Determining The Cost of Cycling and

Determining the Cost of Cycling and
Varied Load Operations: Methodology

Technical Report
L
I
C
E
N
S
E D
M
A T
E
R
I
A
L
WARNING:
Please read the License Agreement
on the back cover before removing
the Wrapping Material.
Effective December 6, 2006, this report has been made publicly available in
accordance with Section 734.3(b)(3) and published in accordance with
Section 734.7 of the U.S. Export Administration Regulations. As a result of
this publication, this report is subject to only copyright protection and does
not require any license agreement from EPRI. This notice supersedes the
export control restrictions and any proprietary licensed material notices
embedded in the document prior to publication.

EPRI Project Manager
J. Platt
EPRI 3412 Hillview Avenue, Palo Alto, California 94304 PO Box 10412, Palo Alto, California 94303 USA
800.313.3774 650.855.2121 askepri@epri.com www.epri.com
Determining the Cost of Cycling and
Varied Load Operations: Methodology

1004412
Final Report, November 2002

DISCLAIMER OF WARRANTIES AND LIMITATION OF LIABILITIES
THIS DOCUMENT WAS PREPARED BY THE ORGANIZATION(S) NAMED BELOW AS AN
ACCOUNT OF WORK SPONSORED OR COSPONSORED BY THE ELECTRIC POWER RESEARCH
INSTITUTE, INC. (EPRI). NEITHER EPRI, ANY MEMBER OF EPRI, ANY COSPONSOR, THE
ORGANIZATION(S) BELOW, NOR ANY PERSON ACTING ON BEHALF OF ANY OF THEM:
(A) MAKES ANY WARRANTY OR REPRESENTATION WHATSOEVER, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, (I)
WITH RESPECT TO THE USE OF ANY INFORMATION, APPARATUS, METHOD, PROCESS, OR
SIMILAR ITEM DISCLOSED IN THIS DOCUMENT, INCLUDING MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS
FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, OR (II) THAT SUCH USE DOES NOT INFRINGE ON OR
INTERFERE WITH PRIVATELY OWNED RIGHTS, INCLUDING ANY PARTY'S INTELLECTUAL
PROPERTY, OR (III) THAT THIS DOCUMENT IS SUITABLE TO ANY PARTICULAR USER'S
CIRCUMSTANCE; OR
(B) ASSUMES RESPONSIBILITY FOR ANY DAMAGES OR OTHER LIABILITY WHATSOEVER
(INCLUDING ANY CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES, EVEN IF EPRI OR ANY EPRI REPRESENTATIVE
HAS BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES) RESULTING FROM YOUR
SELECTION OR USE OF THIS DOCUMENT OR ANY INFORMATION, APPARATUS, METHOD,
PROCESS, OR SIMILAR ITEM DISCLOSED IN THIS DOCUMENT.
ORGANIZATION(S) THAT PREPARED THIS DOCUMENT
Applied Economic Research Co., Inc.

ORDERING INFORMATION
Requests for copies of this report should be directed to EPRI Orders and Conferences, 1355 Willow
Way, Suite 278, Concord, CA 94520, (800) 313-3774, press 2 or internally x5379, (925) 609-9169,
(925) 609-1310 (fax).
Electric Power Research Institute and EPRI are registered service marks of the Electric Power
Research Institute, Inc. EPRI. ELECTRIFY THE WORLD is a service mark of the Electric Power
Research Institute, Inc.
Copyright 2002 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved.

CITATIONS
This report was prepared by
Applied Economic Research Co., Inc.
299 Broadway, Suite 309
New York, NY 10007-1901
Principal Investigator
M. Corio
This report describes research sponsored by EPRI.
The report is a corporate document that should be cited in the literature in the following manner:
Determining the Cost of Cycling and Varied Load Operations: Methodology, EPRI, Palo Alto,
CA: 2002. 1004412.

