23.5 Coke -13.9 -14.1 -14.3 -14.6 -14.7 -15.0 -15.2 -15.4 Coleman -29.6 -30.0 -30.5 -31.0 -31.4 -31.9 -32.4 -32.8 Collin -995.1 -1018.1 -1041.5 -1063.4 -1081.2 -1108.5 -1132.9 -1147.4 -11Colorado -68.1 -69.2 -70.4 -71.4 -72.3 -73.6 -74.8 -75.5 Comal -321.4 -326.7 -332.2 -337.3 -341.4 -347.7 -353.4 -356.7 -3Comanche -35.8 -36.4 -37.0 -37.5 -38.0 -38.7 -39.3 -39.7 Concho -6.7 -6.8 -6.9 -7.0 -7.1 -7.2 -7.3 -7.4 Cooke -103.2 -105.0 -106.9 -108.6 -110.1 -112.3 -114.2 -115.4 -1Coryell -98.7 -100.3 -102.0 -103.5 -104.8 -106.7 -108.4 -109.4 -1Cottle -3.0 -3.0 -3.1 -3.1 -3.1 -3.2 -3.3 -3.3 Crane -73.2 -74.4 -75.6 -76.8 -77.7 -79.1 -80.4 -81.1 Crockett -29.9 -30.4 -30.9 -31.4 -31.7 -32.3 -32.8 -33.2 Crosby -1.7 -1.7 -1.7 -1.8 -1.8 -1.8 -1.9 -1.9 Culberson 3.2 3.2 3.1 3.1 3.1 3.0 3.0 2.9 Dallas -3631.5 -3719.3 -3808.1 -3891.6 -3959.3 -4063.2 -4156.2 -4211.0 -42Dawson -31.7 -32.2 -32.8 -33.3 -33.7 -34.3 -34.8 -35.2 Delta -9.3 -9.4 -9.6 -9.7 -9.8 -10.0 -10.2 -10.3 Denton -1273.4 -1294.9 -1316.6 -1337.1 -1353.6 -1379.1 -1401.8 -1415.3 -14Dewitt -58.2 -59.2 -60.2 -61.1 -61.9 -63.0 -64.0 -64.6 Dickens 6.8 6.7 6.6 6.5 6.5 6.3 6.2 6.2 

84
Import: The county has less generation than load and must import generation

Export: The county has more generation than load and is able to export generationCounty 2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 2015/16 2016/17 2017/18 2018/19 201

Winter Import/Export by County 

This data is presented for example only. It is a calculation of the generation in the county less the projected coincident load in thtrue values will depend on actual load levels and actual generation dispatch.

Winter Import/Export, MW

Dimmit -10.9 -11.1 -11.3 -11.4 -11.6 -11.8 -12.0 -12.1 Duval -47.0 -47.8 -48.6 -49.3 -49.9 -50.8 -51.6 -52.1 Eastland -44.4 -45.2 -46.0 -46.8 -47.4 -48.4 -49.3 -49.8 Ector 1308.0 1303.2 1298.2 1293.6 1289.8 1284.1 1278.9 1275.8 12Edwards -9.0 -9.2 -9.3 -9.5 -9.6 -9.8 -9.9 -10.0 Ellis 1124.3 1113.3 1102.1 1091.6 1083.0 1069.9 1058.2 1051.3 10Erath -93.9 -95.5 -97.0 -98.5 -99.7 -101.5 -103.1 -104.1 -1Falls -39.5 -40.1 -40.8 -41.4 -41.9 -42.7 -43.3 -43.8 Fannin 1570.5 1569.6 1568.6 1567.7 1566.9 1565.7 1564.7 1564.1 15Fayette 1784.3 1783.2 1782.0 1781.0 1780.1 1778.8 1777.6 1776.9 17Fisher -24.0 -24.4 -24.8 -25.2 -25.5 -25.9 -26.4 -26.6 Floyd 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 Foard -2.5 -2.5 -2.6 -2.6 -2.7 -2.7 -2.7 -2.8 Fort Bend 3652.8 3642.7 3632.5 3622.8 3615.0 3603.0 3592.2 3585.9 35Franklin -2.4 -2.5 -2.5 -2.6 -2.6 -2.6 -2.7 -2.7 Freestone 2198.4 2197.6 2196.8 2196.0 2195.4 2194.4 2193.6 2193.1 21Frio 254.8 254.4 254.1 253.7 253.4 253.0 252.6 252.4 2Galveston 67.8 50.4 32.8 16.2 2.7 -17.9 -36.4 -47.3 

