ERCOT RMR Contract Status Report

Presented To The

ERCOT Board Of DirectorsDecember 17, 2002

Sam Jones, COO

RMR Contract Recommendations

Resource Entity Unit

Oct- Dec2002 MW

Jan-Mar2003MW

Frontera Generation, L.P. Frontera Pwr Sta CT#1 150 0West Texas Utilities, Co Ft. Phantom Unit 2 202 202West Texas Utilities, Co San Angelo Unit 1 21 0West Texas Utilities, Co San Angelo Unit 2 102 102West Texas Utilities, Co Rio Pecos Unit 6 98 98Central Power & Light, Co. J. L. Bates Unit 1 74 74Central Power & Light, Co. J. L. Bates Unit 2 109 109Central Power & Light, Co. B. M. Davis Unit 1 335 335Central Power & Light, Co. B. M. Davis Unit 2 356 0Central Power & Light, Co. LaPalma Unit 4 23 23Central Power & Light, Co. LaPalma Unit 5 23 23Central Power & Light, Co. LaPalma Unit 6 153 153Central Power & Light, Co. LaPalma Unit 7 50 50Central Power & Light, Co. Laredo Unit 1 35 35Central Power & Light, Co. Laredo Unit 2 32 32Central Power & Light, Co. Laredo Unit 3 105 105

TOTAL 1,868 1,341

Estimated Costs

UNITStand-by Cost

(Millions)Total Cost Est. (1)

(Millions)Stand-by Cost

(Millions)Total Cost Est. (1)

(Millions)

B. M. Davis Unit 1 2.41$ 4.04$ 2.41$ 4.04$ B. M. Davis Unit 2 2.56$ 5.90$ -$ -$ J. L. Bates Unit 1 0.63$ 1.72$ 0.63$ 1.72$ J. L. Bates Unit 2 0.93$ 1.02$ 0.93$ 1.02$ Frontera Pwr Sta CT#1 1.17$ 5.24$ -$ -$ Ft. Phantom Unit 2 1.45$ 4.69$ 1.45$ 4.69$ LaPalma Unit 4 0.30$ 0.33$ 0.30$ 0.33$ LaPalma Unit 5 0.30$ 0.33$ 0.30$ 0.33$ LaPalma Unit 6 1.10$ 3.06$ 1.10$ 3.06$ LaPalma Unit 7 0.64$ 0.70$ 0.64$ 0.70$ Laredo Unit 1 0.45$ 0.96$ 0.45$ 0.96$ Laredo Unit 2 0.41$ 0.59$ 0.41$ 0.59$ Laredo Unit 3 0.89$ 2.65$ 0.89$ 2.65$ Rio Pecos Unit 6 0.83$ 1.51$ 0.83$ 1.51$ San Angelo Unit 1 0.28$ 1.10$ -$ -$ San Angelo Unit 2 0.87$ 1.88$ 0.87$ 1.88$ Total 15.2$ 35.7$ 11.2$ 23.5$

Oct- Dec 2002 Jan-Mar 2003

Checklist For The Board

ERCOT staff reports to the Board that for every RMR contract proposed for January - March on the previous pages:

1. The generation resource owner has provided a complete application for RMR status

2. The generation resource owner has provided a sworn attestation supporting its claim of pending plant closure

3. ERCOT has received all data requested from the applicant necessary to evaluate the need for and provisions of the RMR agreement

4. The RMR agreement that will be signed is consistent with the ERCOT Protocols

Checklist For The Board

(Continued)

5. ERCOT performed the following steps in the evaluation of the need for and provisions of the RMR agreement

a. Each potential RMR unit was evaluated against a set of reasonable alternatives

b. The time frame for need of the RMR unit was determined

c. The type of reliability concern was identified-voltage, thermal- -

d. Available alternatives were evaluated – redispatch, remedial action schemes, special protection schemes

– Load response is not currently an option as the specification for this service has not been developed

Where applicable, the amount of load that could be affected was also estimated