Statewide Air Emissions Calculations from Wind and Other Renewables

ESL-TR-20-07-01

STATEWIDE AIR EMISSIONS CALCULATIONS FROM WIND AND OTHER RENEWABLES

VOLUME I

A Report to the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality For the Period January 2019 – December 2019

Juan-Carlos Baltazar, Ph.D., P.E.; Jeff Haberl, Ph.D.; Bahman Yazdani, P.E.; David Claridge, Ph.D., P.E.; Sungkyun Jung; Farshad Kheiri; Chul Kim

July 2020

Page 1

ENERGY SYSTEMS LABORATORY

July 15, 2020

Mr. Robert Gifford Air Quality Division Texas Commission on Environmental Quality Austin, TX 78711-3087

Dear Mr. Gifford,

The Energy Systems Laboratory (ESL) at the Texas Engineering Experiment Station of The Texas A&M University System is pleased to provide its annual report, “Statewide Emissions Calculations From Wind and Other Renewables,” as required by the 79th Legislature. This work has been performed through a contract with the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ).

In this work, the ESL is required to obtain input from public/private stakeholders, and develop and use a methodology to annually report the energy savings from wind and other renewables. This report summarizes the work performed by the ESL on this project from January 2019 to December 2019.

Please contact me at (979) 845-9213 should you have questions concerning this report or the work presently being done to quantify emissions reductions from renewable energy measures as a result of the TERP implementation.

Sincerely,

David E. Claridge, Ph.D., P.E. Director

Enclosure

Page 2

Disclaimer

This report is provided by the Texas Engineering Experiment Station (TEES) as required under Section 388.003 (e) of the Texas Health and Safety Code and is distributed for purposes of public information. The information provided in this report is intended to be the best available information at the time of publication. TEES makes no claim or warranty, express or implied, that the report or data herein is necessarily error-free. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise, does not constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the Energy Systems Laboratory or any of its employees. The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the Texas Engineering Experiment Station or the Energy Systems Laboratory.

July 2020 Energy Systems Laboratory, The Texas A&M University System

Page 3

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

This report cannot be accomplished without the help of many people. Special thanks to Connor Anderson, Planning Engineer, Resource Adequacy Department at Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT), for providing the wind farm power generation data.

July 2020 Energy Systems Laboratory, The Texas A&M University System

Page 4

SUMMARY REPORT

Statewide Air Emissions Calculations from Wind and Other Renewables

1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The 79th Legislature, through Senate Bill 20, House Bill 2481 and House Bill 2129, amended Senate Bill 5 to enhance its effectiveness by adding 5,880 MW of generating capacity from renewable energy technologies by 2015 and 500 MW from non-wind renewables.

This legislation also requires the Public Utilities Commission of Texas (PUCT) to establish a target of 10,000 megawatts of installed renewable capacity by 2025 and requires the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) to develop a methodology for computing emissions reductions from renewable energy initiatives and the associated credits. Table 1-1 lists the statutory mandates and total wind power generation capacity (including installed and announced) in Texas from 2001 to 2025. It shows that Texas has achieved its milestone of 10,000 MW by the end of 2010 and could reach total 55,619 MW by 2022 according to the information from PUCT1.

Table 1-1: Installed/Announced Wind Power Capacity and the Statutory Mandates

Texas Wind Summary SB20 Plan Installed Announced Month-Yr Month-Year MW MW2 MW3 Dec-2001 1,012 - Dec-2002 1,091 - Dec-2003 1,292 - Dec-2005 1,965 - Dec-2006 2,786 - Jan-2007 2,280 Dec-2007 4,438 - Dec-2008 8,215 - Jan-2009 3,272 Dec-2009 9,652 - Dec-2010 10,222 - Jan-2011 4,264 Dec-2011 10,468 - Dec-2012 11,737 - Dec-2013 12,302 - Jan-2013 5,256 Dec-2014 14,035 - Dec-2015 17,377 - Jan-2015 5,880 Dec-2016 19,632 - Dec-2017 22,937 - Dec-2018 24,154 - Dec-2019 28,188 - Dec-2020 - 13,002 Dec-2021 - 12,728 Jan-2025 10,000 Dec-2022 - 1,702

1 The service date for announced wind farms is searched from PUCT (http://www.puc.texas.gov/industry/electric/reports/Default.aspx). 2 The installed capacity data in Table 1-1 is installed and announced capacities at the end of the report year based on the latest information from the PUCT and ERCOT. Since many projects have been added, rescheduled and cancelled, some data would be later updated in the subsequent reports. 3 TBD projects in the announced project list were not included in installed/announced capacity calculations in Table 1-1. Total announced capacity including TBD projects is 27,432 MW by 2022. July 2020 Energy Systems Laboratory, The Texas A&M University System

Page 5

In this Legislation, the function of the Energy Systems Laboratory (ESL) is to assist the TCEQ in quantifying emissions reductions credits from energy efficiency and renewable energy programs, through a contract with the TCEQ to develop and annually calculate creditable emissions reductions from wind and other renewable energy resources for the State Implementation Plan (SIP).

The ESL, in fulfillment of its responsibilities under this Legislation, submits its annual report, “Statewide Air Emissions Calculations from Wind and Other Renewables,” to the TCEQ.

The report is organized in several deliverables: 1. A summary report, which details the key areas of work, 2. Volume I report, which includes main document of renewable energy projects and 3. Volume II technical appendix that includes all information and details about renewables (i.e., wind power, non-utility scale and utility-scale solar PV, solar thermal, biomass, hydroelectric, geothermal, and landfill gas-fired) 4. Supporting data files, including weather data, and wind energy production data.

This executive summary provides key areas of accomplishment this year, including:  Analysis of power generation from wind farms using improved method and 2018 data,  Analysis of emissions reductions from wind farms,  Analysis of other renewables, including solar PV, solar thermal, biomass, hydroelectric, geothermal, and landfill gas, and  Review of electricity generation by renewable sources and transmission planning study reported by ERCOT

1.1 Texas wind power generation (ERCOT and PUCT)

For several years now, Texas has been the largest producer of wind energy in the United States. As of January 2020, the capacity of installed wind turbine totals was 28,188 MW with another 27,432 MW announced for new projects to be completed by 2022. Figure 1-1 shows the growth pattern of the installed wind power capacity in Texas and their power generation in the ERCOT region from September 2005 to December 2019.

In the last few years, the electricity generated by wind has continually shown progressive and substantial increases. However, the wind electricity generation contains a significant seasonal response, which can be observed during the Ozone Season Period4 when a dramatic reduction in the power generation can be observed. This reduction is mainly due to the fact that the wind speed in those periods is lower than other times during the year. On the other hand, it is also observed that the peaks of wind electricity generation occur more often during the winter periods when the wind speed also has a higher overall average value.

4 The Ozone Season Period (OSP) was changed from the period of July 15 to Sep 15 to the period of May 1 to September 30 for the 2018 Statewide Air Emissions Calculations from Wind and Other Renewables. July 2020 Energy Systems Laboratory, The Texas A&M University System

Page 6

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 8,000 32,000 28,188 7,000 28,000 24,227 6,000 24,000

5,000 20,000

4,000 16,000

3,000 12,000

2,000 8,000 Installed Capacity (MW) Capacity Installed

Wind Power Generation (GWH) Generation Power Wind 1,000 4,000

0 0 Sep-05 Sep-06 Sep-07 Sep-08 Sep-09 Sep-10 Sep-11 Sep-12 Sep-13 Sep-14 Sep-15 Sep-16 Sep-17 Sep-18 Sep-19 Aug-20

ERCOT Generation - GWH ERCOT Installed Capacity - MW Total Installed Capacity in Texas by 2019 Total Installed Capacity in ERCOT Area by 2019 Figure 1-1: Installed Wind Power Capacity and Power Generation in the ERCOT Region from September 2005 to December 2019

1.2 Analysis of wind farms using an improved method and 2019 electricity generation data.

In this report, the weather normalization procedures, developed together with the Stakeholders, were presented and applied to all the wind farms that reported their data to ERCOT during the 2019 measurement period, together with wind data from the nearby NOAA weather stations.

In the previous Wind and Renewables reports to the TCEQ, weather normalization analysis methods were reviewed and determined to be appropriate for this report. Therefore, this report used the same analysis method as the previous reports to present the same weather normalization procedure, including:  the processing of weather and power generation data, modeling of daily power generation versus daily wind speed using the ASHRAE Inverse Model Toolkit (IMT) for two separate periods, i.e., Ozone Season Period (OSP), from May 1 to September 30, and Non-Ozone Season Period (Non-OSP);  predicting wind power generation based on 2008 baseline wind speed data, using developed coefficients from 2019 daily OSP and Non-OSP models for all the wind farms; and  the analysis of monthly capacity factors generated using the models.

This report also includes an uncertainty analysis that was performed on all the daily regression models for the entire year and OSP. The detailed analysis for each wind farm is provided in Volume II, Appendix A to this report. The original data used in the analysis is included in Volume II and the accompanying CD-ROM with this report.

July 2020 Energy Systems Laboratory, The Texas A&M University System

Page 7

1.3 Analysis of emissions reduction from wind farms

In this report, the procedure for calculating annual and peak-day, county-wide NOx reductions from electricity savings from wind projects implemented in the Competitive Load (CL) zones in ERCOT was presented. The calculation of the NOx emission reductions is based on the 2016 eGRID as modified according to ESL-TR-08-12-04 report (US EPA and ESL, 2008). As shown in Table 1-2, based on the 2019 measured ERCOT data, the total MWh savings for all the wind farms within the ERCOT region are 74,903,938 MWh/yr and 203,888 MWh/day for an average day in the OSP. The total NOx emissions reductions in 2019 across all the counties amount are 37,812 tons/yr and 108.4 tons/day for the OSP. A comparison of the measured 2019 data and the modeled 2008 data is presented in Section 3.2 of this report.

Table 1-2: Electricity Generation and NOx Emission Reductions for All the Wind Farms in ERCOT Region in 2019

Annual OSP Actual Measured Electricity Generation in 2019 74,903,938 [MWh/yr] 203,888 [MWh/day] NOx Emission Reduction in 2019 37,812 [tons/yr] 108.4 [tons/day]

Figure 1-2 and Figure 1-3 show the measured annual and OSP NOx emissions reductions from wind power in each county of Texas in 2019.

Designed in simplemaps.com

Figure 1-2: Measured 2019 Annual NOx Reductions From Wind Power in Texas

July 2020 Energy Systems Laboratory, The Texas A&M University System

Page 8

Designed in simplemaps.com

Figure 1-3: Measured 2019 OSP NOx Reductions From Wind Power in Texas

July 2020 Energy Systems Laboratory, The Texas A&M University System

Page 9

1.4 Analysis of other renewable sources Five specific renewable sources were determined: solar, biomass, hydroelectric, geothermal, and landfill gas-fired. To generate/save energy throughout the State of Texas, six types of renewable energy projects were identified: solar photovoltaic (PV) including solar power, solar thermal, biomass power, hydroelectric power, geothermal HVAC, and landfill gas-fired power projects. The solar photovoltaic project accounts for non-utility scale PV installations in Texas whereas the solar power project accounts for utility-scale (solar power plant) constructions. Table 1-3 presents the number of newly located renewable energy projects and total renewable energy projects included in this report.

This report also presents county-wide annual/OSP energy savings and annual NOx emission reductions for solar photovoltaic including solar power, solar thermal, biomass, and hydroelectric projects. The annual/OSP energy savings calculation for solar photovoltaic and solar thermal was conducted based on the project data from various web sources. The power generation data for the other renewable energy projects (solar power, biomass, and hydroelectric), which were obtained from the ERCOT, were used to evaluate the annual/OSP energy generation. Then, the annual NOx emission reductions calculation was conducted with the special version of Texas 2016 eGrid.

In 2019, the total annual/OSP energy savings from each renewable projects across all the counties were:  solar photovoltaic projects (non-utility scale): 418,010 MWh/yr and 1,299 MWh/day; in addition, solar power projects (utility-scale): 4,412,015 MWh/yr and 14,696 MWh/day,  solar thermal projects: 250 MWh/yr and 0.7 MWh/day,  biomass projects: 420,635 MWh/yr and 1,324 MWh/day, and  hydroelectric projects: 955,864 MWh/yr and 3,096 MWh/day.

In 2019, the annual NOx emission reductions from renewable projects across all the counties were:  solar photovoltaic projects (non-utility scale): 153.3 tons/yr; in addition, solar power projects (utility-scale): 2277.2 tons/yr,  solar thermal projects: 0.1 tons/yr and,  hydroelectric projects: 341.5 tons/yr.

Table 1-3: Number of Projects Identified for Other Renewable Sources

Number Total Annual Measured/ OSP Measured/ NOx Emission Renewable Energy of 2019 Number Estimated Electricity Estimated Electricity Reductions in Projects New of Generation in 2019 Generation in 2019 2019 Projects Projects [MWh/yr] [MWh/day] [tons/yr] Solar photovoltaic5, 6 4747 29,406 418,010 1,299 153.3 Solar Power 3 21 79 4,412,015 14,696 2277.2 Solar Thermal 3 2 40 250 0.7 0.1 Biomass7 0 14 420,635 1,324 - Hydroelectric 0 30 955,864 3,096 341.5 Geothermal 8 294 - - - Landfill Gas-Fired8 0 34 - - -

5 Based on previous report data, the “Tracking the Sun” project dataset of Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (LBNL) (https://emp.lbl.gov/tracking-the-sun/) is newly integrated from the 2020 report due to the service termination of the NREL “OpenPV” database. Thus, the total number of PV projects until 2019, including PV projects from various websites, is now 29,406. Previously, it was 4,794.. 6 The utility scale solar power used measured data of annual generations while non-utility scale solar photovoltaic and non-utility solar thermal used the estimations of electricity generations using the ESL calculators. 7 Seven biomass projects had no generation. Therefore, they are excluded from the list for this year. Also, NOx emission reductions for biomass is not reported since biomass itself has high NOx emissions. 8 Landfill gas-fired projects information from EPA have seven sub-categories for their status: operational, candidates, potential, construction, shutdown, planned, and other. EPA rearranged/added/removed some projects information within the seven sub-categories. Operational projects were considered for the number of the projects. July 2020 Energy Systems Laboratory, The Texas A&M University System

Page 10

1.5 Review of electricity savings and transmission planning study reported by ERCOT

In this report, the information posted on ERCOT’s Renewable Energy Credit (REC) Program site www.texasrenewables.com was reviewed. In particular, information posted under the “Public Reports” tab was downloaded and assembled into an appropriate format for review. This includes ERCOT’s 2001 through 2019 reports to the Legislature and information from ERCOT’s listing of REC generators. Each year ERCOT is required to compile a list of grid-connected sources that generate electricity from renewable energy and report them to the Legislature. Table 1-4 contains the data reported by ERCOT from 2001 to 2019. Figure 1-4 is included to better illustrate the annual data collected by ERCOT. Other sources present different renewable electricity generation values on biomass, wind and hydro, but those are explained in general because the numbers reported in this report are focused on the ERCOT region.

Table 1-4: Annual Electricity Generation by Renewable Resources (MWh, ERCOT: 2001 - 2019)9

Biomass Hydro Landfill gas 6 Wind To t a l Year Solar (MWh) (MWh) (MWh) (MWh) (MWh) (MWh) 2001 0 30,639 0 0 565,597 596,236 2002 0 312,093 29,412 87 2,451,484 2,793,076 2003 39,496 239,684 154,206 220 2,515,482 2,949,087 2004 36,940 234,791 203,443 211 3,209,630 3,685,014 2005 58,637 310,302 213,777 227 4,221,568 4,804,512 2006 60,569 210,077 306,087 470 6,530,928 7,108,131 2007 54,101 382,882 356,339 1,844 9,351,168 10,146,333 2008 70,833 445,428 387,110 3,338 16,286,440 17,193,150 2009 73,364 507,507 412,923 4,492 20,596,105 21,594,390 2010 97,535 609,257 464,904 14,449 26,828,660 28,014,805 2011 137,004 267,113 497,645 36,580 30,769,674 31,708,016 2012 288,988 389,197 549,037 139,439 32,746,534 34,113,195 2013 200,564 294,238 550,845 178,326 36,909,385 38,133,358 2014 343,469 240,792 518,580 312,757 40,644,362 42,059,961 2015 349,600 414,289 561,915 410,318 45,165,341 46,901,462 2016 247,643 393,740 518,403 848,410 57,796,161 59,804,357 2017 216,431 444,453 446,119 2,289,394 66,076,742 69,473,139 2018 287,014 334,460 395,428 3,183,238 73,960,577 78,160,716 2019 153,531 248,783 335,361 4,465,696 81,472,592 86,675,964 NOTE: The REC Program tracks renewable generation in Texas, including non-ERCOT regions of Texas10. Not all renewable is eligible for REC credit.

9 Solar includes the utility scale solar power only 10 https://www.texasrenewables.com/reports.asp July 2020 Energy Systems Laboratory, The Texas A&M University System

Page 11

Annual Electricity Generated in Texas by Renewable Sources 100,000,000 Wind Solar Landfill gas Hydro Biomass 90,000,000

80,000,000

70,000,000

60,000,000

50,000,000

40,000,000

30,000,000

20,000,000 Electricity Generated in MWh MWh in Generated Electricity 10,000,000

0 2001200220032004200520062007200820092010201120122013201420152016201720182019 Year Figure 1-4: Electricity Generation by Renewable Resources (ERCOT: 2001–2019 Annual)

July 2020 Energy Systems Laboratory, The Texas A&M University System

Page 12

TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY...... 4 1.1 Texas wind power generation (ERCOT and PUCT) ...... 5 1.2 Analysis of wind farms using an improved method and 2019 electricity generation data...... 6 1.3 Analysis of emissions reduction from wind farms ...... 7 1.4 Analysis of other renewable sources ...... 9 1.5 Review of electricity savings and transmission planning study reported by ERCOT ...... 10 2 INTRODUCTION ...... 16 2.1 Statement of Work for Calculations of Emissions from Wind and Other Renewables ...... 16 2.2 Summary of Progress ...... 16 3 ANALYSIS ON POWER PRODUCTION FROM WIND FARMS USING 2019 DATA ...... 18 3.1 Introduction ...... 18 3.2 Summary of Wind Power Production for All Wind Farms in the Texas ERCOT Region ...... 25 3.3 Comparison of Measured Wind Power in Previous Reports and Present Report ...... 31 3.4 Uncertainty Analysis on the 2019 Daily Regression Models ...... 36 4 DEGRADATION ANALYSIS FOR WIND FARMS ...... 45

5 CALCULATING NOx EMISSIONS REDUCTION FROM WIND POWER ...... 52 5.1 Calculation of NOx Emissions from Wind Power Using 2016 eGRID ...... 52 6 OTHER RENEWABLE SOURCES ...... 64 6.1 Implementation ...... 64 6.2 Renewable Energy Projects ...... 65 6.2.1 Solar Photovoltaic ...... 65 6.2.2 Solar Thermal ...... 88 6.2.3 Biomass ...... 91 6.2.4 Hydroelectric ...... 96 6.2.5 Geothermal ...... 101 6.2.6 Landfill Gas-Fired ...... 101 6.3 Results ...... 104 7 REVIEW OF ERCOT’S RENEWABLE ENERGY CREDIT PROGRAM INFORMATION ... 105 7.1 Introduction ...... 105 7.2 Summary of Renewable Projects in Texas ...... 105 8 REFERENCES ...... 112

July 2020 Energy Systems Laboratory, The Texas A&M University System

Page 13

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1-1: Installed Wind Power Capacity and Power Generation in the ERCOT Region from September 2005 to December 2019 ...... 6 Figure 1-2: Measured 2019 Annual NOx Reductions From Wind Power in Texas ...... 7 Figure 1-3: Measured 2019 OSP NOx Reductions From Wind Power in Texas ...... 8 Figure 1-4: Electricity Generation by Renewable Resources (ERCOT: 2001–2019 Annual) ...... 11 Figure 3-1: Installed Wind Power Capacity and Power Generation in the ERCOT Region from September 2005 to December 2019 ...... 18 Figure 3-2: Procedure for the 2008 Annual and OSP Weather Normalized Wind Power Generation for Each Wind Farm in Operation in 2019 in Texas ERCOT Region ...... 19 Figure 3-3: Completed Wind Projects in Texas ...... 20 Figure 3-4: Announced and Retired Wind Projects in Texas ...... 21 Figure 3-5: A List of Completed, Announced and Retired Wind Projects in Texas ...... 22 Figure 3-6: Comparison of Total 2019 Measured and 2008 Modeled Power Production ...... 28 Figure 3-7: Comparison of Total 2019 OSP Measured and 2008 OSP Modeled Power Production ...... 28 Figure 3-8: Comparison of 2019 Measured and 2008 Modeled Wind Power Production for Each Wind Farm ...... 29 Figure 3-9: Comparison of 2019 OSP Measured and 2008 OSP Modeled Wind Power Production for Each Wind Farm ...... 30 Figure 3-10: Measured Annual Wind Power Comparison between 2008 and 2019 ...... 32 Figure 3-11: Measured OSP Wind Power Comparison between 2008 and 2019 ...... 33 Figure 3-12: Difference Comparison between 2008 and 2019 - Measured Annual Wind Power ...... 34 Figure 3-13: Difference Comparison between 2008 and 2019 - Measured OSP Wind Power ...... 35 Figure 3-14: Linear Model Presentation of the Daily Wind Power Generation on the Year 2019 for Callahan Wind Farm ...... 36 Figure 3-15: Uncertainty of the Wind Power generation Prediction Using the Linear Daily Models for Base Year 2008 ...... 44 Figure 4-1: Sliding 12-month Hourly Wind Power Generation for Anacacho Wind ...... 46 Figure 4-2: Design and Hourly Measured Maximum Capacity for 141 Wind Farms ...... 51 Figure 5-1: 2016 Annual eGRID NOx Emissions for the CL zones: (a) Houston, (b) North, (c) West and (d) South...... 53 Figure 5-2: Modeled 2008 and Measured 2019 Annual NOx Reductions from Wind Power in Texas Map ...... 57 Figure 5-3: Modeled 2008 OSP and Measured 2019 OSP NOx Reductions from Wind Power in Texas Map ...... 58 Figure 5-4: Comparisons of Modeled 2008 and Measured 2019 Annual NOx Emissions Reductions from Wind Power ...... 58 Figure 5-5: Comparisons of Modeled 2008 and Measured 2019 OSP NOx Emissions Reductions from Wind Power ...... 59 Figure 6-1: Chart of Workflow for Other Renewable Energy Projects ...... 65 Figure 6-2: Solar Photovoltaic Projects throughout Texas up to 2018 ...... 69 Figure 6-3: Annual Electric Savings per County from Solar Photovoltaic Projects up to 2018 ...... 72 Figure 6-4: OSP Electric Savings per County from Solar Photovoltaic Projects up to 2018 ...... 74 Figure 6-5: NOx Emissions Reductions per County from Solar Photovoltaic Projects up to 2018 ...... 77 Figure 6-6: Annual Electricity Generation by Solar Power Plants in the State of Texas up to 2019...... 83 Figure 6-7: Solar Power Plant Projects throughout Texas up to 2019 ...... 84 Figure 6-8: Annual Electric Savings per County from Solar Power Plant Projects up to 2019 ...... 85 Figure 6-9: Ozone Season Period Electric Savings per County from Solar Power Plant Projects up to 2019 ...... 86 Figure 6-10: NOx Emissions Reductions per County from Solar Power Plant Projects up to 2019 ...... 87 Figure 6-11: Hourly Electricity Generation Profile for Solar Photovoltaic Project ACACIA_UNIT_1 . 88 Figure 6-12: Daily Total Electricity Generation Profile for Solar Photovoltaic Project ACACIA_UNIT_1 ...... 88 Figure 6-13: Solar Thermal Projects throughout Texas up to 2019 ...... 89

July 2020 Energy Systems Laboratory, The Texas A&M University System

Page 14

Figure 6-14: Annual Electric Savings per County from Solar Thermal Projects up to 2019...... 90 Figure 6-15: Ozone Season Period Electric Savings per County from Solar Thermal Projects up to 2019 ...... 90 Figure 6-16: NOx Emissions Reductions per County from Solar Thermal Projects up to 2019 ...... 91 Figure 6-17: Annual Electricity Generation by Biomass Projects in the State of Texas up to 2019 ...... 92 Figure 6-18: Biomass Projects throughout Texas up to 2019 ...... 93 Figure 6-19: Annual Electric Savings per County from Biomass Projects up to 2019 ...... 94 Figure 6-20: Ozone Season Period Electric Savings per County from Biomass Projects up to 2019 ..... 94 Figure 6-21: Hourly Electricity Generation Profile for Biomass Project AV_DG1 ...... 95 Figure 6-22: Daily Total Electricity Generation Profile for Biomass Project AV_DG1 ...... 95 Figure 6-23: Annual Electricity Generation by Hydroelectric Projects in the State of Texas up to 2019 97 Figure 6-24: Hydroelectric Projects throughout Texas up to 2019 ...... 98 Figure 6-25: Annual Electric Savings per County from Hydroelectric Projects up to 2019 ...... 99 Figure 6-26: Ozone Season Period Electric Savings per County from Hydroelectric Projects up to 2019 ...... 99 Figure 6-27: NOx Emissions Reductions per County from Hydroelectric Projects up to 2019 ...... 100 Figure 6-28: Hourly Electricity Generation Profile for Hydroelectric Project AMISTAD_AMISTAG1 ...... 100 Figure 6-29: Daily Total Electricity Generation Profile for Hydroelectric Project AMISTAD_AMISTAG1 ...... 100 Figure 6-30: Geothermal Projects Installed throughout Texas up to 2019 ...... 102 Figure 6-31: Landfill Gas-Fired Projects Installed throughout Texas up to 2019 ...... 103 Figure 7-1: Electricity Generation by Renewable Sources (ERCOT: 2001–2019 Annually) ...... 110 Figure 7-2: Electricity Generation by Renewable Sources Other than Wind (ERCOT: 2001–2019 Annually) ...... 110 Figure 7-3: Electricity Generation by Renewable Sources from Solar, Landfill Gas, and Biomass (ERCOT: 2001–2019 Annually) ...... 111 Figure 7-4: Electricity Generation by Renewable Sources from Solar and Biomass (ERCOT: 2001–2019 Annually) ...... 111

July 2020 Energy Systems Laboratory, The Texas A&M University System

Page 15

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1-1: Installed/Announced Wind Power Capacity and the Statutory Mandates ...... 4 Table 1-2: Electricity Generation and NOx Emission Reductions for All the Wind Farms in ERCOT Region in 2019 ...... 7 Table 1-3: Number of Projects Identified for Other Renewable Sources ...... 9 Table 1-4: Annual Electricity Generation by Renewable Resources (MWh, ERCOT: 2001 - 2019) ...... 10 Table 3.1: Summary of Annual Power Production for All Wind Farms Operated for more than 5 months ...... 26 Table 3.2: Summary of 2008 and 2019 Monthly Average Wind Speed for Eight NOAA Weather Stations ...... 28 Table 3.4: Statistical Parameters of the Determined Daily Power Production Linear Models ...... 38 Table 3.5: 2008 Uncertainty of the Power Generation Prediction using the Linear Daily Models ...... 41 Table 4-1: Summary of 90th Percentile Hourly Wind Power Analysis for 141 Sites in Texas ...... 47 Table 4-2: Summary of Maximum Hourly Wind Power Analysis for 141 Sites in Texas ...... 49 Table 5-1: Wind Farm Information from the PUCT ...... 54 Table 5-2: Modeled 2008 Wind Power Production Assigned to Each CL Zone in the ERCOT Region . 57 Table 5-3: 2019 Wind Power Production Assigned to Each CL Zone in the ERCOT Region ...... 57 Table 5-4: Distribution of the Annual Emission Reductions per CL Zone for each County (Base Year 2008) ...... 60 Table 5-5: Distribution of the Annual Emission Reductions per CL Zone for each County (Year 2019) ...... 61 Table 5-6: Distribution of the OSP Emission Reductions per CL Zone for each County (Base Year 2008) ...... 62 Table 5-7: Distribution of the OSP Emission Reductions per CL Zone for each County (Year 2019) ... 63 Table 6-1: Solar Photovoltaic Projects: Annual Energy and OSP Energy up to 2018 ...... 66 Table 6-2: Solar Power Plant Projects in the State of Texas up to 2019 ...... 81 Table 6-3: Solar Thermal Projects: Energy and NOx Reductions up to 2019 ...... 88 Table 6-4: Biomass Projects in the State of Texas up to 2019 ...... 92 Table 6-5: Hydroelectricity Power Projects in the State of Texas up to 2019 ...... 97 Table 6-6: Comparison of the Projects Identified from Previous and Present Reports ...... 104 Table 7-1: Quarterly Electricity Generation by Renewable Sources, in MWh, for 2001–2019 ...... 106 Table 7-2: Annual Electricity Generation by Renewable Sources (MWh, ERCOT: 2001–2019) ...... 109

July 2020 Energy Systems Laboratory, The Texas A&M University System

Page 16

2 INTRODUCTION

2.1 Statement of Work for Calculations of Emissions from Wind and Other Renewables

This summary report covers the Energy Systems Laboratory’s work from January 2019 through December 2019. This work is intended to cover the basic work outline included below:

Task 1: Obtain input from public/private stakeholders

Task 2: Develop and maintain a methodology in cooperation with the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) for calculating emissions reductions obtained through wind and other renewable energy resources in Texas

Task 3: Calculate annual, creditable emissions reductions for wind and other renewable energy resources for inclusion in the State SIP

Task 4: Include emissions reductions by county from wind and renewable energy resources in the ESL’s annual report to the TCEQ

Task 5: Incorporate wind and renewable energy emissions reductions as a component of the ESL’s Texas Energy Summit to facilitate the technical transfer

2.2 Summary of Progress

The progress toward completing each task is provided in the following section and throughout this report.

Task 1: Obtain input from public/private stakeholders.

Legislation passed during the regular session of the 79th Legislature directed the Energy Systems Laboratory to work with the TCEQ to develop a methodology for computing emissions reductions attributable to renewable energy and for the ESL to quantify the emissions reductions attributable to renewables for inclusion in the State Implementation Plan (SIP) annually. HB 2921 directed the Texas Environmental Research Consortium (TERC) to engage the Texas Engineering Experiment Station for the development of this methodology.

During the period from January 2019 to December 2019, several presentations were done to report the analysis methodology and the results to interested parties.  November 2019 – Presentation at the Texas Energy Summit about Emissions Reduction Impact of Renewables, Austin, Texas.

Task 2: Develop a methodology in cooperation with the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for calculating emissions reductions obtained through wind and other renewable energy resources in Texas.

This task is composed of the following subtasks:  Review existing methodologies for calculating emissions reductions from wind energy and other renewable energy systems with US EPA, TCEQ, and stakeholders.  Develop acceptable methodologies for wind and renewables.  Determine how to implement methodologies for Texas, including the accounting of current installations, future sites, degradation, discounting/uncertainty, grid constraints, etc.  Review methodologies for verifying wind energy production and renewable energy installations with TCEQ, US EPA, and stakeholderss.

July 2020 Energy Systems Laboratory, The Texas A&M University System

Page 17

 Develop acceptable methodologies for verifying installations, including documentation, EPA Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP), etc.  Develop draft State Guidelines for the TCEQ for EE/RE SIP credits

Task 3: Calculate annual, creditable emissions reductions for wind and other renewable energy resources for inclusion in the State SIP.

This task is composed of the following subtasks:  Calculate annual emissions from wind and other renewable energy projects; verify annual installations of wind and renewable energy systems in Texas;  Verify ERCOT historical data for wind production and other renewables

Task 4: Include emissions reductions by county from wind and renewable energy resources in the ESL’s annual report to the TCEQ.

This task is composed of the following subtasks:  Report annual emissions from wind and other renewable energy projects;  Report on verification of installations of wind and renewable energy systems in Texas;  Develop documentation for all methods developed

Task 5: Incorporate wind and renewable energy emissions reductions as a component of the ESL’s Texas Energy Summit to facilitate the technical transfer.

Additional information regarding the ESL’s efforts on Tasks 2, 3, 4 and 5 are listed below and presented in detail in the following sections. This work was performed during the period of January 2019 through December 2019.  Analysis of wind farms using 2019 data  Analysis of emissions reduction from wind farms  Updates of the degradation analysis to include more wind farms  Analysis of other renewables  Review of electricity savings and transmission planning study reported by ERCOT

July 2020 Energy Systems Laboratory, The Texas A&M University System

Page 18

3 ANALYSIS ON POWER PRODUCTION FROM WIND FARMS USING 2019 DATA

3.1 Introduction

Texas is the largest producer of wind energy in the United States. As of December 201911, the installed wind turbine capacity totals 28,188 MW, and it has been announced new projects that will add another 27,432 MW of capacity by the end of 2022. The ERCOT region represents 24,164 MW, which accounts for 86% of the 2019 total capacity installed in Texas. Figure 3-1 shows the monthly electricity generation and capacity installed in the ERCOT region from September 2005 to December 2019. Figure 3-3 to Figure 3-5 shows the location and lists of the completed, announced, and retired wind farms based on the information from the PUCT.

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 8,000 32,000 28,188 7,000 28,000 24,227 6,000 24,000

5,000 20,000

4,000 16,000

3,000 12,000

2,000 8,000 InstalledCapacity (MW)

Wind Power Generation (GWH) Generation Power Wind 1,000 4,000

0 0 Sep-05 Sep-06 Sep-07 Sep-08 Sep-09 Sep-10 Sep-11 Sep-12 Sep-13 Sep-14 Sep-15 Sep-16 Sep-17 Sep-18 Sep-19 Aug-20

ERCOT Generation - GWH ERCOT Installed Capacity - MW Total Installed Capacity in Texas by 2019 Total Installed Capacity in ERCOT Area by 2019 Figure 3-1: Installed Wind Power Capacity and Power Generation in the ERCOT Region from September 2005 to December 2019

In Section 3.2, a summary of wind power production for all wind farms in the Texas ERCOT region is presented. In order to weather normalize the wind power generation of the wind farms, linear regression models are developed for each wind farm that has been in operation in 2019. As shown in Figure 3-2, the model coefficients for each wind farm are obtained from these regression models using the 2019 daily power generation data of the corresponding wind farm and the 2019 daily wind speed data of the most representative NOAA weather station among the eight chosen stations. The model is then used to estimate the wind power generation using the 2008 wind speed data. The weather normalized modeled power generation allows the comparison of the wind power generation of each wind farm in different years. In addition, a comparison between the annual and OSP wind power generation from the previous report and this report is presented.

An uncertainty analysis was also performed on all the daily regression models and included in this report to show the accuracy of applying the OSP and Non-OSP linear regression models to predict the wind power generation that the wind farms would have had in the base year of 2008. The detailed analysis for each wind farm is provided in Volume II, Appendix A. The original data used in the analysis is included in Volume II and the accompanying CD-ROM with this report.

11 Wind project information obtained from the Public Utility Commission of Texas (www.puc.texas.gov) as of 1/15/2020 and the Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT) as of June 2020. July 2020 Energy Systems Laboratory, The Texas A&M University System

Page 19

Figure 3-2: Procedure for the 2008 Annual and OSP Weather Normalized Wind Power Generation for Each Wind Farm in Operation in 2019 in Texas ERCOT Region

July 2020 Energy Systems Laboratory, The Texas A&M University System

Page 20

Figure 3-3: Completed Wind Projects in Texas

July 2020 Energy Systems Laboratory, The Texas A&M University System

Page 21

Figure 3-4: Announced and Retired Wind Projects in Texas

July 2020 Energy Systems Laboratory, The Texas A&M University System

Page 22

Figure 3-5: A List of Completed, Announced and Retired Wind Projects in Texas

July 2020 Energy Systems Laboratory, The Texas A&M University System

Page 23

Figure 3-5: A List of Completed, Announced and Retired Wind Projects in Texas (Cont.)

July 2020 Energy Systems Laboratory, The Texas A&M University System

Page 24

Figure 3-5: A List of Completed, Announced and Retired Wind Projects in Texas (Cont.)

July 2020 Energy Systems Laboratory, The Texas A&M University System

Page 25

3.2 Summary of Wind Power Production for All Wind Farms in the Texas ERCOT Region

Table 3.1 shows the summary of the 2019 measured power production for the wind farms that were operating in the year of 2019 in the Texas ERCOT region and the modeled wind power production using daily regression models and wind speed data from 2008 (Volume II, Appendix A). This table includes annual generations, OSP generations, wind power capacity, wind zone, and CM zone for all wind farms operated for more than 5 months in Texas. Due to the replacement of wind turbines, the power generation in 2019 of FLTCK_SSI, TRINITY_TH1_BUS1, TRINITY_TH1_BUS2 and KEO_SHRBINO2 has been significantly reduced.

Table 3.2 shows the monthly average wind speed across eight NOAA weather stations in 2008 and 2019, which are mainly used for the wind modeling analysis. For this year, the average wind speed of NOAA weather stations was used for data processing.

As shown in Figure 3-6 and Figure 3-7, the modeled annual wind power production using 2008 wind speed data (80,722,652 MWh/yr) is higher by about 7.8% when compared to what was measured in 2019 (74,903,938 MWh/yr). For the OSP, the modeled average daily power production using 2008 wind speed data is 203,888 MWh/day, 2.5% is higher than that measured in 2019 (198,978 MWh/day). This is because, for the modeling analysis of this year, the average wind speed of NOAA for the year 2019 is used for the analysis of most wind farms and more wind power was produced in the OSP. The OSP was changed in this year's report from July 15th to September 15th to May 1st to September 30th.

Figure 3-8 presents the comparison of the 2019 measured annual wind power production against the modeled annual wind power production using 2008 wind speed data for each wind farm. Figure 3-9 shows the difference between the 2019 measured average daily power production and the modeled average daily wind power production using 2008 wind speed data during the OSP for each wind farm.

July 2020 Energy Systems Laboratory, The Texas A&M University System

Page 26

Table 3.1: Summary of Annual Power Production for All Wind Farms Operated for more than 5 months

Wind Power for 2008 Predicted Wind Power for 2019 Measured ERCOT Wind Final Wind Wind Unit Name County Capacity (MW) CM Zone Zone Zone Annual OSD Annual OSD (MWh/yr) (MWh/day) (MWh/yr) (MWh/day)

ANACACHO_ANA KINNEY 99.8 SOUTH S SOUTH 325,198 952 328,432 1,033 ASTRA_UNIT1 DEAF SMITH 163.2 PANHANDLE W PANHANDLE 525,327 1,394 497,2201,324 BAFFIN_UNIT1 KENEDY 100.0 COASTAL S COASTAL 314,714 828 317,204 970 BAFFIN_UNIT2 KENEDY 102.0 COASTAL S COASTAL 288,779 753 291,310 889 BBREEZE_UNIT1 WILLACY 120.0 COASTAL S COASTAL 354,511 785 350,881 926 BBREEZE_UNIT2 WILLACY 108.0 COASTAL S COASTAL 314,875 695 314,948 823 BCATWIND_WIND_1 CLAY 150.0 WEST W WEST 424,825 1,125 397,781 1,129 BLSUMMIT_BLSMT1 WILBARGER 135.4 WEST W WEST 471,242 1,082 429,544 1,086 BLSUMMIT_UNIT2_17 WILBARGER 10.0 WEST W WEST 26,192 61 23,469 61 BLSUMMIT_UNIT2_25 WILBARGER 90.0 WEST W WEST 364,301 916 313,541 917 BORDAS_JAVEL ZAPATA 249.7 SOUTH S SOUTH 958,641 2,729 968,231 2,998 BORDAS2_JAVEL2_A ZAPATA 96.0 SOUTH S SOUTH 371,373 1,049 375,141 1,159 BORDAS2_JAVEL2_B ZAPATA 74.0 SOUTH S SOUTH 256,405 793 261,611 871 BORDAS2_JAVEL2_C ZAPATA 30.0 SOUTH S SOUTH 119,007 335 120,322 368 BRAZ_WND_WND SCURRY 160.0 WEST W WEST 404,217 998 387,269 1,065 BRISCOE_WIND BRISCOE 149.8 PANHANDLE W PANHANDLE 378,998 840 366,850 864 BRTSW_BCW1 JACK 120.0 NORTH N NORTH 269,997 639 252,413 641 BUCKTHRN_UNIT1 ERA TH 44.9 NORTH N NORTH 176,232 436 163,644 438 BUCKTHRN_UNIT2 ERA TH 55.7 NORTH N NORTH 227,253 589 212,035 591 BUFF_GAP_UNIT1 TAYLOR 120.6 WEST W WEST 382,435 863 349,135 863 BUFF_GAP_UNIT2 TAYLOR 232.5 WEST W WEST 672,496 1,485 614,722 1,477 BUFF_GAP_UNIT3 TAYLOR 170.2 WEST W WEST 509,087 1,168 463,118 1,160 BULLCRK_WND BORDEN 178.0 WEST W WEST 341,500 738 329,563 797 CABEZON_WIND1 STARR 115.2 SOUTH S SOUTH 291,294 928 245,198 1,011 CABEZON_WIND2 STARR 122.4 SOUTH S SOUTH 314,778 963 241,277 1,039 CALLAHAN_WND TAYLOR 114.0 WEST W WEST 456,834 1,125 426,492 1,129 CAMWIND_UNIT1 CAMERON 165.0 COASTAL S COASTAL 497,716 1,165 500,479 1,354 CAPRIDG4_CR4 STERLING 112.5 WEST W WEST 421,494 986 385,722 989 CAPRIDGE_CR STERLING 364.0 WEST W WEST 1,332,525 3,113 1,237,283 3,124 CAPRIDGE_CR3 STERLING 186.0 WEST W WEST 661,809 1,509 614,196 1,515 CEDROHIL_CHW WEBB 150.0 SOUTH S SOUTH 480,853 1,383 486,472 1,539 CFLA TS_U1 CONCHO 148.4 WEST W WEST 555,259 1,426 517,613 1,339 CHAMPION_UNIT1 SCURRY 126.5 WEST W WEST 388,358 937 364,565 939 CN_BRKS_UNIT_1 OLDHAM 210.1 PANHANDLE W PANHANDLE 946,232 2,524 327,872 2,484 COTPLNS_COTTONPL FLOY D 50.4 PA NHA NDLE W PA NHA NDLE 201,643 448 196,014 473 COTPLNS_OLDSETLR FLOYD 151.2 PANHANDLE W PANHANDLE 581,104 1,343 568,1061,426 COTTON_PAP2 SAN PATRICIO 200.1 COASTAL S COASTAL 547,584 1,323 556,980 1,600 CSEC_CSECG1 SCURRY 130.5 WEST W WEST 347,613 867 331,691 871 CSEC_CSECG2 SCURRY 120.0 WEST W WEST 315,150 773 301,197 776 DERMOTT_UNIT1 SCURRY 126.5 WEST W WEST 510,885 1,176 496,982 1,249 DERMOTT_UNIT2 SCURRY 126.5 WEST W WEST 505,414 1,176 488,518 1,249 DIGBY_UNIT1 WILBARGER 98.9 WEST W WEST 435,251 1,032 406,880 1,039 DIGBY_UNIT2 WILBARGER 131.1 WEST W WEST 562,963 1,336 520,069 1,330 ELB_ELBCREEK HOWARD 118.7 WEST W WEST 313,851 605 294,347 603 ENAS_ENA1 SCURRY 63.0 WEST W WEST 132,710 323 123,167 324 EXGNSND_WIND_1 JIM HOGG 76.0 SOUTH S SOUTH 306,781 875 303,128 954 EXGNWTL_WIND_1 WEBB 92.3 SOUTH S SOUTH 251,466 710 252,910 790 FERMI_WIND1 VAL VERDE 121.9 WEST S WEST 411,968 1,165 407,448 1,171 FERMI_WIND2 VAL VERDE 27.4 WEST S WEST 106,349 297 105,242 299 FLTCK_SSI ERATH 60.0 NORTH N NORTH 61,230 147 56,926 147 FLUVANNA_UNIT1 SCURRY 79.8 WEST W WEST 323,263 771 296,860 812 FLUVANNA_UNIT2 SCURRY 75.6 WEST W WEST 310,916 742 301,329 779 FTWIND_UNIT_1 MILLS 200.0 NORTH N NORTH 923,444 2,245 865,621 2,230 GOAT_GOATWIND STERLING 149.6 WEST W WEST 438,680 1,130 402,706 1,038 GPASTURE_WIND_I KNOX 150.0 WEST W WEST 584,448 1,422 544,603 1,427 GRANDVW1_COLA CARSON 100.2 PANHANDLE W PANHANDLE 458,019 1,205 425,182 1,106 GRANDVW1_COLB CARSON 100.2 PANHANDLE W PANHANDLE 450,462 1,193 418,274 1,094 GRANDVW1_GV1A CARSON 107.4 PANHANDLE W PANHANDLE 496,663 1,291 457,863 1,186 GRANDVW1_GV1B CARSON 103.8 PANHANDLE W PANHANDLE 476,105 1,259 436,447 1,161 GUNMTN_G1 HOWARD 119.9 WEST W WEST 482,791 1,188 508,863 1,268 GWEC_GWEC_G1 MILLS 148.6 NORTH N NORTH 585,954 1,332 544,631 1,322 H_HOLLOW_WND1 TAYLOR 206.6 WEST W WEST 784,976 1,809 733,698 1,815 HHOLLOW2_WIND1 TAYLOR 158.0 WEST W WEST 601,383 1,501 417,456 1,262 HHOLLOW3_WND_1 TAYLOR 223.5 WEST W WEST 762,328 1,780 708,708 1,784 HHOLLOW4_WND1 TAYLOR 115.0 WEST W WEST 461,436 1,058 430,215 1,061 HICKMAN_G1 REAGAN 152.5 WEST W WEST 656,483 1,749 678,228 1,845 HICKMAN_G2 REAGAN 147.5 WEST W WEST 630,428 1,676 650,124 1,771 HORSECRK_UNIT1 HASKELL 131.1 WEST W WEST 539,771 1,274 501,264 1,279 HORSECRK_UNIT2 HASKELL 98.9 WEST W WEST 406,747 956 377,477 960 HRFDWIND_JRDWIND1 CASTRO 146.2 PANHANDLE W PANHANDLE 531,666 1,322 488,552 1,203 HRFDWIND_JRDWIND2 CASTRO 153.6 PANHANDLE W PANHANDLE 552,163 1,389 506,491 1,264 HRFDWIND_WIND_G DEA F SMITH 99.9 PA NHA NDLE W PA NHA NDLE 363,166 917 334,000 833 HRFDWIND_WIND_V DEAF SMITH 100.0 PANHANDLE W PANHANDLE 451,122 1,185 416,190 1,080 HWF_HWFG1 SHACKELFORD 163.5 WEST W WEST 495,446 1,241 463,641 1,245 INDL_INADALE NOLAN 197.0 WEST W WEST 582,323 1,357 533,858 1,338 INDNENR_INDNENR PECOS 170.2 WEST W WEST 536,832 1,449 529,048 1,456 INDNNWP_INDNNWP PECOS 82.5 WEST W WEST 212,885 663 206,835 668 KEECHI_U1 JACK 110.0 NORTH N NORTH 468,070 1,097 437,591 1,101 KEO_KEO_SM1 PECOS 150.0 WEST W WEST 259,366 795 254,616 797 KEO_SHRBINO2 PECOS 145.0 WEST W WEST 131,173 365 128,307 366 KING_NE_KINGNE UPTON 79.3 WEST W WEST 137,715 404 134,500 415 KING_NW_KINGNW UPTON 79.3 WEST W WEST 152,875 458 148,010 456 KING_SE_KINGSE UPTON 40.3 WEST W WEST 68,244 198 65,742 204 KING_SW_KINGSW UPTON 79.3 WEST W WEST 161,751 485 156,179 483 LGD_LANGFORD TOM GREEN 155.0 WEST W WEST 421,585 1,012 400,383 968 LGW_UNIT1 COMA NCHE 103.8 NORTH N NORTH 366,933 794 342,069 796 LGW_UNIT2 COMA NCHE 106.3 NORTH N NORTH 360,412 780 334,790 782 LHORN_N_UNIT1 BRISCOE 100.0 PANHANDLE W PANHANDLE 380,747 830 367,825 882 LHORN_N_UNIT2 BRISCOE 100.0 PANHANDLE W PANHANDLE 396,639 905 383,835 959 LNCRK_G83 SHACKELFORD 200.0 WEST W WEST 563,314 1,230 514,037 1,234 LOCKETT_UNIT1 WILBARGER 183.7 WEST W WEST 790,515 1,657 393,213 1,585 LNCRK2_G87 SHACKELFORD 200.0 WEST W WEST 577,851 1,297 532,520 1,302 LONEWOLF_G1 MITCHELL 49.5 WEST W WEST 144,972 357 136,047 359 LONEWOLF_G2 MITCHELL 51.0 WEST W WEST 145,681 358 136,229 359 LONEWOLF_G3 MITCHELL 25.5 WEST W WEST 79,752 198 74,848 199 LONEWOLF_G4 MITCHELL 24.0 WEST W WEST 70,284 171 65,827 171

July 2020 Energy Systems Laboratory, The Texas A&M University System

Page 27

Table 3.1: Summary of Annual Power Production for All Wind Farms Operated for more than 5 months (Cont.)