Gillespie -60.8 -61.8 -62.8 -63.7 -64.5 -65.7 -66.7 -67.3 Glasscock 5.5 5.3 5.0 4.8 4.7 4.4 4.2 4.1 Goliad 616.4 616.1 615.7 615.3 615.0 614.5 1274.1 1273.9 12Gonzales -45.5 -46.3 -47.1 -47.9 -48.5 -49.5 -50.4 -50.9 Grayson -288.6 -294.7 -300.8 -306.5 -311.2 -318.3 -324.7 -328.5 -3Grimes 1377.1 1376.8 1376.4 1376.0 1375.7 1375.3 1374.9 1374.7 13Guadalupe 1608.7 1604.2 1599.6 1595.4 1591.9 1586.6 1581.8 1579.0 15Hall -1.1 -1.1 -1.2 -1.2 -1.2 -1.2 -1.3 -1.3 

85
Import: The county has less generation than load and must import generation

Export: The county has more generation than load and is able to export generationCounty 2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 2015/16 2016/17 2017/18 2018/19 201

Winter Import/Export by County 

This data is presented for example only. It is a calculation of the generation in the county less the projected coincident load in thtrue values will depend on actual load levels and actual generation dispatch.

Winter Import/Export, MW

Hamilton -16.0 -16.2 -16.5 -16.8 -17.0 -17.3 -17.5 -17.7 Hardeman -10.8 -10.9 -11.1 -11.3 -11.4 -11.6 -11.8 -11.9 Harris -1644.7 -1790.7 -1936.5 -2073.5 -804.7 -975.2 -1127.8 -1217.8 -13Haskell -15.5 -15.7 -16.0 -16.2 -16.4 -16.7 -17.0 -17.1 Hays 624.2 618.6 612.9 607.6 603.2 596.6 590.6 587.1 5Henderson 65.4 62.8 60.1 57.6 55.6 52.5 49.7 48.1 Hidalgo 746.0 728.3 710.4 693.6 680.0 659.1 640.4 629.4 6Hill -88.8 -90.3 -91.8 -93.1 -94.3 -96.0 -97.5 -98.4 Hood 910.6 907.5 904.2 901.2 898.8 895.0 891.6 889.7 8Hopkins -96.4 -98.0 -99.6 -101.1 -102.3 -104.2 -105.9 -106.9 -1Houston -27.0 -27.5 -27.9 -28.3 -28.7 -29.2 -29.7 -30.0 Howard 221.3 220.1 229.3 228.2 227.2 225.8 224.5 223.7 2Hunt -103.9 -107.4 -111.0 -114.3 -117.1 -121.2 -125.0 -127.2 -1Irion -9.8 -10.0 -10.1 -10.3 -10.4 -10.6 -10.8 -10.9 Jack 1217.2 1230.9 1230.6 1230.4 1230.1 1229.8 1229.5 1229.3 12Jackson -34.0 -34.6 -35.1 -35.6 -36.1 -36.7 -37.3 -37.7 Jeff Davis -5.5 -5.6 -5.7 -5.7 -5.8 -5.9 -6.0 -6.1 Jim Hogg -3.4 -3.5 -3.5 -3.6 -3.6 -3.7 -3.8 -3.8 Jim Wells -84.2 -85.6 -87.0 -88.3 -89.3 -91.0 -92.4 -93.3 Johnson -62.4 -68.0 -73.7 -79.1 -83.5 -90.2 -96.2 -99.7 -1Jones -39.4 -40.1 -40.7 -41.4 -41.9 -42.6 -43.3 -43.7 Karnes -24.4 -24.8 -25.2 -25.6 -25.9 -26.4 -26.8 -27.1 Kaufman 1622.1 1616.9 1611.7 1606.7 1602.7 1596.6 1591.1 1587.9 15Kendall -105.0 -106.7 -108.4 -110.1 -111.4 -113.4 -115.2 -116.3 -1Kenedy 58.3 58.3 58.3 75.8 75.8 75.8 75.8 75.8 Kent -46.5 -47.2 -48.0 -48.7 -49.3 -50.2 -51.0 -51.5 