iii

v
REPORT SUMMARY

For many reasonsheightened wholesale electricity competition under deregulation, new market
rules, growing capacity due to additions of new gas-fired capacity, environmental pressures on
coal unitsthe power industry must operate power plants differently. In particular, many
generating units that formerly ran around the clock must adjust operations to cycle or to follow
load (demand). This report describes a new methodology for estimating the long-term wear and
tear costs that inevitably accrue from such non-design operations. EPRI has achieved a
breakthrough in statistical analysis, tapping relevant data on many hundreds of Rankine cycle
steam electric plants going back thirty years.
Background
For several years, EPRI has been attempting to develop and demonstrate a statistical
methodology to decipher cycling costs. The current study, uncovering problems in EPRIs prior
effort (EPRI report 1004010), reopened important questions of just what a cycle is and greatly
extended the scope of power plant operations and performance data that can be used to interpret
cycling and load-following costs. Beyond that, the study achieved its objective of developing a
methodology and demonstrating it on an important subset of power plants. Contributing to the
knowledge gained in this study is the scrutiny of operational data obtained from five
collaborating companies. Results were introduced at EPRIs workshop on power plant
operational flexibility (benefits and technology), held October 2002.
Objectives
To develop and demonstrate a statistical methodology for interpreting costs of power plant
cycling and load following, i.e., of non-design operation.
Approach
The research approach is a top down statistical analysis of power plant operation and
performance data. This is a contrast from bottom up engineering evaluations of individual
units and their condition. Key data sources for this project are EPAs Continuous Emissions
Monitoring System (CEMS) data from 1995 to 2001 and Applied Economic Researchs
proprietary database on generating unit history and design from 1969, along with information
from North American Electric Reliability Council (NERC) Generating Availability Data System
(GADS). After reviewing the literature on cycling costs, the investigator developed a framework
comparing top down and bottom up approaches, demonstrating how unit production fluctuations
measured by load swings cause damage, performance, and cost impacts. She gained new insights
into unit cyclical behavior and its description by examining daily, weekly, and seasonal patterns
of unit operations, identifying 5 categories of plant operations and 14 subtypes. These are
described in detail, including load cycles (represented in 7-day circular diagrams appropriate to
seasonal differences), changes in hourly loads, and impacts of low load operation on degradation

vi
of heat rates. She specified statistical procedures for interpreting performance and cost impacts
from cycling, as contrasted with normal wear and tear and with forced outage costs, and
conducted a demonstration analysis of cycling cost variables for a large group of oil-gas units.
Results
This research has developed a new approach and structure for statistically modeling the impacts
of cycling on costs and reliability. The main accomplishments are:
Review of performance and cost history of coal plants, differentiated by category
New way to characterize the load cycle of 14 prototype fossil steam units
New methodology to fit load cycles mathematically and test hypotheses
Mapping of load cycles to thermal cycles and transient temperatures and pressures
Nested model specifications of cycling impacts to exploit 30+ year history of operating
experience for generating units and plants as well as detailed CEMS hourly data
Preliminary demonstration of a statistical approach to estimate startup costs, an important
cycle cost variable, for a large subset of oil-gas units (158 units at 55 plants generating
40,000 MW).
Major considerations to be quantified in subsequent analysis are impacts of mode shifts on
costs (e.g., many years baseload operation, followed by years of cycling, and vice versa), quality
of maintenance, and the very deleterious effects of forced outages compared to cycling
operations.
EPRI Perspective
This study is a critical advance in a very difficult area since cycling-related costs take years to
emerge and are difficult to sort from all other events at a power plant. The study greatly
improves on past work and positions EPRI to assist the industry as it faces new urgency to
quantify the costs of new operational modes. Information from top down studies of this type,
when applied to individual units, is a vital missing link supporting operational, investment, and
bidding decisions.
Keywords
Cycling costs
Load following
Rankine cycle fossil steam units
Load cycle
Hot, warm, and cold starts
Forced outage rates
Heat rates