Wind Power for 2008 Predicted Wind Power for 2019 Measured ERCOT Wind Final Wind Wind Unit Name County Capacity (MW) CM Zone Zone Zone Annual OSD Annual OSD (MWh/yr) (MWh/day) (MWh/yr) (MWh/day)

LV1_LV1A WILLACY 200.1 COASTAL S COASTAL 601,688 1,426 561,109 1,687 LV1_LV1B WILLACY 201.6 COASTAL S COASTAL 526,761 1,230 427,280 1,447 LV3_UNIT_1 STARR 200.0 SOUTH S SOUTH 641,139 1,858 646,585 2,103 LV4_UNIT_1 STARR 200.0 SOUTH S SOUTH 694,326 1,961 655,152 2,238 LV5_UNIT_1 STARR 110.0 SOUTH S SOUTH 372,887 1,046 379,135 1,187 MARIAH_NORTE1 PARMER 115.2 PANHANDLE W PANHANDLE 425,846 1,047 400,451 985 MARIAH_NORTE2 PARMER 115.2 PANHANDLE W PANHANDLE 427,714 1,068 401,017 1,001 MCDLD_FCW1 STERLING 124.2 WEST W WEST 370,725 879 335,979 882 MCDLD_SBW1 STERLING 90.0 WEST W WEST 230,480 521 215,516 523 MESQCRK_WND1 BORDEN 105.6 WEST W WEST 367,526 790 355,411 838 MESQCRK_WND2 BORDEN 105.6 WEST W WEST 348,814 724 336,775 771 MIAM1_G1 GRAY 144.3 PANHANDLE W PANHANDLE 614,119 1,598 570,058 1,457 MIAM1_G2 GRAY 144.3 PANHANDLE W PANHANDLE 592,148 1,572 546,780 1,434 MIDWIND_UNIT1 SAN PATRICIO 163.0 COASTAL S COASTAL 429,494 1,213 437,3981,438 MIRASOLE_MIR11 HIDALGO 52.0 SOUTH S SOUTH 175,542 480 177,370 549 MIRASOLE_MIR12 HIDALGO 98.0 SOUTH S SOUTH 338,307 912 342,901 1,046 MIRASOLE_MIR21 HIDALGO 100.0 SOUTH S SOUTH 327,003 863 331,710 994 MOZART_WIND_1 KENT 30.0 WEST W WEST 76,857 174 75,315 185 MWEC_G1 DICKENS 150.0 PANHANDLE W PANHANDLE 509,655 1,238 496,615 1,316 NBOHR_UNIT1 GLASSCOCK 196.6 WEST W WEST 801,206 1,954 753,649 1,962 NWF_NWF ECTOR 152.6 WEST W WEST 406,141 1,097 428,966 1,167 OVEJA_G1 IRION 150.0 WEST W WEST 587,937 1,399 339,226 1,323 OVEJA_G2 IRION 150.0 WEST W WEST 466,426 1,282 339,643 1,227 OWF_OWF HOWARD 58.8 WEST W WEST 105,720 242 99,824 242 PAP1_PAP1 SAN PATRICIO 179.9 COASTAL S COASTAL 513,335 1,274 518,656 1,512 PC_NORTH_PANTHER1 HOWARD 142.5 WEST W WEST 453,481 841 422,362 844 PC_SOUTH_PANTHER2 HOWARD 115.5 WEST W WEST 352,666 728 324,887 731 PC_SOUTH_PANTHER3 HOWARD 199.5 WEST W WEST 642,077 1,529 600,355 1,534 PENA_UNIT1 KENEDY 160.8 COASTAL S COASTAL 389,865 1,113 397,654 1,321 PENA_UNIT2 KENEDY 141.6 COASTAL S COASTAL 338,454 878 339,505 1,035 PENA3_UNIT3 KENEDY 100.8 COASTAL S COASTAL 219,797 634 223,861 758 PH1_UNIT1 CARSON 109.2 PANHANDLE W PANHANDLE 400,779 1,061 369,403 973 PH1_UNIT2 CARSON 109.2 PANHANDLE W PANHANDLE 389,910 1,005 360,261 923 PH2_UNIT1 CARSON 94.2 PANHANDLE W PANHANDLE 396,478 1,101 367,842 1,020 PH2_UNIT2 CARSON 96.6 PANHANDLE W PANHANDLE 410,235 1,142 380,294 1,056 PYR_PYRON SCURRY 249.0 WEST W WEST 794,568 1,879 732,584 1,883 RDCANYON_RDCNY1 BORDEN 84.0 WEST W WEST 360,152 891 340,100 894 REDFISH_MV1A WILLACY 99.8 COASTAL S COASTAL 320,048 763 321,849 877 REDFISH_MV1B WILLACY 103.5 COASTAL S COASTAL 329,083 780 331,390 902 ROUTE_66_WIND1 ARMSTRONG 150.0 PANHANDLE W PANHANDLE 616,519 1,664 587,200 1,584 RSNAKE_G1 GLASSCOCK 104.3 WEST W WEST 382,696 903 360,552 906 RSNAKE_G2 GLASSCOCK 103.0 WEST W WEST 378,165 866 357,338 869 RTS_U1 MCCULLOCH 160.0 SOUTH S SOUTH 634,996 1,633 591,956 1,529 SALTFORK_UNIT1 DONLEY 64.0 PANHANDLE W PANHANDLE 284,832 712 263,999 652 SALTFORK_UNIT2 DONLEY 110.0 PANHANDLE W PANHANDLE 496,351 1,250 458,191 1,139 SALVTION_UNIT1 HASKELL 125.0 WEST W WEST 522,531 1,235 478,911 1,240 SALVTION_UNIT2 HASKELL 125.0 WEST W WEST 517,715 1,223 470,581 1,227 SANROMAN_WIND_1 CAMERON 95.2 COASTAL S COASTAL 303,950 716 306,204 838 SA NTA CRU_UNIT1 NUECES 150.6 COASTAL S COASTAL 249,302 545 248,628 627 SA NTA CRU_UNIT2 NUECES 98.4 COA STA L S COA STA L 168,847 358 169,121 419 SENATEWD_UNIT1 JACK 150.0 NORTH N NORTH 545,934 1,229 505,944 1,234 SGMTN_SIGNALM HOWARD 34.3 WEST W WEST 69,628 161 65,107 162 SHAFFER_UNIT1 NUECES 226.0 COASTAL S COASTAL 575,191 1,317 375,677 1,518 SHANNONW_UNIT_1 CLAY 204.1 WEST W WEST 747,557 1,645 689,750 1,650 SPLAIN1_WIND1 FLOYD 102.0 PANHANDLE W PANHANDLE 410,430 894 399,750 948 SPLAIN1_WIND2 FLOYD 98.0 PANHANDLE W PANHANDLE 409,192 927 399,718 978 SPLAIN2_WIND21 FLOYD 148.5 PANHANDLE W PANHANDLE 556,208 1,228 540,691 1,308 SPLAIN2_WIND22 FLOYD 151.8 PANHANDLE W PANHANDLE 580,470 1,261 564,743 1,346 SRWE1_SRWE2 BORDEN 164.7 WEST W WEST 581,561 1,207 545,108 1,270 SRWE1_UNIT1 BORDEN 211.2 WEST W WEST 785,924 1,713 751,963 1,779 SSPURTWO_SS3WIND1 OLDHAM 96.0 PANHANDLE W PANHANDLE 425,726 1,187 394,375 1,097 SSPURTWO_SS3WIND2 OLDHAM 98.0 PANHANDLE W PANHANDLE 457,382 1,276 425,910 1,186 SSPURTWO_WIND_1 OLDHAM 161.0 PANHANDLE W PANHANDLE 628,317 1,701 579,7231,571 STELLA_UNIT1 KENEDY 201.0 COASTAL S COASTAL 645,381 1,702 648,936 1,971 STWF_T1 TAYLOR 98.2 WEST W WEST 316,655 758 294,209 761 SW_MESA_SW_MESA UPTON 80.3 WEST W WEST 53,822 91 36,704 91 S_HILLS_UNIT1 BAYLOR 30.0 WEST W WEST 145,345 366 89,448 366 SWEC_G1 MARTIN 120.0 WEST W WEST 273,503 611 289,907 659 SWEETWN2_WND2 NOLAN 98.8 WEST W WEST 416,957 1,041 327,475 989 SWEETWN2_WND24 NOLAN 17.0 WEST W WEST 55,463 126 50,639 126 SWEETWN3_WND3 NOLAN 151.0 WEST W WEST 446,642 1,061 415,598 1,065 SWEETWN4_WND4 NOLAN 237.0 WEST W WEST 710,811 1,584 654,509 1,588 SWEETWN4_WND5 NOLAN 85.0 WEST W WEST 232,820 562 217,823 564 SWEETWND_WND1 NOLAN 42.5 WEST W WEST 162,297 397 150,290 399 TAHOKA_UNIT_1 LYNN 150.0 WEST W WEST 600,798 1,302 567,764 1,370 TAHOKA_UNIT_2 LYNN 150.0 WEST W WEST 605,665 1,334 572,551 1,369 TGW_T1 KENEDY 141.6 COASTAL S COASTAL 311,598 920 319,601 1,093 TGW_T2 KENEDY 141.6 COASTAL S COASTAL 337,093 1,054 345,162 1,244 TKWSW1_ROSCOE SCURRY 209.0 WEST W WEST 577,738 1,337 536,315 1,337 TORR_UNIT1_25 WEBB 150.0 SOUTH S SOUTH 550,538 1,630 483,422 1,794 TORR_UNIT2_23 WEBB 23.0 SOUTH S SOUTH 79,785 224 69,795 251 TORR_UNIT2_25 WEBB 127.5 SOUTH S SOUTH 473,050 1,351 411,578 1,483 TRENT_TRENT NOLAN 150.0 WEST W WEST 617,474 1,544 579,972 1,549 TRINITY_TH1_BUS1 YOUNG 117.5 WEST W WEST 130,138 238 118,783 238 TRINITY_TH1_BUS2 YOUNG 107.5 WEST W WEST 138,264 239 127,695 240 TTWEC_G1 NOLAN 169.5 WEST W WEST 465,157 1,067 431,516 1,071 TYLRWIND_UNIT1 COOKE 125.6 NORTH N NORTH 452,728 1,025 409,633 1,011 VERTIGO_WIND_I KNOX 150.0 WEST W WEST 558,361 1,335 519,399 1,340 WAKEWE_G1 DICKENS 114.9 PANHANDLE W PANHANDLE 522,458 1,222 511,283 1,287 WAKEWE_G2 DICKENS 142.3 PANHANDLE W PANHANDLE 632,654 1,467 618,643 1,547 WEC_WECG1 FLOYD 57.0 PANHANDLE W PANHANDLE 188,784 478 175,852 502 WHTTAIL_WR1 COOKE 112.5 NORTH N NORTH 348,109 835 322,395 823 WL_RA NCH_UNIT1 SCHLEICHER 200.0 WEST W WEST 850,265 2,202 795,284 2,063 WNDTHST2_UNIT1 ARCHER 67.6 WEST W WEST 249,075 584 231,737 587 WOODWRD1_WOODWRD PECOS 159.7 WEST W WEST 299,914 842 294,123 849 TOTAL 24133.4 80,722,652 198,978 74,903,938 203,888

July 2020 Energy Systems Laboratory, The Texas A&M University System

Page 28

Table 3.2: Summary of 2008 and 2019 Monthly Average Wind Speed for Eight NOAA Weather Stations

Month Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual Average OSP Average

Wind Speed 2008 12.1 12.3 13.4 13.9 12.8 13.7 10.6 7.4 8.0 10.5 10.2 12.2 11.4 10.5 ABI (mph) 2019 10.9 11.1 11.4 12.7 11.8 10.3 10.0 10.3 10.3 11.4 10.3 9.2 10.7 10.5 Wind Speed 2008 14.8 13.0 15.0 16.2 15.5 16.1 12.9 10.5 11.0 12.3 12.6 13.8 13.7 13.2 AMA (mph) 2019 12.7 15.1 13.0 13.9 13.0 12.4 12.1 11.7 13.3 12.8 12.8 12.4 13.6 12.5 Wind Speed 2008 12.5 13.0 15.3 14.4 13.1 11.3 9.6 8.1 8.7 8.6 9.4 12.4 11.4 10.2 CRP (mph) 2019 11.5 11.4 13.0 13.6 14.6 10.5 10.6 10.3 9.8 11.5 10.6 9.6 11.5 10.4 Wind Speed 2008 11.7 12.4 14.4 13.7 11.9 13.9 10.0 7.9 7.5 9.5 10.5 12.8 11.3 10.2 DFW (mph) 2019 10.8 10.9 11.8 12.5 11.9 10.2 10.3 9.0 9.5 11.0 9.7 9.0 10.7 10.1 Wind Speed 2008 10.3 11.0 12.1 11.9 12.7 13.5 11.3 8.1 8.2 10.5 9.2 9.7 10.7 10.8 FST (mph) 2019 9.9 11.6 11.7 12.1 12.6 11.3 11.0 10.0 10.2 9.8 9.2 9.8 10.2 11.0 Wind Speed 2008 12.8 12.7 15.0 14.4 13.0 14.2 10.5 8.7 7.7 10.5 10.6 12.1 11.8 10.8 LBB (mph) 2019 12.0 12.9 12.2 13.4 13.1 12.4 10.4 10.3 10.6 11.1 11.0 10.3 12.1 11.3 Wind Speed 2008 9.3 10.8 12.4 12.0 12.8 13.9 11.2 8.1 6.7 9.1 8.3 10.0 10.4 10.5 MA F ( mph) 2019 10.3 11.8 11.7 12.0 12.6 11.8 10.1 10.1 10.9 11.3 9.9 9.2 11.1 11.1 Wind Speed 2008 9.0 10.6 11.5 11.0 10.3 11.9 8.6 6.3 5.3 7.8 8.2 10.5 9.2 8.5 SJT (mph) 2019 9.4 10.0 9.7 9.9 9.0 8.3 7.6 7.7 7.7 9.0 8.8 7.5 9.0 8.1

Figure 3-6: Comparison of Total 2019 Measured and 2008 Modeled Power Production

Figure 3-7: Comparison of Total 2019 OSP Measured and 2008 OSP Modeled Power Production

July 2020 Energy Systems Laboratory, The Texas A&M University System

Page 29

Wind Power Generation in Texas

1,600,000 2019 Measured MWh/yr (ERCOT Original Data) 2008 Modeled MWh/yr Using 2018 Daily Model 1,400,000

1,200,000

1,000,000

800,000 MWh/yr 600,000

400,000

200,000

0 FLTCK_SSI KEECHI_U1 CFLATS_U1 LNCRK_G83 LGW_UNIT1 LGW_UNIT2 ENAS_ENA1 LNCRK2_G87 GUNMTN_G1 HWF_HWFG1 HICKMAN_G1 HICKMAN_G2 DIGBY_UNIT1 DIGBY_UNIT2 ASTRA_UNIT1 BRTSW_BCW1 CSEC_CSECG1 CSEC_CSECG2 FERMI_WIND1 FERMI_WIND2 CAPRIDGE_CR COTTON_PAP2 BAFFIN_UNIT1 BAFFIN_UNIT2 KEO_KEO_SM1 LONEWOLF_G1 LONEWOLF_G2 LONEWOLF_G3 LONEWOLF_G4 CAPRIDG4_CR4 INDL_INADALE CAPRIDGE_CR3 KEO_SHRBINO2 BRISCOE_WIND ELB_ELBCREEK BULLCRK_WND BORDAS_ JAVEL FTWIND_UNIT_1 BBREEZE_UNIT1 BBREEZE_UNIT2 CEDROHIL_CHW LOCKETT_UNIT1 LGD_LANGFORD LHORN_N_UNIT1 LHORN_N_UNIT2 GWEC_GWEC_G1 DERMOTT_UNIT1 DERMOTT_UNIT2 KING_SE_KINGSE ANACACHO_ANA BUFF_GAP_UNIT1 BUFF_GAP_UNIT2 BUFF_GAP_UNIT3 CALLAHAN_WND CAMWIND_UNIT1 CN_BRKS_UNIT_1 BRAZ_WND_WND CABEZON_WIND1 CABEZON_WIND2 KING_NE_KINGNE HORSECRK_UNIT1 HORSECRK_UNIT2 CHAMPION_UNIT1 GOAT_GOATWIND GRANDVW1_GV1B BUCKTHRN_UNIT1 BUCKTHRN_UNIT2 FLUVANNA_UNIT1 FLUVANNA_UNIT2 GRANDVW1_COLB GRANDVW1_GV1A H_HOLLOW_WND1 HHOLLOW4_WND1 GRANDVW1_COLA KING_SW_KINGSW EXGNSND_WIND_1 EXGNWTL_WIND_1 GPASTUR E_W IND_I HHOLLOW2_WIND1 KING_NW_KINGNW HHOLLOW3_WND_1 INDNENR_INDNENR BCATWIND_WIND_1 BLSUMMIT_BLSMT1 BORDAS2_JAVEL2_B BORDAS2_JAVEL2_C HRFDWIND_WIND_G HRFDWIND_WIND_V BORDAS2_JAVEL2_A INDNNWP_INDNNWP COTPLNS_OLDSETLR BLSUMMIT_UNIT2_17 BLSUMMIT_UNIT2_25 COTPLNS_COTTONPL HRFDWIND_JRDWIND1 HRFDWIND_JRDWIND2

Wind Farms

Figure 3-8: Comparison of 2019 Measured and 2008 Modeled Wind Power Production for Each Wind Farm

Wind Power Generation in Texas

1,600,000 2019 Measured MWh/yr (ERCOT Original Data) 2008 Modeled MWh/yr Using 2018 Daily Model 1,400,000

1,200,000

1,000,000

800,000 MWh/yr 600,000

400,000

200,000

0 RTS_U1 TGW_T1 TGW_T2 STWF_T1 SWEC_G1 LV1_LV1B MW EC_G1 LV1_LV1A OVEJA_G1 OVEJA_G2 NWF_NWF OWF_OWF MIAM1_G1 MIAM1_G2 TTWEC_G1 PH1_UNIT1 PH1_UNIT2 PH2_UNIT1 PH2_UNIT2 PAP1_PAP1 RSNAKE_G1 RSNAKE_G2 LV3_UNIT_1 LV4_UNIT_1 LV5_UNIT_1 PYR_PYRON PENA_UNIT1 PENA_UNIT2 WEC_WECG1 WAKEWE_G1 WAKEWE_G2 PENA3_UNIT3 SRWE1_UNIT1 MC DLD_FCW1 MC DLD_SBW1 NBOHR_UNIT1 TRENT_TRENT SRWE1_SRWE2 STELLA_UNIT1 WHTTAIL_WR1 S_HILLS_UNIT1 REDFISH_ MV1B REDFISH_ MV1A TORR_UNIT1_25 TORR_UNIT2_23 TORR_UNIT2_25 SPLAIN1_WIND1 SPLAIN1_WIND2 SHAFFER_UNIT1 MIDWIND_UNIT1 TAHOKA_UNIT_1 TAHOKA_UNIT_2 SPLAIN2_WIND21 SPLAIN2_WIND22 MESQCRK_WND1 MESQCRK_WND2 SALVTION_UNIT1 SALVTION_UNIT2 MARIAH_NORTE1 MARIAH_NORTE2 VERTIGO_WIND_I MOZAR T_WIND_1 MIRASOLE_MIR11 MIRASOLE_MIR12 MIRASOLE_MIR21 SALTFORK_UNIT1 SALTFORK_UNIT2 ROUTE_66_WIND1 SGMTN_SIGNALM TYLRWIND_UNIT1 TKWSW1_ROSCOE WNDTHST2_UNIT1 SANTACRU_UNIT1 SANTACRU_UNIT2 SWEETWN2_WND2 SWEETWN3_WND3 SWEETWN4_WND4 SWEETWN4_WND5 SENATEWD_UNIT1 WL_RANCH_UNIT1 SWEETWND_WND1 TRINITY_TH1_BUS1 TRINITY_TH1_BUS2 SWEETWN2_WND24 SSPURTWO_WIND_1 SHANNONW_UNIT_1 SANROMAN_WIND_ 1 SW_MESA_SW_MESA RDCANYON_RDCNY1 SSPURTWO_SS3WIND1 SSPURTWO_SS3WIND2 PC_SOUTH_PANTHER2 PC_SOUTH_PANTHER3 PC_NORTH_PANTHER1 WOODWRD1_ WOODWRD

Wind Farms

Figure 3-8: Comparison of 2019 Measured and 2008 Modeled Wind Power Production for Each Wind Farm (Cont.)

July 2020 Energy Systems Laboratory, The Texas A&M University System

Page 30

Wind Power Generation in Ozone Season Period in Texas

4,000 2019 OSP Measured MWh/day (ERCOT Original Data) 2008 OSP Modeled MWh/day Using 2018 Daily Model 3,500

3,000

2,500

2,000 MWh/day

1,500

1,000

500

0 FLTCK_SSI KEECHI_U1 CFLATS_U1 LNCRK_G83 ENAS_ENA1 LGW_UNIT1 LGW_UNIT2 GUNMTN_G1 LNCRK2_G87 HWF_HWFG1 HICKMAN_G1 HICKMAN_G2 DIGBY_UNIT1 DIGBY_UNIT2 ASTRA_UNIT1 BRTSW_BCW1 CSEC_CSECG1 CSEC_CSECG2 FERMI_WIND1 FERMI_WIND2 CAPRIDGE_CR COTTON_PAP2 BAFFIN_UNIT1 BAFFIN_UNIT2 KEO_KEO_SM1 CAPRIDG4_CR4 LONEWOLF_G1 LONEWOLF_G2 LONEWOLF_G3 LONEWOLF_G4 INDL_INADALE CAPRIDGE_CR3 BRISCOE_WIND KEO_SHRBINO2 ELB_ELBCREEK BULLCRK_WND BORDAS_ JAVEL FTWIND_UNIT_1 BBREEZE_UNIT1 BBREEZE_UNIT2 CEDROHIL_CHW LOCKETT_UNIT1 LGD_LANGFORD LHORN_N_UNIT1 LHORN_N_UNIT2 GWEC_GWEC_G1 DERMOTT_UNIT1 DERMOTT_UNIT2 ANACACHO_ANA KING_SE_KINGSE CN_BRKS_UNIT_1 CALLAHAN_WND CAMWIND_UNIT1 BUFF_GAP_UNIT1 BUFF_GAP_UNIT2 BUFF_GAP_UNIT3 BRAZ_WND_WND CABEZON_WIND1 CABEZON_WIND2 KING_NE_KINGNE HORSECRK_UNIT1 HORSECRK_UNIT2 CHAMPION_UNIT1 GOAT_GOATWIND GRANDVW1_GV1B GRANDVW1_COLB GRANDVW1_GV1A FLUVANNA_UNIT1 FLUVANNA_UNIT2 BUCKTHRN_UNIT1 BUCKTHRN_UNIT2 GRANDVW1_COLA H_HOLLOW_WND1 HHOLLOW4_WND1 EXGNSND_WIND_1 KING_SW_KINGSW EXGNWTL_WIND_1 GPASTURE_WIND_I HHOLLOW2_WIND1 KING_NW_KINGNW HHOLLOW3_WND_1 INDNENR_INDNENR BCATWIND_WIND_1 BLSUMMIT_BLSMT1 BORDAS2_JAVEL2_B BORDAS2_JAVEL2_C HRFDWIND_WIND_G HRFDWIND_WIND_V BORDAS2_JAVEL2_A INDNNWP_INDNNWP COTPLNS_OLDSETLR COTPLNS_COTTONPL BLSUMMIT_UNIT2_17 BLSUMMIT_UNIT2_25 HRFDWIND_JRDWIND1 HRFDWIND_JRDWIND2

Wind Farms

Figure 3-9: Comparison of 2019 OSP Measured and 2008 OSP Modeled Wind Power Production for Each Wind Farm

Wind Power Generation in Ozone Season Period in Texas

4,000 2019 OSP Measured MWh/day (ERCOT Original Data) 2008 OSP Modeled MWh/day Using 2018 Daily Model 3,500

3,000

2,500

2,000 MWh/day

1,500

1,000

500

0 RTS_U1 TGW_T1 TGW_T2 STWF_T1 SWEC_G1 MW EC_G1 LV1_LV1B OVEJA_G1 OVEJA_G2 LV1_LV1A NWF_NWF OWF_OWF MIAM1_G1 MIAM1_G2 PH1_UNIT1 PH1_UNIT2 PH2_UNIT1 PH2_UNIT2 TTWEC_G1 PAP1_PAP1 RSNAKE_G1 RSNAKE_G2 LV3_UNIT_1 LV4_UNIT_1 LV5_UNIT_1 PYR_PYRON PENA_UNIT1 PENA_UNIT2 WEC_WECG1 WAKEWE_G1 WAKEWE_G2 PENA3_UNIT3 SRWE1_UNIT1 MC DLD_FCW1 MC DLD_SBW1 NBOHR_UNIT1 TRENT_TRENT SRWE1_SRWE2 STELLA_UNIT1 WHTTAIL_WR1 S_HILLS_UNIT1 REDFISH_ MV1B REDFISH_ MV1A TORR_UNIT1_25 TORR_UNIT2_23 TORR_UNIT2_25 SPLAIN1_WIND1 SPLAIN1_WIND2 SHAFFER_UNIT1 MIDWIND_UNIT1 TAHOKA_UNIT_1 TAHOKA_UNIT_2 SPLAIN2_WIND21 SPLAIN2_WIND22 MESQCRK_WND1 MESQCRK_WND2 SALVTION_UNIT1 SALVTION_UNIT2 MARIAH_NORTE1 MARIAH_NORTE2 MOZAR T_WIND_1 VERTIGO_WIND_I MIRASOLE_MIR11 MIRASOLE_MIR12 MIRASOLE_MIR21 ROUTE_66_WIND1 SALTFORK_UNIT1 SALTFORK_UNIT2 SGMTN_SIGNALM TYLRWIND_UNIT1 TKWSW1_ROSCOE WNDTHST2_UNIT1 SANTACRU_ UNIT1 SANTACRU_ UNIT2 SENATEWD_UNIT1 SWEETWN2_WND2 SWEETWN3_WND3 SWEETWN4_WND4 SWEETWN4_WND5 WL_RANCH_UNIT1 SWEETWND_WND1 TRINITY_TH1_BUS1 TRINITY_TH1_BUS2 SWEETWN2_WND24 SSPURTWO_WIND_1 SHANNONW_UNIT_1 SANROMAN_WIND_1 SW_MESA_SW_MESA RDCANYON_RDCNY1 PC_SOUTH_PANTHER2 PC_SOUTH_PANTHER3 SSPURTWO_SS3WIND1 SSPURTWO_SS3WIND2 PC_NORTH_PANTHER1 WOODWRD1_WOODWRD Wind Farms

Figure 3-9: Comparison of 2019 OSP Measured and 2008 OSP Modeled Wind Power Production for Each Wind Farm (Cont.)

July 2020 Energy Systems Laboratory, The Texas A&M University System

Page 31

3.3 Comparison of Measured Wind Power in Previous Reports and Present Report

Different from the previous annual reports, since 2012 the reports have used a 2008 base year instead of the 1999 base year. The daily model is used for predicting the annual and OSP wind power productions. Due to the different base year analysis, this section only compares the ERCOT measured annual and OSP wind power productions. Compared to what was reported in the previous year’s annual report, an increase of 8.4% on measured annual wind production was observed, from 69,083,377 MWh/yr in 2018 to 74,903,938 MWh/yr in 2019.

The average daily wind power production during the OSP showed an increase of 12.1%, from 181,854 MWh/day to 203,888 MWh/day.

Figure 3-10 shows the measured annual wind power comparison of 2008 through 2019 for all the wind farms. Figure 3-11 shows the wind power comparison of 2008 through 2019 during the ozone season. The annual wind power difference percentages are compared for 2008 through 2019, shown in Figure 3-12. It has been observed that most of the analyzed wind farms show differences in percentage between 2008 and 2019. This is due to the differences in wind speed values resulted in different power generation values. In addition, Figure 3-13 shows the difference comparison of 2008 through 2019 measured data during the ozone season.

July 2020 Energy Systems Laboratory, The Texas A&M University System

Page 32

Measured Annual Wind Power Comparison between 2008 and 2019

1,400,000 2008 Measured MWh/yr 2009 Measured MWh/yr 2010 Measured MWh/yr 2011 Measured MWh/yr 2012 Measured MWh/yr 2013 Measured MWh/yr 1,200,000 2014 Measured MWh/yr 2015 Measured MWh/yr 2016 Measured MWh/yr 2017 Measured MWh/yr 2018 Measured MWh/yr 2019 Measured MWh/yr

1,000,000

800,000

600,000 MWh/yr

400,000

200,000

0 FLTCK_SSI KEECHI_U1 CFLATS_U1 LNCRK_G83 ENAS_ENA1 LGW_UNIT1 LGW_UNIT2 GUNMTN_G1 LNCRK2_G87 HWF_HWFG1 HICKMAN_G1 HICKMAN_G2 DIGBY_UNIT1 DIGBY_UNIT2 ASTRA_UNIT1 CSEC_CSECG1 CSEC_CSECG2 BRTSW_BCW1 FERMI_WIND1 FERMI_WIND2 CAPRIDGE_CR COTTON_PAP2 BAFFIN_UNIT1 BAFFIN_UNIT2 KEO_KEO_SM1 LONEWOLF_G1 LONEWOLF_G2 LONEWOLF_G3 LONEWOLF_G4 CAPRIDG4_CR4 CAPRIDGE_CR3 INDL_INADALE BRISCOE_WIND KEO_SHRBINO2 BULLCRK_WND ELB_ELBCREEK BORDAS_JAVEL FTWIND_UNIT_1 BBREEZE_UNIT1 BBREEZE_UNIT2 CEDROHIL_CHW LOCKETT_UNIT1 LGD_LANGFORD LHORN_N_UNIT1 LHORN_N_UNIT2 GWEC_GWEC_G1 DERMOTT_UNIT1 DERMOTT_UNIT2 ANACACHO_ANA KING_SE_KINGSE CN_BRKS_UNIT_1 BUFF_GAP_UNIT1 BUFF_GAP_UNIT2 BUFF_GAP_UNIT3 CALLAHAN_WND CAMWIND_UNIT1 CABEZON_WIND1 CABEZON_WIND2 BRAZ_WND_WND KING_NE_KINGNE CHAMPION_UNIT1 HORSECRK_UNIT1 HORSECRK_UNIT2 GOAT_GOATWIND GRANDVW1_GV1B BUCKTHRN_UNIT1 BUCKTHRN_UNIT2 FLUVANNA_UNIT1 FLUVANNA_UNIT2 GRANDVW1_COLB GRANDVW1_GV1A GRANDVW1_COLA H_HOLLOW_WND1 HHOLLOW4_WND1 EXGNSND_WIND_1 KING_SW_KINGSW EXGNWTL_WIND_1 GPASTURE_WIND_I HHOLLOW2_WIND1 KING_NW_KINGNW HHOLLOW3_WND_1 INDNENR_INDNENR BCATWIND_WIND_1 BLSUMMIT_BLSMT1 BORDAS2_JAVEL2_B BORDAS2_JAVEL2_C BORDAS2_JAVEL2_A HRFDWIND_WIND_G HRFDWIND_WIND_V INDNNWP_INDNNWP COTPLNS_OLDSETLR COTPLNS_COTTONPL BLSUMMIT_UNIT2_17 BLSUMMIT_UNIT2_25

Wind Farms HRFDWIND_JRDWIND1 HRFDWIND_JRDWIND2

Figure 3-10: Measured Annual Wind Power Comparison between 2008 and 2019

Measured Annual Wind Power Comparison between 2008 and 2019

1,000,000

800,000

600,000 MWh/yr

400,000

200,000

0 RTS_U1 TGW_T1 TGW_T2 STWF_T1 SWEC_G1 LV1_LV1B MWEC_G1 LV1_LV1A OVEJA_G1 OVEJA_G2 NWF_NWF OWF_OWF MIAM1_G1 MIAM1_G2 TTWEC_G1 PH1_UNIT1 PH1_UNIT2 PH2_UNIT1 PH2_UNIT2 PAP1_PAP1 LV3_UNIT_1 LV4_UNIT_1 LV5_UNIT_1 RSNAKE_G1 RSNAKE_G2 PYR_PYRON PENA_UNIT1 PENA_UNIT2 WEC_WECG1 WAKEWE_G1 WAKEWE_G2 PENA3_UNIT3 SRWE1_UNIT1 MCDLD_FCW1 MCDLD_SBW1 NBOHR_UNIT1 TRENT_TRENT SRWE1_SRWE2 STELLA_UNIT1 WHTTAIL_WR1 S_HILLS_UNIT1 REDFISH_MV1B REDFISH_MV1A TORR_UNIT1_25 TORR_UNIT2_23 TORR_UNIT2_25 SPLAIN1_WIND1 SPLAIN1_WIND2 SHAFFER_UNIT1 MIDWIND_UNIT1 TAHOKA_UNIT_1 TAHOKA_UNIT_2 MESQCRK_WND1 MESQCRK_WND2 SPLAIN2_WIND21 SPLAIN2_WIND22 MARIAH_NORTE1 MARIAH_NORTE2 SALVTION_UNIT1 SALVTION_UNIT2 VERTIGO_WIND_I MOZART_WIND_1 MIRASOLE_MIR11 MIRASOLE_MIR12 MIRASOLE_MIR21 SALTFORK_UNIT1 SALTFORK_UNIT2 ROUTE_66_WIND1 SGMTN_SIGNALM TKWSW1_ROSCOE TYLRWIND_UNIT1 SANTACRU_UNIT1 SANTACRU_UNIT2 WNDTHST2_UNIT1 SWEETWN2_WND2 SWEETWN3_WND3 SWEETWN4_WND4 SWEETWN4_WND5 SENATEWD_UNIT1 WL_RANCH_UNIT1 SWEETWND_WND1 TRINITY_TH1_BUS1 TRINITY_TH1_BUS2 SWEETWN2_WND24 SSPURTWO_WIND_1 SHANNONW_UNIT_1 SANROMAN_WIND_1 SW_MESA_SW_MESA RDCANYON_RDCNY1 SSPURTWO_SS3WIND1 SSPURTWO_SS3WIND2 PC_SOUTH_PANTHER2 PC_SOUTH_PANTHER3 PC_NORTH_PANTHER1 Wind Farms WOODWRD1_WOODWRD Figure 3-10: Measured Annual Wind Power Comparison between 2008 and 2019 (Cont.)

July 2020 Energy Systems Laboratory, The Texas A&M University System

Page 33

Measured OSP Wind Power Comparison between 2008 and 2019

4,000 2008 Measured MWh/day 2009 Measured MWh/day 2010 Measured MWh/day 2011 Measured MWh/day 2012 Measured MWh/day 2013 Measured MWh/day 3,500 2014 Measured MWh/day 2015 Measured MWh/day 2016 Measured MWh/day 2017 Measured MWh/day 2018 Measured MWh/day 2019 Measured MWh/day

3,000

2,500

2,000

1,500 MWh/day 1,000

500

0 FLTCK_SSI KEECHI_U1 CFLATS_U1 LNCRK_G83 LGW_UNIT1 LGW_UNIT2 ENAS_ENA1 GUNMTN_G1 LNCRK2_G87 HWF_HWFG1 HICKMAN_G1 HICKMAN_G2 DIGBY_UNIT1 DIGBY_UNIT2 ASTRA_UNIT1 CSEC_CSECG1 CSEC_CSECG2 BRTSW_BCW1 FERMI_WIND1 FERMI_WIND2 CAPRIDGE_CR COTTON_PAP2 BAFFIN_UNIT1 BAFFIN_UNIT2 KEO_KEO_SM1 LONEWOLF_G1 LONEWOLF_G2 LONEWOLF_G3 LONEWOLF_G4 CAPRIDG4_CR4 INDL_INADALE CAPRIDGE_CR3 KEO_SHRBINO2 BRISCOE_WIND ELB_ELBCREEK BULLCRK_WND BORDAS_JAVEL FTWIND_UNIT_1 BBREEZE_UNIT1 BBREEZE_UNIT2 CEDROHIL_CHW LOCKETT_UNIT1 LGD_LANGFORD LHORN_N_UNIT1 LHORN_N_UNIT2 GWEC_GWEC_G1 DERMOTT_UNIT1 DERMOTT_UNIT2 ANACACHO_ANA KING_SE_KINGSE CN_BRKS_UNIT_1 BUFF_GAP_UNIT1 BUFF_GAP_UNIT2 BUFF_GAP_UNIT3 CALLAHAN_WND CAMWIND_UNIT1 BRAZ_WND_WND CABEZON_WIND1 CABEZON_WIND2 KING_NE_KINGNE HORSECRK_UNIT1 HORSECRK_UNIT2 CHAMPION_UNIT1 GOAT_GOATWIND GRANDVW1_GV1B GRANDVW1_GV1A FLUVANNA_UNIT1 FLUVANNA_UNIT2 GRANDVW1_COLB BUCKTHRN_UNIT1 BUCKTHRN_UNIT2 H_HOLLOW_WND1 HHOLLOW4_WND1 GRANDVW1_COLA KING_SW_KINGSW EXGNSND_WIND_1 EXGNWTL_WIND_1 GPASTURE_WIND_I HHOLLOW2_WIND1 KING_NW_KINGNW HHOLLOW3_WND_1 INDNENR_INDNENR BCATWIND_WIND_1 BLSUMMIT_BLSMT1 BORDAS2_JAVEL2_B BORDAS2_JAVEL2_C HRFDWIND_WIND_G HRFDWIND_WIND_V BORDAS2_JAVEL2_A INDNNWP_INDNNWP COTPLNS_OLDSETLR BLSUMMIT_UNIT2_17 BLSUMMIT_UNIT2_25 COTPLNS_COTTONPL Wind Farms HRFDWIND_JRDWIND1 HRFDWIND_JRDWIND2 Figure 3-11: Measured OSP Wind Power Comparison between 2008 and 2019

Measured OSP Wind Power Comparison between 2008 and 2019 4,000 2008 Measured MWh/day 2009 Measured MWh/day 2010 Measured MWh/day 2011 Measured MWh/day 2012 Measured MWh/day 2013 Measured MWh/day 3,500 2014 Measured MWh/day 2015 Measured MWh/day 2016 Measured MWh/day 2017 Measured MWh/day 2018 Measured MWh/day 2019 Measured MWh/day

3,000

2,500

2,000

1,500 MWh/day 1,000

500

0 RTS_U1 TGW_T1 TGW_T2 STWF_T1 SWEC_G1 LV1_LV1B MWEC_G1 LV1_LV1A OVEJA_G1 OVEJA_G2 NWF_NWF OWF_OWF MIAM1_G1 MIAM1_G2 TTWEC_G1 PH1_UNIT1 PH1_UNIT2 PH2_UNIT1 PH2_UNIT2 PAP1_PAP1 LV3_UNIT_1 LV4_UNIT_1 LV5_UNIT_1 RSNAKE_G1 RSNAKE_G2 PYR_PYRON PENA_UNIT1 PENA_UNIT2 WEC_WECG1 WAKEWE_G1 WAKEWE_G2 PENA3_UNIT3 SRWE1_UNIT1 MCDLD_FCW1 MCDLD_SBW1 NBOHR_UNIT1 TRENT_TRENT SRWE1_SRWE2 STELLA_UNIT1 WHTTAIL_WR1 S_HILLS_UNIT1 REDFISH_MV1B REDFISH_MV1A TORR_UNIT1_25 TORR_UNIT2_23 TORR_UNIT2_25 SPLAIN1_WIND1 SPLAIN1_WIND2 SHAFFER_UNIT1 MIDWIND_UNIT1 TAHOKA_UNIT_1 TAHOKA_UNIT_2 SPLAIN2_WIND21 SPLAIN2_WIND22 MESQCRK_WND1 MESQCRK_WND2 MARIAH_NORTE1 MARIAH_NORTE2 SALVTION_UNIT1 SALVTION_UNIT2 MOZART_WIND_1 VERTIGO_WIND_I MIRASOLE_MIR11 MIRASOLE_MIR12 MIRASOLE_MIR21 ROUTE_66_WIND1 SALTFORK_UNIT1 SALTFORK_UNIT2 SGMTN_SIGNALM TYLRWIND_UNIT1 TKWSW1_ROSCOE WNDTHST2_UNIT1 SANTACRU_UNIT1 SANTACRU_UNIT2 SENATEWD_UNIT1 SWEETWN2_WND2 SWEETWN3_WND3 SWEETWN4_WND4 SWEETWN4_WND5 WL_RANCH_UNIT1 SWEETWND_WND1 TRINITY_TH1_BUS1 TRINITY_TH1_BUS2 SWEETWN2_WND24 SSPURTWO_WIND_1 SHANNONW_UNIT_1 SANROMAN_WIND_1 SW_MESA_SW_MESA RDCANYON_RDCNY1 SSPURTWO_SS3WIND1 SSPURTWO_SS3WIND2 PC_SOUTH_PANTHER2 PC_SOUTH_PANTHER3 PC_NORTH_PANTHER1 Wind Farms WOODWRD1_WOODWRD Figure 3-11: Measured OSP Wind Power Comparison between 2008 and 2019 (Cont.)