86
Import: The county has less generation than load and must import generation

Export: The county has more generation than load and is able to export generationCounty 2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 2015/16 2016/17 2017/18 2018/19 201

Winter Import/Export by County 

This data is presented for example only. It is a calculation of the generation in the county less the projected coincident load in thtrue values will depend on actual load levels and actual generation dispatch.

Winter Import/Export, MW

Kerr -140.2 -142.5 -144.8 -147.0 -148.8 -151.5 -153.9 -155.3 -1Kimble -15.5 -15.7 -16.0 -16.2 -16.4 -16.7 -17.0 -17.2 King -7.1 -7.2 -7.3 -7.4 -7.5 -7.6 -7.8 -7.8 Kinney -5.4 -5.4 -5.5 -5.6 -5.7 -5.8 -5.9 -5.9 Kleberg -52.3 -53.2 -54.1 -54.9 -55.5 -56.6 -57.5 -58.0 Knox -9.6 -9.8 -9.9 -10.1 -10.2 -10.4 -10.6 -10.7 La Salle -14.3 -14.5 -14.8 -15.0 -15.2 -15.4 -15.7 -15.8 Lamar 1248.3 1246.2 1244.1 1242.1 1240.5 1238.1 1235.8 1234.5 12Lampasas -50.1 -50.9 -51.8 -52.6 -53.2 -54.2 -55.0 -55.5 Lavaca -29.8 -30.3 -30.8 -31.3 -31.7 -32.2 -32.8 -33.1 Lee -30.0 -30.5 -31.0 -31.4 -31.8 -32.4 -32.9 -33.2 Leon -52.8 -53.7 -54.6 -55.4 -56.1 -57.1 -58.0 -58.5 Limestone 1629.6 1628.6 1627.6 1626.7 1625.9 1624.8 1623.7 1623.1 16Live Oak -62.3 -63.3 -64.3 -65.3 -66.1 -67.3 -68.4 -69.0 Llano 416.5 415.3 414.0 412.8 411.9 410.4 409.1 408.3 4Loving -5.4 -5.5 -5.6 -5.7 -5.8 -5.9 -6.0 -6.0 Madison -5.5 -5.6 -5.7 -5.7 -5.8 -5.9 -6.0 -6.1 Martin -8.9 -9.2 -9.6 -9.9 -10.1 -10.5 -10.8 -11.0 Mason -10.9 -11.1 -11.3 -11.4 -11.6 -11.8 -12.0 -12.1 Matagorda 2630.7 2628.7 2626.7 2624.9 2623.4 2621.1 2619.0 2617.8 26Maverick -53.4 -54.6 -55.9 -57.1 -58.1 -59.6 -60.9 -61.7 McCulloch -20.9 -21.2 -21.5 -21.9 -22.1 -22.5 -22.9 -23.1 Mclennan -580.4 335.1 325.5 316.4 309.1 297.9 287.8 281.9 2

Mcmullen -7.8 -7.9 -8.0 -8.2 -8.2 -8.4 -8.5 -8.6 Medina -157.3 -159.8 -162.4 -164.9 -166.9 -169.9 -172.6 -174.3 -1Menard -6.7 -6.8 -7.0 -7.1 -7.1 -7.3 -7.4 -7.5 

87
Import: The county has less generation than load and must import generation

Export: The county has more generation than load and is able to export generationCounty 2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 2015/16 2016/17 2017/18 2018/19 201

Winter Import/Export by County 

This data is presented for example only. It is a calculation of the generation in the county less the projected coincident load in thtrue values will depend on actual load levels and actual generation dispatch.