EPRI Licensed Material
vii
ABSTRACT

Business trends are forcing the power industry to operate many plants in a more intermittent
mode than in the past. Units that are cycling or following load experience thermal stresses that
are different, and possibly more damaging, than those incurred during baseload operations. The
downstream consequences of cycling can be costly both in terms of effects on costs and
reliability. This report describes a new methodology for estimating these long-term wear and tear
costs, which is applicable to about 1,600 conventional Rankine cycle steam electric plants. The
approach is a top down statistical technique designed to glean insights from 30 years of unit
cost and performance data, including the very detailed information on hourly unit operations
contained in EPAs Continuous Emissions Monitoring System (CEMS) database from 1995 to
2001. The approach includes a comprehensive representation of units operational histories, as
contrasted with approaches that simply count the numbers of starts of different types, shutdowns,
and other events. Five major different operational patterns or load cycles and fourteen subtypes
were identified from exhaustive inspection of plant operations in the CEMS database.
Information is included on changes in hourly loads and impacts of low load operation on
degradation of heat rates. The report outlines the basic statistical procedures for interpreting
cycling-related cost impacts and includes a demonstration analysis of cycling cost variables (hot,
warm, and cold starts) for a large group of oil-gas units.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Discussions with several experts in this area, including Steve Lefton (Aptech), Joseph LaMarca
(General Electric), Ross Corio, Norris Hirota (EPRI), Richard Tilley (EPRI) and Barry Dooley
(EPRI), Duane Hill (Dairyland), Alan Bissell (ESB), and Tim Keller (Reliant), were invaluable
in providing engineering expertise and background.
The author gratefully acknowledges the contributions to this report provided by Izzy Diaz-Tous
(ENCOR-America) covering the engineering aspects of cycling plants, Yakov Lantzman
covering AER model specifications and Jean Harvey (Documentor) for assistance in structuring
and developing key sections of this report.
Finally, this list would not be complete without acknowledging the valuable inputs and direction
of the EPRI Project Managers: Jeremy Platt and Dale Gray (the original project manager).
In addition, the author wishes to thank all involved in this project for their intellectual curiosity
and patience to wait for the results of this endeavor well beyond the projects scheduled
completion date.

ix
CONTENTS
1 INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY: NOTHING LASTS FOREVER, BUT........................ 1-1
AERs Role in the EPRI Cycling Impacts Program.............................................................. 1-2
Objectives .......................................................................................................................... 1-3
Selected Findings on Methodology, Identification of Cycles, and Characterization of
Operating Histories............................................................................................................. 1-4
Quantitative Analysis of Cycling Cost Variables for Oil/Gas Plants..................................... 1-5
Report Organization ........................................................................................................... 1-6
Metric Conversions............................................................................................................. 1-6
2 IMPETUS BEHIND INDUSTRY CONCERN OVER CYCLING............................................. 2-1
Feasibility ........................................................................................................................... 2-1
Flexibility ............................................................................................................................ 2-1
Profitability.......................................................................................................................... 2-1
3 HISTORY OF CYCLING: THE 1970s ONWARD................................................................. 3-1
The 1970s .......................................................................................................................... 3-1
The 1980s .......................................................................................................................... 3-2
The 1990s .......................................................................................................................... 3-3
Note on Heat Rates............................................................................................................ 3-4
Trends in EFORs................................................................................................................ 3-5
The Interrelationship of Plant Expenditures and Reliability/Availability................................ 3-8
4 ANALYTICAL APPROACHES............................................................................................ 4-1
Two Approaches ................................................................................................................ 4-1
Engineering or Bottom Up Approach.............................................................................. 4-1
Statistical or Top Down Approach.................................................................................. 4-2
Cycling Impacts Studies ..................................................................................................... 4-4
Engineering Studies....................................................................................................... 4-4
Engineering Studies Sponsored by EPRI .................................................................. 4-5
xi