July 2020 Energy Systems Laboratory, The Texas A&M University System

Page 34

Difference Comparison between 2008 and 2019 - Measured Annual Wind Power 350% Diff.- 2009 Measured v.s. 2008 Measured Diff.- 2010 Measured v.s. 2009 Measured Diff.- 2011 Measured v.s. 2010 Measured Diff.- 2012 Measured v.s. 2011 Measured Diff.- 2013 Measured v.s. 2012 Measured Diff.- 2014 Measured v.s. 2013 Measured 300% Diff.- 2015 Measured v.s. 2014 Measured Diff.- 2016 Measured v.s. 2015 Measured Diff.- 2017 Measured v.s. 2016 Measured Diff.- 2018 Measured v.s. 2017 Measured Diff.- 2019 Measured v.s. 2018 Measured 250% 200% 150% 100% 50% Diff. 0% -50% -100% FLTCK_SSI KEECHI_U1 CFLATS_U1 LNCRK_G83 ENAS_ENA1 LGW_UNIT1 LGW_UNIT2 GUNMTN_G1 LNCRK2_G87 HWF_HWFG1 HICKMAN_G1 HICKMAN_G2 DIGBY_UNIT1 DIGBY_UNIT2 ASTRA_UNIT1 BRTSW_BCW1 CSEC_CSECG1 CSEC_CSECG2 FERMI_WIND1 FERMI_WIND2 CAPRIDGE_CR COTTON_PAP2 BAFFIN_UNIT1 BAFFIN_UNIT2 KEO_KEO_SM1 CAPRIDG4_CR4 LONEWOLF_G1 LONEWOLF_G2 LONEWOLF_G3 LONEWOLF_G4 CAPRIDGE_CR3 INDL_INADALE BRISCOE_WIND KEO_SHRBINO2 BULLCRK_WND ELB_ELBCREEK BORDAS_JAVEL FTWIND_UNIT_1 BBREEZE_UNIT1 BBREEZE_UNIT2 CEDROHIL_CHW LOCKETT_UNIT1 LGD_LANGFORD LHORN_N_UNIT1 LHORN_N_UNIT2 GWEC_GWEC_G1 DERMOTT_UNIT1 DERMOTT_UNIT2 ANACACHO_ANA KING_SE_KINGSE BUFF_GAP_UNIT1 BUFF_GAP_UNIT2 BUFF_GAP_UNIT3 CALLAHAN_WND CAMWIND_UNIT1 CN_BRKS_UNIT_1 BRAZ_WND_WND CABEZON_WIND1 CABEZON_WIND2 KING_NE_KINGNE CHAMPION_UNIT1 HORSECRK_UNIT1 HORSECRK_UNIT2 GOAT_GOATWIND GRANDVW1_GV1B BUCKTHRN_UNIT1 BUCKTHRN_UNIT2 FLUVANNA_UNIT1 FLUVANNA_UNIT2 GRANDVW1_COLB GRANDVW1_GV1A GRANDVW1_COLA H_HOLLOW_WND1 HHOLLOW4_WND1 EXGNSND_WIND_1 KING_SW_KINGSW EXGNWTL_WIND_1 GPASTURE_WIND_I HHOLLOW2_WIND1 KING_NW_KINGNW HHOLLOW3_WND_1 INDNENR_INDNENR BCATWIND_WIND_1 BLSUMMIT_BLSMT1 BORDAS2_JAVEL2_B BORDAS2_JAVEL2_C BORDAS2_JAVEL2_A HRFDWIND_WIND_G HRFDWIND_WIND_V INDNNWP_INDNNWP COTPLNS_OLDSETLR COTPLNS_COTTONPL BLSUMMIT_UNIT2_17 BLSUMMIT_UNIT2_25 HRFDWIND_JRDWIND1 HRFDWIND_JRDWIND2

Wind Farms

Figure 3-12: Difference Comparison between 2008 and 2019 - Measured Annual Wind Power

Difference Comparison between 2008 and 2019 - Measured Annual Wind Power

350% Diff.- 2009 Measured v.s. 2008 Measured Diff.- 2010 Measured v.s. 2009 Measured Diff.- 2011 Measured v.s. 2010 Measured Diff.- 2012 Measured v.s. 2011 Measured Diff.- 2013 Measured v.s. 2012 Measured Diff.- 2014 Measured v.s. 2013 Measured 300% Diff.- 2015 Measured v.s. 2014 Measured Diff.- 2016 Measured v.s. 2015 Measured Diff.- 2017 Measured v.s. 2016 Measured Diff.- 2018 Measured v.s. 2017 Measured Diff.- 2019 Measured v.s. 2018 Measured 250% 200% 150% 100% 50%

Diff. 0% -50% -100% -150% RTS_U1 TGW_T1 TGW_T2 STWF_T1 SWEC_G1 MWEC_G1 LV1_LV1B OVEJA_G1 OVEJA_G2 LV1_LV1A NWF_NWF OWF_OWF MIAM1_G1 MIAM1_G2 TTWEC_G1 PAP1_PAP1 PH1_UNIT1 PH1_UNIT2 PH2_UNIT1 PH2_UNIT2 RSNAKE_G1 RSNAKE_G2 LV3_UNIT_1 LV4_UNIT_1 LV5_UNIT_1 PYR_PYRON PENA_UNIT1 PENA_UNIT2 WEC_WECG1 WAKEWE_G1 WAKEWE_G2 PENA3_UNIT3 SRWE1_UNIT1 MCDLD_FCW1 MCDLD_SBW1 NBOHR_UNIT1 TRENT_TRENT SRWE1_SRWE2 STELLA_UNIT1 WHTTAIL_WR1 S_HILLS_UNIT1 REDFISH_MV1B REDFISH_MV1A TORR_UNIT1_25 TORR_UNIT2_23 TORR_UNIT2_25 SPLAIN1_WIND1 SPLAIN1_WIND2 SHAFFER_UNIT1 MIDWIND_UNIT1 TAHOKA_UNIT_1 TAHOKA_UNIT_2 MESQCRK_WND1 MESQCRK_WND2 SPLAIN2_WIND21 SPLAIN2_WIND22 SALVTION_UNIT1 SALVTION_UNIT2 MARIAH_NORTE1 MARIAH_NORTE2 VERTIGO_WIND_I MOZART_WIND_1 MIRASOLE_MIR11 MIRASOLE_MIR12 MIRASOLE_MIR21 ROUTE_66_WIND1 SALTFORK_UNIT1 SALTFORK_UNIT2 SGMTN_SIGNALM TYLRWIND_UNIT1 TKWSW1_ROSCOE WNDTHST2_UNIT1 SANTACRU_UNIT1 SANTACRU_UNIT2 SENATEWD_UNIT1 SWEETWN2_WND2 SWEETWN3_WND3 SWEETWN4_WND4 SWEETWN4_WND5 WL_RANCH_UNIT1 SWEETWND_WND1 TRINITY_TH1_BUS1 TRINITY_TH1_BUS2 SWEETWN2_WND24 SSPURTWO_WIND_1 SHANNONW_UNIT_1 SANROMAN_WIND_1 SW_MESA_SW_MESA RDCANYON_RDCNY1 PC_SOUTH_PANTHER2 PC_SOUTH_PANTHER3 SSPURTWO_SS3WIND1 SSPURTWO_SS3WIND2 PC_NORTH_PANTHER1 WOODWRD1_WOODWRD

Wind Farms

Figure 3-12: Difference Comparison between 2008 and 2019 - Measured Annual Wind Power (Cont.)

July 2020 Energy Systems Laboratory, The Texas A&M University System

Page 35

Difference Comparison between 2008 and 2019 - Measured OSP Wind Power 350% Diff.- 2009 Measured v.s. 2008 Measured Diff.- 2010 Measured v.s. 2009 Measured Diff.- 2011 Measured v.s. 2010 Measured Diff.- 2012 Measured v.s. 2011 Measured Diff.- 2013 Measured v.s. 2012 Measured Diff.- 2014 Measured v.s. 2013 Measured 300% Diff.- 2015 Measured v.s. 2014 Measured Diff.- 2016 Measured v.s. 2015 Measured Diff.- 2017 Measured v.s. 2016 Measured Diff.- 2018 Measured v.s. 2017 Measured Diff.- 2019 Measured v.s. 2018 Measured 250% 200% 150% 100% 50% Diff. 0% -50% -100% LV1_LV1A FLTCK_SSI KEECHI_U1 CFLATS_U1 LNCRK_G83 ENAS_ENA1 LGW_UNIT1 LGW_UNIT2 GUNMTN_G1 LNCRK2_G87 HWF_HWFG1 HICKMAN_G1 HICKMAN_G2 DIGBY_UNIT1 DIGBY_UNIT2 ASTRA_UNIT1 CSEC_CSECG1 CSEC_CSECG2 BRTSW_BCW1 FERMI_WIND1 FERMI_WIND2 CAPRIDGE_CR COTTON_PAP2 BAFFIN_UNIT1 BAFFIN_UNIT2 KEO_KEO_SM1 LONEWOLF_G1 LONEWOLF_G2 LONEWOLF_G3 LONEWOLF_G4 CAPRIDG4_CR4 INDL_INADALE CAPRIDGE_CR3 KEO_SHRBINO2 BRISCOE_WIND ELB_ELBCREEK BULLCRK_WND BORDAS_JAVEL FTWIND_UNIT_1 BBREEZE_UNIT1 BBREEZE_UNIT2 CEDROHIL_CHW LOCKETT_UNIT1 LGD_LANGFORD LHORN_N_UNIT1 LHORN_N_UNIT2 GWEC_GWEC_G1 DERMOTT_UNIT1 DERMOTT_UNIT2 KING_SE_KINGSE ANACACHO_ANA CAMWIND_UNIT1 CN_BRKS_UNIT_1 BUFF_GAP_UNIT1 BUFF_GAP_UNIT2 BUFF_GAP_UNIT3 CALLAHAN_WND CABEZON_WIND1 CABEZON_WIND2 BRAZ_WND_WND KING_NE_KINGNE HORSECRK_UNIT1 HORSECRK_UNIT2 CHAMPION_UNIT1 GOAT_GOATWIND GRANDVW1_GV1B GRANDVW1_COLB GRANDVW1_GV1A FLUVANNA_UNIT1 FLUVANNA_UNIT2 BUCKTHRN_UNIT1 BUCKTHRN_UNIT2 GRANDVW1_COLA H_HOLLOW_WND1 HHOLLOW4_WND1 EXGNSND_WIND_1 KING_SW_KINGSW EXGNWTL_WIND_1 GPASTURE_WIND_I HHOLLOW2_WIND1 KING_NW_KINGNW HHOLLOW3_WND_1 INDNENR_INDNENR BCATWIND_WIND_1 BLSUMMIT_BLSMT1 BORDAS2_JAVEL2_B BORDAS2_JAVEL2_C HRFDWIND_WIND_G HRFDWIND_WIND_V BORDAS2_JAVEL2_A INDNNWP_INDNNWP COTPLNS_OLDSETLR BLSUMMIT_UNIT2_17 BLSUMMIT_UNIT2_25 COTPLNS_COTTONPL HRFDWIND_JRDWIND1 HRFDWIND_JRDWIND2

Wind Farms

Figure 3-13: Difference Comparison between 2008 and 2019 - Measured OSP Wind Power

Diff. 0% -50% -100% -150% RTS_U1 TGW_T1 TGW_T2 STWF_T1 SWEC_G1 LV1_LV1B MWEC_G1 LV1_LV1A OVEJA_G1 OVEJA_G2 NWF_NWF OWF_OWF MIAM1_G1 MIAM1_G2 TTWEC_G1 PAP1_PAP1 PH1_UNIT1 PH1_UNIT2 PH2_UNIT1 PH2_UNIT2 LV3_UNIT_1 LV4_UNIT_1 LV5_UNIT_1 RSNAKE_G1 RSNAKE_G2 PYR_PYRON PENA_UNIT1 PENA_UNIT2 WEC_WECG1 WAKEWE_G1 WAKEWE_G2 PENA3_UNIT3 SRWE1_UNIT1 MCDLD_FCW1 MCDLD_SBW1 NBOHR_UNIT1 TRENT_TRENT SRWE1_SRWE2 STELLA_UNIT1 WHTTAIL_WR1 S_HILLS_UNIT1 REDFISH_MV1B REDFISH_MV1A TORR_UNIT1_25 TORR_UNIT2_23 TORR_UNIT2_25 SPLAIN1_WIND1 SPLAIN1_WIND2 SHAFFER_UNIT1 MIDWIND_UNIT1 TAHOKA_UNIT_1 TAHOKA_UNIT_2 MESQCRK_WND1 MESQCRK_WND2 SPLAIN2_WIND21 SPLAIN2_WIND22 MARIAH_NORTE1 MARIAH_NORTE2 SALVTION_UNIT1 SALVTION_UNIT2 VERTIGO_WIND_I MOZART_WIND_1 MIRASOLE_MIR11 MIRASOLE_MIR12 MIRASOLE_MIR21 ROUTE_66_WIND1 SALTFORK_UNIT1 SALTFORK_UNIT2 SGMTN_SIGNALM TKWSW1_ROSCOE TYLRWIND_UNIT1 WNDTHST2_UNIT1 SANTACRU_UNIT1 SANTACRU_UNIT2 SWEETWN2_WND2 SWEETWN3_WND3 SWEETWN4_WND4 SWEETWN4_WND5 SENATEWD_UNIT1 WL_RANCH_UNIT1 SWEETWND_WND1 TRINITY_TH1_BUS1 TRINITY_TH1_BUS2 SWEETWN2_WND24 SSPURTWO_WIND_1 SHANNONW_UNIT_1 SANROMAN_WIND_1 SW_MESA_SW_MESA RDCANYON_RDCNY1 SSPURTWO_SS3WIND1 SSPURTWO_SS3WIND2 PC_SOUTH_PANTHER2 PC_SOUTH_PANTHER3 PC_NORTH_PANTHER1 WOODWRD1_WOODWRD Wind Farms

Figure 3-13: Difference Comparison between 2008 and 2019 - Measured OSP Wind Power (Cont.)

July 2020 Energy Systems Laboratory, The Texas A&M University System

Page 36

3.4 Uncertainty Analysis on the 2019 Daily Regression Models

One of the advantages of using regression models is that it allows for an uncertainty analysis to be calculated, which can be used to assess the accuracy of the model. This section of the report presents an updated uncertainty analysis for the daily regressions that were applied to the 2019 data.

Assuming that the daily energy production of wind farm data can be related linearly with the daily average wind speed (see Figure 3-14) and expressed as

ˆ Ei  co  c1Vi (1)

where V is the daily average wind speed, Eˆ is the daily total energy production, and co and c1 are the resultant coefficients of linear regression. The subscript i represents any day over the modeling period.

2019 Wind Power Generation vs. NOAA-ABI Wind 2019 Wind Power Generation vs. NOAA-ABI Wind Speed (CALLAHAN_WND 114MW) (Non-OSP Model) Speed (CALLAHAN_WND 114MW) (OSP Model)

4000 4000

Measured Data Measured Data in O SP 3500 3500 Daily Regression Model Daily Regression Model 3000 3000

2500 2500

2000 2000

1500 1500

1000 1000

Wind Power Generation (MWH/day) Generation Power Wind 500 500 Wind Power Generation (MWh/day) Generation Power Wind

0 0 0 1020304050 0 1020304050 NOAA Wind Speed (MPH) - ABI NOAA Wind Speed (MPH) - ABI

Figure 3-14: Linear Model Presentation of the Daily Wind Power Generation on the Year 2019 for Callahan Wind Farm

The primary purpose of modeling in this analysis is to back-cast the wind power production or predict the power production in another year that would have occurred if the turbines had been installed and operating. This allows for the evaluation of the NOx reductions during the base-year weather conditions. Unfortunately, any prediction intrinsically contains uncertainty, which is related to the prediction variance. 2 ˆ Thus, the prediction uncertainty,  Epred, j , assuming no autocorrelation effects in the data used to generate the linear model, can be presented for a particular observation, j, during any time a particular condition is presented as follows:

  2  1 V V  2 ˆ ˆ j n  E pred , j  MSE Ei  1  n  (2) n 2  V V    i n   i1 

ˆ The mean square error, MSEEi , during the period of the development of the linear model can be computed by:

July 2020 Energy Systems Laboratory, The Texas A&M University System

Page 37

n ˆ  1  ˆ 2 MSEEi   Ei  Ei (3) n  (k 1) i1

Where n is the number of days in the period used for the developed model, k is the number of regressor variables in the linear model and Vn is the mean value of the velocity on the modeling period.

The last term in the brackets of equation 2 accounts for the increase in the variance of the energy prediction for any particular observation, j, which is different from the centroid of the modeling data. On the other hand, the second term accounts for the variance in predicting the mean energy predicted for the observation, j.

The total uncertainty for a period of interest, of m days, is then the sum of all the wind energy predicted ˆ Epred, j in each individual observation.

Assuming that m  m   2 Eˆ   2  Eˆ    2 Eˆ  pred , j   pred , j  pred ,total  (4) j1  j1 

And the total prediction variance or uncertainty is obtained through m  2   Vj Vn  2 ˆ ˆ  1 j1   Epred,total  MSE Ei m 1  n (5)  n 2  m V V  i n   i1 

Thus, it is observable that the last equation is affected by the number of days that the wind energy will be predicted, the number of days used for the modeling development and the uncertainty due to the distances between the data predicted and the centroid of the modeling data. Therefore, increasing n and m yields an effective relative decrease in the uncertainty, which is expected.

Table 3.3 presents all the statistical parameters for the daily linear models of all the wind farms in the ERCOT region.

Table 3.4 and Figure 3-15 show the uncertainty of applying the linear models to predict the energy generation that they would have had in the 2008 Non-OSP using the N-OSP model, which considers the period of Jan 1 through April 30 and October 1 through December 31. The uncertainty of using Non-OSP models for predicting wind power in the 2008 N-OSP varies from 3.13% to 10.37%. The maximum uncertainty comes from a wind farm named OVEJA_G2. One reason for this may be the meter problems suspected when measuring the ERCOT data since the data include "0" generation values regardless of the wind speed. Also, wind speed can change significantly due to elevation, windmills distances, etc. In the current modeling, the average wind speed of NOAA is used for all the wind farms. Therefore, the average wind speed may not represent the real wind speed where the wind farms are located. The model uncertainty can come from incorrect wind speed information.

In addition, the same table and figure include the uncertainty related to the predicted wind generated for the same wind farms in the 2008 OSP using the OSP model, which considers the period of May 1 through September 31 – about 153 days. The uncertainty of using OSP models for predicting wind power in the 2008 OSP varies from 2.73 % to 11.94% for all the wind farms.

July 2020 Energy Systems Laboratory, The Texas A&M University System

Page 38

Table 3.3: Statistical Parameters of the Determined Daily Power Production Linear Models

Statistical Parameters of Non-OSP Daily Models Statistical Parameters of OSP Daily Models Wind Farm

2 2 c0 c1 AdjR RM SE CV -RM SE # Days c0 c1 AdjR RMSE CV-RMSE # Days ANACACHO_ANA 120.64 59.08 0.23 433.61 53.9% 212 165.54 77.39 0.40 359.09 34.8% 153 ASTRA_UNIT1 172.68 92.48 0.24 694.40 49.7% 211 101.18 97.81 0.35 440.49 33.3% 153 BAFFIN_UNIT1 -448.58 108.94 0.72 281.49 34.3% 206 -563.66 136.85 0.84 226.06 23.3% 153 BAFFIN_UNIT2 -461.62 104.41 0.71 271.96 36.1% 206 -581.94 131.27 0.85 207.77 23.4% 153 BBREEZE_UNIT1 -629.95 141.54 0.73 356.28 35.3% 211 -659.53 142.02 0.83 246.81 26.6% 149 BBREEZE_UNIT2 -512.18 122.00 0.73 302.16 33.6% 212 -580.73 125.44 0.84 208.18 25.3% 151 BCATWIND_WIND_1 49.67 94.07 0.30 589.82 54.5% 208 -594.48 163.64 0.73 355.12 31.5% 153 BLSUM M IT_BLSM T1 -163.54 132.30 0.53 518.20 40.1% 204 -528.19 153.26 0.67 379.34 34.9% 153 BLSUM M IT_UNIT2_17 5.20 6.12 0.37 32.76 45.1% 194 -25.94 8.28 0.61 23.56 38.4% 153 BLSUM M IT_UNIT2_25 40.65 83.74 0.40 404.06 43.1% 186 -255.49 111.50 0.63 307.16 33.5% 152 BORDAS_JAVEL -21.16 209.60 0.38 1102.18 45.9% 212 86.85 259.85 0.51 958.22 32.0% 153 BORDAS2_JAVEL2_A -68.74 86.61 0.40 430.29 46.1% 212 -26.09 105.77 0.54 368.13 31.8% 153 BORDAS2_JAVEL2_B 94.26 44.19 0.23 331.74 54.8% 212 25.30 75.48 0.48 298.29 34.2% 153 BORDAS2_JAVEL2_C 16.66 24.69 0.34 141.20 46.7% 212 10.28 31.89 0.53 113.78 31.0% 153 BRAZ_WND_WND -185.59 108.65 0.37 571.95 52.5% 206 -655.82 151.81 0.64 380.22 35.7% 153 BRISCOE_WIND 51.43 89.39 0.24 635.73 57.4% 212 251.92 53.99 0.16 417.24 48.3% 153 BRTSW_BCW1 -99.74 75.19 0.53 293.68 40.3% 212 -412.35 99.98 0.83 162.10 25.3% 153 BUCKTHRN_UNIT1 -140.59 54.17 0.70 146.38 32.1% 212 -209.52 61.47 0.80 109.16 24.9% 153 BUCKTHRN_UNIT2 -148.29 65.58 0.68 186.13 32.4% 212 -224.50 77.40 0.79 140.58 23.8% 153 BUFF_GAP_UNIT1 -523.99 140.61 0.77 319.06 31.2% 212 -787.78 156.69 0.90 184.09 21.3% 153 BUFF_GAP_UNIT2 -799.81 239.17 0.70 650.61 35.5% 212 -1560.87 288.42 0.90 340.04 23.0% 153 BUFF_GAP_UNIT3 -737.80 189.36 0.76 445.16 33.0% 212 -1263.58 230.11 0.90 275.38 23.7% 153 BULLCRK_WND -453.80 121.40 0.51 476.54 48.6% 212 -852.79 145.48 0.81 235.04 29.5% 153 CABEZON_WIND1 125.72 47.05 0.14 479.68 72.0% 136 122.10 79.30 0.32 431.25 42.7% 153 CABEZON_WIND2 353.48 35.39 0.06 549.87 72.9% 109 214.60 73.61 0.26 462.18 44.5% 153 CALLAHAN_WND -186.82 126.10 0.68 362.92 30.2% 211 -508.89 155.49 0.85 231.69 20.5% 153 CAM WIND_UNIT1 -672.94 177.77 0.66 523.27 37.8% 212 -689.13 182.38 0.84 305.40 22.6% 153 CAPRIDG4_CR4 -351.23 134.23 0.72 345.76 30.5% 207 -576.20 148.62 0.87 205.17 20.7% 153 CAPRIDGE_CR -916.24 408.47 0.71 1096.38 30.6% 212 -1743.35 462.14 0.86 652.10 20.9% 153 CAPRIDGE_CR3 -442.18 203.99 0.70 549.34 30.5% 212 -874.26 226.81 0.82 373.08 24.6% 153 CEDROHIL_CHW -154.80 116.09 0.35 639.81 53.8% 211 -142.89 150.08 0.52 538.83 35.0% 153 CFLATS_U1 -20.28 163.70 0.47 590.58 39.9% 212 -396.27 214.85 0.65 400.30 29.9% 152 CHAMPION_UNIT1 -75.35 101.45 0.54 390.93 37.5% 212 -655.28 151.40 0.84 233.82 24.9% 153 CN_BRKS_UNIT_1 -643.78 234.23 0.49 890.26 38.3% 92 -1068.09 271.64 0.64 554.70 22.3% 46 COTPLNS_COTTONPL -15.14 50.89 0.48 212.06 36.2% 212 -200.18 59.50 0.72 123.61 26.2% 152 COTPLNS_OLDSETLR -72.77 145.96 0.46 629.11 38.1% 212 -662.68 184.22 0.71 398.52 27.9% 153 COTTON_PAP2 -1089.02 221.44 0.85 377.01 25.6% 212 -1462.05 273.31 0.86 416.50 26.0% 153 CSEC_CSECG1 189.95 67.77 0.26 472.03 50.4% 212 -389.22 119.62 0.72 267.56 30.7% 153 CSEC_CSECG2 209.27 59.17 0.25 426.43 49.5% 212 -402.17 111.84 0.72 247.36 31.9% 153 DERM OTT_UNIT1 -246.95 143.13 0.59 478.00 33.1% 212 -576.01 160.95 0.66 387.61 31.0% 153 DERM OTT_UNIT2 -277.68 143.58 0.60 465.32 33.0% 211 -598.57 162.95 0.67 384.76 30.8% 153 DIGBY_UNIT1 -139.69 119.34 0.62 390.34 33.2% 212 -356.45 132.15 0.65 345.35 33.2% 152 DIGBY_UNIT2 -247.10 159.78 0.62 522.18 34.5% 212 -563.45 180.77 0.68 437.59 32.9% 150 EL B_EL BCREEK 133.40 74.95 0.32 450.49 47.0% 212 -262.77 82.57 0.67 205.29 34.0% 151 ENAS_ENA1 -104.36 40.99 0.51 165.35 47.7% 212 -195.20 49.32 0.76 99.43 30.7% 153 EXGNSND_WIND_1 172.86 52.29 0.26 358.34 46.4% 205 84.65 77.71 0.50 294.12 30.8% 152 EXGNWTL_WIND_1 -77.15 61.17 0.34 351.12 55.8% 210 -72.27 76.96 0.52 276.21 35.0% 153 FERM I_WIND1 -6.01 102.43 0.30 541.42 50.3% 212 16.31 105.50 0.32 469.90 40.1% 153 FERM I_WIND2 23.72 24.32 0.29 131.38 46.8% 212 33.78 24.21 0.29 115.93 38.8% 153 FLTCK_SSI -41.20 18.47 0.34 107.25 66.1% 212 -83.53 21.92 0.57 67.62 45.9% 153 FLUV ANNA_UNIT1 -47.71 80.40 0.48 320.87 36.6% 199 -359.14 103.83 0.68 237.11 29.2% 151 FLUV ANNA_UNIT2 -45.67 77.28 0.52 298.85 34.5% 212 -270.54 93.03 0.67 220.24 28.3% 151 FTWIND_UNIT_1 407.68 190.93 0.48 852.26 34.5% 212 -286.60 247.33 0.78 495.29 22.2% 153 GOAT_GOATWIND -295.58 157.69 0.43 620.12 53.9% 212 -743.28 220.24 0.65 410.18 39.5% 153 GPASTURE_WIND_I -346.54 171.24 0.63 542.12 35.2% 212 -606.41 193.06 0.70 451.09 31.6% 153 GRANDVW1_COLA -155.29 103.05 0.63 335.81 27.8% 212 -602.14 136.58 0.80 224.45 20.3% 153 GRANDVW1_COLB -137.40 99.85 0.62 336.83 28.5% 212 -599.97 135.52 0.80 226.33 20.7% 153 GRANDVW1_GV1A -163.57 112.21 0.64 358.51 27.2% 210 -621.56 144.57 0.81 228.67 19.3% 153 GRANDVW1_GV1B -49.28 98.76 0.57 366.78 29.3% 207 -533.03 135.52 0.81 217.31 18.7% 153 GUNMTN_G1 220.23 116.31 0.37 559.87 37.7% 212 -447.65 154.76 0.72 315.27 24.9% 153 GWEC_GWEC_G1 128.97 137.31 0.54 540.74 33.5% 212 -377.81 167.07 0.79 324.58 24.6% 153 H_HOLLOW_WND1 -256.36 218.64 0.68 622.20 28.9% 212 -1261.91 292.10 0.88 393.60 21.7% 153 HHOLLOW2_WIND1 -250.12 165.14 0.55 554.09 39.1% 176 -1214.40 258.00 0.86 280.27 22.2% 133 HHOLLOW3_WND_1 -455.11 228.00 0.70 616.72 30.0% 212 -1388.44 301.19 0.89 375.64 21.1% 153

July 2020 Energy Systems Laboratory, The Texas A&M University System

Page 39

Table 3.3: Statistical Parameters of the Determined Daily Power Production Linear Models (Cont.)

Statistical Parameters of Non-OSP Daily Models Statistical Parameters of OSP Daily Models Wind Farm

2 2 c0 c1 AdjR RM SE CV -RM SE # Days c0 c1 AdjR RMSE CV-RMSE # Days HHOLLOW4_WND1 -149.72 128.79 0.68 369.62 29.1% 211 -717.82 168.88 0.89 209.52 19.7% 153 HICKM AN_G1 92.38 168.98 0.43 712.14 36.9% 206 -395.61 202.94 0.63 505.37 27.4% 152 HICKM AN_G2 89.08 162.47 0.43 693.59 37.3% 205 -439.08 200.17 0.65 480.53 27.1% 152 HORSECRK_UNIT1 -379.25 165.38 0.74 402.67 27.9% 212 -577.13 176.17 0.77 340.12 26.6% 153 HORSECRK_UNIT2 -296.23 125.70 0.74 305.96 28.1% 212 -449.43 133.80 0.79 249.24 26.0% 153 HRFDWIND_JRDWIND1 -518.72 147.80 0.66 451.60 31.4% 212 -807.97 160.86 0.79 271.21 22.5% 153 HRFDWIND_JRDWIND2 -597.74 156.88 0.68 457.15 30.9% 212 -863.44 170.12 0.82 260.82 20.6% 153 HRFDWIND_WIND_G -306.09 96.79 0.64 312.91 32.1% 212 -579.34 112.98 0.82 177.63 21.3% 153 HRFDWIND_WIND_V -285.73 111.09 0.66 344.82 29.1% 212 -704.00 142.70 0.81 232.26 21.5% 153 HWF_HWFG1 -212.30 136.31 0.51 558.79 43.4% 212 -803.90 194.50 0.89 245.94 19.8% 153 INDL_INADALE -497.92 186.77 0.62 603.20 38.7% 212 -1304.32 252.41 0.87 342.38 25.6% 152 INDNENR_INDNENR -198.95 155.80 0.38 683.04 47.1% 211 152.92 119.06 0.24 650.71 44.7% 153 INDNNWP_INDNNWP -170.32 64.40 0.31 328.93 63.8% 203 -293.34 87.83 0.55 244.80 36.7% 153 KEECHI_U1 -167.24 130.47 0.66 385.58 30.4% 212 -574.91 159.13 0.83 253.00 23.0% 153 KEO_KEO_SM 1 -8.07 60.80 0.18 442.63 69.6% 211 305.52 44.95 0.09 424.24 53.2% 151 KEO_SHRBINO2 90.18 24.45 0.09 261.62 74.9% 209 235.83 11.89 0.02 205.80 56.2% 151 KING_NE_KINGNE -221.29 53.59 0.49 188.31 54.4% 211 -311.79 65.72 0.65 145.06 35.0% 148 KING_NW_KINGNW -122.12 47.45 0.34 228.27 59.8% 210 -226.46 62.84 0.63 146.37 32.1% 149 KING_SE_KINGSE -120.37 27.68 0.43 111.43 63.6% 203 -200.29 36.56 0.69 74.38 36.5% 148 KING_SW_KINGSW -161.65 53.17 0.40 222.47 55.4% 211 -354.67 77.12 0.68 160.99 33.3% 148 LGD_LANGFORD 259.27 101.45 0.26 590.21 49.6% 212 81.13 109.71 0.31 418.35 43.2% 153 LGW_UNIT1 -130.21 106.16 0.63 338.33 32.6% 212 -425.66 116.03 0.81 198.98 25.0% 153 LGW_UNIT2 -191.04 109.50 0.66 325.44 32.1% 212 -458.87 117.83 0.82 195.54 25.0% 153 LHORN_N_UNIT1 -63.16 99.69 0.44 456.43 41.0% 209 -411.53 114.06 0.65 280.96 31.9% 153 LHORN_N_UNIT2 -64.48 101.49 0.44 467.46 41.2% 209 -409.79 120.73 0.63 312.31 32.6% 153 LNCRK_G83 -789.49 211.04 0.78 467.24 30.5% 212 -848.38 197.69 0.92 211.18 17.1% 153 LOCKETT_UNIT1 -206.98 225.73 0.57 722.80 34.1% 92 -655.51 220.20 0.45 766.49 48.4% 125 LNCRK2_G87 -568.85 194.46 0.70 527.67 33.6% 212 -795.38 199.11 0.90 240.39 18.5% 153 LONEWOLF_G1 -37.95 38.23 0.52 152.26 39.8% 212 -200.64 53.09 0.84 81.32 22.7% 153 LONEWOLF_G2 -61.94 40.47 0.55 151.86 39.6% 212 -235.37 56.41 0.83 90.54 25.2% 153 LONEWOLF_G3 -21.87 21.00 0.52 83.32 39.8% 212 -120.64 30.35 0.85 45.00 22.6% 153 LONEWOLF_G4 -23.09 19.06 0.53 74.87 40.1% 212 -111.87 26.89 0.83 43.12 25.2% 153 LV1_LV1A -817.89 214.21 0.58 753.08 45.0% 195 -934.06 232.16 0.81 433.83 25.7% 139 LV1_LV1B -1067.85 217.18 0.68 589.45 37.6% 135 -923.36 211.75 0.82 384.21 26.6% 149 LV3_UNIT_1 -546.25 181.79 0.45 825.28 53.1% 209 -549.80 236.79 0.63 690.07 32.8% 153 LV4_UNIT_1 -423.88 186.17 0.45 856.59 49.0% 197 -548.72 246.80 0.62 740.71 33.1% 139 LV5_UNIT_1 -265.80 103.51 0.49 429.46 46.1% 212 -339.33 136.25 0.66 365.70 30.8% 153 MARIAH_NORTE1 -38.58 92.01 0.39 490.22 41.6% 212 -108.63 87.43 0.44 323.81 32.9% 153 MARIAH_NORTE2 -93.28 95.47 0.42 481.16 41.1% 212 -179.33 94.37 0.49 316.59 31.6% 153 M CDLD_FCW1 -115.41 101.34 0.48 432.61 43.5% 202 -509.80 132.13 0.78 247.95 28.1% 153 M CDLD_SBW1 -65.70 64.01 0.47 283.69 44.4% 212 -199.12 68.56 0.71 154.68 29.6% 153 M ESQCRK_WND1 2.94 91.79 0.47 394.31 36.3% 209 -360.95 105.73 0.70 232.70 27.8% 153 M ESQCRK_WND2 -34.77 91.56 0.48 386.33 36.9% 209 -414.65 104.58 0.68 239.71 31.1% 153 MIAM1_G1 -103.09 131.57 0.51 553.06 33.8% 212 -931.69 191.09 0.73 386.78 26.5% 153 MIAM1_G2 -341.05 142.53 0.54 560.48 36.3% 212 -916.81 188.04 0.69 421.00 29.4% 153 M IDWIND_UNIT1 -724.24 152.83 0.62 490.25 46.9% 208 -1004.98 218.08 0.80 417.47 29.0% 153 MIRASOLE_MIR11 -206.06 56.11 0.55 206.16 46.5% 212 -197.61 66.60 0.66 180.30 32.8% 152 MIRASOLE_MIR12 -380.89 107.50 0.56 387.66 44.9% 212 -398.14 128.89 0.66 351.22 33.6% 153 MIRASOLE_MIR21 -351.68 103.64 0.57 367.02 43.3% 212 -418.78 126.11 0.69 322.99 32.5% 153 M OZART_WIND_1 9.55 17.99 0.31 107.26 48.3% 212 -86.84 23.94 0.63 62.41 33.8% 153 MWEC_G1 275.80 97.62 0.26 651.74 45.9% 208 -671.74 175.35 0.68 405.75 30.8% 153 NBOHR_UNIT1 -102.29 203.58 0.56 746.55 34.9% 212 -672.91 250.11 0.77 488.76 24.9% 153 NWF_NWF 72.71 101.94 0.41 447.72 37.9% 212 -314.88 133.65 0.73 266.01 22.8% 153 OVEJA_G1 78.61 171.28 0.34 736.82 48.7% 100 29.66 161.42 0.28 643.85 48.7% 142 OVEJA_G2 653.04 62.88 0.04 974.47 80.8% 126 99.21 139.47 0.19 734.32 59.8% 153 OWF_OWF 19.17 25.13 0.34 145.80 49.3% 212 -97.86 32.31 0.70 75.87 31.3% 153 PAP1_PAP1 -1043.70 207.38 0.85 355.68 26.2% 212 -1065.06 230.02 0.83 387.77 25.6% 153 PC_NORTH_PANTHER1 -29.19 128.60 0.45 586.35 42.2% 211 -215.59 100.60 0.59 301.85 35.8% 153 PC_SOUTH_PANTHER2 -99.36 101.94 0.45 466.44 45.5% 208 -240.34 92.23 0.62 258.63 35.4% 153 PC_SOUTH_PANTHER3 -241.12 178.54 0.53 691.11 40.1% 212 -945.54 235.41 0.83 378.60 24.7% 153 PENA_UNIT1 -571.79 131.06 0.67 374.97 39.3% 205 -927.42 200.69 0.80 379.57 28.7% 153 PENA_UNIT2 -590.68 126.64 0.69 352.67 39.9% 205 -663.65 151.64 0.63 441.63 42.7% 153 PENA3_UNIT3 -320.52 73.39 0.66 217.92 41.0% 203 -598.08 121.06 0.85 195.57 25.8% 153 PH1_UNIT1 -357.86 105.72 0.55 405.40 39.0% 212 -540.75 121.06 0.74 235.68 24.2% 153

July 2020 Energy Systems Laboratory, The Texas A&M University System

Page 40

Table 3.3: Statistical Parameters of the Determined Daily Power Production Linear Models (Cont.)

Statistical Parameters of Non-OSP Daily Models Statistical Parameters of OSP Daily Models Wind Farm

2 2 c0 c1 AdjR RM SE CV -RM SE # Days c0 c1 AdjR RMSE CV-RMSE # Days PH1_UNIT2 -306.74 101.31 0.55 393.36 38.1% 212 -481.04 112.29 0.75 213.27 23.1% 153 PH2_UNIT1 -265.79 95.63 0.54 376.95 37.7% 212 -390.86 112.84 0.66 270.18 26.5% 153 PH2_UNIT2 -275.37 98.85 0.53 402.11 39.0% 212 -438.66 119.52 0.67 279.50 26.5% 153 PYR_PYRON -220.90 215.30 0.52 849.18 39.9% 209 -1421.86 313.78 0.85 465.21 24.7% 153 RDCANYON_RDCNY1 17.73 85.47 0.52 343.71 35.8% 212 -150.41 99.19 0.69 235.87 26.4% 153 REDFISH_M V 1A -335.71 105.58 0.63 331.92 37.5% 212 -352.91 109.73 0.79 214.51 24.5% 153 REDFISH_M V 1B -379.95 111.67 0.63 349.15 38.3% 212 -424.52 118.44 0.79 234.25 26.0% 153 ROUTE_66_WIND1 342.03 97.14 0.26 699.30 43.0% 212 187.09 111.71 0.31 542.70 34.3% 153 RSNAKE_G1 10.92 94.11 0.54 361.00 34.5% 212 -76.07 93.19 0.67 231.76 25.6% 153 RSNAKE_G2 87.36 88.20 0.50 369.30 34.9% 212 -57.55 87.95 0.61 249.29 28.7% 153 RTS_U1 -77.45 192.60 0.50 662.46 39.2% 212 -602.03 263.50 0.58 574.19 37.6% 153 SALTFORK_UNIT1 -4.42 59.39 0.54 236.30 30.2% 210 -380.25 82.57 0.79 138.85 21.3% 153 SALTFORK_UNIT2 -114.22 110.70 0.58 400.88 29.7% 210 -734.82 149.91 0.80 245.05 21.5% 153 SALVTION_UNIT1 -360.60 159.42 0.72 408.94 29.6% 209 -553.78 170.31 0.76 341.97 27.6% 153 SALVTION_UNIT2 -413.90 162.71 0.74 397.38 28.9% 206 -552.17 168.94 0.78 324.51 26.4% 153 SANROM AN_WIND_1 -446.00 111.15 0.66 329.40 39.2% 212 -476.09 117.27 0.79 229.49 27.4% 153 SANTACRU_UNIT1 -318.99 89.81 0.58 313.78 43.6% 212 -260.13 79.22 0.69 202.00 32.2% 153 SANTACRU_UNIT2 -219.02 61.75 0.69 168.46 34.0% 212 -243.31 59.12 0.80 113.09 27.0% 153 SENATEWD_UNIT1 -315.49 165.14 0.67 483.83 32.2% 211 -675.04 181.22 0.86 259.82 21.1% 153 SGMTN_SIGNALM -22.58 19.33 0.40 98.12 51.6% 212 -97.84 24.67 0.67 61.78 38.1% 153 SHAFFER_UNIT1 -686.94 199.77 0.56 727.06 49.7% 98 -659.90 194.39 0.53 694.67 45.8% 153 SHANNONW_UNIT_1 -659.24 247.21 0.72 633.42 30.7% 212 -1153.19 266.12 0.82 446.07 27.0% 153 SPLAIN1_WIND1 -69.83 107.64 0.50 429.19 35.7% 212 -416.50 120.39 0.74 240.78 25.4% 153 SPLAIN1_WIND2 22.71 97.99 0.46 424.39 36.0% 212 -316.96 114.21 0.66 275.30 28.1% 153 SPLAIN2_WIND21 -277.79 159.56 0.53 600.96 37.4% 212 -742.65 180.91 0.74 358.59 27.4% 153 SPLAIN2_WIND22 -241.24 163.77 0.51 641.62 37.9% 212 -814.30 190.55 0.75 373.81 27.8% 153 SRWE1_SRWE2 -355.04 176.31 0.59 591.46 34.3% 212 -990.56 201.58 0.74 376.40 29.6% 141 SRWE1_UNIT1 -318.93 220.84 0.58 749.99 32.8% 212 -1156.05 263.33 0.75 468.86 26.4% 150 SSPURTWO_SS3WIND1 -298.29 103.37 0.54 411.14 38.5% 212 -470.71 125.35 0.66 296.69 27.1% 153 SSPURTWO_SS3WIND2 -226.19 104.28 0.52 432.48 37.5% 212 -379.18 125.19 0.63 314.77 26.5% 153 SSPURTWO_WIND_1 -474.65 157.64 0.51 653.96 40.5% 210 -677.09 179.82 0.66 426.64 27.2% 153 STELLA_UNIT1 -910.53 222.34 0.74 536.95 32.0% 207 -934.32 259.33 0.83 451.38 22.9% 153 STWF_T1 -185.17 93.29 0.55 347.97 41.3% 212 -659.80 134.65 0.87 183.87 24.2% 152 SW_MESA_SW_MESA -19.75 19.23 0.35 93.35 46.9% 119 -69.96 14.75 0.54 39.83 43.7% 143 S_HILLS_UNIT1 45.76 30.92 0.41 137.34 37.9% 94 -34.36 38.12 0.65 99.84 27.2% 151 SWEC_G1 73.94 75.20 0.26 459.12 51.5% 212 -471.58 102.00 0.70 219.40 33.3% 153 SWEETWN2_WND2 -148.65 112.41 0.60 339.08 34.1% 184 -559.39 152.31 0.86 199.83 20.2% 146 SWEETWN2_WND24 -75.09 20.28 0.74 49.98 33.7% 212 -119.39 23.27 0.90 26.97 21.5% 153 SWEETWN3_WND3 -221.65 128.80 0.68 371.45 31.0% 211 -685.84 166.19 0.88 221.35 20.8% 153 SWEETWN4_WND4 -703.22 240.18 0.73 600.61 30.9% 212 -1211.71 265.79 0.85 402.47 25.3% 153 SWEETWN4_WND5 -83.86 63.98 0.54 247.20 39.8% 212 -402.78 91.76 0.83 148.46 26.3% 153 SWEETWND_WND1 -96.80 47.44 0.68 136.00 31.8% 209 -219.16 58.68 0.89 74.99 18.8% 153 TAHOKA_UNIT_1 -220.65 167.38 0.57 581.30 33.4% 208 -572.51 172.19 0.67 407.76 29.8% 150 TAHOKA_UNIT_2 -196.71 165.50 0.57 575.07 32.7% 211 -679.50 184.91 0.62 441.47 32.2% 147 TGW_T1 -495.41 106.07 0.65 322.71 43.6% 206 -782.13 167.39 0.82 295.57 27.0% 153 TGW_T2 -553.08 112.68 0.64 345.77 45.8% 205 -819.70 184.23 0.78 369.89 29.7% 153 TKWSW1_ROSCOE -353.70 174.23 0.60 592.37 37.9% 212 -1202.62 241.12 0.84 371.77 27.8% 153 TORR_UNIT1_25 10.47 114.80 0.29 764.52 57.1% 156 25.28 157.86 0.51 589.03 32.8% 153 TORR_UNIT2_23 -12.77 18.52 0.32 114.20 56.5% 155 -44.28 26.40 0.56 87.78 34.9% 153 TORR_UNIT2_25 -14.50 103.50 0.31 651.97 55.1% 156 53.04 127.65 0.50 482.34 32.5% 153 TRENT_TRENT -153.81 160.87 0.58 568.00 35.1% 212 -728.69 216.28 0.88 287.90 18.6% 153 TRINITY_TH1_BUS1 -142.90 48.26 0.33 283.66 72.7% 211 -156.08 37.46 0.57 115.10 48.3% 153 TRINITY_TH1_BUS2 -58.44 44.33 0.36 245.99 57.1% 211 -37.40 26.34 0.34 130.54 54.4% 153 TTWEC_G1 -91.71 124.90 0.52 491.57 38.6% 210 -556.02 154.44 0.72 344.93 32.2% 153 TYLRWIND_UNIT1 -57.84 119.35 0.47 534.84 43.2% 206 -620.69 160.35 0.80 302.80 30.0% 153 V ERTIGO_WIND_I -360.10 167.36 0.63 532.65 35.9% 212 -492.30 173.98 0.65 454.51 33.9% 153 WAKEWE_G1 291.51 102.01 0.40 503.40 33.6% 210 -343.09 143.76 0.68 329.43 25.6% 153 WAKEWE_G2 313.91 127.35 0.38 651.26 35.8% 210 -454.26 176.49 0.67 416.34 26.9% 153 WEC_WECG1 146.35 31.53 0.16 283.19 55.2% 195 -162.12 58.79 0.51 193.98 38.6% 151 WHTTAIL_WR1 34.74 82.46 0.35 474.97 51.2% 212 -528.46 132.79 0.78 271.15 33.0% 153 WL_RANCH_UNIT1 226.07 223.12 0.44 868.82 38.2% 211 -753.01 348.31 0.69 594.29 28.8% 153 WNDTHST2_UNIT1 -148.82 74.34 0.70 202.55 30.2% 212 -310.76 85.19 0.81 146.41 25.0% 153 WOODWRD1_WOODWRD -611.41 131.18 0.56 398.79 51.2% 211 -702.50 141.76 0.57 375.18 44.2% 153