Winter Import/Export, MW

Midland -220.7 -224.3 -228.0 -231.4 -234.2 -238.4 -242.3 -244.5 -2Milam 1086.1 1085.1 1084.2 1083.3 1082.5 1081.4 1080.4 1079.8 10Mills -7.8 -7.9 -8.1 -8.2 -8.3 -8.4 -8.6 -8.6 Mitchell 482.4 482.2 481.9 481.6 481.4 481.1 480.8 480.6 4Montague -53.3 -54.1 -55.0 -55.9 -56.5 -57.6 -58.5 -59.0 Montgomery -168.5 -171.3 -174.2 -176.8 -179.0 -182.4 -185.4 -187.2 -1Motley -3.3 -3.4 -3.4 -3.5 -3.5 -3.6 -3.6 -3.7 Nacogdoches -129.8 -31.9 -34.1 -36.1 -37.7 -40.2 -42.5 -43.8 Navarro -151.2 -153.7 -156.2 -158.5 -160.4 -163.3 -166.0 -167.5 -1Nolan 90.0 89.3 88.5 87.9 87.3 86.5 85.7 85.2 Nueces 1349.0 1338.4 1324.6 1311.7 1921.1 2525.0 2510.6 2502.1 24Palo Pinto 563.8 562.7 561.5 560.4 559.6 558.2 557.0 556.3 5Parker -350.8 -356.7 -372.1 -377.8 -382.3 -389.3 -395.5 -399.2 -4Pecos -7.1 -8.2 -9.3 -10.4 -11.2 -12.6 -13.7 -14.4 Presidio -10.8 -10.9 -11.1 -11.3 -11.4 -11.6 -11.8 -11.9 Rains -18.4 -18.7 -19.0 -19.3 -19.5 -19.9 -20.2 -20.4 Reagan -15.0 -15.2 -15.4 -15.7 -15.9 -16.2 -16.4 -16.6 Real -12.0 -12.2 -12.4 -12.6 -12.8 -13.0 -13.2 -13.3 Red River -21.5 -21.9 -22.2 -22.6 -22.8 -23.2 -23.6 -23.8 Reeves -17.1 -17.4 -17.7 -18.0 -18.2 -18.5 -18.8 -19.0 Refugio -21.7 -22.1 -22.4 -22.7 -23.0 -23.4 -23.8 -24.0 Robertson 1907.6 1907.2 1906.8 1906.4 1906.1 1905.7 1905.2 1905.0 19Rockwall -243.3 -247.3 -251.3 -255.1 -258.1 -262.9 -267.1 -269.6 -2Runnels -25.5 -25.9 -26.4 -26.8 -27.1 -27.6 -28.0 -28.3 Rusk 3358.2 3358.1 3358.0 3357.9 3357.9 3357.8 3357.7 3357.6 33San Patricio 303.9 301.4 298.9 296.6 294.7 291.8 289.3 287.7 2

88
Import: The county has less generation than load and must import generation

Export: The county has more generation than load and is able to export generationCounty 2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 2015/16 2016/17 2017/18 2018/19 201

Winter Import/Export by County 

This data is presented for example only. It is a calculation of the generation in the county less the projected coincident load in thtrue values will depend on actual load levels and actual generation dispatch.