Statistical or Top Down Studies ..................................................................................... 4-6
Preliminary Statistical Studies Sponsored by EPRI ................................................... 4-9
AERs Role in EPRIs Cycling Impacts Program...........................................................4-10
5 ENGINEERING PRINCIPLES DISTILLED TO DEVELOP AER STATISTICAL
MODEL................................................................................................................................... 5-1
What is Cycling?................................................................................................................. 5-1
Cycles in Electricity Demand.......................................................................................... 5-2
From the Demand Cycle to Cycles in Electricity Supply, i.e., the Load Cycle................. 5-2
What are the Impacts of a Load Cycle?.............................................................................. 5-3
From the Unit Load Cycle to Thermal Cycles (aka Temperatures and Pressures in
the Transient) .............................................................................................................. 5-3
The Engineering Studies........................................................................................... 5-3
What Specific Parts of the Cycle are Harmful? and How are they Harmful?.................. 5-3
Cycling Conventional Fossil Rankine Cycle Steam-Electric Generating Units................ 5-5
What is a Load Cycle? How do you Measure it?................................................................. 5-8
The Metrics of a Load Cycle .......................................................................................... 5-8
Engineering and Construction Firms ......................................................................... 5-8
Electric Industry Sources........................................................................................... 5-8
Previous Cycling Impacts Studies ............................................................................. 5-9
6 AER STATISTICAL MODELS: STRUCTURE, SPECIFICATIONS AND DATA.................. 6-1
The Load Cycle: Specification ............................................................................................ 6-1
Fitting the Load Cycle Curves........................................................................................ 6-2
Overview of the Methodology.................................................................................... 6-4
Deterministic Component........................................................................................ 6-5
Stochastic Component............................................................................................ 6-6
Smooth Fluctuation ............................................................................................ 6-8
Jump Processes................................................................................................. 6-8
From the Load Cycle to the Thermal Cycle........................................................................6-10
The Rate and Range of Change in the Transient ..........................................................6-10
From the Thermal Cycle to Damage Mechanisms.............................................................6-13
From Damage Mechanisms to Accumulated Damage.......................................................6-13
From Accumulated Damage to Costs and Performance....................................................6-15
AER Database..............................................................................................................6-15
Scope of AER Fossil-Fired Steam Electric Plants/Units Database ...........................6-15
xii

Variables Included in the AER Fossil Steam Database ............................................6-15
Combining the Best of the Engineering Approach and Statistical Approach to Develop
Cycling Impacts Models.....................................................................................................6-18
Next Steps and Recommendations ...................................................................................6-18
7 PRELIMINARY AER RESULTS ON COST OF STARTS AND STUDY
CONCLUSIONS ..................................................................................................................... 7-1
Sample............................................................................................................................... 7-2
Database............................................................................................................................ 7-2
Development of Starts by Type of Start .............................................................................. 7-3
Other New Variables .......................................................................................................... 7-3
Models and Results ....................................................................................................... 7-4
AER Cost Model Results........................................................................................... 7-4
AER Cost Model Predictions: Cost of a Start............................................................. 7-5
Summary and Conclusions................................................................................................. 7-7
8 REFERENCES .................................................................................................................... 8-1
Principal Data Sources for Cycling Impacts........................................................................ 8-1
Engineering References..................................................................................................... 8-2
Related References............................................................................................................ 8-2
Related Papers................................................................................................................... 8-3
EPRI Cycling Reports: Engineering Studies ....................................................................... 8-4
EPRI Cycling Reports: Statistical Studies........................................................................... 8-4
A APPENDIX.......................................................................................................................... A-1

xiii
xv
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1-1 Cost per Unit Start by Type of Start: AER Oil/Gas Units and Other Studies
(Coal and Gas Units)..........................................................................................................1-5
Figure 1-2 Framework for Evaluating Effects of Load Cycling: Principal Elements ...................1-6
Figure 3-1 Examples of Heat Rates Plotted Against Capacity Factors......................................3-4
Figure 3-2 Two-Way Frequency Distribution: Final Classification Group v. COD Group...........3-5
Figure 3-3 Annual Trends in Equivalent Forced Outage Rate [EFOR] by AER Final
Classification Group, Older Coal Plants, 1970-2000..........................................................3-6
Figure 3-4 Annual Trends in Capital and Maintenance Expenditures by AER Final
Figure 3-5 Age Trends in Capital and Maintenance Expenditures by AER Final
Figure 3-6 Reliability v. Expenditures, Coal-Fired Power Plants: AER Final Classification
Group 3, 1970 2000 ........................................................................................................3-9
Figure 3-7 Correlation between Number of Starts and Number of Outage Events (by
Type of Event)..................................................................................................................3-12
Figure 5-1 Framework for Evaluating Effects of Load Cycling on Power Plant Costs and
Performance.......................................................................................................................5-4
Figure 5-2 Thermal Cycle: Heat Balance Diagram for Typical 2400psig/1000F Unit @
Full Load ............................................................................................................................5-6
Figure 6-1 Examples of Load Cycle Prototypes.........................................................................6-3
Figure 6-2 Hourly Capacity Factor over 1-Week Intervals: Load Follower, Intermediate,
Maximum Load Daily, Minimum Load (30%) Nightly..........................................................6-7
Figure 6-3 From Load Cycle to Thermal Cycle .......................................................................6-11
Figure 6-4 Change in Hourly Load ..........................................................................................6-12
Figure 6-5 Creep-Fatigue Interaction (ASME Chart) ...............................................................6-14
Figure 6-6 Breakdown of Generating Units in AER Fossil Steam Database by AER
Cohort Group ...................................................................................................................6-16
Figure 7-1 Statistically Significant Variables and Their Respective Effects on Costs................7-5
Figure 7-2 Cost per Unit Start by Type of Start: AER Oil/Gas Units and Other Studies ............7-6
Figure 7-3 Cascading Cycles: from Demand Cycle to Load Cycle to Thermal Cycle to
Temperatures and Pressures in the Transient ...................................................................7-9