July 2020 Energy Systems Laboratory, The Texas A&M University System

Page 41

Table 3.4: 2008 Uncertainty of the Power Generation Prediction using the Linear Daily Models

2008 Non Ozone Season Period 2008 Ozone Season Period (OSP) Wind Farm Relative Relative Predicted days Total Variance Total Estimated Predicted Days Total Variance Total Estimated Unce r tainty uncertainty

ANACACHO_ANA 213 12,444.52 179,489 6.93% 153 8,733.88 145,708.6 5.99% ASTRA_UNIT1 213 19,922.30 312,039 6.38% 153 10,746.57 213,287.3 5.04% BAFFIN_UNIT1 213 8,079.09 188,074 4.30% 153 5,498.25 126,639.9 4.34% BAFFIN_UNIT2 213 7,805.58 173,599 4.50% 153 5,053.48 115,180.6 4.39% BBREEZE_UNIT1 213 10,225.32 234,445 4.36% 153 6,003.16 116,927.2 5.13% BBREEZE_UNIT2 213 8,671.90 208,553 4.16% 153 5,063.60 104,932.2 4.83% BCATWIND_WIND_1 213 16,917.16 252,696 6.69% 153 8,648.89 172,129.4 5.02% BLSUMMIT_BLSMT1 213 14,863.05 305,688 4.86% 153 9,238.89 165,554.5 5.58% BLSUMMIT_UNIT2_17 213 939.80 16,850 5.58% 153 573.86 9,341.6 6.14% BLSUMMIT_UNIT2_25 213 11,596.19 224,193 5.17% 153 7,481.02 139,192.0 5.37% BORDAS_JAV EL 213 31,632.59 541,138 5.85% 153 23,306.37 417,503.2 5.58% BORDAS2_JAV EL2_A 213 12,349.25 210,834 5.86% 153 8,953.94 160,538.4 5.58% BORDAS2_JAV EL2_B 213 9,520.85 135,114 7.05% 153 7,255.18 121,291.1 5.98% BORDAS2_JAV EL2_C 213 4,052.50 67,819 5.98% 153 2,767.44 51,188.7 5.41% BRAZ_WND_WND 213 16,405.33 251,418 6.53% 152 9,233.23 152,692.4 6.05% BRISCOE_WIND 213 18,233.16 250,319 7.28% 152 10,132.21 128,483.6 7.89% BRTSW_BCW1 213 8,422.27 172,292 4.89% 153 3,947.97 97,704.6 4.04% BUCKTHRN_UNIT1 213 4,197.93 109,479 3.83% 153 2,658.49 66,753.7 3.98% BUCKTHRN_UNIT2 213 5,338.08 137,206 3.89% 153 3,423.83 90,047.0 3.80% BUFF_GAP_UNIT1 213 9,150.12 250,369 3.65% 153 4,483.52 132,065.8 3.39% BUFF_GAP_UNIT2 213 18,658.68 445,241 4.19% 153 8,281.62 227,254.9 3.64% BUFF_GAP_UNIT3 213 12,766.62 330,347 3.86% 153 6,706.83 178,739.3 3.75% BULLCRK_WND 213 13,667.45 228,436 5.98% 152 5,707.72 112,868.1 5.06% CABEZON_WIND1 213 13,790.21 149,258 9.24% 153 10,489.18 142,035.3 7.38% CABEZON_WIND2 213 15,821.50 167,435 9.45% 153 11,241.27 147,343.5 7.63% CALLAHAN_WND 213 10,408.01 284,771 3.65% 153 5,642.76 172,063.1 3.28% CAM WIND_UNIT1 213 15,017.97 319,445 4.70% 153 7,428.20 178,271.1 4.17% CAPRIDG4_CR4 213 9,916.38 270,681 3.66% 153 4,997.02 150,813.4 3.31% CAPRIDGE_CR 213 31,442.96 856,203 3.67% 153 15,881.82 476,322.4 3.33% CAPRIDGE_CR3 213 15,754.39 430,874 3.66% 153 9,086.40 230,934.7 3.93% CEDROHIL_CHW 213 18,362.81 269,248 6.82% 153 13,105.70 211,604.7 6.19% CFLATS_U1 213 16,944.95 337,017 5.03% 153 9,769.85 216,815.5 4.51% CHAMPION_UNIT1 213 11,211.37 245,062 4.57% 153 5,694.77 143,296.6 3.97% CN_BRKS_UNIT_1 213 25,694.20 560,001 4.59% 153 13,865.44 116,121.8 11.94% COTPLNS_COTTONPL 213 6,082.01 133,039 4.57% 152 3,001.92 68,052.9 4.41% COTPLNS_OLDSETLR 213 18,043.24 375,363 4.81% 152 9,677.61 205,496.5 4.71% COTTON_PAP2 213 10,820.09 345,213 3.13% 153 10,130.43 202,370.8 5.01% CSEC_CSECG1 213 13,537.22 214,893 6.30% 153 6,516.32 132,720.2 4.91% CSEC_CSECG2 213 12,229.63 196,884 6.21% 153 6,024.57 118,265.7 5.09% DERM OTT_UNIT1 213 13,709.26 330,664 4.15% 152 9,412.68 180,001.6 5.23% DERM OTT_UNIT2 213 13,347.04 325,336 4.10% 152 9,343.58 179,873.6 5.19% DIGBY_UNIT1 213 11,194.56 277,416 4.04% 153 8,411.33 156,803.7 5.36% DIGBY_UNIT2 213 14,975.44 358,627 4.18% 153 10,660.23 200,329.5 5.32% EL B_EL BCREEK 213 12,919.49 221,336 5.84% 153 5,000.05 91,305.8 5.48% ENAS_ENA1 213 4,742.06 83,271 5.69% 153 2,421.52 49,438.6 4.90% EXGNSND_WIND_1 213 10,286.30 172,938 5.95% 153 7,153.90 132,967.3 5.38% EXGNWTL_WIND_1 213 10,077.56 142,807 7.06% 153 6,718.08 108,659.3 6.18% FERM I_WIND1 211 15,448.94 231,533 6.67% 151 11,374.59 178,262.3 6.38% FERM I_WIND2 211 3,748.74 60,280 6.22% 151 2,806.34 45,502.2 6.17% FLTCK_SSI 213 3,075.74 38,766 7.93% 153 1,646.99 22,464.3 7.33% FLUV ANNA_UNIT1 213 9,206.55 205,123 4.49% 152 5,758.85 116,485.8 4.94% FLUV ANNA_UNIT2 213 8,571.30 197,219 4.35% 152 5,348.96 112,104.5 4.77% FTWIND_UNIT_1 213 24,452.42 579,998 4.22% 153 12,070.95 343,446.7 3.51% GOAT_GOATWIND 213 17,792.63 265,842 6.69% 153 10,011.04 172,837.5 5.79% GPASTURE_WIND_I 213 15,547.32 366,934 4.24% 153 10,986.42 217,514.1 5.05% GRANDVW1_COLA 213 9,634.52 273,643 3.52% 153 5,476.04 184,375.9 2.97% GRANDVW1_COLB 213 9,663.77 267,910 3.61% 153 5,521.91 182,551.7 3.02% GRANDVW1_GV1A 213 10,286.38 299,122 3.44% 153 5,578.79 197,540.8 2.82% GRANDVW1_GV1B 213 10,524.04 283,429 3.71% 153 5,301.80 192,676.5 2.75% GUNM TN_G1 213 16,058.87 301,063 5.33% 153 7,684.14 181,728.1 4.23% GWEC_GWEC_G1 213 15,514.71 382,140 4.06% 153 7,910.63 203,813.7 3.88% H_HOLLOW_WND1 213 17,843.87 508,159 3.51% 153 9,586.07 276,817.3 3.46% HHOLLOW2_WIND1 213 15,912.25 371,770 4.28% 153 6,856.76 199,598.0 3.44% HHOLLOW3_WND_1 213 17,686.68 489,915 3.61% 153 9,148.65 272,413.3 3.36%

July 2020 Energy Systems Laboratory, The Texas A&M University System

Page 42

Table 3-4: 2008 Uncertainty of the Power Generation Prediction using the Linear Daily Models (Cont.) 2008 Non Ozone Season Period 2008 Ozone Season Period (OSP)

Wind Farm Relative Relative Predicted days Total Variance Total Estimated Predicted Days Total Variance Total Estimated Unce r tainty uncertainty

HHOLLOW4_WND1 213 10,600.35 299,613 3.54% 153 5,102.83 161,822.2 3.15% HICKM AN_G1 213 20,427.37 388,923 5.25% 153 12,319.45 265,811.9 4.63% HICKM AN_G2 213 19,895.46 374,000 5.32% 153 11,713.86 254,752.1 4.60% HORSECRK_UNIT1 213 11,548.04 344,902 3.35% 153 8,283.64 194,869.6 4.25% HORSECRK_UNIT2 213 8,774.61 260,437 3.37% 153 6,070.20 146,310.1 4.15% HRFDWIND_JRDWIND1 213 12,956.56 329,415 3.93% 153 6,616.69 202,251.3 3.27% HRFDWIND_JRDWIND2 213 13,115.59 339,608 3.86% 153 6,363.33 212,555.1 2.99% HRFDWIND_WIND_G 213 8,977.41 222,888 4.03% 153 4,333.74 140,277.4 3.09% HRFDWIND_WIND_V 213 9,893.04 269,789 3.67% 153 5,666.38 181,333.3 3.12% HWF_HWFG1 213 16,025.49 305,636 5.24% 153 5,989.87 189,809.9 3.16% INDL_INADALE 213 17,299.15 374,675 4.62% 153 8,340.68 206,290.4 4.04% INDNENR_INDNENR 211 19,490.07 312,105 6.24% 151 15,751.49 221,758.6 7.10% INDNNWP_INDNNWP 211 9,386.29 110,436 8.50% 151 5,925.85 101,448.2 5.84% KEECHI_U1 213 11,057.82 300,203 3.68% 153 6,161.79 167,867.4 3.67% KEO_KEO_SM 1 211 12,630.24 136,479 9.25% 151 10,269.28 120,052.5 8.55% KEO_SHRBINO2 211 7,465.20 74,584 10.01% 151 4,981.89 55,155.4 9.03% KING_NE_KINGNE 211 5,373.19 75,224 7.14% 151 3,512.26 59,775.1 5.88% KING_NW_KINGNW 211 6,513.51 82,069 7.94% 151 3,543.78 68,219.3 5.19% KING_SE_KINGSE 211 3,179.64 37,585 8.46% 151 1,801.10 29,319.5 6.14% KING_SW_KINGSW 211 6,348.14 86,734 7.32% 151 3,897.73 71,793.4 5.43% LGD_LANGFORD 213 16,934.55 266,763 6.35% 153 10,210.41 154,822.0 6.59% LGW_UNIT1 213 9,702.99 245,513 3.95% 153 4,846.04 121,420.2 3.99% LGW_UNIT2 213 9,333.10 241,142 3.87% 153 4,762.47 119,270.3 3.99% LHORN_N_UNIT1 213 13,090.64 253,483 5.16% 152 6,822.77 127,054.1 5.37% LHORN_N_UNIT2 213 13,407.02 258,032 5.20% 152 7,584.01 138,427.9 5.48% LNCRK_G83 213 13,399.74 375,117 3.57% 153 5,143.37 188,197.1 2.73% LOCKETT_UNIT1 213 20,828.33 536,919 3.88% 153 18,716.92 207,185.7 9.03% LNCRK2_G87 213 15,132.90 379,350 3.99% 153 5,854.76 198,500.4 2.95% LONEWOLF_G1 213 4,366.72 90,308 4.84% 153 1,980.47 54,663.7 3.62% LONEWOLF_G2 213 4,355.25 90,969 4.79% 153 2,205.00 54,711.9 4.03% LONEWOLF_G3 213 2,389.49 49,404 4.84% 153 1,095.98 30,347.8 3.61% LONEWOLF_G4 213 2,147.28 44,152 4.86% 153 1,050.21 26,131.6 4.02% LV1_LV1A 213 21,616.95 383,455 5.64% 153 10,553.89 198,264.4 5.32% LV1_LV1B 213 16,953.32 338,621 5.01% 153 9,345.31 183,220.7 5.10% LV3_UNIT_1 213 23,685.56 356,913 6.64% 153 16,784.23 284,225.4 5.91% LV4_UNIT_1 213 24,587.54 394,357 6.23% 153 18,019.46 272,521.2 6.61% LV5_UNIT_1 213 12,325.59 212,854 5.79% 153 8,894.71 160,032.7 5.56% MARIAH_NORTE1 213 14,064.29 265,639 5.29% 153 7,899.96 160,207.2 4.93% MARIAH_NORTE2 213 13,804.62 264,290 5.22% 153 7,723.79 163,424.6 4.73% MCDLD_FCW1 213 12,408.57 236,258 5.25% 153 6,038.92 134,466.6 4.49% MCDLD_SBW1 213 8,135.95 150,764 5.40% 153 3,767.14 79,716.2 4.73% MESQCRK_WND1 213 11,309.31 246,408 4.59% 152 5,650.82 120,904.3 4.67% MESQCRK_WND2 213 11,080.52 237,782 4.66% 152 5,821.15 110,803.4 5.25% MIAM1_G1 213 15,867.41 369,644 4.29% 153 9,436.33 244,475.1 3.86% MIAM1_G2 213 16,080.22 351,580 4.57% 153 10,271.24 240,568.2 4.27% M IDWIND_UNIT1 213 14,070.81 243,946 5.77% 153 10,154.01 185,548.2 5.47% MIRASOLE_MIR11 213 5,916.89 102,173 5.79% 153 4,385.26 72,889.6 6.02% MIRASOLE_MIR12 213 11,125.97 198,723 5.60% 153 8,542.50 139,583.4 6.12% MIRASOLE_MIR21 213 10,533.63 194,895 5.40% 153 7,856.01 132,107.4 5.95% M OZART_WIND_1 213 3,076.18 50,219 6.13% 152 1,515.57 26,601.0 5.70% MWEC_G1 213 18,693.87 320,146 5.84% 152 9,853.22 189,354.7 5.20% NBOHR_UNIT1 213 21,410.17 502,213 4.26% 153 11,903.69 298,992.9 3.98% NWF_NWF 213 12,842.09 238,237 5.39% 153 6,483.47 167,904.0 3.86% OVEJA_G1 213 21,245.86 373,872 5.68% 153 15,726.69 198,674.7 7.92% OVEJA_G2 213 28,022.91 270,214 10.37% 153 17,921.95 196,212.7 9.13% OWF_OWF 213 4,181.26 68,762 6.08% 153 1,847.82 36,958.3 5.00% PAP1_PAP1 213 10,208.12 318,381 3.21% 153 9,431.66 194,953.6 4.84% PC_NORTH_PANTHER1 213 16,815.98 324,789 5.18% 153 7,351.46 128,691.6 5.71% PC_SOUTH_PANTHER2 213 13,377.31 241,212 5.55% 153 6,298.85 111,454.4 5.65% PC_SOUTH_PANTHER3 213 19,820.27 408,181 4.86% 153 9,220.86 233,896.2 3.94% PENA_UNIT1 213 10,762.72 219,506 4.90% 153 9,232.18 170,359.7 5.42% PENA_UNIT2 213 10,122.51 204,098 4.96% 153 10,741.60 134,356.5 7.99% PENA3_UNIT3 213 6,255.16 122,845 5.09% 153 4,756.85 96,952.1 4.91% PH1_UNIT1 213 11,630.97 238,427 4.88% 153 5,749.87 162,352.2 3.54%

July 2020 Energy Systems Laboratory, The Texas A&M University System

Page 43

Table 3-4: 2008 Uncertainty of the Power Generation Prediction using the Linear Daily Models (Cont.) 2008 Non Ozone Season Period 2008 Ozone Season Period (OSP)

Wind Farm Relative Relative Predicted days Total Variance Total Estimated Predicted Days Total Variance Total Estimated Unce r tainty uncertainty

PH1_UNIT2 213 11,285.63 236,207 4.78% 153 5,203.25 153,702.7 3.39% PH2_UNIT1 213 10,814.85 228,007 4.74% 153 6,591.54 168,470.9 3.91% PH2_UNIT2 213 11,536.47 235,542 4.90% 153 6,818.91 174,693.3 3.90% PYR_PYRON 213 24,356.77 507,103 4.80% 153 11,330.14 287,465.2 3.94% RDCANYON_RDCNY1 213 9,857.15 223,761 4.41% 153 5,744.55 136,391.4 4.21% REDFISH_M V 1A 213 9,526.05 203,343 4.68% 153 5,217.52 116,705.0 4.47% REDFISH_M V 1B 213 10,020.63 209,783 4.78% 153 5,697.55 119,299.9 4.78% ROUTE_66_WIND1 213 20,062.94 361,964 5.54% 153 13,240.34 254,554.0 5.20% RSNAKE_G1 213 10,353.07 244,563 4.23% 153 5,644.43 138,132.7 4.09% RSNAKE_G2 213 10,590.97 245,625 4.31% 153 6,071.42 132,540.1 4.58% RTS_U1 213 19,007.43 385,088 4.94% 153 14,013.86 249,907.3 5.61% SALTFORK_UNIT1 213 6,779.59 175,827 3.86% 153 3,387.55 109,005.5 3.11% SALTFORK_UNIT2 213 11,501.47 305,151 3.77% 153 5,978.56 191,200.1 3.13% SALVTION_UNIT1 213 11,729.35 333,513 3.52% 153 8,328.79 189,017.8 4.41% SALVTION_UNIT2 213 11,397.87 330,651 3.45% 153 7,903.34 187,064.4 4.22% SANROMAN_WIND_1 213 9,453.68 194,363 4.86% 153 5,581.74 109,587.1 5.09% SANTACRU_UNIT1 213 9,005.43 165,865 5.43% 153 4,913.03 83,437.3 5.89% SANTACRU_UNIT2 213 4,834.83 114,103 4.24% 153 2,750.61 54,744.5 5.02% SENATEWD_UNIT1 213 13,875.59 357,845 3.88% 153 6,327.82 188,088.9 3.36% SGMTN_SIGNALM 213 2,814.05 44,933 6.26% 153 1,504.74 24,694.8 6.09% SHAFFER_UNIT1 213 20,947.91 373,755 5.60% 153 16,896.15 201,435.6 8.39% SHANNONW_UNIT_1 213 18,165.71 495,884 3.66% 153 10,864.04 251,673.1 4.32% SPLAIN1_WIND1 213 12,309.47 273,374 4.50% 152 5,847.09 136,829.0 4.27% SPLAIN1_WIND2 213 12,171.73 267,226 4.55% 152 6,685.24 141,774.4 4.72% SPLAIN2_WIND21 213 17,235.91 368,091 4.68% 152 8,708.07 187,824.5 4.64% SPLAIN2_WIND22 213 18,402.10 387,162 4.75% 152 9,077.65 192,984.2 4.70% SRWE1_SRWE2 213 16,963.57 396,509 4.28% 152 9,151.39 170,185.7 5.38% SRWE1_UNIT1 213 21,510.35 523,436 4.11% 152 11,398.48 256,915.8 4.44% SSPURTWO_SS3WIND1 213 11,795.69 244,125 4.83% 153 7,238.47 181,601.6 3.99% SSPURTWO_SS3WIND2 213 12,407.96 262,195 4.73% 153 7,679.42 195,186.8 3.93% SSPURTWO_WIND_1 213 18,762.65 368,088 5.10% 153 10,408.75 260,229.5 4.00% STELLA_UNIT1 213 15,411.40 384,912 4.00% 153 10,978.74 260,469.5 4.21% STWF_T1 213 9,979.35 200,685 4.97% 153 4,478.25 115,212.1 3.89% SW_MESA_SW_MESA 211 2,667.55 39,542 6.75% 151 964.87 12,966.7 7.44% S_HILLS_UNIT1 213 3,956.81 89,344 4.43% 153 2,431.72 55,268.9 4.40% SWEC_G1 213 13,169.02 180,071 7.31% 153 5,347.52 93,431.8 5.72% SWEETWN2_WND2 213 9,735.97 257,661 3.78% 153 4,873.61 152,008.0 3.21% SWEETWN2_WND24 213 1,433.24 36,202 3.96% 153 656.77 19,260.7 3.41% SWEETWN3_WND3 213 10,652.87 284,296 3.75% 153 5,391.06 162,346.4 3.32% SWEETWN4_WND4 213 17,224.72 468,412 3.68% 153 9,802.06 242,399.0 4.04% SWEETWN4_WND5 213 7,089.28 146,808 4.83% 153 3,615.79 86,011.6 4.20% SWEETWND_WND1 213 3,900.41 101,485 3.84% 153 1,826.34 60,812.2 3.00% TAHOKA_UNIT_1 213 16,674.09 401,200 4.16% 152 9,903.12 195,351.9 5.07% TAHOKA_UNIT_2 213 16,493.58 401,270 4.11% 152 10,734.59 196,071.7 5.47% TGW_T1 213 9,262.36 170,802 5.42% 153 7,189.03 140,795.6 5.11% TGW_T2 213 9,924.63 175,897 5.64% 153 8,996.67 161,196.6 5.58% TKWSW1_ROSCOE 213 16,988.47 373,125 4.55% 153 9,054.47 204,612.7 4.43% TORR_UNIT1_25 213 21,959.48 301,097 7.29% 153 14,326.64 249,440.9 5.74% TORR_UNIT2_23 213 3,280.13 45,500 7.21% 153 2,135.09 34,284.8 6.23% TORR_UNIT2_25 213 18,726.49 266,358 7.03% 153 11,731.74 206,692.1 5.68% TRENT_TRENT 213 16,289.41 381,297 4.27% 153 7,011.86 236,177.2 2.97% TRINITY_TH1_BUS1 213 8,135.33 93,775 8.68% 153 2,803.20 36,362.9 7.71% TRINITY_TH1_BUS2 213 7,054.78 101,651 6.94% 153 3,179.37 36,613.2 8.68% TTWEC_G1 213 14,098.67 301,937 4.67% 153 8,400.75 163,220.3 5.15% TYLRWIND_UNIT1 213 15,347.02 295,939 5.19% 153 7,379.87 156,788.3 4.71% VERTIGO_WIND_I 213 15,275.62 354,077 4.31% 153 11,069.52 204,283.9 5.42% WAKEWE_G1 213 14,438.30 335,263 4.31% 152 7,999.75 186,989.7 4.28% WAKEWE_G2 213 18,679.13 407,888 4.58% 152 10,110.33 224,505.0 4.50% WEC_WECG1 213 8,124.23 115,616 7.03% 152 4,710.91 72,174.5 6.53% WHTTAIL_WR1 213 13,627.61 220,383 6.18% 153 6,608.41 127,726.1 5.17% WL_RANCH_UNIT1 213 24,928.53 513,373 4.86% 153 14,504.34 336,892.7 4.31% WNDTHST2_UNIT1 213 5,808.99 159,657 3.64% 153 3,565.78 89,417.7 3.99% WOODWRD1_WOODWRD 211 11,379.14 169,567 6.71% 151 9,081.80 128,752.6 7.05%

July 2020 Energy Systems Laboratory, The Texas A&M University System

Page 44

2008 Uncertainty of the Wind Power Generation Prediction Using the Linear Daily Models

30% Non-OSP Uncertainty OSP Uncertainty

25%

20%

15%

10%

0% FLTCK_SSI KEECHI_U1 CFLATS_U1 LGW_UNIT1 LGW_UNIT2 LNCRK_G83 ENAS_ENA1 GUNMTN_G1 LNCRK2_G87 HWF_HWFG1 HICKMAN_G1 HICKMAN_G2 DIGBY_UNIT1 DIGBY_UNIT2 ASTRA_UNIT1 FERMI_WIND1 FERMI_WIND2 BAFFIN_UNIT1 BAFFIN_UNIT2 BRTSW_BCW1 INDL_INADALE CAPRIDGE_CR COTTON_PAP2 KEO_KEO_SM1 CSEC_CSECG1 CSEC_CSECG2 LONEWOLF_G1 LONEWOLF_G2 LONEWOLF_G3 BULLCRK_WND CAPRIDG4_CR4 BRISCOE_WIND CAPRIDGE_CR3 ELB_ELBCREEK KEO_SHRBINO2 BORDAS_JAVEL FTWIND_UNIT_1 LOCKETT_UNIT1 BBREEZE_UNIT1 BBREEZE_UNIT2 CEDROHIL_CHW LGD_LANGFORD LHORN_N_UNIT1 LHORN_N_UNIT2 CALLAHA N_WND ANACACHO_ANA CAMWIND_UNIT1 DERMOTT_UNIT1 DERMOTT_UNIT2 BRAZ_WND_WND CABEZON_WIND1 CABEZON_WIND2 GWEC_GWEC_G1 KING_SE_KINGSE BUFF_GAP_UNIT1 BUFF_GAP_UNIT2 BUFF_GAP_UNIT3 CN_BRKS_UNIT_1 FLUVANNA_UNIT1 FLUVANNA_UNIT2 KING_NE_KINGNE CHAMPION_UNIT1 GOAT_GOATWIND BUCKTHRN_UNIT1 BUCKTHRN_UNIT2 GRANDVW1_GV1A GRANDVW1_GV1B GRANDVW1_COLA GRANDVW1_COLB H_HOLLOW_WND1 HHOLLOW4_WND1 HORSECRK_UNIT1 HORSECRK_UNIT2 KING_SW_KINGSW EXGNSND_WIND_1 EXGNWTL_WIND_1 KING_NW_KINGNW HHOLLOW2_WIND1 GPASTURE_WIND_I BLSUMMIT_BLSMT1 BCATWIND_WIND_1 HHOLLOW3_WND_1 INDNENR_INDNENR HRFDWIND_WIND_V HRFDWIND_WIND_G INDNNWP_INDNNWP BORDAS2_JAVEL2_A BORDAS2_JAVEL2_B BORDAS2_JAVEL2_C BLSUMMIT_UNIT2_17 BLSUMMIT_UNIT2_25 COTPLNS_OLDSETLR COTPLNS_COTTONPL

Wind Farms HRFDWIND_JRDWIND1 HRFDWIND_JRDWIND2

Figure 3-15: Uncertainty of the Wind Power generation Prediction Using the Linear Daily Models for Base Year 2008

2008 Uncertainty of the Wind Power Generation Prediction Using the Linear Daily Models

30% Non-OSP Uncertainty OSP Uncertainty

25%

20%

15%

10%

0% RTS_U1 TGW_T1 TGW_T2 STWF_T1 LV1_LV1A LV1_LV1B SWEC_G1 MWEC_G1 MIAM1_G1 MIAM1_G2 NWF_NWF OVEJA_G1 OVEJA_G2 OWF_OWF PH1_UNIT1 PH1_UNIT2 PH2_UNIT1 PH2_UNIT2 TTWEC_G1 PAP1_PAP1 LV3_UNIT_1 LV4_UNIT_1 LV5_UNIT_1 RSNAKE_G1 RSNAKE_G2 PENA_UNIT1 PENA_UNIT2 PYR_PYRON WAKEWE_G1 WAKEWE_G2 WEC_WECG1 PENA3_UNIT3 MCDLD_FCW1 MCDLD_SBW1 SRWE1_UNIT1 NBOHR_UNIT1 WHTTAIL_WR1 STELLA_UNIT1 TRENT_TRENT S_HILLS_UNIT1 LONEWOLF_G4 SRWE1_SRWE2 REDFISH_MV1A REDFISH_MV1B SPLAIN1_WIND1 SPLAIN1_WIND2 MIDWIND_UNIT1 TORR_UNIT1_25 TORR_UNIT2_23 TORR_UNIT2_25 TAHO KA_UNIT_1 TAHO KA_UNIT_2 SHAFFER_UNIT1 SALVTION_UNIT1 SALVTION_UNIT2 SPLAIN2_WIND21 SPLAIN2_WIND22 MARIAH_NORTE1 MARIAH_NORTE2 MOZART_WIND_1 MESQCRK_WND1 MESQCRK_WND2 VERTIGO_WIND_I TYLRWIND_UNIT1 SGMTN_SIGNALM MIRASOLE_MIR11 MIRASOLE_MIR12 MIRASOLE_MIR21 SALTFORK_UNIT1 SALTFORK_UNIT2 SANTACRU_UNIT1 SANTACRU_UNIT2 ROUTE_66_WIND1 WNDTHST2_UNIT1 WL_RANCH_UNIT1 SENATEWD_UNIT1 SWEETWN2_WND2 SWEETWN3_WND3 SWEETWN4_WND4 SWEETWN4_WND5 TKWSW1_ROSCOE SWEETWND_WND1 TRINITY_TH1_BUS1 TRINITY_TH1_BUS2 SWEETWN2_WND24 SHANNONW_UNIT_1 SSPURTWO_WIND_1 SANROMAN_WIND_1 RDCANYON_RDCNY1 SW_MESA_SW_MESA

PC_SOUTH_PANTHER2 PC_SOUTH_PANTHER3 Wind Farms PC_NORTH_PANTHER1 SSPURTWO_SS3WIND1 SSPURTWO_SS3WIND2 WOODWRD1_WOODWRD Figure 3-15: Uncertainty of the Wind Power generation Prediction Using the Linear Daily Models for Base Y

July 2020 Energy Systems Laboratory, The Texas A&M University System

Page 45

4 DEGRADATION ANALYSIS FOR WIND FARMS

This report contains an updated analysis to determine any degradation that could be observed in the measured power generation from Texas wind farms. By request of the TCEQ, the ESL has been evaluating any observed degradation from the measured data for Texas wind farms. To accomplish this, in this report one hundred and forty-one sites12 built from 2002 to 2016, which have been in operation for more than three years, were evaluated with a total capacity of 18,114.2 MW (see Table 4-1).

In this analysis, a sliding statistical index was established for each site that used the 10th, 25th, 50th, 75th, 90th, and 99th percentiles of the hourly power generation over a 12-month sliding period, as well as mean, minimum and maximum hourly power generation of the same 12-month period. These indices were then displayed using one data symbol for each 12-month slide, beginning from the first 12-month period until the last 12-month period for each of the wind farms.

Table 4-1 presents a summary of the degradation analysis for the one hundred and forty-one sites. For each of the wind farms that are included in the degradation analysis, Table 4-1 includes the first year, average, maximum, and minimum 12-month sliding 90th percentile as well as the number of months of data and the capacity. The first year 12-month sliding 90th percentile reports the 90th percentile for the generation in MW for the first 12-months that the wind farm has been in operation. Similarly, the 90th percentile for the generation in each 12-month is calculated by sliding one month at-a-time toward the current date. Then the maximum and minimum of the calculated 12-month 90th percentiles are reported for each wind farm. Furthermore, the difference between the first 12-month 90th percentile and each of the average, maximum, and minimum 12-month 90th percentiles are reported. Of the one hundred and forty-one sites analyzed, eighty-eight sites showed an increase when one compares the 90th percentile of the whole period to the 90th percentile of the first 12-month period, ranging from 0.3% to 62.1%. The remaining fifty three sites showed a decrease from -0.1% to -26.9%. The weighted average of this increase across all wind farms studied is 4.2% (positive), which indicates that no degradation was observed from the aggregated energy production from these wind farms over the studied operation period. Based on the observations, special attention needs to be paid to sites Papalote Creek Wind Farm (-11.3%), Penascal Wind 3 (-13.0%), Southwest Mesa Wind Farm (-15.2%), Big Spring Wind Farm (-21.3%), Harbor Wind (-21.9%), and Sherbino 2 Wind (-26.9%). Those wind farms have comparison percentages larger than 10%, which may be caused by wind farm operation issues, meter problems or other similar issues.

Table 4-2 and Figure 4-2 show the design capacity, the maximum and minimum of the observed maximum hourly wind power over the sliding 12-month period, and the observed maximum hourly wind power for the last 12-month period for the studied wind farms. It is interesting to note that in most cases the observed maximum hourly wind power generation is equal to, or slightly lower than the design/announced capacity for all the sites. Figure B-1 to Figure B-141 (in Volume II, Appendix B) also present sliding 12-months wind power generations for degradation analysis. An example of the degradation analysis figures shown in Appendix B is illustrated in Figure 4-1.

12 The one hundred and forty one sites presented in the degradation analysis section include one hundred and sixty nine individual wind farms. July 2020 Energy Systems Laboratory, The Texas A&M University System

Page 46

Figure 4-1: Example Sliding 12-month Hourly Wind Power Generation for Anacacho Wind

July 2020 Energy Systems Laboratory, The Texas A&M University System

Page 47

Table 4-1: Summary of 90th Percentile Hourly Wind Power Analysis for 141 Sites in Texas

12-Month Sliding 90th Percentile Hourly Wind Report

No. of Capacity Wind Farm First Year Average Minimum Maximum Months of (MW) Data

First 12-mo % Diff. vs. % Diff. vs. First % Diff. vs. First MW MW MW MW Ending Mo. First 12-mo 12-mo 12-mo

Anacacho Wind Nov-13 83.4 86.7 4.0% 83.0 -0.5% 89.2 6.9% 74 100 Baffin Wind 1 Jan-16 82.7 81.9 -1.0% 63.6 -23.1% 86.1 4.1% 48 100 Baffin Wind 2 Jan-16 80.3 77.9 -3.0% 57.3 -28.6% 82.8 3.2% 48 102 Barton Chapel Wind 1 Dec-09 74.9 75.5 0.8% 61.2 -18.2% 89.1 19.0% 121 120 Big Spring Wind Farm Dec-02 27.2 21.4 -21.3% 11.1 -59.2% 27.2 0.0% 205 41 Blue Summit Wind Oct-13 121.9 119.8 -1.7% 114.6 -6.0% 128.5 5.4% 75 135 Bobcat Bluff Wind Nov-13 115.0 108.2 -5.9% 92.8 -19.4% 127.9 11.2% 74 150 Brazos Wind Ranch Dec-04 127.5 123.3 -3.3% 93.5 -26.7% 139.4 9.3% 181 160 Briscoe Wind Jun-16 123.4 117.4 -4.9% 102.4 -17.0% 128.3 4.0% 43 149.8 Buffalo Gap 1 Nov-06 100.9 97.7 -3.2% 75.4 -25.2% 105.7 4.8% 158 120 Buffalo Gap2 Apr-08 183.4 178.8 -2.5% 104.9 -42.8% 207.6 13.2% 141 233 Buffalo Gap3 Apr-10 122.4 140.1 14.5% 122.4 0.0% 152.1 24.2% 117 170 Bull Creek Wind Plant Dec-09 93.9 95.5 1.7% 41.5 -55.8% 130.4 38.9% 121 180 Callahan Divide Wind Feb-06 93.3 94.3 1.1% 83.9 -10.0% 101.5 8.8% 167 114 Cameron County Wind [Camwind_Unit Oct-16 142.4 129.7 -8.9% 119.8 -15.9% 142.5 0.1% 39 165 Camp Springs Wind 2 Jan-09 94.0 97.3 3.5% 79.4 -15.5% 107.9 14.8% 132 120 Camp Springs Wind Energy Center Apr-08 111.3 106.2 -4.6% 87.7 -21.2% 120.9 8.6% 141 130 Capricorn Ridge Wind 1&2 Aug-08 258.0 256.9 -0.4% 174.5 -32.4% 309.3 19.9% 137 364 Capricorn Ridge Wind 3 Jan-09 120.3 137.7 14.5% 97.9 -18.6% 157.2 30.7% 132 186 Capricorn Ridge Wind 4 May-09 83.5 86.8 4.0% 67.6 -19.0% 100.2 20.0% 128 112.5 Cedro Hill Wind Dec-11 136.3 123.4 -9.5% 101.9 -25.2% 136.9 0.4% 97 150 Champion Wind Farm Jan-09 89.4 102.2 14.2% 87.7 -1.9% 113.2 26.6% 132 126.5 Desert Sky Wind Farm Dec-02 89.0 116.3 30.7% 83.1 -6.7% 134.4 50.9% 205 160.5 Doug Colbeck's Corner (Conway) B Jan-17 90.1 91.7 1.8% 85.7 -4.8% 94.7 5.2% 36 100.2 Doug Colbeck's Corner (Conway) A Jan-17 92.6 92.9 0.3% 91.2 -1.5% 95.2 2.8% 36 100.2 Elbow Creek Wind Dec-09 94.5 93.3 -1.3% 70.2 -25.7% 104.5 10.6% 121 121.9 Forest Creek Wind Dec-07 105.2 104.4 -0.8% 92.4 -12.1% 111.2 5.7% 145 124.2 Goat Wind Apr-09 67.0 103.8 54.9% 61.8 -7.8% 122.6 83.0% 129 150 Goldthwaite Wind 1 Dec-14 122.8 127.6 3.9% 115.8 -5.7% 134.4 9.4% 61 149 Grandview Wind 1 (Conway) GV1A Nov-15 99.3 99.1 -0.1% 97.2 -2.1% 101.4 2.2% 50 107 Grandview Wind 1 (Conway) GV1B Nov-15 94.0 94.5 0.5% 90.8 -3.5% 98.0 4.2% 50 104 Green Pastures Wind I Feb-16 125.2 134.5 7.5% 125.2 0.0% 139.2 11.2% 47 150 Gulf Wind 1 Jun-10 108.6 104.7 -3.6% 85.2 -21.6% 119.4 9.9% 115 141.6 Gulf Wind 2 Jun-10 116.5 114.4 -1.8% 89.7 -23.0% 126.3 8.4% 115 141.6 Gunsight Mountain Wind Jan-17 109.5 113.7 3.8% 109.5 0.0% 115.2 5.2% 36 119.9 Hackberry Wind Dec-09 138.0 127.0 -8.0% 105.8 -23.3% 140.6 1.9% 121 165.5 Harbor Wind Jan-13 6.1 4.8 -21.9% 0.7 -88.0% 7.1 15.9% 84 9 Hereford Wind G Dec-15 80.9 83.5 3.3% 79.9 -1.2% 86.9 7.5% 49 99.9 Hereford Wind V Dec-15 90.4 94.1 4.1% 90.4 0.0% 95.7 5.8% 49 100 Hidalgo & Starr Wind 11 Jul-17 45.1 46.6 3.3% 45.1 0.0% 47.3 5.1% 30 52 Hidalgo & Starr Wind 12 Jul-17 85.8 89.1 3.8% 85.8 0.0% 91.2 6.3% 30 98 Hidalgo & Starr Wind 21 Jul-17 85.0 87.7 3.2% 85.0 0.0% 89.2 4.9% 30 100 Horse Hollow Phase1 Jun-06 157.0 166.4 6.0% 141.3 -10.0% 185.1 17.9% 163 213 Horse Hollow Phase 2 Aug-07 145.7 139.6 -4.2% 99.0 -32.1% 160.6 10.2% 149 184 Horse Hollow Phase 3 May-07 169.2 167.6 -1.0% 123.9 -26.8% 187.7 11.0% 152 223.5 Horse Hollow Phase 4 Jun-07 88.6 90.0 1.6% 80.9 -8.7% 103.1 16.3% 151 115 Inadale Wind Sep-10 117.9 139.5 18.4% 99.0 -16.0% 166.3 41.1% 112 197 Indian Mesa Wind Farm Dec-02 48.0 54.7 13.9% 36.0 -24.9% 72.2 50.5% 205 82.5 Javelina Wind 18 Sep-16 211.0 221.7 5.1% 211.0 0.0% 229.3 8.7% 40 249.7 Jumbo Road Wind 1 Mar-16 117.3 124.0 5.8% 117.3 0.0% 129.1 10.1% 46 146.2 Jumbo Road Wind 2 Mar-16 119.7 127.8 6.8% 119.7 0.0% 133.0 11.1% 46 153.6 Keechi Wind 138 Kv Joplin Dec-15 99.7 102.5 2.9% 99.5 -0.2% 103.8 4.1% 49 110 King Mountain-NE Wind Farm Dec-02 41.8 43.5 4.0% 20.8 -50.3% 56.4 34.8% 205 79.3 King Mountain-NW Wind Farm Dec-02 44.7 51.8 15.9% 27.7 -37.9% 65.3 46.1% 205 79.3 King Mountain-SE Wind Farm Dec-02 21.6 21.9 1.4% 11.8 -45.7% 28.1 29.8% 205 40.3 King Mountain-SW Wind Farm Dec-02 41.6 44.1 6.1% 22.9 -44.9% 53.7 29.1% 205 79.3 Langford Wind Dec-10 115.7 125.9 8.8% 107.8 -6.9% 134.3 16.0% 109 150 Logans Gap Wind I U1 Apr-16 88.5 85.7 -3.2% 80.6 -9.0% 90.6 2.3% 45 103.8 Logans Gap Wind I U2 Apr-16 83.8 83.4 -0.5% 77.5 -7.6% 86.6 3.3% 45 106.3 Lone Star-Mesquite Wind Sep-08 140.4 147.6 5.1% 128.9 -8.2% 168.1 19.7% 136 200 Lone Star-Post Oak Wind Mar-09 149.1 152.7 2.4% 134.7 -9.6% 170.5 14.4% 130 200 Longhorn Wind North U1 Mar-16 91.0 93.0 2.2% 91.0 0.0% 94.0 3.3% 46 100 Longhorn Wind North U2 Dec-15 88.9 93.2 4.9% 88.9 0.0% 95.0 6.9% 49 100 Loraine Windpark I Dec-10 30.4 36.0 18.5% 25.9 -14.8% 42.3 39.2% 109 126 Loraine Windpark II Dec-10 27.8 36.6 31.8% 25.7 -7.6% 43.3 55.7% 109 124.5 Loraine Windpark III Jan-12 16.2 20.5 26.3% 16.2 0.0% 22.6 39.4% 96 26 Loraine Windpark IV Dec-12 17.4 17.3 -0.7% 5.0 -71.5% 20.8 19.1% 85 24 Los Vientos Wind I Oct-13 148.5 165.5 11.4% 148.5 0.0% 175.1 17.9% 75 200.1 Los Vientos Wind II Nov-13 153.3 152.2 -0.8% 134.4 -12.3% 164.3 7.2% 74 201.6 Los Vientos III Wind Feb-16 154.0 168.6 9.5% 154.0 0.0% 175.9 14.3% 47 200 Los Vientos IV Wind Apr-17 167.7 175.3 4.5% 167.7 0.0% 180.0 7.3% 33 200 Los Vientos V Wind Nov-16 91.9 93.8 2.1% 91.7 -0.2% 96.8 5.4% 38 110 July 2020 Energy Systems Laboratory, The Texas A&M University System

Page 48

Table 4-1: Summary of 90th Percentile Hourly Wind Power Analysis for 141 Sites in Texas (Cont.)