Winter Import/Export, MW

San Saba -10.9 -11.0 -11.2 -11.4 -11.5 -11.7 -11.9 -12.0 Schleicher -10.7 -10.9 -11.0 -11.2 -11.3 -11.5 -11.7 -11.8 Scurry -23.8 -25.3 -26.7 -28.1 -29.2 -30.9 -32.4 -33.3 Shackelford 38.5 38.3 38.1 38.0 37.8 37.6 37.5 37.3 Smith -444.0 -451.2 -458.6 -465.5 -471.1 -479.7 -487.4 -491.9 -4Somervell 2421.4 2421.0 2420.5 2420.1 2419.8 2419.3 2418.8 2418.6 24Starr -27.1 -28.2 -29.2 -30.2 -31.0 -32.2 -33.3 -34.0 Stephens -54.6 -55.5 -56.4 -57.2 -57.9 -59.0 -59.9 -60.5 Sterling 65.2 65.1 65.0 64.9 64.8 64.7 64.6 64.6 Stonewall -6.6 -6.8 -6.9 -7.0 -7.0 -7.2 -7.3 -7.4 Sutton -16.1 -16.3 -16.6 -16.8 -17.0 -17.3 -17.6 -17.8 Tarrant -2790.8 -2857.1 -2924.3 -2987.4 -3038.7 -3117.2 -3187.5 -3229.0 -32Taylor -142.3 -146.4 -150.6 -154.5 -157.7 -162.6 -167.0 -169.5 -1Terrell -1.9 -1.9 -1.9 -1.9 -2.0 -2.0 -2.0 -2.1 Throckmorton -6.8 -6.9 -7.1 -7.2 -7.3 -7.4 -7.5 -7.6 Titus 1950.0 1950.0 1950.0 1950.0 1950.0 1950.0 1950.0 1950.0 19Tom Green -177.0 -180.1 -183.3 -186.3 -188.7 -192.3 -195.6 -197.6 -1Travis 180.7 185.8 160.5 136.8 117.5 88.0 61.5 45.9 Upton 17.0 16.8 16.6 16.3 16.2 15.9 15.7 15.5 Uvalde -46.7 -47.5 -48.3 -49.0 -49.6 -50.5 -51.3 -51.8 Val Verde -0.6 -1.8 -3.1 -4.3 -5.2 -6.7 -8.0 -8.8 Van Zandt -62.6 -63.6 -64.7 -65.6 -66.4 -67.6 -68.7 -69.4 Victoria 340.7 337.4 334.0 330.8 328.3 324.3 320.8 318.7 3Waller -151.9 -154.4 -156.9 -159.3 -161.2 -164.1 -166.8 -168.3 -1Ward 317.9 317.1 316.3 315.6 314.9 314.0 313.2 312.7 3Washington -94.5 -96.0 -97.6 -99.0 -100.2 -102.1 -103.7 -104.7 -1

89
Import: The county has less generation than load and must import generation

Export: The county has more generation than load and is able to export generationCounty 2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 2015/16 2016/17 2017/18 2018/19 201

Winter Import/Export by County 

This data is presented for example only. It is a calculation of the generation in the county less the projected coincident load in thtrue values will depend on actual load levels and actual generation dispatch.

Winter Import/Export, MW

Webb -83.2 -88.8 -94.5 -99.8 -104.2 -110.8 -116.8 -120.3 -1Wharton 533.7 532.1 530.4 528.8 527.6 525.6 523.9 522.9 5Wichita -191.8 -196.2 -200.7 -204.9 -208.3 -213.6 -218.3 -221.0 -2Wilbarger 738.3 738.0 737.6 737.3 737.0 736.6 736.2 736.0 7Willacy -30.1 -12.9 -13.4 -13.9 -14.3 -14.9 -15.4 -15.7 Williamson -710.1 -721.7 -733.4 -744.5 -753.4 -767.2 -779.5 -786.7 -7Wilson -65.6 -66.7 -67.7 -68.8 -69.6 -70.9 -72.0 -72.7 Winkler -27.3 -28.0 -28.7 -29.3 -29.8 -30.6 -31.3 -31.7 Wise 598.1 594.6 591.1 587.8 585.1 581.0 577.3 575.2 5Young 571.1 592.2 591.4 590.8 590.2 589.4 588.6 588.1 5Zapata -26.9 -27.3 -27.7 -28.2 -28.5 -29.0 -29.5 -29.8 Zavala -18.4 -18.7 -19.0 -19.3 -19.5 -19.9 -20.2 -20.4 

90