1
INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY: NOTHING LASTS
FOREVER, BUT
There is an optimum life expectancy. Power plants are made of components and materials that
wear out over time from use. The question isnt if those components will fail, the question is
when. They will fail when their materials useful life has been expended by various stresses of
operation: creep and fatigue, separately and in various combinations. Manufacturers generally
specify life expectancy for their equipment based on a specific mode of plant operation and the
budget constraints of the plant ownerthe optimum. With very few exceptions, conventional
fossil Rankine cycle steam-electric generating units were designed to serve as baseload capacity
and were expected to operate at steady state, high load levels with very few starts over a year.
Baseload operation essentially entails running at high temperatures and pressures, almost by
definition, creep conditions.
1
Life of major equipment at conventional steam units has been
generally specified in terms of creep life.
Conventional Rankine cycle steam units were designed to operate most efficiently at steady state,
high load levels (close to rated capacity), thereby taking full advantage of the energy available
from high temperature, high pressure steam. The components, most notably turbines, were
designed to operate within a tight range, with little tolerance for deviation from design running
conditions. Materials were selected on the basis of their ability to sustain the least damage at
continuous high temperatures and pressures. Relatively small deviations from design operating
conditions can cause damage to certain components and materials. Significant departures from
design operating conditions cause severe damage to, and premature aging of, components and
materials, not to mention substantial losses in efficiency. Cycling load represents a significant
departure from design operating conditions for this group of generating units. While cycling load
damages equipment at any type of generating unit, conventional Rankine cycle steam units, as a
group, are particularly susceptible to cycling damage. Specifically, the group was optimally
designed to withstand continuous stress at high temperatures and pressures, not the fluctuating
stresses, temperatures, and pressures associated with repeated load cycling.
By way of illustration: Most cars run better on an open, unobstructed highway where the engine
can run at a constant speed. Under these conditions a racing car would leave the family station
wagon in the dust. And while no car fares well driving on bumpy roads or in start/stop city
traffic, the family station wagon would sustain far less damage than a racecar in such conditions.
The racecar is built for speed, with tightly designed operating standards and minimal excess
weight to drag down performance. As a result, it has little tolerance for deviation from optimal
operating conditions, i.e., running almost continuously at high speeds on controlled roadways,
with a few pit stops.

1
Creep is the gradual deformation of material over time that occurs from operating at high temperatures and
pressures.
1-1