12-Month Sliding 90th Percentile Hourly Wind Report

No. of Capacity Wind Farm First Year Average Minimum Maximum Months of (MW) Data

First 12-mo % Diff. vs. % Diff. vs. First % Diff. vs. First MW MW MW MW Ending Mo. First 12-mo 12-mo 12-mo

Magic Valley Wind (Redfish) 1A Apr-13 88.6 86.0 -2.9% 79.3 -10.5% 90.7 2.4% 81 99.8 Magic Valley Wind (Redfish) 1B Jul-13 94.2 89.7 -4.8% 83.8 -11.1% 94.6 0.4% 78 103.5 McAdoo Wind Dec-09 111.7 136.5 22.2% 111.7 0.0% 143.6 28.5% 121 150 Mesquite Creek Wind 1 Dec-15 93.3 93.2 -0.1% 87.4 -6.3% 97.7 4.7% 49 105.6 Mesquite Creek Wind 2 Dec-15 90.5 91.4 1.0% 84.8 -6.3% 96.2 6.2% 49 105.6 Miami Wind G1 Aug-15 125.8 130.0 3.3% 125.8 0.0% 132.6 5.4% 53 144 Miami Wind G2 Aug-15 126.0 130.5 3.6% 126.0 0.0% 133.4 5.9% 53 144 Notrees Windpower Feb-10 103.7 112.9 9.0% 103.7 0.0% 122.9 18.6% 119 153 Ocotillo Windpower Dec-09 39.1 39.9 2.0% 27.3 -30.2% 47.2 20.7% 121 58.8 Panhandle Wind 1 U1 May-15 94.5 97.8 3.6% 93.5 -1.1% 101.3 7.2% 56 109 Panhandle Wind 1 U2 May-15 90.6 93.7 3.4% 87.1 -3.8% 98.0 8.2% 56 109 Panhandle Wind 2 U1 Oct-15 88.2 87.9 -0.4% 84.8 -3.8% 90.0 2.0% 51 94 Panhandle Wind 2 U2 Sep-15 90.2 90.7 0.7% 88.1 -2.3% 93.4 3.6% 52 97 Panther Creek 2 Dec-09 91.8 96.4 5.0% 83.5 -9.0% 104.2 13.5% 121 115.5 Panther Creek 3 Aug-10 128.5 155.1 20.7% 120.0 -6.6% 177.1 37.8% 113 199.5 Panther Creek Dec-09 114.4 121.4 6.1% 107.8 -5.8% 128.9 12.7% 121 142.5 Papalote Creek Phase II Dec-11 174.2 164.5 -5.6% 154.2 -11.5% 176.3 1.2% 97 200.1 Papalote Creek Wind Farm Dec-10 150.1 133.2 -11.3% 39.6 -73.6% 157.9 5.2% 109 180 Penascal Wind 1 Feb-11 133.2 124.5 -6.5% 99.7 -25.2% 141.5 6.2% 107 161 Penascal Wind 2 Dec-09 83.3 108.3 30.0% 80.7 -3.1% 125.4 50.5% 121 142 Penascal 3 May-11 87.1 75.8 -13.0% 65.7 -24.6% 88.8 2.0% 104 101 Pyron Dec-09 157.2 192.4 22.5% 151.4 -3.7% 220.1 40.0% 121 249 Rattlesnake Den Wind Phase 1 G1 Mar-16 97.0 95.6 -1.5% 81.6 -15.8% 99.7 2.8% 46 104.3 Rattlesnake Den Wind Phase 1 G2 Mar-16 93.5 92.3 -1.2% 81.0 -13.4% 97.3 4.0% 46 103 Red Canyon1 Aug-07 76.4 75.5 -1.1% 71.0 -7.0% 79.1 3.6% 149 84 Roscoe Wind Farm Dec-08 169.4 153.3 -9.5% 108.1 -36.2% 179.8 6.2% 133 209 Route 66 Wind Mar-16 139.0 140.1 0.8% 132.9 -4.4% 142.6 2.5% 46 150 Saltfork_Unit1 Aug-17 58.1 60.6 4.3% 58.1 0.0% 61.7 6.2% 29 64 Saltfork_Unit2 Aug-17 100.9 104.2 3.3% 100.9 0.0% 105.4 4.4% 29 110 Sand Bluff Wind Nov-08 69.4 64.4 -7.2% 48.5 -30.2% 75.4 8.6% 134 90 Senate Wind Sep-13 127.1 125.7 -1.1% 119.0 -6.4% 132.2 4.0% 76 150 Sendero Wind Energy Aug-16 67.2 70.4 4.8% 67.2 0.0% 72.4 7.7% 41 76 Shannon Wind Oct-16 175.3 179.5 2.4% 175.3 0.0% 183.9 4.9% 39 204.1 Sherbino 1 Wind Dec-09 104.7 107.1 2.4% 77.5 -26.0% 128.1 22.4% 121 150 Sherbino 2 Wind Dec-12 125.7 91.9 -26.9% 36.8 -70.7% 125.7 0.0% 85 150 Silver Star Wind Apr-09 40.6 42.7 5.3% 16.5 -59.4% 50.5 24.4% 129 60 Snyder Wind Project Dec-08 46.5 44.2 -5.0% 34.2 -26.3% 50.9 9.6% 133 63 South Plains Wind 2 Jul-16 89.2 90.7 1.7% 88.1 -1.2% 92.5 3.7% 42 98 South Plains Wind II A Dec-16 120.2 135.5 12.7% 120.2 0.0% 141.3 17.5% 37 148.5 South Plains Wind II B Dec-16 137.7 141.5 2.8% 128.1 -6.9% 145.1 5.4% 37 151.8 South Plains Wind I Jul-16 94.8 93.8 -1.0% 90.7 -4.4% 95.5 0.8% 42 102 South Trent Wind Farm Dec-09 67.7 83.1 22.8% 65.4 -3.5% 91.0 34.4% 121 101.2 Southwest Mesa Wind Farm Dec-02 51.1 43.3 -15.2% 11.9 -76.6% 56.5 10.6% 205 74.6 Spinning Spur 3 [Wind 1] Apr-16 87.5 90.5 3.4% 87.5 0.0% 91.6 4.7% 45 96 Spinning Spur 3 (Wind 2) Apr-16 88.4 92.8 4.9% 88.4 0.0% 93.9 6.2% 45 98 Spinning Spur Wind Two May-15 140.9 145.9 3.6% 140.9 0.0% 149.4 6.1% 56 161 Stanton Wind Energy Dec-08 79.4 96.4 21.4% 79.4 0.0% 107.1 34.8% 133 120 Stephens Ranch Wind 2 Mar-16 144.3 148.9 3.3% 144.3 0.0% 151.9 5.3% 46 164.7 Stephens Ranch Wind 1 Nov-15 182.9 189.0 3.3% 182.9 0.0% 193.1 5.6% 50 211 Sweetwater Wind 1 Dec-04 34.1 32.9 -3.4% 28.8 -15.4% 35.8 5.0% 181 37.5 Sweetwater Wind 2 Jan-06 71.4 82.1 15.1% 71.4 0.0% 89.5 25.4% 168 97.5 Sweetwater Wind Farm 3 Dec-06 99.6 101.2 1.6% 67.1 -32.7% 111.2 11.6% 157 135 Sweetwater Wind 4 Mar-08 161.0 171.3 6.4% 153.2 -4.9% 182.2 13.2% 142 240.8 Sweetwater Wind 5 Dec-08 66.5 62.4 -6.1% 56.3 -15.3% 69.3 4.3% 133 80.5 Sweetwater Wind24 Mar-08 13.1 13.7 4.7% 12.0 -8.7% 14.8 13.3% 142 16 Trent Mesa Wind Farm Dec-02 108.8 113.2 4.0% 34.2 -68.5% 132.8 22.0% 205 150 Trinity Hills Wind Farm 1 Dec-12 78.8 77.8 -1.3% 35.7 -54.7% 89.3 13.3% 85 118 Trinity Hills Wind Farm 2 Dec-12 74.8 75.9 1.5% 35.9 -52.0% 88.0 17.7% 85 108 Turkey Track Wind Energy Center Dec-09 77.4 125.4 62.1% 76.5 -1.1% 143.1 85.0% 121 169.5 Tyler Bluff Wind Aug-17 104.0 107.8 3.7% 104.0 0.0% 110.7 6.5% 29 125.6 Vertigo Wind (Formerly Green Pastures Nov-16 123.5 129.8 5.1% 121.3 -1.8% 133.4 8.0% 38 150 Wake Wind 1 Apr-17 109.3 109.1 -0.2% 107.4 -1.8% 110.2 0.8% 33 114.9 Wake Wind 2 Apr-17 136.0 135.5 -0.4% 133.3 -2.0% 137.0 0.7% 33 142.3 Whirlwind Dec-08 54.0 51.8 -4.1% 39.8 -26.3% 56.9 5.4% 133 60 Whitetail Wind Oct-13 72.9 68.4 -6.1% 64.2 -11.9% 73.1 0.3% 75 92 Windthorst 2 Wind Oct-15 50.3 56.7 12.6% 50.3 0.0% 59.4 18.1% 51 68 WKN Mozart Wind Oct-13 22.4 22.2 -1.1% 20.4 -9.0% 25.8 15.0% 75 30 Wolf Ridge Wind Dec-09 105.9 101.3 -4.4% 87.5 -17.4% 108.8 2.7% 121 112.5 Woodward Wind Farm Dec-02 85.3 94.4 10.7% 65.2 -23.5% 112.4 31.8% 205 159.7 Weighted Average: 4.2% -14.1% 14.5% Total: 18114.2

July 2020 Energy Systems Laboratory, The Texas A&M University System

Page 49

Table 4-2: Summary of Maximum Hourly Wind Power Analysis for 141 Sites in Texas

12-Month Slididng Maximum MW- Measured

Maximum MW in Wind Farm Design Capacity (A) Last 12-mo - Difference (A-B) Difference (B-D) Maximum Minimum Measured (D) (B) (C)

Anacacho Wind 100.0 98.1 97.0 98.1 1.9 0.0 Baffin Wind 1 100.0 98.6 97.8 97.9 1.4 0.7 Baffin Wind 2 102.0 100.7 98.9 99.9 1.3 0.9 Barton Chapel Wind 1 120.0 114.1 101.1 105.0 5.9 9.1 Big Spring Wind Farm 41.0 37.0 17.1 37.0 4.0 0.0 Blue Summit Wind 135.0 135.0 134.3 134.3 0.0 0.7 Bobcat Bluff Wind 150.0 150.0 145.2 149.9 0.0 0.0 Brazos Wind Ranch 160.0 160.0 118.9 145.2 0.0 14.8 Briscoe Wind 149.8 147.9 146.0 147.9 1.9 0.0 Buffalo Gap 1 120.0 120.0 111.5 118.8 0.0 1.2 Buffalo Gap2 233.0 232.7 223.7 223.9 0.3 8.8 Buffalo Gap3 170.0 167.9 164.5 164.5 2.1 3.4 Bull Creek Wind Plant 180.0 177.6 73.6 174.8 2.4 2.8 Callahan Divide Wind 114.0 113.9 103.7 112.9 0.1 1.0 Cameron County Wind [Camwind_Unit 165.0 163.4 156.4 156.4 1.6 7.0 Camp Springs Wind 2 120.0 120.0 118.3 119.4 0.0 0.6 Camp Springs Wind Energy Center 130.0 130.0 125.7 129.0 0.0 1.0 Capricorn Ridge Wind 1&2 364.0 358.3 335.8 349.5 5.7 8.8 Capricorn Ridge Wind 3 186.0 186.0 180.1 182.3 0.0 3.7 Capricorn Ridge Wind 4 112.5 112.5 110.1 112.3 0.0 0.2 Cedro Hill Wind 150.0 149.9 145.8 145.8 0.1 4.1 Champion Wind Farm 126.5 124.5 122.3 122.3 2.0 2.2 Desert Sky Wind Farm 160.5 160.3 105.8 136.8 0.3 23.4 Doug Colbeck's Corner (Conway) B 100.2 99.5 97.6 98.5 0.7 1.0 Doug Colbeck's Corner (Conway) A 100.2 100.1 98.2 100.1 0.1 0.0 Elbow Creek Wind 121.9 118.7 88.9 118.2 3.2 0.5 Forest Creek Wind 124.2 123.9 119.7 123.0 0.3 0.9 Goat Wind 150.0 149.9 80.9 149.5 0.1 0.4 Goldthwaite Wind 1 149.0 148.7 143.9 148.4 0.3 0.3 Grandview Wind 1 (Conway) GV1A 107.0 106.9 103.9 106.9 0.1 0.0 Grandview Wind 1 (Conway) GV1B 104.0 103.8 100.0 100.9 0.2 3.0 Green Pastures Wind I 150.0 149.9 148.5 149.0 0.1 1.0 Gulf Wind 1 141.6 140.7 135.9 140.5 0.9 0.2 Gulf Wind 2 141.6 140.9 134.6 140.3 0.7 0.6 Gunsight Mountain Wind 119.9 118.6 118.4 118.4 1.3 0.2 Hackberry Wind 165.5 162.8 162.0 162.6 2.7 0.2 Harbor Wind 9.0 9.0 2.4 2.4 0.0 6.6 Hereford Wind G 99.9 98.4 96.6 98.4 1.5 0.0 Hereford Wind V 100.0 99.2 98.0 98.0 0.8 1.1 Hidalgo & Starr Wind 11 52.0 51.4 51.1 51.1 0.6 0.3 Hidalgo & Starr Wind 12 98.0 97.8 96.3 96.4 0.2 1.4 Hidalgo & Starr Wind 21 100.0 98.3 97.4 98.0 1.7 0.3 Horse Hollow Phase1 213.0 211.3 196.7 205.8 1.7 5.5 Horse Hollow Phase 2 184.0 183.4 156.7 178.8 0.6 4.6 Horse Hollow Phase 3 223.5 223.0 178.7 215.4 0.5 7.6 Horse Hollow Phase 4 115.0 114.0 105.3 112.4 1.0 1.6 Inadale Wind 197.0 197.0 188.5 197.0 0.0 0.0 Indian Mesa Wind Farm 82.5 80.1 49.4 58.7 2.4 21.4 Javelina Wind 18 249.7 247.9 246.3 246.3 1.8 1.5 Jumbo Road Wind 1 146.2 143.7 143.3 143.6 2.5 0.1 Jumbo Road Wind 2 153.6 151.3 151.0 151.1 2.3 0.2 Keechi Wind 138 Kv Joplin 110.0 107.5 106.7 106.7 2.5 0.8 King Mountain-NE Wind Farm 79.3 77.0 47.2 61.8 2.3 15.2 King Mountain-NW Wind Farm 79.3 77.6 52.1 59.2 1.7 18.4 King Mountain-SE Wind Farm 40.3 40.0 27.8 35.8 0.3 4.3 King Mountain-SW Wind Farm 79.3 75.9 45.6 68.7 3.4 7.2 Langford Wind 150.0 150.0 147.2 149.4 0.0 0.6 Logans Gap Wind I U1 103.8 103.3 95.6 103.3 0.5 0.0 Logans Gap Wind I U2 106.3 102.1 99.4 102.1 4.2 0.0 Lone Star-Mesquite Wind 200.0 195.0 183.2 183.2 5.0 11.8 Lone Star-Post Oak Wind 200.0 192.1 178.8 186.9 7.9 5.2 Longhorn Wind North U1 100.0 99.3 97.6 97.7 0.7 1.6 Longhorn Wind North U2 100.0 99.0 97.7 97.7 1.0 1.3 Loraine Windpark I 126.0 95.2 48.7 95.2 30.8 0.0 Loraine Windpark II 124.5 80.8 50.7 51.9 43.7 28.9 Loraine Windpark III 26.0 26.0 23.6 24.3 0.0 1.7 Loraine Windpark IV 24.0 24.0 17.5 23.3 0.0 0.7 Los Vientos Wind I 200.1 199.2 196.6 197.1 0.9 2.2 Los Vientos Wind II 201.6 201.4 195.8 199.4 0.2 2.0 Los Vientos III Wind 200.0 195.5 188.0 192.3 4.5 3.3 Los Vientos IV Wind 200.0 195.6 192.0 195.6 4.4 0.0 Los Vientos V Wind 110.0 107.8 105.6 107.8 2.2 0.0

July 2020 Energy Systems Laboratory, The Texas A&M University System

Page 50

Table 4-2: Summary of Maximum Hourly Wind Power Analysis for 141 Sites in Texas (Cont.)

12-Month Slididng Maximum MW- Measured

Maximum MW in Wind Farm Design Capacity (A) Last 12-mo - Difference (A-B) Difference (B-D) Maximum Minimum Measured (D) (B) (C)

Magic Valley Wind (Redfish) 1A 99.8 98.7 95.9 97.4 1.1 1.3 Magic Valley Wind (Redfish) 1B 103.5 103.4 99.3 101.0 0.1 2.4 McAdoo Wind 150.0 150.0 149.6 149.6 0.0 0.4 Mesquite Creek Wind 1 105.6 104.1 103.3 104.1 1.5 0.0 Mesquite Creek Wind 2 105.6 103.6 100.2 103.6 2.0 0.0 Miami Wind G1 144.0 141.3 140.3 141.1 2.7 0.2 Miami Wind G2 144.0 141.5 140.9 141.2 2.5 0.3 Notrees Windpower 153.0 151.7 145.6 148.4 1.3 3.3 Ocotillo Windpower 58.8 57.5 42.0 56.5 1.3 1.0 Panhandle Wind 1 U1 109.0 109.0 108.6 109.0 0.0 0.0 Panhandle Wind 1 U2 109.0 108.3 105.1 108.3 0.7 0.0 Panhandle Wind 2 U1 94.0 93.8 91.3 93.8 0.2 0.0 Panhandle Wind 2 U2 97.0 96.9 94.7 96.9 0.1 0.0 Panther Creek 2 115.5 115.5 112.2 115.2 0.0 0.3 Panther Creek 3 199.5 199.5 193.6 198.0 0.0 1.5 Panther Creek 142.5 142.5 139.0 139.0 0.0 3.5 Papalote Creek Phase II 200.1 195.6 191.7 193.3 4.5 2.3 Papalote Creek Wind Farm 180.0 180.0 49.2 180.0 0.0 0.0 Penascal Wind 1 161.0 161.0 152.0 160.3 0.0 0.7 Penascal Wind 2 142.0 142.0 127.4 141.6 0.0 0.4 Penascal 3 101.0 100.9 94.0 100.0 0.1 0.9 Pyron 249.0 249.0 244.3 245.8 0.0 3.2 Rattlesnake Den Wind Phase 1 G1 104.3 103.6 100.9 103.6 0.7 0.0 Rattlesnake Den Wind Phase 1 G2 103.0 101.7 98.2 101.7 1.3 0.0 Red Canyon1 84.0 84.0 82.1 83.8 0.0 0.2 Roscoe Wind Farm 209.0 209.0 199.5 208.9 0.0 0.1 Route 66 Wind 150.0 147.1 146.3 146.4 2.9 0.7 Saltfork_Unit1 64.0 64.0 62.8 64.0 0.0 0.0 Saltfork_Unit2 110.0 108.7 108.3 108.3 1.3 0.4 Sand Bluff Wind 90.0 89.3 74.9 89.3 0.7 0.0 Senate Wind 150.0 146.1 142.3 142.6 3.9 3.5 Sendero Wind Energy 76.0 76.0 75.9 75.9 0.0 0.1 Shannon Wind 204.1 202.1 201.3 201.8 2.0 0.2 Sherbino 1 Wind 150.0 149.9 118.1 120.1 0.1 29.8 Sherbino 2 Wind 150.0 146.8 71.3 97.1 3.2 49.7 Silver Star Wind 60.0 60.0 31.8 31.8 0.0 28.2 Snyder Wind Project 63.0 63.0 52.8 52.8 0.0 10.2 South Plains Wind 2 98.0 97.3 95.5 97.2 0.7 0.0 South Plains Wind II A 148.5 146.4 145.5 146.4 2.1 0.0 South Plains Wind II B 151.8 149.7 148.3 149.7 2.1 0.0 South Plains Wind I 102.0 100.7 99.1 100.7 1.3 0.0 South Trent Wind Farm 101.2 99.0 89.8 96.9 2.2 2.1 Southwest Mesa Wind Farm 74.6 73.3 30.2 71.2 1.3 2.1 Spinning Spur 3 [Wind 1] 96.0 95.2 93.6 93.6 0.8 1.7 Spinning Spur 3 (Wind 2) 98.0 98.0 95.4 95.4 0.0 2.6 Spinning Spur Wind Two 161.0 157.9 156.3 157.9 3.1 0.0 Stanton Wind Energy 120.0 120.0 118.7 119.1 0.0 0.9 Stephens Ranch Wind 2 164.7 162.2 160.5 162.2 2.5 0.0 Stephens Ranch Wind 1 211.0 207.6 204.8 207.6 3.4 0.0 Sweetwater Wind 1 37.5 37.5 36.0 37.5 0.0 0.0 Sweetwater Wind 2 97.5 97.5 91.8 91.8 0.0 5.7 Sweetwater Wind Farm 3 135.0 131.2 121.5 125.1 3.8 6.1 Sweetwater Wind 4 240.8 240.6 216.7 233.4 0.2 7.2 Sweetwater Wind 5 80.5 80.5 76.9 79.3 0.0 1.2 Sweetwater Wind24 16.0 16.0 15.9 16.0 0.0 0.0 Trent Mesa Wind Farm 150.0 147.6 37.4 143.0 2.4 4.5 Trinity Hills Wind Farm 1 118.0 117.7 85.4 117.7 0.3 0.0 Trinity Hills Wind Farm 2 108.0 107.6 103.4 107.6 0.4 0.0 Turkey Track Wind Energy Center 169.5 169.5 164.8 165.2 0.0 4.3 Tyler Bluff Wind 125.6 123.1 117.5 123.1 2.5 0.0 Vertigo Wind (Formerly Green Pastures 150.0 148.6 147.8 147.8 1.4 0.8 Wake Wind 1 114.9 113.4 113.1 113.1 1.5 0.3 Wake Wind 2 142.3 140.4 138.7 139.3 1.9 1.1 Whirlwind 60.0 59.3 57.0 58.4 0.7 0.9 Whitetail Wind 92.0 90.7 89.3 90.0 1.3 0.7 Windthorst 2 Wind 68.0 66.7 64.5 66.3 1.3 0.4 WKN Mozart Wind 30.0 30.0 29.9 29.9 0.0 0.1 Wolf Ridge Wind 112.5 112.5 111.6 112.5 0.0 0.0 Woodward Wind Farm 159.7 148.7 104.1 138.7 11.0 10.1 Total: 18114.2 17856.2 16268.7 17398.6 258.0 457.7

July 2020 Energy Systems Laboratory, The Texas A&M University System

Page 51

Figure 4-2: Design and Hourly Measured Maximum Capacity for 141 Wind Farms

July 2020 Energy Systems Laboratory, The Texas A&M University System

Page 52

5 CALCULATING NOx EMISSIONS REDUCTION FROM WIND POWER

5.1 Calculation of NOx Emissions from Wind Power Using 2016 eGRID

The Energy Systems Laboratory has worked closely with the TCEQ and EPA to develop credible procedures for calculating NOx reductions from electricity savings using the 2016 EPA’s Emissions and Generation Resource Integrated Database (eGRID13). The calculation uses a simplified dispatch approach of the ERCOT grid to estimate NOx emission reductions across the ERCOT region in Texas. ERCOT is currently divided into four CL zones: Houston (H), North (N), South (S), and West (W). The 2016 eGrid table, which describes the distribution of the NOx emission reductions per CL zone for each county in Texas, has four developed steps (EPA and ESL 2008): 1. assign energy savings to CL Zones 2. assign generation reductions within each CL Zone to individual plants 3. determine plant-specific NOx emission rates 4. assemble all CL Zones for total savings

The procedure presented in this section calculates annual and peak-day, county-wide NOx reductions from electricity savings from wind projects implemented in the CL Zones in ERCOT listed in the EPA’s eGRID. For this purpose, a special version of eGRID14 was developed that reflects the 2016 electricity and pollution from electric utilities in ERCOT. The NOx production for each power plant is provided from the 2016 eGRID database for four CL zones: Houston, North, West, and South. This eGRID matrix was utilized to assign the power plant used by CL zones, once a CL zone had been chosen for a given county. Figure 5-1 shows a snapshot of the NOx emission distribution among Texas counties from generating one mega-watt-hour of electricity in the CL zones, which was derived from the 2016 Annual eGRID table. For example, the counties marked in red show higher NOx emissions of above 0.1 lbs/MWh. The counties marked in dark green were least impacted by the NOx emissions (less than 0.0005 lbs/MWh), Figure 5-1 shows county-wide NOx emissions distribution for all the CL zones: Houston, North, West, and South.

To calculate the NOx emissions reduction from the wind projects within the ERCOT region, the total MWh wind power for each CL zone is summarized in Table 5-2 and Table 5-3 for modeled 2008 baseline and 2018 measured data. Both annual wind power and OSP wind power are presented. Table 5-1 shows the latest wind farm information from PUCT, updated in Jan 2020. Only the completed projects are shown in the ERCOT, WSCC and SPP regions, with a total generation capacity of 24,133 MW by wind resource. The total MWh production in each CL zone was input in the corresponding cells in the eGRID table to calculate the total annual and OSP emissions reductions for the entire ERCOT region in 2008 model (using 2008 wind speed data) and 2018 (using measured data), as shown from Table 5-4 to Table 5-7.

According to the developed models, the total MWh savings in the base year 2008 for the wind farms within the ERCOT region are 80,722,652 MWh/yr and 198,978 MWh/day in the OSP, compared with total 74,903,938MWh/yr savings and 203,888 MWh/day in the OSP in 2019 within ERCOT. The total NOx emissions reductions for modeled 2008 across all the counties amount to 40,892 tons/yr and 106.9 tons/day for the OSP. Compared to the modeled 2008, the total NOx emissions reductions in 2019 is lower by 7.5%, from 40,892 tons/yr to 37,812 tons/yr. For the OSP, the total NOx emissions reductions increased by 1.4%, from 106.9 tons/day to 108.4 tons/day. The distribution of the NOx emissions reduction in the counties within the ERCOT region is shown in Figure 5-2 through Figure 5-5. The 2016 eGRID shows that the counties Scurry, Potter and Wilbarger got the most emissions benefit from the wind farms.

13 For this report, the non-attainment area was modified using the current TCEQ information at https://www.tceq.texas.gov/assets/public/comm_exec/pubs/rg/rg388/rg-388.pdf 14 This 2016 eGRID table for Texas was retrived by the US EPA at https://www.epa.gov/energy/emissions-generation-resource-integrated- database-egrid July 2020 Energy Systems Laboratory, The Texas A&M University System

Page 53

(a) (b)

July 2020 Energy Systems Laboratory, The Texas A&M University System

Page 54

Table 5-1: Wind Farm Information from the PUCT

Facility County Resource Capacity (MW) In Service Region Notes Texas Wind Pow er Project Culberson Wind 35.00 Oct-95 ERCOT Big Spring Wind Pow er How ard Wind 34.00 Feb-99 ERCOT Big Spring Wind Pow er How ard Wind 6.60 Jun-99 ERCOT Delaw are Mountain Wind Farm Culberson Wind 30.00 Jun-99 ERCOT Retried (NOT counted in total capacity) Southw est Mesa Wind Project Upton Wind 75.00 Jun-99 ERCOT Hueco Mountain Wind Ranch El Paso Wind 1.30 Apr-01 WSCC Indian Mesa Pecos Wind 82.50 Jun-01 ERCOT Woodw ard Mountain Ranch Pecos Wind 160.00 Jul-01 ERCOT Trent Mesa Nolan Wind 150.00 Nov-01 ERCOT Desert Sky (Indian Mesa II) Pecos Wind 160.00 Dec-01 ERCOT King Mountain Wind Ranch Upton Wind 278.00 Dec-01 ERCOT Llano Estacado Wind Ranch Carson Wind 79.00 Jan-02 SPP Brazos Wind Ranch Scurry Wind 160.00 Dec-03 ERCOT Sw eetw ater Wind 1 Nolan Wind 37.50 Dec-03 ERCOT Hansford Wind 3.00 Dec-03 SPP Callahan Divide Wind Energy Center Taylor Wind 114.00 Feb-05 ERCOT Sw eetw ater Wind 2 Nolan Wind 91.50 Feb-05 ERCOT Buffalo Gap 1 Taylor Wind 120.00 Sep-05 ERCOT Horse Hollow Phase 1 Taylor Wind 213.00 Oct-05 ERCOT Sw eetw ater Wind 3 (Cottonw ood Creek) Nolan Wind 135.00 Dec-05 ERCOT Horse Hollow Phase 2 Taylor Wind 223.50 May-06 ERCOT Red Canyon 1 Borden Wind 84.00 May-06 ERCOT Horse Hollow Phase 3 Taylor Wind 299.00 Sep-06 ERCOT Forest Creek Wind Farm Sterling Wind 124.20 Dec-06 ERCOT Sand Bluff Wind Farm Sterling Wind 90.00 Dec-06 ERCOT Wildorado Wind Ranch Oldham Wind 161.00 Apr-07 SPP Sw eetw ater Wind 4 (Cottonw ood Creek) Nolan Wind 241.00 May-07 ERCOT Camp Springs I Scurry Wind 130.00 Jul-07 ERCOT Buffalo Gap 2 (Cirello 1) Taylor Wind 233.00 Aug-07 ERCOT Capricorn Ridge Wind Sterling Wind 364.00 Sep-07 ERCOT previously Goat Mtn. Barton Chapel Wind 1 Jack Wind 120.00 Dec-07 ERCOT Lone Star - Mesquite Wind Shackleford Wind 200.00 Dec-07 ERCOT Snyder Wind Project Scurry Wind 63.00 Dec-07 ERCOT Sw eetw ater Wind 5 Nolan Wind 80.00 Dec-07 ERCOT Whirlw ind Floyd Wind 60.00 Dec-07 ERCOT Champion Wind Farm Scurry Wind 126.00 Jan-08 ERCOT Roscoe Wind Farm 1 Scurry Wind 209.00 Jan-08 ERCOT Stanton Wind Energy Martin Wind 120.00 Jan-08 ERCOT Silver Star Phase I Erath Wind 60.00 Mar-08 ERCOT Buffalo Gap 3 Taylor Wind 170.00 Apr-08 ERCOT Goat Wind Sterling Wind 80.00 Apr-08 ERCOT Capricorn Ridge Wind (exp) Sterling Wind 298.00 May-08 ERCOT previously Goat Mtn. Lone Star - Post Oak Wind Shackleford Wind 200.00 May-08 ERCOT McAdoo Wind Energy Dickens Wind 150.00 May-08 ERCOT Camp Springs II Scurry Wind 120.00 Jun-08 ERCOT Panther Creek How ard Wind 143.00 Jul-08 ERCOT Ocotillo Windpow er 1 How ard Wind 59.00 Aug-08 ERCOT Sherbino Mesa Wind Farm Pecos Wind 150.00 Sep-08 ERCOT South Trent Wind Farm Taylor Wind 101.20 Oct-08 ERCOT Wolf Ridge Windfarm Cooke Wind 113.00 Oct-08 ERCOT Bull Creek Wind Plant Borden Wind 180.00 Nov-08 ERCOT Elbow Creek Wind How ard Wind 117.30 Nov-08 ERCOT Gulf Wind 1 Kenedy Wind 283.00 Nov-08 ERCOT Hackberry Wind Farm Shackleford Wind 165.00 Nov-08 ERCOT Inadale Nolan Wind 197.00 Nov-08 ERCOT Panther Creek 2 How ard Wind 115.00 Nov-08 ERCOT Penascal Wind Farm Kenedy Wind 202.00 Nov-08 ERCOT Pyron Scurry Wind 249.00 Nov-08 ERCOT Turkey Track Energy Center Nolan Wind 169.50 Nov-08 ERCOT Notrees Windpow er Ector Wind 153.00 Jan-09 ERCOT Noble Great Plains Windpark Hansford Wind 114.00 Feb-09 SPP Goat Wind Phase 2 Sterling Wind 70.00 Apr-09 ERCOT Panther Creek 3 Concho Wind 200.00 Aug-09 ERCOT Sunray Wind I, II, III Moore Wind 49.50 Aug-09 SPP Papalote Creek Wind Farm San Patricio Wind 180.00 Sep-09 ERCOT Langford Wind Pow er Tom Green Wind 150.00 Oct-09 ERCOT Loraine Windpark Mitchell Wind 251.00 Oct-09 ERCOT JD Wind 1-7, 9-11, Wege Hansford Wind 189.80 Dec-09 SPP completed 2006-2009 Majestic Wind Carson Wind 79.50 Dec-09 SPP Penascal Wind Farm 2 Kenedy Wind 202.00 Mar-10 ERCOT Papalote Creek Phase II San Patricio Wind 198.00 Jun-10 ERCOT Little Pringle 1,2 Hutchinson Wind 20.00 Sep-10 SPP Cedro Hill Wind Webb Wind 150.00 Oct-10 ERCOT Ralls Wind Farm Crosby Wind 10.00 Jul-11 SPP GS Panhandle Wind Ranch Oldham Wind 78.00 Sep-11 SPP Sherbino Mesa Wind Farm 2 Pecos Wind 158.00 Nov-11 ERCOT Trinity Hills Wind Farm Young Wind 225.00 Jan-12 ERCOT Frisco Wind Farm Hansford Wind 20.00 Feb-12 SPP Harbor Wind Project Nueces Wind 9.00 Mar-12 ERCOT Note: Updated Jan 15th, 2020

July 2020 Energy Systems Laboratory, The Texas A&M University System

Page 55

Table 5-1: Wind Farm Information from the PUCT (Cont.) Facility County Resource Capacity (MW) In Service Region Notes Magic Valley Wind Willacy Wind 206.00 Apr-12 ERCOT also called Redfish Anacacho Windfarm Kinney Wind 100.00 Dec-12 ERCOT Blue Summit Wind Wilbarger Wind 135.00 Dec-12 ERCOT Cirrus Wind Energy Lynn Wind 61.20 Dec-12 SPP Majestic Wind II Carson Wind 79.60 Dec-12 SPP Mozart Kent Wind 30.00 Dec-12 ERCOT 15-yr PPA JP Morgan EV Senate Wind Project Jack Wind 150.00 Dec-12 ERCOT Spinning Spur Wind Ranch Oldham Wind 161.00 Dec-12 SPP 15-yr PPA SPS Whitetail Wind Project Webb Wind 92.00 Dec-12 ERCOT 25-yr PPA Austin Ener gy Los Vientos I Willacy Wind 200.00 Jan-13 ERCOT 25-yr PPA CPS Energy Los Vientos II Willacy Wind 202.00 Jan-13 ERCOT PPA Austin Energy Bobcat Bluff Clay Wind 163.00 Mar-13 ERCOT Goldthw aite Wind Energy Mills Wind 149.00 Jun-14 ERCOT Pantex Wind Farm Carson Wind 11.50 Jun-14 SPP Spinning Spur Wind II Oldham Wind 161.00 Jun-14 ERCOT Panhandle Wind 1 Carson Wind 218.00 Jul-14 ERCOT Panhandle Wind 2 Carson Wind 198.00 Nov-14 ERCOT Grandview Phase 1 (Conw ay Windfarm) Carson Wind 211.00 Dec-14 ERCOT Miami Wind 1 Project Gray Wind 289.00 Dec-14 ERCOT Palo Duro Wind Ochltree Wind 250.00 Dec-14 SPP Stephens Ranch Wind Phase 1 Borden Wind 211.00 Dec-14 ERCOT Windthorst 2 Archer Wind 65.00 Dec-14 ERCOT Keechi Wind Jack Wind 102.00 Jan-15 ERCOT Jumbo Road Wind (Hereford 2) Castro Wind 300.00 Apr-15 ERCOT PPA AE Mesquite Creek W Borden Wind 211.00 Apr-15 ERCOT Hereford Wind Project (Hereford 1) Deaf Smith Wind 200.00 May-15 ERCOT Stephens Ranch Wind Phase b Borden Wind 165.00 May-15 ERCOT Route66 Wind Armstrong Wind 150.00 Aug-15 ERCOT Logan's Gap Wind I Comanche Wind 211.00 Sep-15 ERCOT Longhorn Energy Center North Briscoe Wind 200.00 Sep-15 ERCOT RattleSnake Wind Ph 1 Glasscock Wind 211.00 Sep-15 ERCOT prev. Rattlesnake Den Pleasant Hill Wind Energy Crosby Wind 20.00 Oct-15 SPP Spinning Spur Wind III Oldham Wind 194.00 Oct-15 ERCOT PPAs GUS, GPL Briscoe Wind Briscoe Wind 150.00 Nov-15 ERCOT Green Pastures W Knox Wind 300.00 Nov-15 ERCOT South Plains Wind I Floyd Wind 200.00 Nov-15 ERCOT Shannon Wind Clay Wind 200.00 Dec-15 ERCOT prev. South Clay Wind Los Vientos III Starr Wind 200.00 Dec-15 ERCOT 25-yr PPA Austin Energy Sendero Wind Energy Project Jim Hogg Wind 78.00 Dec-15 ERCOT Javelina Wind Zapata Wind 250.00 Dec-15 ERCOT Cameron County Wind Cameron Wind 165.00 Jan-16 ERCOT Colbeck's Corner Carson Wind 200.00 May-16 ERCOT South Plains Wind II Phase a Floyd Wind 152.00 Jun-16 ERCOT South Plains Wind II Phase b Floyd Wind 148.00 Jun-16 ERCOT Baffin Wind Farm (Penascal 3) Kenedy Wind 202.00 Jun-16 ERCOT Los Vientos IV Starr Wind 200.00 Jun-16 ERCOT 25-yr PPA Austin Energy Gunsight Mountain How ard Wind 120.00 Sep-16 ERCOT Los Vientos V Starr Wind 200.00 Sep-16 ERCOT Wake Wind Dickens Wind 300.00 Oct-16 ERCOT Salt Fork Wind Donley and Gray Wind 200.00 Dec-16 ERCOT Tyler Bluff Wind (Muenster Wind) Cooke Wind 118.00 Dec-16 ERCOT Hidalgo & Starr Wind Hidalgo Wind 250.00 Dec-16 ERCOT Electra Wind Wilbarger Wind 230.00 Jan-17 ERCOT Horse Creek Wind Haskell Wind 230.00 Jan-17 ERCOT Bethel Wind Energy Facility Castro Wind 276.00 Jan-17 SPP Javelina 2 Wind Zapata Wind 200.00 Feb-17 ERCOT San Roman Wind 1 Cameron Wind 94.00 Feb-17 ERCOT Mariah Del Notre Parmer Wind 230.00 Mar-17 ERCOT Mariah Wind B Cotton Plains Wind Floyd Wind 50.00 Mar-17 ERCOT Blanco Canyon Wind 1 Old Settler Wind Floyd Wind 150.00 Apr-17 ERCOT Blanco Canyon Wind 2 Cotton Plains Wind Floyd Wind 50.00 Apr-17 ERCOT Blanco Canyon Wind 1 Falvez Astra Wind Deaf Smith Wind 163.00 May-17 ERCOT prev. Happy Whiteface Dermott Wind 1 Scurry Wind 250.00 Aug-17 ERCOT Amazon Wind Farm Chapman Ranch Wind 1 Nueces Wind 250.00 Oct-17 ERCOT Val Verde Wind Val Verde Wind 149.00 Oct-17 ERCOT Rock Springs Fluvanna Renew able 1 Scurry Wind 155.00 Nov-17 ERCOT Willow Springs Wind Haskell Wind 250.00 Nov-17 ERCOT SALVTION (Willow SpriGass Wind) Haskell Wind 250.00 Dec-17 ERCOT BUCKTHORN WIND Erath Wind 100.00 Dec -17 ERCOT BBREEZE (BruenniGas's Breeze) Willacy Wind 228.00 Dec-17 ERCOT Niels Bohr (BearKat Wind A) Glasscock Wind 197.00 Feb-18 ERCOT HICKMAN Reagan Wind 300.00 May-18 ERCOT Santa Rita Wind Energy Center Flat Top Wind I Comanche Wind 200.00 Sep-18 ERCOT Logan's Gap Wind II RTS Wind Project McCulloch Wind 160.00 Sep-18 ERCOT Rattlesnake Wind Project Stella 1 Wind Kenedy Wind 201.00 Dec-18 ERCOT Wildcat Ranch Wind Project Cochran Wind 150.50 Dec-18 SPP Fiber Winds Energy Project Crosby Wind 78.80 Dec-18 SPP Blue Cloud Renew able Energy Bailey and Lamb Wind 148.40 Dec-18 SPP Note: Updated Jan 15th, 2020

July 2020 Energy Systems Laboratory, The Texas A&M University System

Page 56

Table 5-1: Wind Farm Information from the PUCT (Cont.) Facility County Resource Capacity (MW) In Service Region Notes Tahoka Wind Lynn Wind 300.00 Mar-19 ERCOT Hale Community Energy Hale Wind 478.00 Jun-19 SPP Midw ay Wind San Patricio Wind 162.90 Jun-19 ERCOT S_Hills Wind Baylor Wind 30.24 Aug-19 ERCOT Lockett Wind Wilbarger Wind 184.00 Sep-19 ERCOT Torrecillas Wind Webb Wind 300.50 Nov-19 ERCOT Javelina III Foard City Wind Foard Wind 350.00 Nov-19 ERCOT Cabezon Wind Starr Wind 237.60 Dec-19 ERCOT Rio Bravo Canadian Breaks Wind Oldham Wind 210.00 Dec-19 ERCOT Karankaw a Wind San Patricio Wind 206.60 Dec-19 ERCOT Karankaw a 2 Wind San Patricio Wind 101.00 Dec-19 ERCOT Elbow Creek repow er How ard WIN 0.00 Oct-19 ERCOT 12/19 GIS Report Gopher Creek Wind Borden WIN 158.00 Dec-19 ERCOT 12/19 GIS Report High Lonesome W Crockett WIN 449.50 Dec-19 ERCOT 12/19 GIS Report Palmas Altas Wind Cameron WIN 144.90 Jan-20 ERCOT 12/19 GIS Report Ranchero Wind Crockett WIN 300.00 Jan-20 ERCOT 12/19 GIS Report Mesteno Windpow er Starr WIN 201.60 Mar-20 ERCOT 12/19 GIS Report Total 28188 Note: Updated Jan 15th, 2020

July 2020 Energy Systems Laboratory, The Texas A&M University System

Page 57

Table 5-2: Modeled 2008 Wind Power Production Assigned to Each CL Zone in the ERCOT Region Annual Wind Pow er OSP Wind Power CL Zones (MWh/yr) (MWh/day) Houston 0 0 North 4,786,297 11,146 West 58,876,603 142,222 South 17,059,752 45,609 Total 80,722,652 198,978

Table 5-3: 2019 Wind Power Production Assigned to Each CL Zone in the ERCOT Region Annual Wind Pow er OSP Wind Power CL Zones (MWh/yr) (MWh/day) Houston 0 0 North 4,447,694 11,116 West 53,967,394 141,116 South 16,488,850 51,656 Total 74,903,938 203,888

Figure 5-2: Modeled 2008 and Measured 2019 Annual NOx Reductions from Wind Power in Texas Map

July 2020 Energy Systems Laboratory, The Texas A&M University System

Page 58

Figure 5-3: Modeled 2008 OSP and Measured 2019 OSP NOx Reductions from Wind Power in Texas Map

Comparisions of Modeled 2008 and Measured 2019 Annual NOx Emissions Reductions From Wind Power 13000

12000 Non-attainment and Affected Counties Other Counties 11000

10000

9000

8000 2008 Modeled NOx Emissions Reductions

7000 2019 Measured NOx Emissions Reductions

6000

5000

4000 NOx Emissions (Tons/yr) Emissions NOx 3000

2000

1000

0 Hill Bell Frio Ellis Hunt Titus Wise Hays Rusk Coke Ector Ward Hood Llano Collin Nolan Webb Wood Bexar Potter Milam Upton Harris Travis Pecos Dallas Lamar Scurry Comal Young Goliad Parker Wilson Brazos Tarrant Grimes Denton Wichita Victoria Fayette Mitchell Nueces Hidalgo Bosque Howard Bastrop Reagan Brazoria Calhoun Wharton Johnson Grayson Angelina Kaufman Colorado Atascosa Cameron Wilbarger Anderson Cherokee Fort Bend Fort Red River Red Galveston Freestone Palo Pinto Palo Robertson Limestone Chambers McLennan Guadalupe Henderson San Patricio Montgomery

County Nacogdoches

Figure 5-4: Comparisons of Modeled 2008 and Measured 2019 Annual NOx Emissions Reductions from Wind Power

July 2020 Energy Systems Laboratory, The Texas A&M University System

Page 59

Comparisions of Modeled 2008 and Measured 2019 OSP NOx Emissions Reductions From Wind Power 40.00 Non-attainment and Affected Counties Other Counties 35.00

30.00

25.00 2008 Modeled NOx Emissions Reductions

2019 Measured NOx Emissions Reductions 20.00

15.00

NOx Emissions (Tons/day) Emissions NOx 10.00

5.00

0.00 Hill Bell Frio Ellis Hunt Titus Wise Hays Rusk Coke Ector Hood Ward Llano Collin Bexar Nolan Webb Wood Harris Potter Milam Upton Travis Dallas Pecos Lamar Comal Goliad Scurry Young Parker Wilson Brazos Grimes Tarrant Denton Wichita Fayette Victoria Bosque Nueces Hidalgo Mitchell Bastrop Howard Reagan Calhoun Brazoria Johnson Grayson Wharton Angelina Kaufman Colorado Cameron Atascosa Wilbarger Anderson Cherokee Fort Bend Fort Red River Red Galveston Freestone Palo PintoPalo Chambers Robertson Limestone McLennan Henderson Guadalupe San PatricioSan Montgomery

County Nacogdoches

Figure 5-5: Comparisons of Modeled 2008 and Measured 2019 OSP NOx Emissions Reductions from Wind Power

July 2020 Energy Systems Laboratory, The Texas A&M University System

Page 60

Table 5-4: Distribution of the Annual Emission Reductions per CL Zone for each County (Base Year 2008)

Total Total Area County CL Zones Nox Re duct ions Nox Re ductions HNWS(lbs) (Tons) Brazoria 0.0584658 0.0000 0.0000074 35.5029 0.0000004 21.0945 0.0005477 9344.2929 9400.89 4.70 Chambers 0.0186322 0.0000 0.0000024 11.3142 0.0000001 6.7225 0.0001746 2977.8845 2995.92 1.50 Fort Bend 0.0713459 0.0000 0.0000091 43.3242 0.0000004 25.7416 0.0006684 11402.8651 11471.93 5.74

Houston- Galveston 0.0137868 0.0000 0.0000017 8.3719 0.0000001 4.9743 0.0001292 2203.4681 2216.81 1.11 Galve ston Ar ea Harris 0.1154764 0.0000 0.0000147 70.1221 0.0000007 41.6639 0.0010818 18456.0161 18567.80 9.28 Liberty - (Note 1) ------Montgomery 0.0105050 0.0000 0.0000013 6.3791 0.0000001 3.7902 0.0000984 1678.9693 1689.14 0.84 Waller - (Note 1)------Hardin - (Note 1)------Be aum ont / Por t Jefferson - (Note 1) ------Arthur Area Orange - (Note 1) ------Collin 0.0001062 0.0000 0.0006516 3118.5278 0.0000315 1852.9125 0.0000066 113.4028 5084.84 2.54 Dallas 0.0021209 0.0000 0.0130108 62273.4089 0.0006284 37000.5281 0.0001327 2264.5232 101538.46 50.77 Denton 0.0015536 0.0000 0.0095304 45615.1879 0.0004603 27102.8369 0.0000972 1658.7602 74376.79 37.19 Henderson 0.0002047 0.0000 0.0012557 6010.0674 0.0000607 3570.9570 0.0000128 218.5513 9799.58 4.90 Hood 0.0011465 0.0000 0.0070335 33664.1857 0.0003397 20001.9988 0.0000718 1224.1714 54890.36 27.45 Hunt 0.0000348 0.0000 0.0002135 1022.0481 0.0000103 607.2627 0.0000022 37.1660 1666.48 0.83 Dallas / For t Tarrant 0.0007633 0.0000 0.0046826 22412.5012 0.0002262 13316.6691 0.0000478 815.0129 36544.18 18.27 Worth Area Ellis 0.0010011 0.0000 0.0061414 29394.6448 0.0002966 17465.1974 0.0000627 1068.9130 47928.76 23.96 Johnson 0.0001415 0.0000 0.0008683 4155.9946 0.0000419 2469.3364 0.0000089 151.1295 6776.46 3.39 Kaufman 0.0028327 0.0000 0.0173774 83173.5858 0.0008394 49418.6308 0.0001773 3024.5416 135616.76 67.81 Parker 0.0006458 0.0000 0.0039616 18961.2238 0.0001914 11266.0493 0.0000404 689.5099 30916.78 15.46 Rockw all - (Note 1) ------Wise 0.0026775 0.0000 0.0164249 78614.2693 0.0007933 46709.6556 0.0001676 2858.7456 128182.67 64.09 El Pas o Ar e a El Paso - (Note 1) ------Bexar 0.0155850 0.0000 0.0010511 5030.8281 0.0000508 2989.1297 0.1244678 2123390.6189 2131410.58 1065.71

San Antonio Comal 0.0004218 0.0000 0.0000284 136.1665 0.0000014 80.9050 0.0033689 57472.5672 57689.64 28.84 Area Guadalupe 0.0025417 0.0000 0.0001714 820.4528 0.0000083 487.4824 0.0202988 346293.2628 347601.20 173.80 Wilson 0.0001734 0.0000 0.0000117 55.9617 0.0000006 33.2503 0.0013845 23620.0674 23709.28 11.85 Bastrop 0.0020114 0.0000 0.0001357 649.2915 0.0000066 385.7847 0.0160641 274050.2003 275085.28 137.54 Caldw ell - (Note 1) ------Austin Area Hays 0.0004548 0.0000 0.0000307 146.8157 0.0000015 87.2324 0.0036324 61967.3293 62201.38 31.10 Travis 0.0037069 0.0000 0.0002500 1196.5860 0.0000121 710.9666 0.0296048 505049.9401 506957.49 253.48 Williamson - (Note 1) ------Gregg - (Note 1) ------Harrison - (Note 1) ------Nor t h Eas t Rusk 0.0234887 0.0000 0.1440913 689663.9215 0.0069599 409772.4820 0.0014701 25079.0822 1124515.49 562.26 Texas Area Smith - (Note 1) ------Upshur - (Note 1) ------

Corpus Christi Nueces 0.0039261 0.0000 0.0002648 1267.3485 0.0000128 753.0110 0.0313555 534917.0750 536937.43 268.47 Area San Patricio 0.0065591 0.0000 0.0004424 2117.2838 0.0000214 1258.0108 0.0523838 893654.1726 897029.47 448.51 Victoria Area Victoria 0.0013502 0.0000 0.0000911 435.8334 0.0000044 258.9559 0.0107830 183954.7239 184649.51 92.32 Anderson 0.0001010 0.0000 0.0006194 2964.4302 0.0000299 1761.3535 0.0000063 107.7992 4833.58 2.42 Andrew s - (Note 1) ------Angelina 0.0024008 0.0000 0.0147275 70490.4235 0.0007114 41882.7706 0.0001503 2563.3284 114936.52 57.47 Atascosa 0.0055915 0.0000 0.0003771 1804.9281 0.0000182 1072.4207 0.0446558 761816.3869 764693.74 382.35 Bell 0.0003222 0.0000 0.0019766 9460.4926 0.0000955 5621.0705 0.0000202 344.0233 15425.59 7.71 Bosque 0.0005680 0.0000 0.0034846 16678.4287 0.0001683 9909.6979 0.0000356 606.4978 27194.62 13.60 Brazos 0.0006415 0.0000 0.0039355 18836.3653 0.0001901 11191.8630 0.0000402 684.9695 30713.20 15.36 Calhoun 0.0088634 0.0000 0.0005978 2861.0984 0.0000289 1699.9576 0.0707865 1207600.3001 1212161.36 606.08 Cameron 0.0003811 0.0000 0.0000257 123.0045 0.0000012 73.0847 0.0030433 51917.2262 52113.32 26.06 Cherokee 0.0003216 0.0000 0.0019730 9443.3413 0.0000953 5610.8799 0.0000201 343.3996 15397.62 7.70 Coke 0.0000135 0.0000 0.0000826 395.2537 0.0140226 825603.3900 0.0000008 14.3731 826013.02 413.01 Coleman - (Note 1)------Colorado 0.0014171 0.0000 0.0000956 457.4295 0.0000046 271.7875 0.0113173 193069.8860 193799.10 96.90 Crockett - (Note 1)------Ector 0.0000634 0.0000 0.0003891 1862.2150 0.0660667 3889782.2269 0.0000040 67.7180 3891712.16 1945.86 Fannin - (Note 1) ------Fayette 0.0145787 0.0000 0.0009832 4705.9712 0.0000475 2796.1119 0.1164306 1986276.3970 1993778.48 996.89 Freestone 0.0121950 0.0000 0.0748103 358064.1203 0.0036135 212748.2948 0.0007632 13020.7181 583833.13 291.92 Frio 0.0070162 0.0000 0.0004732 2264.8347 0.0000229 1345.6800 0.0560343 955931.8337 959542.35 479.77 Goliad 0.0048476 0.0000 0.0003269 1564.8014 0.0000158 929.7464 0.0387148 660464.7533 662959.30 331.48 Grayson 0.0003586 0.0000 0.0021996 10527.8122 0.0001062 6255.2319 0.0000224 382.8356 17165.88 8.58 Grimes 0.0040938 0.0000 0.0251136 120201.3224 0.0012130 71419.1256 0.0002562 4371.0259 195991.47 98.00 Hardeman - (Note 1) ------Haskell - (Note 1)------Hidalgo 0.0019872 0.0000 0.0001340 641.4756 0.0000065 381.1408 0.0158708 270751.3088 271773.93 135.89 Hill 0.0004818 0.0000 0.0029556 14146.2661 0.0001428 8405.1817 0.0000302 514.4178 23065.87 11.53 How ard 0.0000104 0.0000 0.0000639 305.6697 0.0108444 638480.8813 0.0000007 11.1154 638797.67 319.40

Other ERCOT Jack - (Note 1) ------counties Jones - (Note 1)------Lamar 0.0021680 0.0000 0.0132996 63655.8920 0.0006424 37821.9478 0.0001357 2314.7961 103792.64 51.90 Limestone 0.0207580 0.0000 0.1273399 609486.8172 0.0061507 362134.2484 0.0012992 22163.5053 993784.57 496.89 Llano 0.0001816 0.0000 0.0000122 58.6093 0.0000006 34.8235 0.0014501 24737.5776 24831.01 12.42 McLennan 0.0023590 0.0000 0.0144710 69262.5787 0.0006990 41153.2312 0.0001476 2518.6788 112934.49 56.47 Milam 0.0070396 0.0000 0.0004748 2272.3846 0.0000229 1350.1658 0.0562211 959118.4572 962741.01 481.37 Mitchell 0.0000196 0.0000 0.0001204 576.3950 0.0204490 1203969.9369 0.0000012 20.9601 1204567.29 602.28 Nacogdoches 0.0001458 0.0000 0.0008944 4280.8517 0.0000432 2543.5218 0.0000091 155.6698 6980.04 3.49 Nolan 0.0000085 0.0000 0.0000524 250.7521 0.0088961 523769.2722 0.0000005 9.1184 524029.14 262.01 Palo Pinto 0.0004954 0.0000 0.0030391 14546.2509 0.0001468 8642.8377 0.0000310 528.9629 23718.05 11.86 Pecos 0.0000002 0.0000 0.0000011 5.0914 0.0001806 10634.9297 0.0000000 0.1851 10640.21 5.32 Potter 0.0004032 0.0000 0.0024732 11837.5020 0.4199647 24726095.1642 0.0000252 430.4614 24738363.13 12369.18 Presidio - (Note 1) ------Reagan 0.0000001 0.0000 0.0000009 4.3801 0.0001554 9149.1243 0.0000000 0.1593 9153.66 4.58 Red River 0.0000376 0.0000 0.0002305 1103.2163 0.0000111 655.4898 0.0000024 40.1176 1798.82 0.90 Robertson 0.0134304 0.0000 0.0823890 394338.0439 0.0039795 234300.9022 0.0008406 14339.7906 642978.74 321.49 Scurry 0.0000991 0.0000 0.0006078 2908.9565 0.1032024 6076209.0337 0.0000062 105.7819 6079223.77 3039.61 Taylor - (Note 1) ------Titus 0.0140204 0.0000 0.0860080 411659.8332 0.0041543 244592.8609 0.0008775 14969.6837 671222.38 335.61 Tom Green - (Note 1) ------Upton 0.0000001 0.0000 0.0000008 3.8110 0.0001352 7960.4799 0.0000000 0.1386 7964.43 3.98 Ward 0.0000021 0.0000 0.0000130 62.4279 0.0022148 130399.0718 0.0000001 2.2701 130463.77 65.23 Webb 0.0000283 0.0000 0.0000019 9.1300 0.0000001 5.4247 0.0002259 3853.5431 3868.10 1.93 Wharton 0.0008796 0.0000 0.0000593 283.9269 0.0000029 168.6987 0.0070246 119838.6541 120291.28 60.15 Wichita 0.0000013 0.0000 0.0000079 37.9515 0.0013464 79272.7996 0.0000001 1.3801 79312.13 39.66 Wilbarger 0.0004088 0.0000 0.0025077 12002.7580 0.4258276 25071280.9303 0.0000256 436.4708 25083720.16 12541.86 Wood 0.0000060 0.0000 0.0000365 174.8847 0.0000018 103.9099 0.0000004 6.3595 285.15 0.14 Young 0.0000150 0.0000 0.0000923 441.8568 0.0156760 922947.6320 0.0000009 16.0678 923405.56 461.70 Total 0.4904222 0.0000 0.6972352 3337175.1356 1.1223498 66080141.5668 0.7248702 12366106.0663 81783422.77 40891.71

Energy Savings (MWh) 0 4,786,297 58,876,603 17,059,752 Note 1: These counties are not quantified because they are not in the ERCOT region. July 2020 Energy Systems Laboratory, The Texas A&M University System

Page 61

Table 5-5: Distribution of the Annual Emission Reductions per CL Zone for each County (Year 2019)

CL Zones Total Total Area County Nox Reductions Nox Re ductions HNWS(lbs) (Tons) Brazoria 0.0584658 0.0000 0.0000074 32.9912 0.0000004 19.3356 0.0005477 9031.5876 9083.91 4.54 Chambers 0.0186322 0.0000 0.0000024 10.5138 0.0000001 6.1620 0.0001746 2878.2300 2894.91 1.45 Fort Bend 0.0713459 0.0000 0.0000091 40.2593 0.0000004 23.5953 0.0006684 11021.2700 11085.12 5.54

Houston- Galveston 0.0137868 0.0000 0.0000017 7.7796 0.0000001 4.5595 0.0001292 2129.7294 2142.07 1.07 Galveston Area Harris 0.1154764 0.0000 0.0000147 65.1614 0.0000007 38.1899 0.0010818 17838.3884 17941.74 8.97 Liberty - (Note 1)------Montgomery 0.0105050 0.0000 0.0000013 5.9278 0.0000001 3.4742 0.0000984 1622.7829 1632.18 0.82 Waller - (Note 1)------Hardin - (Note 1)------Be aum ont/ Port Jefferson - (Note 1)------Arthur Area Orange - (Note 1)------Collin 0.0001062 0.0000 0.0006516 2897.9095 0.0000315 1698.4142 0.0000066 109.6078 4705.93 2.35 Dallas 0.0021209 0.0000 0.0130108 57867.9148 0.0006284 33915.3755 0.0001327 2188.7413 93972.03 46.99 Denton 0.0015536 0.0000 0.0095304 42388.1695 0.0004603 24842.9668 0.0000972 1603.2500 68834.39 34.42 Henderson 0.0002047 0.0000 0.0012557 5584.8889 0.0000607 3273.2060 0.0000128 211.2376 9069.33 4.53 Hood 0.0011465 0.0000 0.0070335 31282.6336 0.0003397 18334.2059 0.0000718 1183.2047 50800.04 25.40 Hunt 0.0000348 0.0000 0.0002135 949.7440 0.0000103 556.6284 0.0000022 35.9222 1542.29 0.77 Dallas/ Fort Tarrant 0.0007633 0.0000 0.0046826 20826.9426 0.0002262 12206.3078 0.0000478 787.7386 33820.99 16.91 Worth Area Ellis 0.0010011 0.0000 0.0061414 27315.1387 0.0002966 16008.9264 0.0000627 1033.1420 44357.21 22.18 Johnson 0.0001415 0.0000 0.0008683 3861.9813 0.0000419 2263.4399 0.0000089 146.0719 6271.49 3.14 Kaufman 0.0028327 0.0000 0.0173774 77289.5215 0.0008394 45298.0405 0.0001773 2923.3257 125510.89 62.76 Parker 0.0006458 0.0000 0.0039616 17619.8236 0.0001914 10326.6713 0.0000404 666.4355 28612.93 14.31 Rockwall - (Note 1)------Wise 0.0026775 0.0000 0.0164249 73052.7511 0.0007933 42814.9432 0.0001676 2763.0781 118630.77 59.32 El Pas o Ar e a El Paso - (Note 1)------Bexar 0.0155850 0.0000 0.0010511 4674.9253 0.0000508 2739.8922 0.1244678 2052331.6802 2059746.50 1029.87

San Antonio Comal 0.0004218 0.0000 0.0000284 126.5335 0.0000014 74.1591 0.0033689 55549.2566 55749.95 27.87 Area Guadalupe 0.0025417 0.0000 0.0001714 762.4104 0.0000083 446.8354 0.0202988 334704.6123 335913.86 167.96 Wilson 0.0001734 0.0000 0.0000117 52.0027 0.0000006 30.4779 0.0013845 22829.6255 22912.11 11.46 Bastrop 0.0020114 0.0000 0.0001357 603.3578 0.0000066 353.6175 0.0160641 264879.1528 265836.13 132.92 Caldwell - (Note 1)------Austin Area Hays 0.0004548 0.0000 0.0000307 136.4293 0.0000015 79.9588 0.0036324 59893.6022 60109.99 30.05 Travis 0.0037069 0.0000 0.0002500 1111.9342 0.0000121 651.6853 0.0296048 488148.5219 489912.14 244.96 Williamson - (Note 1)------Gregg - (Note 1)------Harrison - (Note 1)------Nor th Eas t Rusk 0.0234887 0.0000 0.1440913 640874.0707 0.0069599 375605.1150 0.0014701 24239.8146 1040719.00 520.36 Texas Area Smith - (Note 1)------Upshur - (Note 1)------

Corpus Christi Nueces 0.0039261 0.0000 0.0002648 1177.6907 0.0000128 690.2240 0.0313555 517016.1578 518884.07 259.44 Area San Patricio 0.0065591 0.0000 0.0004424 1967.4978 0.0000214 1153.1162 0.0523838 863748.1739 866868.79 433.43 Victoria Area Victoria 0.0013502 0.0000 0.0000911 405.0007 0.0000044 237.3638 0.0107830 177798.7075 178441.07 89.22 Anderson 0.0001010 0.0000 0.0006194 2754.7135 0.0000299 1614.4895 0.0000063 104.1917 4473.39 2.24 Andrews - (Note 1)------Angelina 0.0024008 0.0000 0.0147275 65503.6218 0.0007114 38390.5302 0.0001503 2477.5470 106371.70 53.19 Atascosa 0.0055915 0.0000 0.0003771 1677.2395 0.0000182 983.0008 0.0446558 736322.3194 738982.56 369.49 Bell 0.0003222 0.0000 0.0019766 8791.2159 0.0000955 5152.3783 0.0000202 332.5106 14276.10 7.14 Bosque 0.0005680 0.0000 0.0034846 15498.5235 0.0001683 9083.4143 0.0000356 586.2015 25168.14 12.58 Brazos 0.0006415 0.0000 0.0039355 17503.7982 0.0001901 10258.6708 0.0000402 662.0471 28424.52 14.21 Calhoun 0.0088634 0.0000 0.0005978 2658.6918 0.0000289 1558.2129 0.0707865 1167188.1428 1171405.05 585.70 Cameron 0.0003811 0.0000 0.0000257 114.3026 0.0000012 66.9908 0.0030433 50179.8242 50361.12 25.18 Cherokee 0.0003216 0.0000 0.0019730 8775.2779 0.0000953 5143.0374 0.0000201 331.9078 14250.22 7.13 Coke 0.0000135 0.0000 0.0000826 367.2918 0.0140226 756763.4965 0.0000008 13.8921 757144.68 378.57 Coleman - (Note 1)------Colorado 0.0014171 0.0000 0.0000956 425.0689 0.0000046 249.1255 0.0113173 186608.8321 187283.03 93.64 Crockett - (Note 1)------Ector 0.0000634 0.0000 0.0003891 1730.4737 0.0660667 3565447.0828 0.0000040 65.4518 3567243.01 1783.62 Fannin - (Note 1)------Fayette 0.0145787 0.0000 0.0009832 4373.0502 0.0000475 2562.9684 0.1164306 1919805.9646 1926741.98 963.37 Freestone 0.0121950 0.0000 0.0748103 332733.0938 0.0036135 195009.0629 0.0007632 12584.9818 540327.14 270.16 Frio 0.0070162 0.0000 0.0004732 2104.6104 0.0000229 1233.4754 0.0560343 923941.7227 927279.81 463.64 Goliad 0.0048476 0.0000 0.0003269 1454.1005 0.0000158 852.2229 0.0387148 638362.4024 640668.73 320.33 Grayson 0.0003586 0.0000 0.0021996 9783.0286 0.0001062 5733.6624 0.0000224 370.0240 15886.72 7.94 Grimes 0.0040938 0.0000 0.0251136 111697.7536 0.0012130 65464.1052 0.0002562 4224.7502 181386.61 90.69 Hardeman - (Note 1)------Haskell - (Note 1)------Hidalgo 0.0019872 0.0000 0.0001340 596.0948 0.0000065 349.3608 0.0158708 261690.6581 262636.11 131.32 Hill 0.0004818 0.0000 0.0029556 13145.4972 0.0001428 7704.3466 0.0000302 497.2029 21347.05 10.67 How ard 0.0000104 0.0000 0.0000639 284.0453 0.0108444 585243.5080 0.0000007 10.7435 585538.30 292.77

Other ERCOT Jack - (Note 1)------counties Jones - (Note 1)------Lamar 0.0021680 0.0000 0.0132996 59152.5950 0.0006424 34668.3042 0.0001357 2237.3318 96058.23 48.03 Limestone 0.0207580 0.0000 0.1273399 566369.0463 0.0061507 331939.0197 0.0012992 21421.8070 919729.87 459.86 Llano 0.0001816 0.0000 0.0000122 54.4630 0.0000006 31.9198 0.0014501 23909.7384 23996.12 12.00 McLennan 0.0023590 0.0000 0.0144710 64362.6401 0.0006990 37721.8208 0.0001476 2434.3916 104518.85 52.26 Milam 0.0070396 0.0000 0.0004748 2111.6261 0.0000229 1237.5872 0.0562211 927021.7063 930370.92 465.19 Mitchell 0.0000196 0.0000 0.0001204 535.6182 0.0204490 1103581.3444 0.0000012 20.2587 1104137.22 552.07 Nacogdoches 0.0001458 0.0000 0.0008944 3978.0055 0.0000432 2331.4396 0.0000091 150.4603 6459.91 3.23 Nolan 0.0000085 0.0000 0.0000524 233.0128 0.0088961 480096.7033 0.0000005 8.8133 480338.53 240.17 Palo Pinto 0.0004954 0.0000 0.0030391 13517.1853 0.0001468 7922.1865 0.0000310 511.2612 21950.63 10.98 Pecos 0.0000002 0.0000 0.0000011 4.7312 0.0001806 9748.1754 0.0000000 0.1789 9753.09 4.88 Potter 0.0004032 0.0000 0.0024732 11000.0652 0.4199647 22664400.9175 0.0000252 416.0561 22675817.04 11337.91 Presidio - (Note 1)------Reagan 0.0000001 0.0000 0.0000009 4.0702 0.0001554 8386.2583 0.0000000 0.1539 8390.48 4.20 Red River 0.0000376 0.0000 0.0002305 1025.1700 0.0000111 600.8342 0.0000024 38.7751 1664.78 0.83 Robertson 0.0134304 0.0000 0.0823890 366440.8410 0.0039795 214764.5856 0.0008406 13859.9117 595065.34 297.53 Scurry 0.0000991 0.0000 0.0006078 2703.1642 0.1032024 5569566.7547 0.0000062 102.2419 5572372.16 2786.19 Taylor - (Note 1)------Titus 0.0140204 0.0000 0.0860080 382537.2109 0.0041543 224198.3873 0.0008775 14468.7256 621204.32 310.60 Tom Green - (Note 1)------Upton 0.0000001 0.0000 0.0000008 3.5414 0.0001352 7296.7246 0.0000000 0.1339 7300.40 3.65 Ward 0.0000021 0.0000 0.0000130 58.0115 0.0022148 119526.2262 0.0000001 2.1942 119586.43 59.79 Webb 0.0000283 0.0000 0.0000019 8.4841 0.0000001 4.9724 0.0002259 3724.5849 3738.04 1.87 Wharton 0.0008796 0.0000 0.0000593 263.8406 0.0000029 154.6324 0.0070246 115828.2721 116246.75 58.12 Wichita 0.0000013 0.0000 0.0000079 35.2666 0.0013464 72662.9296 0.0000001 1.3339 72699.53 36.35 Wilbarger 0.0004088 0.0000 0.0025077 11153.6303 0.4258276 22980804.6417 0.0000256 421.8644 22992380.14 11496.19 Wood 0.0000060 0.0000 0.0000365 162.5126 0.0000018 95.2458 0.0000004 6.1467 263.91 0.13 Young 0.0000150 0.0000 0.0000923 410.5980 0.0156760 845991.0479 0.0000009 15.5301 846417.18 423.21 Total 0.4904222 0.0000 0.6972352 3101088.7287 1.1223498 60570292.6892 0.7248702 11952276.2393 75623657.66 37811.83

Energy Savings (MWh) 0 4,447,694 53,967,394 16,488,850 Note 1: These counties are not quantified because they are not in the ERCOT region.

July 2020 Energy Systems Laboratory, The Texas A&M University System

Page 62

Table 5-6: Distribution of the OSP Emission Reductions per CL Zone for each County (Base Year 2008)

Total Total Area County CL Zones Nox Re ductions Nox Reductions HNWS(lbs) (Tons) Brazoria 0.0568294 0.0000 0.0000072 0.0804 0.0000003 0.0495 0.0005324 24.2825 24.41 0.01 Chambers 0.0246685 0.0000 0.0000031 0.0349 0.0000002 0.0215 0.0002311 10.5406 10.60 0.01 Fort Bend 0.0916210 0.0000 0.0000116 0.1296 0.0000006 0.0799 0.0008584 39.1486 39.36 0.02 Houston- Galveston 0.0118565 0.0000 0.0000015 0.0168 0.0000001 0.0103 0.0001111 5.0662 5.09 0.00 Galveston Area Harris 0.1083409 0.0000 0.0000137 0.1532 0.0000007 0.0944 0.0010150 46.2928 46.54 0.02 Liberty - (Note 1)------Montgomery 0.0093310 0.0000 0.0000012 0.0132 0.0000001 0.0081 0.0000874 3.9870 4.01 0.00 Waller - (Note 1)------Hardin - (Note 1)------Beaumont/ Port Jefferson - (Note 1)------Arthur Area Orange - (Note 1)------Collin 0.0000368 0.0000 0.0002257 2.5157 0.0000109 1.5504 0.0000023 0.1050 4.17 0.00 Dallas 0.0019990 0.0000 0.0122626 136.6832 0.0005923 84.2389 0.0001251 5.7060 226.63 0.11 Denton 0.0012011 0.0000 0.0073682 82.1285 0.0003559 50.6165 0.0000752 3.4286 136.17 0.07 Henderson 0.0002092 0.0000 0.0012835 14.3068 0.0000620 8.8174 0.0000131 0.5973 23.72 0.01 Hood 0.0017809 0.0000 0.0109248 121.7711 0.0005277 75.0485 0.0001115 5.0835 201.90 0.10 Hunt 0.0000552 0.0000 0.0003387 3.7756 0.0000164 2.3269 0.0000035 0.15766.260.00 Dallas/ Fort Tarrant 0.0007589 0.0000 0.0046556 51.8925 0.0002249 31.9818 0.0000475 2.1663 86.04 0.04 Worth Area Ellis 0.0011262 0.0000 0.0069087 77.0064 0.0003337 47.4597 0.0000705 3.2147 127.68 0.06 Johnson 0.0002237 0.0000 0.0013721 15.2942 0.0000663 9.4260 0.0000140 0.6385 25.36 0.01 Kaufman 0.0025504 0.0000 0.0156455 174.3905 0.0007557 107.4782 0.0001596 7.2802 289.15 0.14 Parker 0.0004992 0.0000 0.0030622 34.1319 0.0001479 21.0357 0.0000312 1.4249 56.59 0.03 Rockwall - (Note 1)------Wise 0.0026648 0.0000 0.0163471 182.2101 0.0007896 112.2975 0.0001668 7.6066 302.11 0.15 El Paso Area El Paso - (Note 1)------Bexar 0.0173770 0.0000 0.0011719 13.0629 0.0000566 8.0508 0.1387790 6329.5526 6350.67 3.18 San Antonio Comal 0.0003148 0.0000 0.0000212 0.2367 0.0000010 0.1459 0.0025142 114.6691 115.05 0.06 Area Guadalupe 0.0025314 0.0000 0.0001707 1.9030 0.0000082 1.1728 0.0202169 922.0705 925.15 0.46 Wilson 0.0001491 0.0000 0.0000101 0.1121 0.0000005 0.0691 0.0011905 54.2991 54.48 0.03 Bastrop 0.0023093 0.0000 0.0001557 1.7360 0.0000075 1.0699 0.0184432 841.1712 843.98 0.42 Caldwell - (Note 1)------Austin Area Hays 0.0004586 0.0000 0.0000309 0.3448 0.0000015 0.2125 0.0036626 167.0470 167.60 0.08 Travis 0.0034963 0.0000 0.0002358 2.6283 0.0000114 1.6198 0.0279226 1273.5201 1277.77 0.64 Williamson - (Note 1) ------Gregg - (Note 1)------Harrison - (Note 1)------Nor th Eas t Rusk 0.0241170 0.0000 0.1479453 1649.0496 0.0071460 1016.3222 0.0015094 68.8417 2734.21 1.37 Texas Area Smith - (Note 1)------Upshur - (Note 1)------Corpus Christi Nueces 0.0037957 0.0000 0.0002560 2.8533 0.0000124 1.7585 0.0303137 1382.5742 1387.19 0.69 Area San Patricio 0.0057420 0.0000 0.0003873 4.3164 0.0000187 2.6603 0.0458575 2091.5064 2098.48 1.05 Victoria Area Victoria 0.0013919 0.0000 0.0000939 1.0463 0.0000045 0.6449 0.0111160 506.9897 508.68 0.25 Anderson 0.0000896 0.0000 0.0005499 6.1297 0.0000266 3.7778 0.0000056 0.2559 10.16 0.01 Andrews - (Note 1)------Angelina 0.0020918 0.0000 0.0128320 143.0300 0.0006198 88.1505 0.0001309 5.9710 237.15 0.12 Atascosa 0.0053556 0.0000 0.0003612 4.0260 0.0000174 2.4812 0.0427716 1950.7631 1957.27 0.98 Bell 0.0003279 0.0000 0.0020113 22.4187 0.0000971 13.8168 0.0000205 0.9359 37.17 0.02 Bosque 0.0005396 0.0000 0.0033099 36.8938 0.0001599 22.7379 0.0000338 1.5402 61.17 0.03 Brazos 0.0006180 0.0000 0.0037909 42.2548 0.0001831 26.0420 0.0000387 1.7640 70.06 0.04 Calhoun 0.0074943 0.0000 0.0005054 5.6337 0.0000244 3.4721 0.0598521 2729.7849 2738.89 1.37 Cameron 0.0003272 0.0000 0.0000221 0.2459 0.0000011 0.1516 0.0026129 119.1699 119.57 0.06 Cherokee 0.0003928 0.0000 0.0024096 26.8582 0.0001164 16.5529 0.0000246 1.1212 44.53 0.02 Coke 0.0000132 0.0000 0.0000807 0.9000 0.0137102 1949.8915 0.0000008 0.0376 1950.83 0.98 Coleman - (Note 1)------Colorado 0.0018297 0.0000 0.0001234 1.3754 0.0000060 0.8477 0.0146124 666.4543 668.68 0.33 Crockett - (Note 1) ------Ector 0.0000665 0.0000 0.0004080 4.5476 0.0692797 9853.1203 0.0000042 0.1898 9857.86 4.93 Fannin - (Note 1)------Fayette 0.0142622 0.0000 0.0009619 10.7214 0.0000465 6.6077 0.1139033 5195.0003 5212.33 2.61 Freestone 0.0119736 0.0000 0.0734517 818.7177 0.0035478 504.5821 0.0007494 34.1784 1357.48 0.68 Frio 0.0075616 0.0000 0.0005100 5.6843 0.0000246 3.5033 0.0603896 2754.3023 2763.49 1.38 Goliad 0.0055754 0.0000 0.0003760 4.1912 0.0000182 2.5831 0.0445268 2030.8180 2037.59 1.02 Grayson 0.0003196 0.0000 0.0019605 21.8527 0.0000947 13.4680 0.0000200 0.9123 36.23 0.02 Grimes 0.0044394 0.0000 0.0272337 303.5559 0.0013154 187.0839 0.0002778 12.6723 503.31 0.25 Hardeman - (Note 1)------Haskell - (Note 1)------Hidalgo 0.0015064 0.0000 0.0001016 1.1324 0.0000049 0.6979 0.0120304 548.6950 550.53 0.28 Hill 0.0004153 0.0000 0.0025477 28.3977 0.0001231 17.5017 0.0000260 1.1855 47.08 0.02 How ard 0.0000147 0.0000 0.0000904 1.0080 0.0153564 2184.0286 0.0000009 0.0421 2185.08 1.09 Other ERCOT Jack - (Note 1)------counties Jones - (Note 1)------Lamar 0.0020634 0.0000 0.0126581 141.0921 0.0006114 86.9562 0.0001291 5.8901 233.94 0.12 Limestone 0.0203491 0.0000 0.1248314 1391.4135 0.0060296 857.5390 0.0012736 58.0863 2307.04 1.15 Llano 0.0001567 0.0000 0.0000106 0.1178 0.0000005 0.0726 0.0012515 57.0803 57.27 0.03 McLennan 0.0034688 0.0000 0.0212790 237.1833 0.0010278 146.1779 0.0002171 9.9015 393.26 0.20 Milam 0.0065761 0.0000 0.0004435 4.9435 0.0000214 3.0467 0.0525191 2395.3371 2403.33 1.20 Mitchell 0.0000167 0.0000 0.0001024 1.1414 0.0173890 2473.1041 0.0000010 0.0477 2474.29 1.24 Nacogdoches 0.0001939 0.0000 0.0011892 13.2553 0.0000574 8.1693 0.0000121 0.5534 21.98 0.01 Nolan 0.0000074 0.0000 0.0000452 0.5043 0.0076822 1092.5875 0.0000005 0.0211 1093.11 0.55 Palo Pinto 0.0007026 0.0000 0.0043104 48.0450 0.0002082 29.6105 0.0000440 2.0057 79.66 0.04 Pecos 0.0000003 0.0000 0.0000016 0.0183 0.0002780 39.5444 0.0000000 0.0008 39.56 0.02 Potter 0.0003904 0.0000 0.0023951 26.6967 0.4067024 57842.1923 0.0000244 1.1145 57870.00 28.94 Presidio - (Note 1)------Reagan 0.0000002 0.0000 0.0000015 0.0169 0.0002570 36.5477 0.0000000 0.0007 36.57 0.02 Red River 0.0000354 0.0000 0.0002170 2.4188 0.0000105 1.4907 0.0000022 0.1010 4.01 0.00 Robertson 0.0123366 0.0000 0.0756789 843.5429 0.0036554 519.8821 0.0007721 35.2148 1398.64 0.70 Scurry 0.0000851 0.0000 0.0005218 5.8163 0.0886072 12601.9263 0.0000053 0.2428 12607.99 6.30 Taylor - (Note 1)------Titus 0.0153000 0.0000 0.0938579 1046.1724 0.0045335 644.7642 0.0009576 43.6738 1734.61 0.87 Tom Green - (Note 1)------Upton 0.0000002 0.0000 0.0000014 0.0158 0.0002401 34.1503 0.0000000 0.0007 34.17 0.02 Ward 0.0000015 0.0000 0.0000091 0.1013 0.0015429 219.4285 0.0000001 0.0042 219.53 0.11 Webb 0.0000329 0.0000 0.0000022 0.0247 0.0000001 0.0152 0.0002628 11.9870 12.03 0.01 Wharton 0.0008579 0.0000 0.0000579 0.6449 0.0000028 0.3975 0.0068515 312.4888 313.53 0.16 Wichita 0.0000021 0.0000 0.0000127 0.1414 0.0021547 306.4458 0.0000001 0.0059 306.59 0.15 Wilbarger 0.0005125 0.0000 0.0031439 35.0427 0.5338477 75925.0994 0.0000321 1.4629 75961.61 37.98 Wood 0.0000083 0.0000 0.0000509 0.5678 0.0000025 0.3500 0.0000005 0.02370.940.00 Young 0.0000249 0.0000 0.0001525 1.6995 0.0258899 3682.1231 0.0000016 0.0709 3683.89 1.84 Total 0.5057727 0.0000 0.7055240 7864.0154 1.2166789 173038.9874 0.7215719 32910.0779 213813.08 106.91

Energy Savings (MWh) 0 11,146 142,222 45,609 Note 1: These counties are not quantified because they are not in the ERCOT region.

July 2020 Energy Systems Laboratory, The Texas A&M University System

Page 63

Table 5-7: Distribution of the OSP Emission Reductions per CL Zone for each County (Year 2019)

Total Total Area County CL Zones Nox Re duct ions Nox Re duct ions HNWS(lbs) (Tons) Brazoria 0.0568294 0.0000 0.0000072 0.0801 0.0000003 0.0491 0.0005324 27.5018 27.63 0.013816 Chambers 0.0246685 0.0000 0.0000031 0.0348 0.0000002 0.0213 0.0002311 11.9380 11.99 0.005997 Fort Bend 0.0916210 0.0000 0.0000116 0.1292 0.0000006 0.0792 0.0008584 44.3388 44.55 0.022274

Houston- Galveston 0.0118565 0.0000 0.0000015 0.0167 0.0000001 0.0103 0.0001111 5.7378 5.76 0.002882 Galves ton Ar e a Harris 0.1083409 0.0000 0.0000137 0.1528 0.0000007 0.0937 0.0010150 52.4301 52.68 0.026338 Liberty - (Note 1)------Montgomery 0.0093310 0.0000 0.0000012 0.0132 0.0000001 0.0081 0.0000874 4.5156 4.54 0.002268 Waller - (Note 1)------Hardin - (Note 1)------Be aum ont / Por t Jefferson - (Note 1)------Arthur Area Orange - (Note 1)------Collin 0.0000368 0.0000 0.0002257 2.5089 0.0000109 1.5384 0.0000023 0.1189 4.17 0.002083 Dallas 0.0019990 0.0000 0.0122626 136.3140 0.0005923 83.5837 0.0001251 6.4625 226.36 0.113180 Denton 0.0012011 0.0000 0.0073682 81.9067 0.0003559 50.2227 0.0000752 3.8831 136.01 0.068006 Henderson 0.0002092 0.0000 0.0012835 14.2681 0.0000620 8.7488 0.0000131 0.6764 23.69 0.011847 Hood 0.0017809 0.0000 0.0109248 121.4422 0.0005277 74.4647 0.0001115 5.7574 201.66 0.100832 Hunt 0.0000552 0.0000 0.0003387 3.7654 0.0000164 2.3088 0.0000035 0.1785 6.25 0.003126 Dallas/ Fort Tarrant 0.0007589 0.0000 0.0046556 51.7524 0.0002249 31.7330 0.0000475 2.4535 85.94 0.042969 Worth Area Ellis 0.0011262 0.0000 0.0069087 76.7984 0.0003337 47.0905 0.0000705 3.6409 127.53 0.063765 Johnson 0.0002237 0.0000 0.0013721 15.2529 0.0000663 9.3526 0.0000140 0.7231 25.33 0.012664 Kaufman 0.0025504 0.0000 0.0156455 173.9194 0.0007557 106.6422 0.0001596 8.2453 288.81 0.144403 Parker 0.0004992 0.0000 0.0030622 34.0397 0.0001479 20.8721 0.0000312 1.6138 56.53 0.028263 Rockwall - (Note 1)------Wise 0.0026648 0.0000 0.0163471 181.7179 0.0007896 111.4240 0.0001668 8.6150 301.76 0.150878 El Paso Area El Paso - (Note 1)------Bexar 0.0173770 0.0000 0.0011719 13.0276 0.0000566 7.9881 0.1387790 7168.6985 7189.71 3.594857

San Antonio Comal 0.0003148 0.0000 0.0000212 0.2360 0.0000010 0.1447 0.0025142 129.8714 130.25 0.065126 Area Guadalupe 0.0025314 0.0000 0.0001707 1.8978 0.0000082 1.1637 0.0202169 1044.3148 1047.38 0.523688 Wilson 0.0001491 0.0000 0.0000101 0.1118 0.0000005 0.0685 0.0011905 61.4979 61.68 0.030839 Bastrop 0.0023093 0.0000 0.0001557 1.7313 0.0000075 1.0616 0.0184432 952.6902 955.48 0.477742 Caldwell - (Note 1)------Austin Area Hays 0.0004586 0.0000 0.0000309 0.3438 0.0000015 0.2108 0.0036626 189.1934 189.75 0.094874 Travis 0.0034963 0.0000 0.0002358 2.6212 0.0000114 1.6072 0.0279226 1442.3581 1446.59 0.723293 Williamson - (Note 1) ------Gregg - (Note 1)------Harrison - (Note 1)------Nor th Eas t Rusk 0.0241170 0.0000 0.1479453 1644.5952 0.0071460 1008.4166 0.0015094 77.9684 2730.98 1.365490 Texas Area Smith - (Note 1)------Upshur - (Note 1)------

Corpus Christi Nueces 0.0037957 0.0000 0.0002560 2.8456 0.0000124 1.7449 0.0303137 1565.8702 1570.46 0.785230 Area San Patricio 0.0057420 0.0000 0.0003873 4.3048 0.0000187 2.6396 0.0458575 2368.7896 2375.73 1.187867 Victoria Area Victoria 0.0013919 0.0000 0.0000939 1.0435 0.0000045 0.6398 0.0111160 574.2043 575.89 0.287944 Anderson 0.0000896 0.0000 0.0005499 6.1132 0.0000266 3.7484 0.0000056 0.2898 10.15 0.005076 Andrews - (Note 1)------Angelina 0.0020918 0.0000 0.0128320 142.6437 0.0006198 87.4648 0.0001309 6.7626 236.87 0.118436 Atascosa 0.0053556 0.0000 0.0003612 4.0151 0.0000174 2.4619 0.0427716 2209.3872 2215.86 1.107932 Bell 0.0003279 0.0000 0.0020113 22.3581 0.0000971 13.7093 0.0000205 1.0600 37.13 0.018564 Bosque 0.0005396 0.0000 0.0033099 36.7941 0.0001599 22.5610 0.0000338 1.7444 61.10 0.030550 Brazos 0.0006180 0.0000 0.0037909 42.1407 0.0001831 25.8394 0.0000387 1.9978 69.98 0.034989 Calhoun 0.0074943 0.0000 0.0005054 5.6185 0.0000244 3.4451 0.0598521 3091.6885 3100.75 1.550376 Cameron 0.0003272 0.0000 0.0000221 0.2453 0.0000011 0.1504 0.0026129 134.9690 135.36 0.067682 Cherokee 0.0003928 0.0000 0.0024096 26.7856 0.0001164 16.4242 0.0000246 1.2699 44.48 0.022240 Coke 0.0000132 0.0000 0.0000807 0.8975 0.0137102 1934.7241 0.0000008 0.0426 1935.66 0.967832 Coleman - (Note 1)------Colorado 0.0018297 0.0000 0.0001234 1.3717 0.0000060 0.8411 0.0146124 754.8101 757.02 0.378511 Crockett - (Note 1) ------Ector 0.0000665 0.0000 0.0004080 4.5354 0.0692797 9776.4770 0.0000042 0.2150 9781.23 4.890614 Fannin - (Note 1)------Fayette 0.0142622 0.0000 0.0009619 10.6924 0.0000465 6.5563 0.1139033 5883.7320 5900.98 2.950490 Freestone 0.0119736 0.0000 0.0734517 816.5062 0.0035478 500.6572 0.0007494 38.7097 1355.87 0.677937 Frio 0.0075616 0.0000 0.0005100 5.6690 0.0000246 3.4760 0.0603896 3119.4563 3128.60 1.564301 Goliad 0.0055754 0.0000 0.0003760 4.1799 0.0000182 2.5630 0.0445268 2300.0555 2306.80 1.153399 Grayson 0.0003196 0.0000 0.0019605 21.7937 0.0000947 13.3632 0.0000200 1.0332 36.19 0.018095 Grimes 0.0044394 0.0000 0.0272337 302.7359 0.0013154 185.6286 0.0002778 14.3524 502.72 0.251358 Hardeman - (Note 1)------Haskell - (Note 1)------Hidalgo 0.0015064 0.0000 0.0001016 1.1293 0.0000049 0.6925 0.0120304 621.4387 623.26 0.311630 Hill 0.0004153 0.0000 0.0025477 28.3210 0.0001231 17.3656 0.0000260 1.3427 47.03 0.023515 How ard 0.0000147 0.0000 0.0000904 1.0053 0.0153564 2167.0399 0.0000009 0.0477 2168.09 1.084046

Other ERCOT Jack - (Note 1)------counties Jones - (Note 1)------Lamar 0.0020634 0.0000 0.0126581 140.7110 0.0006114 86.2798 0.0001291 6.6710 233.66 0.116831 Limestone 0.0203491 0.0000 0.1248314 1387.6550 0.0060296 850.8686 0.0012736 65.7872 2304.31 1.152155 Llano 0.0001567 0.0000 0.0000106 0.1175 0.0000005 0.0720 0.0012515 64.6477 64.84 0.032419 McLennan 0.0034688 0.0000 0.0212790 236.5426 0.0010278 145.0409 0.0002171 11.2142 392.80 0.196399 Milam 0.0065761 0.0000 0.0004435 4.9301 0.0000214 3.0230 0.0525191 2712.9009 2720.85 1.360427 Mitchell 0.0000167 0.0000 0.0001024 1.1384 0.0173890 2453.8669 0.0000010 0.0540 2455.06 1.227530 Nacogdoches 0.0001939 0.0000 0.0011892 13.2195 0.0000574 8.1058 0.0000121 0.6267 21.95 0.010976 Nolan 0.0000074 0.0000 0.0000452 0.5029 0.0076822 1084.0887 0.0000005 0.0238 1084.62 0.542308 Palo Pinto 0.0007026 0.0000 0.0043104 47.9152 0.0002082 29.3802 0.0000440 2.2716 79.57 0.039783 Pecos 0.0000003 0.0000 0.0000016 0.0182 0.0002780 39.2368 0.0000000 0.0009 39.26 0.019628 Potter 0.0003904 0.0000 0.0023951 26.6245 0.4067024 57392.2620 0.0000244 1.2622 57420.15 28.710074 Presidio - (Note 1)------Reagan 0.0000002 0.0000 0.0000015 0.0168 0.0002570 36.2634 0.0000000 0.0008 36.28 0.018140 Red River 0.0000354 0.0000 0.0002170 2.4122 0.0000105 1.4791 0.0000022 0.1144 4.01 0.002003 Robertson 0.0123366 0.0000 0.0756789 841.2643 0.0036554 515.8381 0.0007721 39.8834 1396.99 0.698493 Scurry 0.0000851 0.0000 0.0005218 5.8006 0.0886072 12503.9012 0.0000053 0.2750 12509.98 6.254988 Taylor - (Note 1)------Titus 0.0153000 0.0000 0.0938579 1043.3465 0.0045335 639.7489 0.0009576 49.4639 1732.56 0.866280 Tom Green - (Note 1)------Upton 0.0000002 0.0000 0.0000014 0.0157 0.0002401 33.8846 0.0000000 0.0007 33.90 0.016951 Ward 0.0000015 0.0000 0.0000091 0.1010 0.0015429 217.7216 0.0000001 0.0048 217.83 0.108914 Webb 0.0000329 0.0000 0.0000022 0.0247 0.0000001 0.0151 0.0002628 13.5761 13.62 0.006808 Wharton 0.0008579 0.0000 0.0000579 0.6432 0.0000028 0.3944 0.0068515 353.9173 354.95 0.177477 Wichita 0.0000021 0.0000 0.0000127 0.1411 0.0021547 304.0621 0.0000001 0.0067 304.21 0.152105 Wilbarger 0.0005125 0.0000 0.0031439 34.9480 0.5338477 75334.5098 0.0000321 1.6568 75371.11 37.685557 Wood 0.0000083 0.0000 0.0000509 0.5663 0.0000025 0.3472 0.0000005 0.0268 0.94 0.000470 Young 0.0000249 0.0000 0.0001525 1.6949 0.0258899 3653.4814 0.0000016 0.0804 3655.26 1.827628 Total 0.5057727 0.0000 0.7055240 7842.7731 1.2166789 171692.9895 0.7215719 37273.1601 216808.92 108.40

Energy Savings (MWh) 0 11,116 141,116 51,656 Note 1: These counties are not quantified because they are not in the ERCOT region

July 2020 Energy Systems Laboratory, The Texas A&M University System

Page 64

6 OTHER RENEWABLE SOURCES

Five specific renewable sources were determined: solar, biomass, hydroelectric, geothermal, and landfill gas-fired, to generate energy throughout the State of Texas, six types of renewable energy projects were identified: solar photovoltaic (PV), including solar power, solar thermal, biomass power, hydroelectric power, geothermal HVAC, and landfill gas-fired power projects. The generated, avoided, and used energy from renewable energy projects impacts emissions reductions throughout the State of Texas. To determine the amount of NOx emission reductions using 2016 eGRID, this report collected installation and/or generation data of renewable energy projects. The majority of the collected data were after the year 2000. However, projects before the year 2000 were also included in order to provide a complete record.