Introduction and Summary: Nothing Lasts Forever, but
Cycling load at conventional Rankine cycle steam units exacerbates aging effects, leading to
more frequent component failures, tube leaks, pipe ruptures and cracking of vessels. Premature
aging and shortened equipment life means that replacement capital is needed sooner than
anticipated. Moreover, if overall unit reliability is to be sustained, maintenance expenditures at
load cycling units designed to run as baseload have to be increased beyond levels normally
associated with baseload units of the same age.
Because of the significant problems that have been experienced at conventional steam units that
have cycled and because this group of units represent the overwhelming majority of electric
generating capacity in the United States today, they have been the focus of studies of cycling
impacts. Both engineering and statistical analyses to date have found that cycling load at
conventional steam units that were designed for baseload operation has significant harmful
effects on performance and costs. In addition, engineering studies have discovered that switching
modes of operation, e.g., from baseload to cycling or vice versa, has even more deleterious
effects than those effects associated with cycling alone. The damage to equipment resulting from
switching is much greater for conventional Rankine cycle steam units than for any other type of
generating unit (e.g., combustion turbines, and more recently, combined cycles). As will be
discussed in detail later in this report, because of the creep-fatigue interaction, equipment and
components fail much sooner than they would have if a unit had been operated in only one mode.
AERs Role in the EPRI Cycling Impacts Program
In 1997 EPRI initiated its Cycling Impacts Program in an effort to improve the basis of economic
assessments of cycling impacts on costs. Prior estimates had been obtained predominantly from
engineering studies, in which data were limited to the single subject unit under analysis. Whereas
engineering or bottom up cycling studies had been conducted for specific individual generating
units, the new project was to be a statistical or top down analysis of cycling impacts,
incorporating recently available data on generating unit hourly loads. The success of such an
effort, however, would also rely greatly on the scope and quantity of data available for other
factors critical to the analysis, such as production costs.
Work on the EPRI program comprised several parts. Researchers first outlined a statistical-based
methodology and data requirements for development of multivariate econometric models that
determined the impacts of cycling on costs [39]. Researchers next conducted a preliminary
demonstration of this methodology [40]. Results included a preliminary spreadsheet and analysis
of cycling impacts (primarily at fossil coal plants, for which more data had been acquired).
Future steps envisioned combining models with detailed engineering analyses available.
In 2000, Applied Economic Research Co. (AER) was asked to refine the preliminary models.
2

Specifically, AER was to focus its efforts on a specific task: incorporating unit cycling/operating
history into the cost modeling. The database used to develop the initial models included data
only for the years 1995-1998, the four years for which detailed, comprehensive hourly load data
were available for generating units at the time of the preliminary quantitative study.
3
The effects

2
Central to this effort was close association with five different companies, whose funding and cooperation permitted
access to operating data and interpretation for a number of gas- and coal-fired steam electric generating units.
3
Collection of these data by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency began only in 1995 as part of its Continuous
Emission Monitoring System (CEMS).
1-2

of cycling load at generating units are cumulative, however; damage to equipment grows with
each unit load cycle. Moreover, cycling damage may not be visibly manifest until the problems
have been accumulating for several years. By concentrating on the most recent four years of
data, and not many years at that, the preliminary modeling excluded the very data needed to
quantify cycling impacts with reasonable certitude.
Given available time and resources, the near-term AER objective was to develop a methodology
to implicitly incorporate the cumulative effects of cycling-operating history over unit life into a
refined set of models. It was expected that the methodology would require no change to model
specifications and no new data collection, apart from adding additional years of data. As
discussed in detail later in this report, AER developed a methodology to implicitly incorporate
operating history into model specification. The methodology entailed (1) the development of
plant cohort groups that were similar in a number of characteristics, including cycling history of
generating units and (2) classification of plants into one of the cohort groups. Separate cycling
cost models, all expected to follow the same specifications found in the preliminary cost
modeling, would then be developed for each cohort plant group.
In the course of extending and updating the initial database, however, a number of problems and
issues arose with respect to validity of data from the primary data sources, the sample coverage
of the database and the underlying foundation supporting the preliminary model specifications. It
became apparent that refining the cost models as planned would do little to advance the state of
the art. Before proceeding further, a stronger framework/platform from which to build a
statistical analysis of cycling impacts was required. Consequently, efforts were redirected. AER
began an in-depth investigation of the relationship between unit load cycles and unit costs and
performance because that relationship would form the rationale for analyzing cycling impacts as
well as provide a basis for developing model specifications. The investigation focused on the
fundamental logic, causal interrelationships and dynamics, key model variables and principal
issues that need to be addressed when identifying and quantifying cycling impacts on unit
performance and costs.
Objectives
The project objective became to develop a statistical (top down) analysis of cycling impacts
that was based on sound theory, accurate data, a large sample of generating units and
comprehensive time-series data for units in the sample. The research started with very basic
questions such as:
What is cycling? What is a load cycle? How do you measure it?
What are the impacts of a load cycle? What specific parts of the cycle are harmful?
And how are they harmful?
More specifically, why/how does cycling a unit affect its future costs and performance?
Do the impacts of cycling vary across units, depending upon unit design?
Again, more specifically, what is the basis for the generally held belief that cycling units
designed for baseload duty is far worse than cycling units designed to operate in a cycling
mode?
1-3