6.1 Implementation

This report included a lot of newly located renewable energy projects in the six renewable energy projects categories, as already discussed. The information was collected using the following modes:  information from the internet websites of manufacturers, distributors, and consultants related to renewable energy products  some information was collected by personally emailing individuals, who were either manufacturers, distributors or consultants  information published from environmental agencies like the Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL), Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (LBNL) which are available to the general public

It was mainly the same methodology/protocol followed for data collection used in the previous report. Most of the information collected from websites was very limited since the information did not include detailed project information such as system specifications data. To obtain more information, we emailed manufacturers, consultants, distributors, or officers in environmental agencies. Unfortunately, we were not able to take many responses back from the people whom we contacted. Therefore, most of the updated information in the present report was obtained from environmental agencies like ERCOT, EPA, NREL, and LBNL.

In the previous TERP reports, the ESL collected data for small-scale solar photovoltaic projects from the Open PV project database hosted by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) (https://openpv.nrel.gov/). The “OpenPV database” provided detailed information on solar PV projects since 2004. However, the OpenPV website terminated its public data service in June 2019. Therefore, the ESL changed the data source to the new database from the LBNL, “Tracking the Sun” report (https://emp.lbl.gov/tracking-the-sun/). Based on the new data, the ESL integrated previously reported data for the non-utility scale solar PV calculations. Tracking the Sun report contains public data about solar projects across the United States, including geographical information (e.g., zip code, state), project features (e.g., capacity, cost, date), and utility company. These data replace the OpenPV data that were used to compute annual energy generations and NOx savings from non-utility solar PV projects in Texas from 2019.

The solar thermal projects and geothermal projects throughout the State of Texas were identified from various web sources. The present report data for three other utility-scale renewable resources (i.e., solar power, biomass, and hydroelectricity) were obtained from the Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT). The information for the landfill gas-fired power plant section was provided by the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) project database for Landfill Methane Outreach Program (LMOP).

To determine energy savings from solar photovoltaic and solar thermal, the generated energy was calculated in electricity and electricity equivalent. Then, NOx emission reductions throughout the State of Texas were evaluated based on the generated energy. To determine NOx emission reductions, the 2016

July 2020 Energy Systems Laboratory, The Texas A&M University System

Page 65 eGRID version was used. Figure 6-1 presents the work process to implement the analysis of other renewable resources, including steps: project classification, data collection, data preparation, NOx emission reductions calculation, and result production.

Figure 6-1: Chart of Workflow for Other Renewable Energy Projects

6.2 Renewable Energy Projects

6.2.1 Solar Photovoltaic

As of the end of 2019, a total of 29,406 projects (non-utility scale) were found. These data were collected from various websites (e.g., Meridian Solar, NREL OpenPV and others, described in the previous ESL TERP report), and the Tracking the Sun public database of the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (LBNL). The new database from Tracking the Sun provides information about solar PV projects that have been implemented since 2004. The database includes individual solar PV projects (non-utility scale) of residential and non-residential in Texas. Also, it provides detailed information, such as zip code, size (kW

July 2020 Energy Systems Laboratory, The Texas A&M University System

Page 66

DC), cost, date installed, and location. All of the identified solar PV projects can be found in Table F-1 (Vol II, APPENDIX F). In addition, Figure 6-2 shows the map of the solar PV projects installed in each county of Texas.

The generated energy and the amount of NOx reduction from all the solar PV projects are presented in Table 6-1. The annual electric generations per county and the OSP electric generations per county, which were estimated from these projects, are presented in Figure 6-3 and in Figure 6-4. Please note that Figure 6-3 is presented using a logarithmic scale for the electricity generation because of the large variation in the amounts shown. In addition, the corresponding annual NOx emission reductions are shown in Figure 6-5.

To improve the accuracy of the current calculation methods, this report recalculated the weighted solar PV efficiencies based on 2019 Tracking the Sun data. Using the PV F-Chart software, the annual solar generation coefficients and OSP solar generation coefficients were recomputed using forty TMY3 weather stations to estimate annual and OSP solar PV generations by county. Also, the target counties were expanded from the previous 41 counties to 254 counties to treat entire regions across Texas. Additional details of this year’s update (e.g., solar PV efficiency, weather data change, data source transition, target counties) are described in Vol II APPENDIX G.

Table 6-1: Solar Photovoltaic Projects: Annual Energy and OSP Energy up to 2019

Annual OSP Annual OSP Elec. Generation Elec. Generation Elec. Generation Elec. Generation County (MWh/year) (MWh/Day) County (MWh/year) (MWh/Day) Anderson 54,275 162.5 Comal 6,174,991 18,820.0 Andrews - - Comanche - - Angelina 87,661 271.1 Concho - - Aransas 52,544 183.2 Cooke 150,703 450.9 Archer 212,783 630.3 Coryell 13,571 42.2 Armstrong - - Cottle - - Atascosa 456,966 1,392.7 Crane - - Austin - - Crockett - - Bailey - - Crosby - - Bandera - - Culberson - - Bastrop 2,974 9.8 Dallam - - Baylor - - Dallas 15,229,623 45,570.1 Bee 3,943 12.5 Dawson - - Bell 1,503,427 4,672.6 Deaf Smith - - Bexar 227,951,852 694,748.0 Delta - - Blanco - - Denton 7,739,554 23,158.3 Borden - - De Witt 9,292 28.4 Bosque 37,986 116.0 Dickens - - Bowie 314,541 1,016.1 Dimmit - - Brazoria 14,784 48.1 Donley - - Brazos - - Duval 22,338 76.0 Brewster 346,111 994.6 Eastland 33,626 95.5 Briscoe - - Ector 80,093 226.9 Brooks - - Edwards - - Brown 87,793 254.7 Ellis 1,839,345 5,503.7 Burleson - - El Paso 6,255,271 17,551.9 Burnet - - Erath 14,766 41.9 Caldwell 11,807 39.0 Falls 8,923 27.3 Calhoun - - Fannin 13,663 45.9 Callahan 206,943 600.3 Fayette - - Cameron 2,349,745 7,437.2 Fisher - - Camp - - Floyd - - Carson - - Foard - - Cass 42,098 136.0 Fort Bend - - Castro - - Franklin 5,358 18.0

July 2020 Energy Systems Laboratory, The Texas A&M University System

Page 67

Table 6-1: Solar Photovoltaic Projects: Annual Energy and OSP Energy up to 2019 (Continued)

Annual OSP Annual OSP Elec. Generation Elec. Generation Elec. Generation Elec. Generation County (MWh/year) (MWh/Day) County (MWh/year) (MWh/Day) Chambers - - Freestone - - Cherokee 97,241 291.1 Frio 6,482 21.7 Childress - - Gaines - - Clay 46,513 137.8 Galveston 114,933 373.6 Cochran - - Garza - - Coke - - Gillespie - - Coleman 16,365 47.5 Glasscock - - Collin 3,456,924 11,097.5 Goliad 36,861 112.8 Collingsworth - - Gonzales - - Colorado 32,941 100.8 Gray - - Grayson 312,356 1,002.7 Liberty 12,550 37.5 Gregg 301,417 973.7 Limestone 14,277 43.6 Grimes 17,226 52.3 Lipscomb - - Guadalupe 6,537,597 19,925.2 Live Oak - - Hale 20,795 59.2 Llano - - Hall - - Loving 290,112 831.6 Hamilton 31,184 96.9 Lubbock - - Hansford - - Lynn - - Hardeman - - McCulloch - - Hardin 26,165 80.6 McLennan 974,549 2,976.5 Harris 1,714,954 5,130.9 McMullen - - Harrison 20,388 65.9 Madison - - Hartley - - Marion - - Haskell 16,209 47.0 Martin - - Hays 14,993 49.5 Mason - - Hemphill - - Matagorda 65,828 189.3 Henderson 124,867 373.7 Maverick 94,951 289.4 Hidalgo 3,571,467 11,466.4 Medina 981,501 3,285.6 Hill 60,365 184.4 Menard - - Hockley - - Midland 305,681 865.9 Hood 35,586 101.1 Milam - - Hopkins 357,631 1,148.1 Mills - - Houston - - Mitchell - - Howard 317,890 900.4 Montague 5,775 17.1 Hudspeth - - Montgomery 319,367 955.5 Hunt 121,847 391.2 Moore - - Hutchinson - - Morris 20,310 65.6 Irion - - Motley - - Jack 13,943 39.6 Nacogdoches 13,000 44.0 Jackson 12,830 39.3 Navarro 47,665 142.6 Jasper - - Newton - - Jeff Davis 115,693 332.5 Nolan 84,660 245.6 Jefferson 80,390 247.7 Nueces 2,544,415 8,053.9 Jim Hogg 5,162 16.6 Ochiltree - - Jim Wells 81,670 277.7 Oldham - - Johnson 189,803 567.9 Orange 129,003 397.5 Jones 45,946 133.3 Palo Pinto 7,469 21.2 Karnes 11,880 36.2 Panola 69,127 233.7 Kaufman 54,353 174.5 Parker 95,994 272.7 Kendall 4,209,729 12,830.3 Parmer - - Kenedy - - Pecos 38,031 109.0 Kent - - Polk 4,549 14.1 Kerr - - Potter - - Kimble 73,161 211.4 Presidio 442,168 1,270.7 King - - Rains - -

July 2020 Energy Systems Laboratory, The Texas A&M University System

Page 68

Table 6-1: Solar Photovoltaic Projects: Annual Energy and OSP Energy up to 2019 (Continued)

Annual OSP Annual OSP Elec. Generation Elec. Generation Elec. Generation Elec. Generation County (MWh/year) (MWh/Day) County (MWh/year) (MWh/Day) Kinney - - Randall - - Kleberg 14,762 49.3 Reagan - - Knox 68,084 206.2 Real 29,904 100.1 Lamar 201,241 675.7 Red River 53,197 153.0 Lamb - - Reeves 88,643 254.1 Lampasas 7,345 22.8 Refugio - - La Salle 8,866 27.0 Roberts - - Lavaca - - Robertson 5,871 17.8 Lee - - Rockwall 158,405 508.5 Leon 25,199 76.5 Runnels 14,791 42.9 Rusk 35,381 114.3 Trinity 13,152 40.7 Sabine - - Tyler 21,365 66.1 San Augustine - - Upshur 7,852 25.4 San Jacinto - - Upton - - San Patricio 31,753 100.5 Uvalde 10,123 33.9 San Saba - - Val Verde 19,062 59.0 Schleicher 30,484 88.1 Van Zandt 34,389 110.4 Scurry - - Victoria 7,637 23.4 Shackelford 111,748 324.2 Walker 27,784 84.3 Shelby 173,334 586.1 Waller 11,944 35.7 Sherman - - Ward - - Smith 370,600 1,109.2 Washington - - Somervell 35,069 107.1 Webb 1,710,948 5,259.9 Starr 68,450 219.8 Wharton 9,139 26.3 Stephens - - Wheeler - - Sterling - - Wichita 358,308 1,061.3 Stonewall - - Wilbarger 117,176 347.1 Sutton - - Willacy - - Swisher - - Williamson 4,555,467 15,100.3 Tarrant 7,228,756 21,629.9 Wilson 50,999 155.4 Taylor 286,304 830.6 Winkler 3,811 10.9 Terrell - - Wise 253,909 721.3 Terry - - Wood 13,371 40.0 Throckmorton - - Yoakum - - Titus 105,344 340.3 Young 13,943 39.6 Tom Green 529,113 1,529.0 Zapata - - Travis 100,890,811 333,066.5 Zavala - -

July 2020 Energy Systems Laboratory, The Texas A&M University System

Page 69

No. of No. of No. of County FIPS Code County FIPS Code County FIPS Code Projects Projects Projects Anderson 001 5 Briscoe 045 0 Colorado 089 2 Andrews 003 0 Brooks 047 0 Comal 091 391 Angelina 005 7 Brown 049 6 Comanche 093 0 Aransas 007 6 Burleson 051 0 Concho 095 0 Archer 009 12 Burnet 053 0 Cooke 097 6 Armstrong 011 0 Caldwell 055 1 Coryell 099 2 Atascosa 013 36 Calhoun 057 0 Cottle 101 0 Austin 015 0 Callahan 059 13 Crane 103 0 Bailey 017 0 Cameron 061 53 Crockett 105 0 Bandera 019 0 Camp 063 0 Crosby 107 0 Bastrop 021 1 Carson 065 0 Culberson 109 0 Baylor 023 0 Cass 067 2 Dallam 111 0 Bee 025 1 Castro 069 0 Dallas 113 399 Bell 027 50 Chambers 071 0 Dawson 115 0 Bexar 029 16557 Cherokee 073 10 Deaf Smith 117 0 Blanco 031 0 Childress 075 0 Delta 119 0 Borden 033 0 Clay 077 3 Denton 121 101 Bosque 035 4 Cochran 079 0 De Witt 123 1 Bowie 037 11 Coke 081 0 Dickens 125 0 Brazoria 039 2 Coleman 083 1 Dimmit 127 0 Brazos 041 0 Collin 085 212 Donley 129 0 Brewster 043 27 Collingsworth 087 0 Duval 131 2 Figure 6-2: Solar Photovoltaic Projects throughout Texas up to 2019

July 2020 Energy Systems Laboratory, The Texas A&M University System

Page 70

No. of No. of No. of County FIPS Code County FIPS Code County FIPS Code Projects Projects Projects Eastland 133 5 Hutchinson 233 0 Mills 333 0 Ector 135 5 Irion 235 0 Mitchell 335 0 Edwards 137 0 Jack 237 1 Montague 337 1 Ellis 139 45 Jackson 239 1 Montgomery 339 36 El Paso 141 381 Jasper 241 0 Moore 341 0 Erath 143 1 Jeff Davis 243 10 Morris 343 2 Falls 145 1 Jefferson 245 7 Motley 345 0 Fannin 147 1 Jim Hogg 247 1 Nacogdoches 347 1 Fayette 149 0 Jim Wells 249 10 Navarro 349 5 Fisher 151 0 Johnson 251 18 Newton 351 0 Floyd 153 0 Jones 253 3 Nolan 353 3 Foard 155 0 Karnes 255 1 Nueces 355 51 Fort Bend 157 0 Kaufman 257 6 Ochiltree 357 0 Franklin 159 1 Kendall 259 306 Oldham 359 0 Freestone 161 0 Kenedy 261 0 Orange 361 14 Frio 163 1 Kent 263 0 Palo Pinto 363 1 Gaines 165 0 Kerr 265 0 Panola 365 2 Galveston 167 12 Kimble 267 1 Parker 367 11 Garza 169 0 King 269 0 Parmer 369 0 Gillespie 171 0 Kinney 271 0 Pecos 371 1 Glasscock 173 0 Kleberg 273 2 Polk 373 1 Goliad 175 4 Knox 275 1 Potter 375 0 Gonzales 177 0 Lamar 277 6 Presidio 377 24 Gray 179 0 Lamb 279 0 Rains 379 0 Grayson 181 20 Lampasas 281 1 Randall 381 0 Gregg 183 14 La Salle 283 1 Reagan 383 0 Grimes 185 2 Lavaca 285 0 Real 385 2 Guadalupe 187 445 Lee 287 0 Red River 387 2 Hale 189 1 Leon 289 3 Reeves 389 3 Hall 191 0 Liberty 291 1 Refugio 391 0 Hamilton 193 3 Limestone 293 1 Roberts 393 0 Hansford 195 0 Lipscomb 295 0 Robertson 395 1 Hardeman 197 0 Live Oak 297 0 Rockwall 397 18 Hardin 199 4 Llano 299 0 Runnels 399 1 Harris 201 17 Loving 301 2 Rusk 401 4 Harrison 203 2 Lubbock 303 0 Sabine 403 0 Hartley 205 0 Lynn 305 0 San Augustine 405 0 Haskell 207 1 McCulloch 307 0 San Jacinto 407 0 Hays 209 2 McLennan 309 22 San Patricio 409 3 Hemphill 211 0 McMullen 311 0 San Saba 411 0 Henderson 213 9 Madison 313 0 Schleicher 413 2 Hidalgo 215 78 Marion 315 0 Scurry 415 0 Hill 217 6 Martin 317 0 Shackelford 417 4 Hockley 219 0 Mason 319 0 Shelby 419 1 Hood 221 4 Matagorda 321 2 Sherman 421 0 Hopkins 223 3 Maverick 323 7 Smith 423 35 Houston 225 0 Medina 325 70 Somervell 425 3 Howard 227 2 Menard 327 0 Starr 427 3 Hudspeth 229 0 Midland 329 14 Stephens 429 0 Hunt 231 11 Milam 331 0 Sterling 431 0 Figure 6-2: Solar Photovoltaic Projects throughout Texas up to 2019 (Continued)

July 2020 Energy Systems Laboratory, The Texas A&M University System

Page 71

No. of No. of No. of County FIPS Code County FIPS Code County FIPS Code Projects Projects Projects Stonewall 433 0 Upshur 459 1 Wichita 485 20 Sutton 435 0 Upton 461 0 Wilbarger 487 5 Swisher 437 0 Uvalde 463 1 Willacy 489 0 Tarrant 439 291 Val Verde 465 2 Williamson 491 206 Taylor 441 18 Van Zandt 467 4 Wilson 493 3 Terrell 443 0 Victoria 469 1 Winkler 495 2 Terry 445 0 Walker 471 1 Wise 497 2 Throckmorton 447 0 Waller 473 1 Wood 499 1 Titus 449 1 Ward 475 0 Yoakum 501 0 Tom Green 451 32 Washington 477 0 Young 503 1 Travis 453 9006 Webb 479 56 Zapata 505 0 Trinity 455 1 Wharton 481 1 Zavala 507 0 Tyler 457 2 Wheeler 483 0 Figure 6-2: Solar Photovoltaic Projects throughout Texas up to 2019 (Continued)

July 2020 Energy Systems Laboratory, The Texas A&M University System

Page 72

Annual Elec. Generation (Solar PV) 1,000,000

100,000

10,000

1,000

100 Annual Elec. Generations (MWh/yr) 10

1 Bell Bee Clay Cass Coke Collin Bexar Camp Bowie Bailey Austin Brown Baylor Comal Cooke Burnet Castro Archer Blanco Coryell Brooks Brazos Carson Borden Briscoe Bosque Concho Bastrop Aransas Calhoun Brazoria Caldwell Cochran Bandera Andrews Angelina Burleson Callahan Brewster Coleman Colorado Cameron Atascosa Childress Anderson Cherokee Chambers Armstrong Comanche Collingsworth County

Figure 6-3: Annual Electricity Savings per County from Solar Photovoltaic Projects up to 2019

Annual Elec. Generation (Solar PV) 1,000,000

100,000

10,000

1,000

100 Annual Elec. Generations Elec. (MWh/yr) Annual 10

1 Frio Hall Ellis Hale Falls Gray Ector Delta Erath Floyd Duval Cottle Foard Crane Garza Dallas Fisher Gregg Goliad Hardin DeWitt Fannin Dimmit Donley Dallam Crosby Gaines Denton Grimes Fayette El Paso Dickens Franklin Dawson Crockett Grayson Gillespie Eastland Edwards Hamilton Hansford Gonzales Fort BendFort Freestone Galveston Culberson Glasscock Hardeman Guadalupe Deaf Smith Deaf

County

Figure 6-3: Annual Electricity Savings per County from Solar Photovoltaic Projects up to 2019 (Continued)

July 2020 Energy Systems Laboratory, The Texas A&M University System

Page 73

Annual Elec. Generation (Solar PV) 1,000,000

100,000

10,000

1,000

100 Annual Elec. Generations Elec. (MWh/yr) Annual 10

1 Hill Lee Kerr Irion King Jack Kent Hunt Leon Knox Hays Hood Llano Lamb Harris Jones Lamar Liberty Jasper Kimble Kinney Hartley Karnes Lavaca Haskell Kendall Kenedy Hidalgo Howard Kleberg Hockley La Salle Hopkins Jackson Houston Harrison Johnson Hemphill Live Oak Kaufman Jefferson Jim Hogg Jim Lipscomb Hudspeth Wells Jim Jeff Davis Jeff Lampasas Limestone Henderson Hutchinson

County

Figure 6-3: Annual Electricity Savings per County from Solar Photovoltaic Projects up to 2019 (Continued)

Annual Elec. Generation (Solar PV) 1,000,000

100,000

10,000

1,000

100 Annual Elec. Generations Elec. (MWh/yr) Annual 10

1 Polk Mills Real Lynn Rains Nolan Milam Potter Martin Morris Pecos Moore Loving Motley Parker Mason Marion Panola Medina Parmer Orange Menard Mitchell Newton Nueces Randall Reeves Refugio Midland Oldham Reagan Roberts Navarro Presidio Runnels Lubbock Madison Maverick Ochiltree Rockwall McMullen Montague Red River Palo PintoPalo Robertson McCulloch McLennan Matagorda Montgomery CountyNacogdoches

Figure 6-3: Annual Electricity Savings per County from Solar Photovoltaic Projects up to 2019 (Continued)

July 2020 Energy Systems Laboratory, The Texas A&M University System

Page 74

Annual Elec. Generation (Solar PV) 1,000,000

100,000

10,000

1,000

100 nulEe.Gnrtos(MWh/yr) Generations Elec. Annual 10

1 Starr Titus Tyler Wise Rusk Terry Ward Smith Webb Wood Upton Travis Trinity Taylor Waller Terrell Young Sutton Scurry Wilson Zavala Shelby Zapata Uvalde Walker Sabine Willacy Upshur Tarrant Wichita Winkler Victoria Sterling Swisher Yoakum Wheeler Wharton Sherman Stephens Wilbarger Stonewall Val Verde Val San Saba San Somervell Van Zandt Van Schleicher Williamson TomGreen San Jacinto San Washington Shackelford San Patricio San Throckmorton San Augustine San County

Figure 6-3: Annual Electricity Savings per County from Solar Photovoltaic Projects up to 2019 (Continued)

OSP Elec. Generation (Solar PV) 800.0

700.0

600.0

500.0

400.0

300.0

200.0 OSD Elec.Generations (MWh/day)

100.0

0.0 Bexar Travis Dallas Denton Tarrant El Paso El

County

Figure 6-4: OSP Electricity Savings per County from Solar Photovoltaic Projects up to 2019

July 2020 Energy Systems Laboratory, The Texas A&M University System

Page 75

OSP Elec. Generation (Solar PV) 20.0

18.0

16.0

14.0

12.0

10.0

8.0

6.0

OSD OSD GenerationsElec. (MWh/day) 4.0

2.0

0.0 Bell Bee Clay Cass Coke Collin Camp Bowie Bailey Austin Baylor Brown Burnet Castro Archer Blanco Brazos Brooks Borden Carson Briscoe Bosque Bastrop Aransas Brazoria Calhoun Caldwell Cochran Bandera Andrews Angelina Brewster Burleson Callahan Coleman Colorado Cameron Atascosa Childress Anderson Cherokee Chambers Armstrong

County Collingsworth

Figure 6-4 OSP Electricity Savings per County from Solar Photovoltaic Projects up to 2019 (Continued)

OSP Elec. Generation (Solar PV) 20.0

18.0

16.0

14.0

12.0

10.0

8.0

6.0

OSD OSD GenerationsElec. (MWh/day) 4.0

2.0

0.0 Hall Frio Ellis Hale Falls Gray Delta Ector Erath Floyd Duval Foard Cottle Garza Crane Gregg Fisher Goliad Cooke Comal DeWitt Fannin Coryell Dimmit Donley Dallam Gaines Crosby Grimes Fayette Concho Franklin Dickens Dawson Crockett Grayson Gillespie Eastland Edwards Hamilton Hansford Gonzales Fort BendFort Galveston Freestone Culberson Glasscock Comanche Guadalupe Deaf Smith Deaf County

Figure 6-4: OSP Electricity Savings per County from Solar Photovoltaic Projects up to 2019 (Continued)

July 2020 Energy Systems Laboratory, The Texas A&M University System

Page 76

OSP Elec. Generation (Solar PV) 20.0

18.0

16.0

14.0

12.0

10.0

8.0

6.0 OSD Elec.Generations (MWh/day) 4.0

2.0

0.0 Hill Lee Kerr Irion King Jack Kent Hunt Leon Hays Knox Hood Lamb Harris Jones Lamar Hardin Jasper Liberty Kimble Kinney Hartley Karnes Lavaca Haskell Kendall Hidalgo Kenedy Howard Kleberg Hockley Hopkins La Salle Jackson Houston Harrison Johnson Hemphill Kaufman Jefferson Jim Hogg Jim Hudspeth Jim Wells Jim Lipscomb Jeff Davis Jeff Lampasas Limestone Hardeman Henderson Hutchinson County

Figure 6-4: OSP Electricity Savings per County from Solar Photovoltaic Projects up to 2019 (Continued)

OSP Elec. Generation (Solar PV) 20.0

18.0

16.0

14.0

12.0

10.0

8.0

6.0

OSD OSD GenerationsElec. (MWh/day) 4.0

2.0

0.0 Polk Mills Real Lynn Llano Rains Nolan Milam Potter Morris Martin Pecos Moore Loving Motley Parker Mason Marion Panola Medina Parmer Orange Menard Mitchell Newton Nueces Randall Reeves Refugio Midland Oldham Reagan Roberts Navarro Presidio Lubbock Madison Live Oak Maverick Ochiltree McMullen Montague Red River Palo Pinto Palo Robertson McCulloch McLennan Matagorda Montgomery

CountyNacogdoches

Figure 6-4: OSP Electricity Savings per County from Solar Photovoltaic Projects up to 2019 (Continued)

July 2020 Energy Systems Laboratory, The Texas A&M University System

Page 77

OSP Elec. Generation (Solar PV) 20.0

18.0

16.0

14.0

12.0

10.0

8.0

6.0

OSD Elec.Generations (MWh/day) 4.0

2.0

0.0 Starr Titus Tyler Wise Rusk Terry Ward Smith Webb Wood Upton Trinity Taylor Terrell Waller Scurry Sutton Young Zavala Wilson Shelby Sabine Uvalde Walker Zapata Willacy Upshur Wichita Victoria Winkler Sterling Swisher Runnels Yoakum Wheeler Wharton Rockwall Sherman Stephens Wilbarger Stonewall San Saba San Val Verde Val Somervell VanZandt Schleicher Williamson TomGreen San Jacinto San Shackelford Washington San Patricio San

Throckmorton County San Augustine San Figure 6-4: OSP Electricity Savings per County from Solar Photovoltaic Projects up to 2019 (Continued)

Annual NOx Emissions Reductions

25.0 Non-attainment and Affected Counties Other Counties

20.0

15.0

10.0

5.0 Annual NOx Emissions Annual NOx Emissions Reductions (Tons/yr)

0.0 Ellis Wise Hays Rusk Collin Smith Bexar Harris Bailey Travis Austin Gregg Dallas Baylor Waller Comal Archer Hardin Parker Wilson Liberty Denton Tarrant Upshur Victoria Orange Nueces El El Paso Bastrop Aransas Brazoria Bandera Johnson Caldwell Harrison Andrews Angelina Kaufman Rockwall Atascosa Jefferson Anderson Fort Fort Bend Galveston Armstrong Chambers Williamson Guadalupe San Patricio Montgomery County

Figure 6-5: NOx Emissions Reductions per County from Solar Photovoltaic Projects up to 2019

July 2020 Energy Systems Laboratory, The Texas A&M University System

Page 78

Annual NOx Emissions Reductions

25.0 Other Counties

20.0

15.0

10.0

5.0 Annual NOx Emissions Annual NOx Emissions Reductions (Tons/yr)

0.0 Bell Bee Clay Cass Ector Delta Coke Erath Duval Cottle Camp Bowie Crane Brown Cooke Burnet Castro Blanco Brazos Brooks Dimmit Donley Coryell Dallam Crosby Borden Carson De Witt De Briscoe Bosque Concho Dickens Dawson Calhoun Crockett Cochran Eastland Edwards Brewster Burleson Callahan Coleman Colorado Cameron Childress Cherokee Culberson Comanche Deaf Smith

County Collingsworth

Figure 6-5: NOx Emissions Reductions per County from Solar Photovoltaic Projects up to 2019 (Continued)

Annual NOx Emissions Reductions

25.0 Other Counties

20.0

15.0

10.0

5.0 Annual NOx Emissions Annual NOx Emissions Reductions (Tons/yr)

0.0 Hill Hall Frio Kerr Irion Hale Kent Jack Hunt Falls Gray Hood Floyd Foard Jones Garza Fisher Goliad Jasper Fannin Hartley Gaines Karnes Grimes Haskell Kendall Fayette Hidalgo Kenedy Howard Franklin Hockley Hopkins Jackson Houston Grayson Gillespie Hemphill Hamilton Hansford Gonzales Jim Hogg Jim Wells Hudspeth Jeff Davis Jeff Freestone Glasscock Hardeman Henderson Hutchinson County

Figure 6-5: NOx Emissions Reductions per County from Solar Photovoltaic Projects up to 2019 (Continued)

July 2020 Energy Systems Laboratory, The Texas A&M University System

Page 79

Annual NOx Emissions Reductions 25.0

Other Counties

20.0

15.0

10.0

5.0 Annual NOx Emissions Annual NOx Emissions Reductions (Tons/yr)

0.0 Lee Polk Mills King Lynn Leon Knox Llano Lamb Nolan Milam Potter Martin Morris Pecos Moore Lamar Loving Motley Mason Marion Kimble Kinney Panola Lavaca Medina Parmer Menard Mitchell Newton Kleberg Midland Oldham Navarro La Salle Lubbock Madison Live Oak Maverick Ochiltree Lipscomb McMullen Montague Palo Pinto Limestone Lampasas McCulloch McLennan Matagorda

County Nacogdoches

Figure 6-5: NOx Emissions Reductions per County from Solar Photovoltaic Projects up to 2019 (Continued)

Annual NOx Emissions Reductions

25.0 Other Counties

20.0

15.0

10.0

5.0 Annual NOx Emissions Annual NOx Emissions Reductions (Tons/yr)

0.0 Real Starr Titus Tyler Terry Ward Rains Webb Wood Upton Trinity Taylor Terrell Scurry Young Sutton Zavala Shelby Uvalde Walker Zapata Sabine Willacy Wichita Winkler Reeves Sterling Randall Refugio Roberts Reagan Swisher Presidio Yoakum Runnels Wheeler Wharton Sherman Stephens Wilbarger Stonewall Val Verde San Saba Red River Red Somervell Van Zandt Van Robertson Schleicher Tom Green Tom San JacintoSan Washington Shackelford

County Throckmorton San Augustine San Figure 6-5: NOx Emissions Reductions per County from Solar Photovoltaic Projects up to 2019 (Continued)

July 2020 Energy Systems Laboratory, The Texas A&M University System

Page 80

6.2.1.1 Solar Power

This section includes only solar power plant projects (utility-scale) in Texas. The data from seventy-nine solar power plants identified in the State of Texas were obtained. Table 6-2 shows the list of solar power plant projects with their names, respective county, year commissioned, the forecast zone they serve, installed capacity and total electricity produced for the year 2019. Figure 6-6 shows the annual electricity generation of solar power plant projects. In addition, Figure 6-7 shows the map of the number of solar power plants for each county. The total electricity generated for the year 2019 from all of the projects was 4,412,015 MWh/year.

The annual electric savings per county and the OSP electric savings per county, which were estimated from these projects, are presented in Figure 6-8 and in Figure 6-9, respectively. In addition, the corresponding annual NOx emission reductions are shown in Figure 6-10.

In most of the projects, one significant pattern was observed, the power generation slowly increased from the month of January till mid of March and continued the same till the end of September and gradually decreased till the end of the year.

The hourly and total daily electricity generation profile of different solar power projects is shown in Volume II, Appendix C. Figure 6-11 shows an example of the hourly electricity generation profile and Figure 6-12 shows an example of the daily total generation profile.

July 2020 Energy Systems Laboratory, The Texas A&M University System

Page 81

Table 6-2: Solar Power Plant Projects in the State of Texas through 2019 Power ERCOT Installed Ye ar Generated in No Name of the Project County Forcast Capacity* Commissioned 2019 Zone (MW ) AC (MWh/year) 1 ACACIA_UNIT_1 Presidio 2012 West 10.0 24,178 2 ALEXIS_ALEXIS Brooks 2019 South 10.0 0 3 BOOTLEG_UNIT1 Pecos 2017 West 121.1 290,876 4 BOVINE_BOVINE Austin 2018 South 5.0 7,943 5 BOVINE2_BOVINE2 Austin 2018 South 5.0 9,793 6 BRNSN_BRNSN Fort Bend 2018 Houston 5.0 7,686 7 BRNSN2_BRNSN2 Fort Bend 2018 Houston 5.0 7,762 8 CAPRIDG4_BB_PV Missing 2019 West 30.0 76,597 9 CASCADE_CASCADE Wharton 2018 South 5.0 7,385 10 CASCADE2_CASCADE2 Wharton 2018 South 5.0 5,974 11 CASL_GAP_UNIT1 Upton 2018 West 180.0 434,782 12 CECSOLAR_DG_BECK1 Bexar 2016 South 1.0 1,996 13 CHISUM_CHISUM Lamar 2018 North 10.0 15,849 14 COSERVSS_CSS1 Denton 2015 North 2.0 3,622 15 DG_BROOK_1UNIT Bexar 2010 South 7.6 10,182 16 DG_ELMEN_1UNIT Bexar 2010 South 7.3 11,694 17 DG_SOME1_1UNIT Bexar 2012 South 5.6 9,438 18 DG_SOME2_1UNIT Bexar 2012 South 5.0 8,781 19 DG_STHWG_UNIT1 Bexar 2014 South 4.4 8,142 20 DG_VALL1_1UNIT Bexar 2012 South 9.9 16,624 21 DG_VALL2_1UNIT Bexar 2012 South 9.9 17,399 22 DG_WALZM_UNIT1 Bexar 2014 South 5.5 10,811 23 DG_WHITNEY_SOLAR1 Bosque 2017 North 10.0 22,152 24 ECLIPSE_UNIT1 Kinney 2014 South 37.6 63,401 25 EDDYII_EDDYII McLennan 2018 North 10.0 22,212 26 FIFTHGS1_FGSOLAR1 Travis 2016 South 1.6 1,752 27 GRIFFIN_GRIFFIN McLennan 2019 North 5.0 919 28 HELIOS_UNIT1 Uvalde 2015 South 95.0 197,100 29 HOLSTEIN_SOLAR1 Nolan 2019 West 204.5 0 30 HOLSTEIN_SOLAR2 Nolan 2019 West 100 0 31 HOVEY_UNIT1 Pecos 2015 West 22.0 43,946 32 HOVEY_UNIT2 Pecos 2018 West 7.4 13,853 33 HWY56_HWY56 Grayson 2017 North 5.3 9,674 34 LAMPWICK_LAMPWICK Menard 2019 South 7.5 1,203 35 LAPETUS_UNIT_1 Andrews 2019 West 100.0 5,215 36 LASSO_UNIT1 Brewster 2018 West 50.0 121,342 37 LEON_LEON Hunt 2017 North 10.0 21,551 38 LMESASLR_IVORY Dawson 2018 West 50.0 120,005 39 LMESASLR_UNIT1 Dawson 2018 West 101.6 239,000 40 MARLIN_MARLIN Falls 2017 North 5.3 10,589 41 MARS_MARS Webb 2019 South 10.0 7,352 42 MISAE_UNIT1 Childress 2019 West 240.8 0 43 MISAE_UNIT2 Childress 2019 West 517.4 0 44 NGNSVL_NGAINESV Cooke 2017 North 5.2 9,379 45 OBERON_UNIT_1_J01 Ector 2019 West 180.0 0 * 2019 ERCOT solar power 15-min generation data * Capacity, Demand and Reserve Report-May2020.xls from the webpage of the ERCOT (http://www.ercot.com/gridinfo/resource/index.html) ** Projects were retrieved from the Open PV Project Database of the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) (https://openpv.nrel.gov/). The generation of the project is estimated using the ESL solar PV calculator.

July 2020 Energy Systems Laboratory, The Texas A&M University System

Page 82

Table 6-2: Solar Power Plant Projects in the State of Texas through 2019 (Continued) Power ERCOT Installed Ye ar Generated in No Name of the Project County Forcast Capacity* Commissioned 2019 Zone (MW ) AC (MWh/year) 46 OBERON_UNIT_1_J02 Ector 2019 West Missing 0 47 OCI_ALM1_UNIT1 Bexar 2013 South 39.2 56,829 48 OXYSOLAR_SOLAR_1 Missing 2019 Missing Missing 0 49 PCOMM_1UNIT Missing Missing Missing Missing 1,706 50 PFK_PFKPV Travis 2017 South 2.6 3,812 51 PHOEBE_UNIT1 Winkler 2019 West 125.1 120,718 52 PHOEBE_UNIT2 Winkler 2019 West 128.1 148,476 53 QUEEN_SL_SOLAR1 Upton 2019 West 102.5 6,267 54 QUEEN_SL_SOLAR2 Upton 2019 West 102.5 6,488 55 QUEEN_SL_SOLAR3 Upton 2019 West Missing 2 56 QUEEN_SL_SOLAR4 Upton 2019 West Missing 2 57 REROCK_UNIT1 Pecos 2016 West 78.8 192,227 58 REROCK_UNIT2 Pecos 2016 West 78.8 192,477 59 RIGGINS_UNIT1 Pecos 2018 West 150.0 256,486 60 SEALY_1UNIT Austin 2015 South 1.6 1,601 61 SIRIUS_UNIT1 Pecos 2017 West 110.2 253,185 62 SIRIUS_UNIT2 Pecos 2017 West 49.1 104,302 63 SOLARA_UNIT1 Haskell 2016 West 112.0 251,377 64 SPTX12B_UNIT1 Upton 2017 West 157.5 394,763 65 STRLING_STRLING Hunt 2018 North 10.0 15,956 66 WAYMARK_UNIT1 Upton 2018 West 182.0 333,602 67 WBORO_WHTSBORO Grayson 2017 North 5.0 11,040 68 WBOROII_WHBOROII Grayson 2017 North 5.0 11,020 69 WEBBER_S_WSP1 Travis 2011 South 26.7 56,483 70 WHTRT_WHTRGHT Fannin 2017 North 10.0 21,722 71 WLNTSPRG_1UNIT Bosque 2016 North 10.0 11,920 72 WMOOREII_WMOOREII Grayson 2018 North 5.0 8,370 73 W_PECOS_UNIT1 Reeves 2019 West 101.0 25,973 74 X443PV1_SWRI_PV1 Bexar 2019 South 5.0 1,582 75 YLWJACKET_YLWJACKET Bosque 2018 North 5.0 11,315 76** Collin 2017 North 1.1 1,409 77** Dallas 2017 North 8.8 12,776 Total 4,412,042 * 2019 ERCOT solar power 15-min generation data * Capacity, Demand and Reserve Report-May2020.xls from the webpage of the ERCOT (http://www.ercot.com/gridinfo/resource/index.html) ** Projects were retrieved from the Open PV Project Database of the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) (https://openpv.nrel.gov/). The generation of the project is estimated using the ESL solar PV calculator.

July 2020 Energy Systems Laboratory, The Texas A&M University System

Page 83

500,000

450,000

400,000

350,000

300,000

250,000

200,000

150,000

100,000

50,000 Annual Elec.Generation (MWh/yr) Annual 0 PFK_PFKPV LEON_LEON MARS_MARS MISAE_UNIT1 MISAE_UNIT2 LASSO_UNIT1 SIRIUS_UNIT1 SIRIUS_UNIT2 SEALY_1UNIT HOVEY_UNIT1 HOVEY_UNIT2 HELIOS_UNIT1 PCOMM_1UNIT BRNSN_BRNSN HWY56_HWY56 PHOEBE_UNIT1 PHOEBE_UNIT2 ECLIPSE_UNIT1 EDDYII_EDDYII SOLARA_UNIT1 REROCK_UNIT1 REROCK_UNIT2 RIGGINS_UNIT1 SPTX12B_UNIT1 ALEXIS_ALEXIS ACACIA_UNIT_1 COSERVSS_CSS1 W_PECOS_UNIT1 BOOTLEG_UNIT1 BOVINE_BOVINE BRNSN2_BRNSN2 LAPETUS_UNIT_1 GRIFFIN_GRIFFIN CHISUM_CHISUM WEBBER_S_WSP1 OCI_ALM1_UNIT1 MARLIN_MARLIN CASL_GAP_UNIT1 DG_VALL2_1UNIT CAPRIDG4_BB_PV LMESASLR_UNIT1 DG_ELMEN_1UNIT WAYMARK_UNIT1 WLNTSPRG_1UNIT DG_BROOK_1UNIT LMESASLR_IVORY STRLING_STRLING BOVINE2_BOVINE2 WHTRT_WHTRGHT HOLSTEIN_SOLAR1 HOLSTEIN_SOLAR2 X443PV1_SWRI_PV1 QUEEN_SL_SOLAR1 QUEEN_SL_SOLAR2 QUEEN_SL_SOLAR3 QUEEN_SL_SOLAR4 NGNSVL_NGAINESV CASCADE_CASCADE WBORO_WHTSBORO OBERON_UNIT_1_J01 OBERON_UNIT_1_J02 WBOROII_WHBOROII FIFTHGS1_FGSOLAR1 OXYSOLAR_SOLAR_1 CASCADE2_CASCADE2 CECSOLAR_DG_BECK1 DG_WHITNEY_SOLAR1 WMOOREII_WMOOREII LAMPWICK_LAMPWICK Project Name YLWJACKET_YLWJACKET Figure 6-6: Annual Electricity Generation by Solar Power Plants in the State of Texas through 2019

July 2020 Energy Systems Laboratory, The Texas A&M University System

Page 84

County FIPS Code No. of Projects County FIPS Code No. of Projects Andrews 003 1 Haskell 207 1 Austin 015 3 Hunt 231 2 Bexar 029 11 Kinney 271 1 Bosque 035 3 Lamar 277 1 Brewster 043 1 McLennan 309 2 Brooks 047 1 Menard 327 1 Childress 075 2 Nolan 353 2 Collin 085 1 Pecos 371 8 Cooke 097 1 Presidio 377 1 Dallas 113 1 Reeves 389 1 Dawson 115 2 Travis 453 3 Denton 121 1 Upton 461 7 Ector 135 2 Uvalde 463 1 Falls 145 1 Webb 479 1 Fannin 147 1 Wharton 481 2 Fort Bend 157 2 Winkler 495 2 Grayson 181 4 Figure 6-7: Solar Power Plant Projects throughout Texas through 2019

July 2020 Energy Systems Laboratory, The Texas A&M University System

Page 85

Annual Elec. Savings (Solar Power Plant) 1,500,000 Other 1,400,000 Non-attainment and Affected Counties Counties 1,300,000 1,200,000 1,100,000 1,000,000 900,000 800,000 700,000 600,000 500,000

Annual Elec. Savings (MWh/yr) 400,000 300,000 200,000 100,000 0 Ellis Hunt Wise Rusk Hays Hood Collin Smith Bexar Harris Travis Dallas Gregg Austin Waller Comal Hardin Parker Liberty Wilson Denton Upshur Tarrant Victoria Orange Nueces El El Paso Bastrop Brazoria Harrison Johnson Caldwell Andrews Angelina Kaufman Rockwall Jefferson Atascosa Anderson Fort Bend Fort Galveston Chambers Williamson Henderson Guadalupe San PatricioSan Montgomery

County

Figure 6-8: Annual Electricity Savings per County from Solar Power Plant Projects through 2019

Annual Elec. Savings (Solar Power Plant) 1,500,000

1,400,000 Other Counties 1,300,000 1,200,000 1,100,000 1,000,000 900,000 800,000 700,000 600,000 500,000

Annual Elec. Savings (MWh/yr) 400,000 300,000 200,000 100,000 0 Hill Bell Frio Jack Falls Titus Coke Ector Ward Llano Nolan Wood Webb Milam Jones Potter Upton Pecos Taylor Scurry Cooke Young Goliad Kinney Fannin Brooks Uvalde Brazos Grimes Haskell Wichita Winkler Fayette Menard Reeves Mitchell Hidalgo Bosque Howard Reagan Presidio Dawson Calhoun Crockett Grayson Wharton Brewster Coleman Colorado Cameron Childress Wilbarger Cherokee Red River Freestone Palo Pinto Palo Robertson McLennan Hardeman Tom Green Tom Nacogdoches

County

Figure 6-8: Annual Electricity Savings per County from Solar Power Plant Projects through 2019 (Continued)

July 2020 Energy Systems Laboratory, The Texas A&M University System

Page 86

OSP Elec. Savings (Solar Power Plant) 5,000 Other Non-attainment and Affected Counties 4,500 Counties

4,000

3,500

3,000

2,500

2,000

1,500 Annual Elec. Savings (MWh/yr) 1,000

500

0 Ellis Hunt Wise Hays Rusk Hood Collin Smith Bexar Harris Travis Dallas Austin Gregg Waller Comal Parker Hardin Wilson Liberty Tarrant Denton Upshur Orange Victoria Nueces El PasoEl Bastrop Brazoria Johnson Caldwell Harrison Andrews Angelina Kaufman Rockwall Jefferson Atascosa Anderson Fort Bend Fort Galveston Chambers Williamson Guadalupe Henderson San Patricio Montgomery

County

Figure 6-9: Ozone Season Period Electricity Savings per County from Solar Power Plant Projects through 2019

OSP Elec. Savings (Solar Power Plant) 5,000

Other Counties 4,500

4,000

3,500

3,000

2,500

2,000

1,500 Annual Elec. Savings (MWh/yr) Savings Elec. Annual 1,000

500

0 Hill Bell Frio Jack Falls Titus Ector Coke Ward Llano Webb Wood Nolan Upton Potter Jones Milam Taylor Pecos Cooke Young Scurry Goliad Kinney Fannin Uvalde Brooks Brazos Grimes Wichita Haskell Winkler Fayette Menard Reeves Hidalgo Mitchell Bosque Howard Reagan Presidio Dawson Calhoun Crockett Wharton Grayson Brewster Coleman Colorado Cameron Childress Wilbarger Cherokee Red River Red Freestone Palo Palo Pinto Robertson Hardeman McLennan Tom Green Tom Nacogdoches

County

Figure 6-9: Ozone Season Period Electricity Savings per County from Solar Power Plant Projects through 2019 (Continued)

July 2020 Energy Systems Laboratory, The Texas A&M University System

Page 87

Annual NOx Emissions Reductions

1000

Non-attainment and Affected Counties Other Counties 900

800

700

600

500

400

300

200 Annual NOx Emissions Annual NOx Emissions Reductions (Tons/yr)

100

0 Bell Ellis Hunt Wise Rusk Hays Hood Collin Smith Bexar Harris Travis Dallas Gregg Waller Comal Parker Hardin Wilson Liberty Brazos Denton Tarrant Upshur Orange Victoria Bosque Nueces El El Paso Bastrop Brazoria Calhoun Harrison Caldwell Johnson Andrews Angelina Kaufman Rockwall Atascosa Cameron Jefferson Anderson Cherokee Fort Bend Galveston Chambers Williamson Henderson Guadalupe San Patricio Montgomery County

Figure 6-10: NOx Emissions Reductions per County from Solar Power Plant Projects through 2019

Annual NOx Emissions Reductions

1000

Other Counties 900

800

700

600

500

400

300

200 Annual NOx Emissions Annual NOx Emissions Reductions (Tons/yr)

100

0 Hill Frio Jack Falls Titus Coke Ector Ward Llano Nolan Wood Webb Milam Potter Jones Upton Taylor Pecos Lamar Goliad Young Cooke Scurry Fannin Brooks Grimes Haskell Wichita Fayette Winkler Hidalgo Mitchell Menard Reeves Howard Reagan Presidio Crockett Grayson Wharton Brewster Coleman Colorado Childress Wilbarger Red River Freestone Palo Pinto Limestone Robertson McLennan Hardeman Tom Green Tom

CountyNacogdoches

Figure 6-10: NOx Emissions Reductions per County from Solar Power Plant Projects through 2019 (Continued)

July 2020 Energy Systems Laboratory, The Texas A&M University System

Page 88

ACACIA_UNIT_1 12 10 8 6 4 (MWh/h) 2

Hourly Power Generation Generation Power Hourly 0 01/01/2019 02/01/2019 03/04/2019 04/04/2019 05/05/2019 06/05/2019 07/06/2019 08/06/2019 09/06/2019 10/07/2019 11/07/2019 12/08/2019 Day of the Year Figure 6-11: Hourly Electricity Generation Profile for Solar Photovoltaic Project ACACIA_UNIT_1

ACACIA_UNIT_1 120 100 80 60 40

(MWh/Day) 20 0 Daily Power Generation 01/01/2019 02/01/2019 03/04/2019 04/04/2019 05/05/2019 06/05/2019 07/06/2019 08/06/2019 09/06/2019 10/07/2019 11/07/2019 12/08/2019 Day of the Year Figure 6-12: Daily Total Electricity Generation Profile for Solar Photovoltaic Project ACACIA_UNIT_1

6.2.2 Solar Thermal

Solar thermal projects are to generate thermal energy so that buildings utilize the thermal energy to heat water or air for their use. Many of the solar thermal projects throughout the State of Texas were identified from various web sources. In the present report for the year 2019, two of the new solar thermal projects (DHW system-Central Texas College and kileen High School and DHW system- Michael E. DeBakey VA Medical Center) were found, and one previous project (DHW system-Ft. Hood Army Base) was updated. As a result, the total number of solar thermal projects for the present report was 40. In 2019, it was estimated that solar thermal in Texas produced 250.051 kWh/yr through 2019 and 677 kWh/day in the OSP from nine counties.

The list of all the projects is shown in Table F-2 (Vol III, APPENDIX F). Figure 6-13 shows the map of the solar thermal projects identified in each county of Texas. The equivalent energy in electricity from all the solar thermal projects are presented in Table 6-3. The equivalent energy in electricity was estimated how much electricity can be saved by the amount of hot water produced by solar thermal water heater systems. eCalc (f-Chart method) was used in designing liquid solar heating system to calculate the hot water produced. Due to the limited availability of solar thermal project information, the estimation was based on the collector areas and project locations.

The annual electric savings per county and the OSP electric savings per county, which were estimated from these projects, are presented in Figure 6-14 and in Figure 6-15, respectively. In addition, the corresponding annual NOx emission reductions are shown in Figure 6-16.

Table 6-3: Solar Thermal Projects: Energy Reductions up to 2019

Annual Energy Savings OSP Energy Savings (for Base Year Conditions) (for Base Year Conditions) County Annual Elec. Equivalent OSP Elec. Equivalent (kWh/year) (kWh/day) Bexar 60,388 161.19 El Paso 137,390 378.00 Fort Bend 16,318 43.59 Hays 276 0.74 Nueces 12,250 33.60 Parker 9,806 27.00 Travis 1,768 1.02 Victoria 336 0.93 Williamson 11,519 30.72 Total 250,051 677

July 2020 Energy Systems Laboratory, The Texas A&M University System

Page 89

Legend

County FIPS Code No. of Projects Bell 27 2 Bexar 29 15 Brazoria 39 1 El Paso 141 2 Fort Bend 157 1 Harris 201 1 Hays 209 1 Hidalgo 215 1 Kleberg 273 1 Liberty 291 1 Lubbock 303 1 Midland 329 1 Nueces 355 1 Travis 453 6 Victoria 469 1 Webb 479 1 Williamson 491 1 N/A - 2

Figure 6-13: Solar Thermal Projects throughout Texas through 2019

July 2020 Energy Systems Laboratory, The Texas A&M University System

Page 90

Annual Elec. Savings (Solar Thermal) 160

140

120

100

Annual Elec. Savings (MWh/yr) 40

0 Hays Bexar Travis Parker Victoria Nueces El El Paso Fort BendFort Williamson

County

Figure 6-14: Annual Electricity Savings per County from Solar Thermal Projects through 2019

OSP Elec. Savings (Solar Thermal) 0.40

0.35

0.30

0.25

0.20

0.15 OSP Elec. Savings (MWh/day) Savings Elec. OSP 0.10

0.05

0.00 Hays Bexar Travis Parker Victoria Nueces El Paso El Fort BendFort Williamson

County

Figure 6-15: Ozone Season Period Electricity Savings per County from Solar Thermal Projects through 2019

July 2020 Energy Systems Laboratory, The Texas A&M University System

Page 91

Annual NOx Emissions Reductions

0.040

Non-attainment and Affected Counties Other Counties 0.035

0.030

0.025

0.020

0.015

0.010 Annual NOx Emissions Annual NOx Emissions Reductions (Tons/yr) 0.005

0.000 Hill Bell Frio Ellis Jack Hunt Titus Wise Rusk Hays Coke Ector Ward Hood Llano Collin Smith Webb Wood Nolan Bexar Upton Jones Milam Potter Harris Travis Pecos Taylor Dallas Gregg Lamar Waller Goliad Young Scurry Comal Parker Hardin Wilson Liberty Fannin Brazos Grimes Upshur Tarrant Denton Haskell Wichita Fayette Victoria Orange Mitchell Bosque Hidalgo Nueces Howard Bastrop El El Paso Reagan Presidio Crockett Calhoun Brazoria Grayson Wharton Harrison Caldwell Johnson Andrews Angelina Rockwall Coleman Kaufman Colorado Atascosa Cameron Jefferson Wilbarger Anderson Cherokee Fort Bend Fort Red River Freestone Galveston Palo Pinto Palo Limestone Robertson Chambers McLennan Hardeman Williamson Guadalupe Henderson Tom Green Tom San Patricio San Montgomery County Nacogdoches

Figure 6-16: NOx Emissions Reductions per County from Solar Thermal Projects through 2019

6.2.3 Biomass

The data from 14 biomass power plants in the State of Texas were obtained from ERCOT. Table 6-4 shows the list of the biomass projects with their names, respective county, year commissioned, the forecast zone they serve, installed capacity and total electricity produced for the year 2019. Figure 6-17 shows the annual electricity generation of the identified biomass projects in the State of Texas. In addition, Figure 6-18 shows the map of the number of biomass projects for each county. The total annual electricity generation from all the biomass projects for the year 2019 was 420,635 MWh/year.

The annual electric savings per county and the OSP electric savings per county, which were estimated from these projects, are presented in Figure 6-19 and in Figure 6-20, respectively.

The hourly and total daily electricity generation profile of different Biomass projects is shown in Volume II, Appendix D. Figure 6-21 shows an example of the hourly electricity generation profile and Figure 6-22 shows an example of the daily total generation profile.

July 2020 Energy Systems Laboratory, The Texas A&M University System

Page 92

Table 6-4: Biomass Projects in the State of Texas through 2019

ERCOT Installed Power Generated Power Generated Year SNo Name of the Project County Forcast Capacity in 2019 in OSP 2019 Commissioned Zone (MWAC) (MWh/year) (MWh/year) 1 AV_DG1 Galveston 2002 Houston 6.7* 4,487 5 2 DG_78252_4UNITS Bexar 2013 South 4.2* 15,055 43 3 DG_BIO2_4UNITS Denton 2009 North 6.4* 45,053 123 4 DG_BIOE_2UNITS Denton 1988 North 6.2* 38,321 106 5 DG_FERIS_4_UNITS Dallas 2007 North 6.4* 38,743 117 6 DG_FREIH_2UNITS Comal 2011 South 3.2* 24,237 65 7 DG_HBR_2UNITS Denton 2011 North 6.0* 25,959 70 8 DG_MEDIN_1UNIT Bexar 2005 South 9.6* 59,184 159 9 DG_S_SNR_UNIT1 Cameron 1973 South 4.5** 943 0 10 DG_SPRIN_4UNITS Travis 2007 South 6.4* 34,884 94 11 DG_WALZE_4UNITS Bexar 2002 South 9.8* 35,219 89 12 DG_WSTHL_3UNITS Parker 2010 North 4.8* 24,223 63 13 NACPW_UNIT1 Nacogdoches 2012 North 105.0* 74,202 390 14 TRIRA_1UNIT Dallas 2015 North 4.0* 125 1 Total 179 420,635 1,324 * CapacityDemandandReserveReport-May2019.xls from the webpage of the ERCOT (http://www.ercot.com/gridinfo/resource/index.html) ** Winter_2013-2014_Final_Seasonal_Assessment.xls from the webpage of the ERCOT Reports and Presentations (http://www.ercot.com/news/presentations) *** ML111290898.pdf from the webpage of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (http://pbadupws.nrc.gov/docs/ML1112/ML111290898.pdf)

80,000

60,000

40,000

20,000 Annual Elec.Generation (MWh/yr) Elec.Generation Annual

0 AV_DG1 TRIRA_1UNIT NACPW_UNIT1 DG_HBR_2UNITS DG_BIO2_4UNITS DG_BIOE_2UNITS DG_S_SNR_UNIT1 DG_78252_4UNITS DG_FREIH_2UNITS DG_FERIS_4_UNITS DG_WSTHL_3UNITS DG_WALZE_4UNITS Project Name Figure 6-17: Annual Electricity Generation by Biomass Projects in the State of Texas through 2019

July 2020 Energy Systems Laboratory, The Texas A&M University System

Page 93

County FIPS Code No. of Projects Bexar 29 3 Cameron 61 1 Comal 91 1 Dallas 113 2 Denton 121 3 Galveston 167 1 Nacogdoches 347 1 Parker 367 1 Travis 453 1 Figure 6-18: Biomass Projects throughout Texas through 2019

July 2020 Energy Systems Laboratory, The Texas A&M University System

Page 94

Annual Elec. Generation (Biomass) 140,000

Non-attainment and Affected Counties Other Counties 120,000

100,000

80,000

60,000

40,000 Annual Savings (MWh/yr) Elec. Annual

20,000

0 Hill Bell Frio Ellis Jack Hunt Titus Wise Hays Rusk Coke Ector Ward Hood Llano Collin Smith Webb Wood Nolan Bexar Upton Potter Milam Harris Jones Travis Taylor Pecos Dallas Gregg Waller Lamar Scurry Young Goliad Comal Hardin Parker Liberty Wilson Fannin Brazos Denton Grimes Upshur Tarrant Wichita Haskell Victoria Fayette Orange Mitchell Nueces Bosque Hidalgo El Paso Bastrop Howard Reagan Presidio Brazoria Crockett Calhoun Wharton Grayson Caldwell Johnson Harrison Andrews Angelina Coleman Kaufman Rockwall Colorado Jefferson Atascosa Cameron Wilbarger Anderson Cherokee Fort Bend Red River Freestone Galveston Palo Pinto Palo Robertson Chambers Limestone Hardeman McLennan Williamson Henderson Guadalupe Tom Green San Patricio Montgomery Nacogdoches

County

Figure 6-19: Annual Electricity Savings per County from Biomass Projects through 2019

OSP Elec. Generation (Biomass) 500 Non-attainment and Affected Counties Other Counties 450

400

350

300

250

200

OSP Elec. Savings (MWh/day) 150

100

0 Hill Bell Frio Ellis Jack Hunt Titus Wise Hays Rusk Coke Ector Hood Ward Llano Collin Smith Nolan Webb Wood Bexar Jones Milam Potter Upton Harris Travis Pecos Gregg Dallas Taylor Lamar Waller Goliad Scurry Young Comal Hardin Parker Wilson Liberty Fannin Brazos Grimes Upshur Denton Tarrant Haskell Wichita Victoria Fayette Orange Hidalgo Bosque Mitchell Nueces Howard Bastrop El Paso Reagan Presidio Calhoun Crockett Brazoria Grayson Wharton Caldwell Harrison Johnson Andrews Angelina Coleman Kaufman Rockwall Colorado Atascosa Cameron Jefferson Anderson Wilbarger Cherokee Fort Bend Red River Freestone Galveston Palo Pinto Palo Limestone Robertson Chambers Hardeman McLennan Williamson Guadalupe Henderson Tom Green San Patricio Montgomery Nacogdoches

County

Figure 6-20: Ozone Season Period Electricity Savings per County from Biomass Projects through 2019

July 2020 Energy Systems Laboratory, The Texas A&M University System

Page 95

AV _ D G 1 6 5 4 3 2 (MWh/h) 1

HourlyGeneration Power 0 01/01/2019 02/01/2019 03/04/2019 04/04/2019 05/05/2019 06/05/2019 07/06/2019 08/06/2019 09/06/2019 10/07/2019 11/07/2019 12/08/2019 Day of the Year Figure 6-21: Hourly Electricity Generation Profile for Biomass Project AV_DG1

AV _ D G 1 200

160

120

40 (MWh/Day) 0

Daily Power GenerationDaily Power 01/01/2019 02/01/2019 03/04/2019 04/04/2019 05/05/2019 06/05/2019 07/06/2019 08/06/2019 09/06/2019 10/07/2019 11/07/2019 12/08/2019 Day of the Year Figure 6-22: Daily Total Electricity Generation Profile for Biomass Project AV_DG1

July 2020 Energy Systems Laboratory, The Texas A&M University System

Page 96

6.2.4 Hydroelectric

The data from 30 hydroelectric power plants in the State of Texas were obtained. Table 6-5 shows the list of hydroelectric projects with their names, respective county, year commissioned, the forecast zone they serve, installed capacity and total electricity produced for the year 2019. Figure 6-23 shows the annual electricity generation of the identified hydroelectric projects in the State of Texas. In addition, Figure 6-24 shows the map of the number of hydroelectric projects for each county. The total annual electricity generation from all the hydroelectric plants for the year 2019 was 955,864 MWh/year. Based on the power generation data from the hydroelectric power plants, one significant pattern was observed. Most of the hydroelectric plants were intermittently operated for a few hours of the day.

The annual electricity savings per county and the OSP electricity savings per county, which were estimated from these projects, are presented in Figure 6-25 and in Figure 6-26, respectively. In addition, the corresponding annual NOx emission reductions are shown in Figure 6-27.

The hourly and total daily electricity generation profile of different hydroelectric projects are shown in Volume II, Appendix E. Figure 6-28 shows an example of the hourly electricity generation profile and Figure 6-29 shows an example of the daily total generation profile.

July 2020 Energy Systems Laboratory, The Texas A&M University System

Page 97

Table 6-5: Hydroelectricity Power Projects in the State of Texas through 2019 Power Power ERCOT Installed Year Generated in Generated in SNo Name of the Project County Forcast Capacity Commissioned 2019 2019 OSP Zone (MW ) AC (MWh/year) (MWh/day) 1 AMISTAD_AMISTAG1 Val Verde 1983 South 37.9 50,132 176 2 AMISTAD_AMISTAG2 Val Verde 1983 South 37.9 49,065 148 3 AUSTPL_AUSTING1 Travis 1940 South 8.0 18,233 54 4 AUSTPL_AUSTING2 Travis 1940 South 9.0 19,431 63 5 BUCHAN_BUCHANG1 Llano 1938 South 16.0 22,153 84 6 BUCHAN_BUCHANG2 Llano 1938 South 16.0 23,714 89 7 BUCHAN_BUCHANG3 Llano 1950 South 17.0 4,316 21 8 CANYHY_CANYHYG1 Comal 1989 South 6.0 12,600 35 9 DG_LKWDT_2UNITS Gonzales 1931 South 4.8 9,424 26 10 DG_LWSVL_1UNIT Denton 1991 North 2.2 7,351 13 11 DG_MCQUE_5UNITS Guadalupe 1928 South 7.7 30,742 85 12 DG_OAKHL_1UNIT Tarrant 2014 North 1.4 1,621 8 13 DG_SCHUM_2UNITS Guadalupe 1928 South 3.6 5,885 6 14 DNDAM_DENISOG1 Grayson 1944 North 40.0 86 1 15 DNDAM_DENISOG2 Grayson 1948 North 40.0 254,375 748 16 EAGLE_HY_EAGLE_HY1 Maverick 2005 South 9.6 42,941 110 17 FALCON_FALCONG1 Starr 1954 South 12.0 11,709 38 18 FALCON_FALCONG2 Starr 1954 South 12.0 26,725 87 19 FALCON_FALCONG3 Starr 1954 South 12.0 25,454 83 20 GONZ_HYDRO_GONZ_HYDRO Gonzales 1986 South 1.5 3 0 21 INKSDA_INKS_G1 Llano 1938 South 14.0 21,846 79 22 MARBFA_MARBFAG1 Burnet 1951 South 21.0 11,316 51 23 MARBFA_MARBFAG2 Burnet 1951 South 20.0 9,920 53 24 MARSFO_MARSFOG1 Travis 1941 South 36.0 52,424 181 25 MARSFO_MARSFOG2 Travis 1941 South 36.0 52,324 168 26 MARSFO_MARSFOG3 Travis 1941 South 29.0 52,704 185 27 WIRTZ_WIRTZ_G1 Burnet 1951 South 29.0 24,364 87 28 WIRTZ_WIRTZ_G2 Burnet 1951 South 29.0 20,486 74 29 WND_WHITNEY1 Bosque 1953 North 24.0 47,385 172 30 WND_WHITNEY2 Bosque 1953 North 24.0 47,132 170 Total 557 955,864 3,096 * SARA_PreliminaryFall2020.pdf from the webpage of the ERCOT (http://www.ercot.com/content/wcm/lists/167022/SARA- FinalWinter2019-2020.pdf)

Figure 6-23: Annual Electricity Generation by Hydroelectric Projects in the State of Texas through 2019

July 2020 Energy Systems Laboratory, The Texas A&M University System

Page 98

County FIPS Code No. of Projects Bosque 35 2 Burnet 53 4 Comal 91 1 Denton 121 1 Gonzales 177 2 Grayson 181 2 Guadalupe 187 2 Llano 299 4 Maverick 323 1 Starr 427 3 Tarrant 439 1 Travis 453 5 Val Verde 465 2 Figure 6-24: Hydroelectric Projects throughout Texas through 2019

July 2020 Energy Systems Laboratory, The Texas A&M University System

Page 99

Figure 6-25: Annual Electricity Savings per County from Hydroelectric Projects through 2019

Figure 6-26: Ozone Season Period Electricity Savings per County from Hydroelectric Projects through 2019

July 2020 Energy Systems Laboratory, The Texas A&M University System

Page 100

Figure 6-27: NOx Emissions Reductions per County from Hydroelectric Projects through 2019

Figure 6-28: Hourly Electricity Generation Profile for Hydroelectric Project AMISTAD_AMISTAG1

Figure 6-29: Daily Total Electricity Generation Profile for Hydroelectric Project AMISTAD_AMISTAG1

July 2020 Energy Systems Laboratory, The Texas A&M University System

Page 101

6.2.5 Geothermal

The total number of the identified geothermal projects for the present report was 294. Most of the geothermal projects throughout the State of Texas were identified from various web sources. For this report, eight new geothermal projects were found.

Table F-4 (in Volume II, Appendix F) shows the list of the geothermal projects with their names, respective county, implementation year, installed capacity, and service area. In addition, Figure 6-30 shows the location of the geothermal projects for each county. We could not find either annual or OSP electricity savings and the NOx emission reductions per county from the geothermal projects, which were not possible to be estimated.

6.2.6 Landfill Gas-Fired

The information for the landfill gas-fired power plant section was found in the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) project database for Landfill Methane Outreach Program (LMOP). The information includes all the landfill gas-fired power plants in operational, candidate, potential, construction, shutdown, and planned status. The EPA updated the project's information, and this report located the updated project information until March 2020.

Based on the EPA project database, 33 operational, 52 candidates, 34 potential, 4 construction, 20 shutdowns, 4 planned, and 3 other landfill gas-fired projects were identified. All of the landfill gas-fired power plants are listed in Table F-5 through Table F-11 (Volume II, Appendix F), respectively. Figure 6-31 shows in the Texas map the location and the number of landfilling projects in each county which are operational. This report did not include either annual or OSP electricity savings and NOx emission reductions per county from the landfill gas-fired projects, which could not be estimated.

July 2020 Energy Systems Laboratory, The Texas A&M University System

Page 102

County FIPS Code No. of Projects County FIPS Code No. of Projects

Bell 27 3 Liberty 291 1 Bexar 29 12 Lubbock 303 2 Bowie 37 1 McLennan 309 1 Brazoria 39 1 Montgomery 339 2 Brazos 41 2 Nueces 355 1 Chambers 71 1 Orange 361 1 Collin 85 54 Palo pinto 363 1 Coryell 99 1 Parker 367 3 Dallas 113 41 Real 385 1 Denton 121 13 Runnels 399 1 El Paso 141 11 Tarrant 439 65 Falls 145 1 Taylor 441 1 Galveston 167 1 Travis 453 28 Gillespie 171 1 Val Verde 465 1 Goliad 175 1 Waller 473 1 Grayson 181 1 Washington 477 1 Harris 201 16 Webb 479 1 Hays 209 5 Wheeler 483 1 Hill 217 1 Wichita 485 2 Hood 221 1 Williamson 491 4 Kendall 259 1 N/A - 5 La Salle 283 1 Figure 6-30: Geothermal Projects Installed throughout Texas through 2019

July 2020 Energy Systems Laboratory, The Texas A&M University System

Page 103

County FIPS Code No. of Projects Bexar 29 5 Brazoria 39 1 Collin 85 2 Comal 91 1 Dallas 113 3 Denton 121 5 Ellis 139 0 Fort Bend 157 2 Galveston 167 1 Gregg 183 1 Harris 201 4 Hidalgo 215 1 Johnson 251 1 Montgomery 339 1 Smith 423 1 Tarrant 439 2 Travis 453 1 Victoria 469 1 Figure 6-31: Landfill Gas-Fired Projects Installed throughout Texas through 2019

July 2020 Energy Systems Laboratory, The Texas A&M University System

Page 104

6.3 Results

The State of Texas leads the renewable energy development in the U.S. In July 2020, around 34 new renewable energy projects in Texas, which were not part of the previous report published, were identified, located and included in the present report. The details of the new project can be found in Table 6-6.

Table 6-6: Comparison of the Projects Identified from Previous and Present Reports Number of Projects Number of New Projects Total Number of Projects Renewable Energy Source in 2018, in 2019, in 2019, (a) (b) (a+b) Solar Photovoltaic1 24659 4747 29406 Solar Power 56 21 77 Solar Thermal 38 2 40 Biomass2 14 0 14 Hydroelectric 30 0 30 Geothermal 286 8 294 3 Landfill Gas-Fired 34 0 34 Note: 1 Based on previous reports, the Tracking the Sun project dataset of Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (LBNL) (https://emp.lbl.gov/tracking-the-sun/) is integrated from the 2020 report due to the service termination of the NREL OpenPV database. The total number of PV projects until 2019, including PV projects from various websites, is now 29,406. Previously, it was 4,794 before the data source update. 2 Landfill gas-fired project information from EPA have seven sub-categories for their status: operational, candidates, potential, construction, shutdown, planned, and other. EPA rearranged/added/removed some projects information within the seven sub-categories. Operational projects were considered for the number of projects. 3 The data of previous years would be updated later based on the data updates from data sources.

These savings and reductions do not represent all of the solar photovoltaic and solar thermal projects in the State of Texas. They only reflect the projects based on the investigated resources.

July 2020 Energy Systems Laboratory, The Texas A&M University System

Page 105

7 REVIEW OF ERCOT’S RENEWABLE ENERGY CREDIT PROGRAM INFORMATION

7.1 Introduction In this section, the information posted on ERCOT’s Renewable Energy Credit Program site (www.texasrenewables.com) was reviewed for use in the Laboratory’s report to the TCEQ. In particular, information posted under the “Public Reports” tab was downloaded and assembled into an appropriate format for review. This includes ERCOT’s 2001 through 2019 reports to the Legislature, which were converted into a tabular format for analysis and insertion into this report (in Volume II, Appendix G). Similarly, information from ERCOT’s listing of REC generators was inspected to determine how it compared with other sources of information the Laboratory has assembled.

7.2 Summary of Renewable Projects in Texas

Each year ERCOT is required to compile a list of grid-connected sources that generate electricity from renewable energy and report it to the Legislature.

Table 7-1 shows quarterly electricity generation by renewable sources from 2001 to 2019. Table 7-2 contains the data reported by ERCOT from 2001 through 2019. Figure 7-1, Figure 7-2, Figure 7-3 and Figure 7-4 have been included to better illustrate the annual data collected by ERCOT. In Figure 7-1 the annual total electricity generation of all the renewable sources is shown as well as 2018 hydro, wind and solar REC data is updated due to RECOT’s data modification this year. In Figure 7-2, the annual electricity generation of renewable sources excluding wind is shown. In Figure 7-3, the annual electricity generation of renewable sources excluding wind and hydro is shown. Similarly, in Figure 7-4, the annual electricity generation of renewable sources excluding wind, hydro and biomass is shown. This was done to understand the contribution of individual energy sources to the total electricity generated. In the figures and tables, it is clear to see that the electricity generated by wind each year is the largest single source of renewable energy in Texas, which has grown from 596,236 MWh in 2001 to 86,675,964 MWh in 2019. This is followed by:

 Biomass energy has grown from 39,496 MWh in 2003 to 153,531 MWh in 2019;  Hydroelectric energy has grown from 30,639 MWh in 2001 to 248,783 MWh in 2019;  Landfill gas energy has grown from 29,412 MWh in 2002 to 335,361 MWh in 2019; and  Solar energy has grown from 87 MWh in 2002 to 4,465,696 MWh in 2019.

Other sources of information present some differences in the values of the renewable electricity generated in Texas. It has been found some discrepancies between U.S. DOE Energy Information Administration and ERCOT sources on wind generation, but it has been a small difference. The wind electricity generation data from the ERCOT website is similar to the generation data from the EIA website or slightly higher. The EIA wind generation for 2019 was 84,429 thousand MWh in a net generation, and EIA are 3.63% higher than ERCOT.

July 2020 Energy Systems Laboratory, The Texas A&M University System

Page 106

Table 7-1: Quarterly Electricity Generation by Renewable Sources, in MWh, for 2001–2019

Technology Type Year Quarter1 Quarter2 Quarter3 Quarter4 Total MWh Biomass 2001 0 0 0 0 0 Hydro 2001 0 0 11,293 19,346 30,639 Landfill gas 2001 0 0 0 0 0 Solar 2001 0 0 0 0 0 Wind 2001 0 0 201,118 364,479 565,597 Totals 0 0 212,411 383,825 596,236

Technology Type Year Quarter1 Quarter2 Quarter3 Quarter4 Total MWh Biomass 2002 0 0 0 0 0 Hydro 2002 105,817 69,165 80,154 56,956 312,093 Landfill gas 2002 8,216 7,073 6,986 7,137 29,412 Solar 2002 0 29 37 21 87 Wind 2002 611,708 716,896 622,262 500,618 2,451,484 Totals 725,741 793,163 709,440 564,732 2,793,076

Technology Type Year Quarter1 Quarter2 Quarter3 Quarter4 Total MWh Biomass 2003 8,876 11,253 10,999 8,368 39,496 Hydro 2003 92,680 52,592 71,699 22,713 239,684 Landfill gas 2003 29,995 44,629 39,920 39,662 154,206 Solar 2003 32 70 69 49 220 Wind 2003 561,994 670,248 617,794 665,446 2,515,482 Totals 693,577 778,792 740,481 736,238 2,949,087

Technology Type Year Quarter1 Quarter2 Quarter3 Quarter4 Total MWh Biomass 2004 6,274 11,459 11,482 7,725 36,940 Hydro 2004 55,638 52,735 52,350 74,067 234,791 Landfill gas 2004 52,801 47,964 53,659 49,018 203,443 Solar 2004 31 67 70 44 211 Wind 2004 815,010 1,014,396 610,157 770,066 3,209,630 Totals 929,755 1,126,621 727,718 900,920 3,685,014

Technology Type Year Quarter1 Quarter2 Quarter3 Quarter4 Total MWh Biomass 2005 13,921 15,069 14,764 14,883 58,637 Hydro 2005 108,974 106,893 61,189 33,246 310,302 Landfill gas 2005 52,118 51,193 56,166 54,301 213,777 Solar 2005 46 69 67 46 227 Wind 2005 801,232 1,246,182 869,508 1,304,646 4,221,568 Totals 976,291 1,419,406 1,001,693 1,407,122 4,804,512

Technology Type Year Quarter1 Quarter2 Quarter3 Quarter4 Total MWh Biomass 2006 16,327 10,479 17,152 16,610 60,569 Hydro 2006 55,000 83,064 44,870 27,143 210,077 Landfill gas 2006 69,191 78,650 75,665 82,580 306,087 Solar 2006 26 43 41 360 470 Wind 2006 1,478,927 1,584,166 1,376,540 2,091,295 6,530,928 Totals 1,619,471 1,756,403 1,514,268 2,217,988 7,108,131 July 2020 Energy Systems Laboratory, The Texas A&M University System

Page 107

Table 7-1: Quarterly Electricity Generation by Renewable Sources, in MWh, for 2001–2019 (Cont.)

Technology Type Year Quarter1 Quarter2 Quarter3 Quarter4 Total MWh Biomass 2007 13,052 15,870 13,073 12,105 54,101 Hydro 2007 66,084 120,486 139,965 56,346 382,882 Landfill gas 2007 84,367 86,372 85,612 99,987 356,339 Solar 2007 339 503 541 461 1,844 Wind 2007 1,961,153 2,029,807 2,020,870 3,339,338 9,351,168 Totals 2,124,995 2,253,039 2260062 3508238 10,146,333

Technology Type Year Quarter1 Quarter2 Quarter3 Quarter4 Total MWh Biomass 2008 21,154 14,019 12,564 23,095 70,833 Hydro 2008 98,510 177,051 78,751 91,116 445,428 Landfill gas 2008 105,217 97,361 88,470 96,062 387,110 Solar 2008 446 862 992 1,038 3,338 Wind 2008 4,030,973 4,737,188 2,639,509 4,878,770 16,286,440 Totals 4,256,300 5,026,481 2,820,287 5,090,081 17,193,150

Technology Type Year Quarter1 Quarter2 Quarter3 Quarter4 Total MWh Biomass 2009 25,083 18,938 17,187 12,156 73,364 Hydro 2009 76,480 179,512 88,491 163,024 507,507 Landfill gas 2009 94,377 101,709 104,854 111,983 412,923 Solar 2009 101 1,409 1,761 1,222 4,492 Wind 2009 5,413,648 5,385,203 4,248,223 5,549,030 20,596,105 Totals 5,609,689 5,686,771 4,460,516 5,837,415 21,594,390

Technology Type Year Quarter1 Quarter2 Quarter3 Quarter4 Total MWh Biomass 2010 20,974 27,769 17,407 31,385 97,535 Hydro 2010 196,238 133,408 192,252 87,358 609,257 Landfill gas 2010 110,511 114,893 116,789 122,711 464,904 Solar 2010 1,385 2,042 3,483 7,539 14,449 Wind 2010 6,459,442 7,806,011 5,307,840 7,255,367 26,828,660 Totals 6,788,550 8,084,123 5,637,771 7,504,361 28,014,805

Technology Type Year Quarter1 Quarter2 Quarter3 Quarter4 Total MWh Biomass 2011 26,692 20,039 24,890 65,383 137,004 Hydro 2011 60,614 102,583 55,029 48,887 267,113 Landfill gas 2011 121,232 135,365 122,790 118,258 497,645 Solar 2011 7,390 10,160 11,202 7,827 36,580 Wind 2011 7,447,218 9,540,116 5,849,557 7,932,783 30,769,674 Totals 7,663,146 9,808,263 6,063,468 8,173,139 31,708,016

Technology Type Year Quarter1 Quarter2 Quarter3 Quarter4 Total MWh Biomass 2012 41,567 95,834 100,633 50,954 288,988 Hydro 2012 122,942 125,992 68,908 71,355 389,197 Landfill gas 2012 129,505 132,653 144,644 142,235 549,037 Solar 2012 17,299 41,246 44,007 36,887 139,439 Wind 2012 8,938,807 8,399,672 6,376,312 9,031,743 32,746,534 Totals 9,250,120 8,795,396 6,734,504 9,333,174 34,113,195

July 2020 Energy Systems Laboratory, The Texas A&M University System

Page 108

Table 7-1: Quarterly Electricity Generation by Renewable Sources, in MWh, for 2001–2019 (Cont.) Technology Type Year Quarter1 Quarter2 Quarter3 Quarter4 Total MWh Biomass 2013 36,648 36,622 78,316 48,976 200,564 Hydro 2013 118,008 58,910 37,467 79,853 294,238 Landfill gas 2013 132,757 138,876 136,378 142,834 550,845 Solar 2013 36,112 44,268 57,165 40,781 178,326 Wind 2013 9,702,680 11,386,839 6,708,823 9,111,043 36,909,385 Totals 10,026,205 11,665,516 7,018,149 9,423,488 38,133,358

Technology Type Year Quarter1 Quarter2 Quarter3 Quarter4 Total MWh Biomass 2014 67,700 88,454 111,573 75,743 343,469 Hydro 2014 39,915 106,890 47,850 46,138 240,792 Landfill gas 2014 130,630 130,738 126,337 130,876 518,580 Solar 2014 54,330 80,675 100,351 77,402 312,757 Wind 2014 10,474,109 11,930,083 7,735,157 10,505,013 40,644,362 Totals 10,766,684 12,336,839 8,121,267 10,835,171 42,059,961

Technology Type Year Quarter1 Quarter2 Quarter3 Quarter4 Total MWh Biomass 2015 101,209 60,737 111,231 76,422 349,600 Hydro 2015 88,592 153,061 76,269 96,366 414,289 Landfill gas 2015 136,295 132,252 145,414 147,953 561,915 Solar 2015 79,124 109,563 137,757 83,875 410,318 Wind 2015 8,957,407 11,909,543 10,763,871 13,534,520 45,165,341 Totals 9,362,627 12,365,157 11,234,542 13,939,137 46,901,462

Technology Type Year Quarter1 Quarter2 Quarter3 Quarter4 Total MWh Biomass 2016 57,139 50,673 87,606 52,224 247,643 Hydro 2016 117,562 137,075 86,712 52,392 393,740 Landfill gas 2016 145,658 132,271 121,302 119,174 518,403 Solar 2016 142,149 181,690 291,644 232,927 848,410 Wind 2016 15,226,603 13,799,634 13,335,532 15,434,392 57,796,161 Totals 15,689,111 14,301,343 13,922,795 15,891,109 59,804,357

Technology Type Year Quarter1 Quarter2 Quarter3 Quarter4 Total MWh Biomass 2017 69,465 54,806 37,671 54,489 216,431 Hydro 2017 117,264 150,743 129,146 47,300 444,453 Landfill gas 2017 116,195 116,211 109,684 104,029 446,119 Solar 2017 388,388 640,167 713,644 547,195 2,289,394 Wind 2017 18,415,248 18,112,145 12,667,406 17,054,441 66,249,240 Totals 19,106,560 19,074,073 13,657,550 17,807,453 69,645,636

Technology Type Year Quarter1 Quarter2 Quarter3 Quarter4 Total MWh Biomass 2018 69,323 95,818 83,508 38,364 287,014 Hydro 2018 103,841 125,344 58,133 47,142 334,460 Landfill gas 2018 101,233 96,217 97,221 100,756 395,428 Solar 2018 603,579 924,274 985,609 669,777 3,183,238 Wind 2018 19,518,189 22,106,314 14,445,761 17,890,313 73,960,577 Totals 20,396,165 23,347,967 15,670,232 18,746,352 78,160,716

July 2020 Energy Systems Laboratory, The Texas A&M University System

Page 109

Table 7-1: Quarterly Electricity Generation by Renewable Sources, in MWh, for 2001–2019 (Cont.) Technology Type Year Quarter1 Quarter2 Quarter3 Quarter4 Total MWh Biomass 2019 39,315 18,885 76,082 19,250 153,531 Hydro 2019 63,622 110,156 57,341 17,665 248,783 Landfill gas 2019 101,180 83,434 78,870 71,878 335,361 Solar 2019 771,136 1,275,379 1,444,227 974,954 4,465,696 Wind 2019 19,767,639 21,045,658 19,402,342 21,256,953 81,472,592 Totals 20,742,892 22,533,512 21,058,861 22,340,700 86,675,964

Table 7-2: Annual Electricity Generation by Renewable Sources (MWh, ERCOT: 2001–2019)

July 2020 Energy Systems Laboratory, The Texas A&M University System

Page 110

Annual Electricity Generated in Texas by Renewable Sources 100,000,000 Wind Solar Landfill gas Hydro Biomass 90,000,000 80,000,000 70,000,000 60,000,000 50,000,000 40,000,000 30,000,000 20,000,000 Electricity Generated in MWh MWh in Generated Electricity 10,000,000 0 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Year

Figure 7-1: Electricity Generation by Renewable Sources (ERCOT: 2001–2019 Annually)

Annual Electricity Generated in Texas by Renewable Sources 6,000,000 Biomass Hydro Landfill gas Solar

5,000,000

4,000,000

3,000,000

2,000,000

1,000,000 Electricity Generated in MWh MWh in Generated Electricity

0 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Year

Figure 7-2: Electricity Generation by Renewable Sources Other than Wind (ERCOT: 2001–2019 Annually)

July 2020 Energy Systems Laboratory, The Texas A&M University System

Page 111

Annual Electricity Generated in Texas by Renewable Sources 6,000,000 Solar Landfill gas Biomass 5,000,000

4,000,000

3,000,000

2,000,000

Electricity Generated in MWh MWh in Generated Electricity 1,000,000

0 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Year

Figure 7-3: Electricity Generation by Renewable Sources from Solar, Landfill Gas, and Biomass (ERCOT: 2001–2019 Annually)

Annual Electricity Generated in Texas by Renewable Sources 5,000,000 Solar Biomass 4,500,000 4,000,000 3,500,000 3,000,000 2,500,000 2,000,000 1,500,000 1,000,000

Electricity Generated in MWh MWh in Generated Electricity 500,000 0 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Year

Figure 7-4: Electricity Generation by Renewable Sources from Solar and Biomass (ERCOT: 2001–2019 Annually)

July 2020 Energy Systems Laboratory, The Texas A&M University System

Page 112

8 REFERENCES

USEPA 2008 "Estimation of Annual Reductions of NOx Emissions in ERCOT for the HB3693 Electricity Savings Goals", December 2008, Energy Systems Laboratory Report No. ESL-TR-08-12-04

Baltazar, Juan-Carlos; Haberl, Jeff; Yazdani, Bahman; Claridge, David; Jung, Sungkyun; Kheiri, Farshad; Kim, Chul. "Statewide Air Emissions Calculations from Wind and other Renewables", July 2019, Energy Systems Laboratory Report No. ESL-TR-19-07-02.

EPA. (2020). Landfill Technical Data. Retrieved from https://www.epa.gov/lmop/landfill-technical-data

ERCOT. (2020). 2020 ERCOT Annual REC Report. Retrieved from https://www.texasrenewables.com/reports.asp

ERCOT. (2020). REC Generator List. Retrieved from: https://www.texasrenewables.com/publicReports/rpt1.asp

ERCOT. (2020). Quarter / Annual Renewable Energy Generation in Texas by Technology Type. Retrieved from: https://www.texasrenewables.com/publicReports/rpt8.asp

NOAA. (2020). Local Climatological Data (LCD). Retrieved from https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/data- access/land-based-station-data/land-based-datasets/quality-controlled-local-climatological-data-qclcd

LBNL. (2019). Tracking the Sun. Retrieved from https://emp.lbl.gov/tracking-the-sun

PUCT. (2020). New Electric Generating Plants in Texas since 1995. Retrieved from http://www.puc.texas.gov/industry/Electric/reports/Default.aspx

Simplemaps (2020). https://simplemaps.com

Useful information was obtained from the following websites:

 http://www.meridiansolar.com/portfolio/  http://205.254.135.7/cneaf/electricity/page/eia860.html  http://www.iegltd.com/project.refer.geo.master.pdf  http://www.iegltd.com/html/information.html  http://geoheat.oit.edu/state/tx/tx.htm  http://www.southwestpv.com/SolarSite/SolarSiteMain.aspx  http://www.fhp-mfg.com/  http://www.txspc.com/renewable-energy-links.html  http://www.cincosolar.com/  http://www.sunrisesolartx.com/commercial/  http://apps1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/publications/pdfs/building_america/ba_bc_imagine_hot- humid.pdf  http://www.abengoasolar.com/corp/web/en/index.html  http://geo-energy.org/plants_dev.aspx#Texas  http://www.woodheatandair.com/trane/ground-source_design.pdf  http://www.energyhomes.org/projects.html  http://greenteamacgeothermal.com/commercial-geothermal-installation/  http://www.solar-estimate.org/index.php?page=casestudies  https://www.eia.gov/electricity/data.php#generation  http://www.eia.gov/state/?sid=TX  http://www.eia.gov/renewable/data.cfm  https://www.thewindpower.net/  http://txsolarpower.org/resources/  https://emp.lbl.gov/tracking-the-sun/

July 2020 Energy Systems Laboratory, The Texas A&M University System