Because no single compendium contained a comprehensive analysis of the issue of cycling
impacts on costs and performance, the research encompassed several books and articles on the
subject and a not inconsiderable amount of synthesis and inference, which AER then
corroborated/validated with key engineering experts in this area.
This report details how AER is developing top down, comprehensive statistical analyses of
cycling impacts (especially cost and reliability). In this report, AER traces the path of research to
model specifications and preliminary analysis of one aspect of cycling costs for oil and gas steam
units. The emphasis is on the development of methodology, the innovative characterization of
unit operating histories, and the integration of databases to support subsequent quantitative
analysis. Should additional funding become available, a second report will provide results of
applying the methodology to interpret and characterize cycling impacts at many units and plants.
Selected Findings on Methodology, Identification of Cycles,
and Characterization of Operating Histories
AER has developed a new approach and structure for statistically modeling the impacts of
cycling on costs and reliability. It is a multi-faceted approach and incorporates several new
developments, which we believe will enhance the understanding of the problem industrywide. It
will provide the level of detail needed to successfully model the relationships statistically and
could advance the state of the art in statistically modeling cycling impacts. Highlights of AERs
approach are outlined below:
New way to characterize the load cycle14 prototypes for fossil steam units
New methodology to fit load cycles mathematically, which allow flexibility and capability to
test several hypotheses concerning the impacts of cycling on costs and reliability
Mapped load cycles to thermal cycles to determine the impact of a load cycle on transient
temperatures and pressures.
Developed nested model specifications of cycling impacts to exploit the use of AERs 30+
year history of operating experience for generating units and plants industrywide as well as
exploiting limited availability of hourly and quarterly data.
Develop statistical models based on engineering principles and expertise in analyzing cycling
impacts, specifically incorporating the dynamic interrelationships between load cycles
thermal cycles, damage mechanisms, accumulated damage and final consequences of cycling
in terms of cost and reliability.
A concluding remark on these matters is warranted. From the day a unit begins operation, its
aging profile is being shaped. That profile is determined by many things, but among the most
important is how the unit is maintained and operated. It is not the incremental hot, warm or cold
start that has the major impact on that profile. It is the number of years the unit operates in one
mode versus another (e.g., baseload versus cycling). Finally, and most important, is how
maintenance is conducted at the unit. Far more damaging than any start to the equipment and
materials is the stop because of a forced outage that has required the unit to come offline
immediately without following the required protocol. Periods of history have demonstrated that,
for this industry, the amount of damage and the cost of repairing the damage from frequent,
severe forced outages are orders of magnitude greater than the problems associated with cycling.
1-4

Quantitative Analysis of Cycling Cost Variables for Oil/Gas Plants
AER conducted an historical cycling cost analysis for 158 generating units at 55 oil/gas steam
plants, totaling over 40,000 MW of capacity. All plants are comprised of large generating units
in the 200-550 MW range. The period examined was 1982-1993, a period marked by high
reliability (and maintenance investment). Data on operations, outages, deratings, expenditures
and so on were obtained from several NERC databases. Information on many plants had to be
excluded, whittling the total to 55 plants from 90 plants. Without going into the specific
procedures, adjustments and definitions, Figure 1-1 summarizes the preliminary findings for
cycling variables concerning types of starts. To our knowledge, this is the most extensive
analysis of oil/gas cycling costs yet undertaken, employing top down statistical analysis
techniques. While not utilizing all aspects of the proposed methodology (Chapter 6), and in
particular not incorporating full dynamic representation of load cycles at these plants (indeed,
such data are not available for the period in question), the results do show the far greater costs
associated with cold vs. warm and hot starts. Next steps will include further analysis of oil/gas
unit cycling cost variablesthe data shown are averages, whereas the distribution of costs is
particularly important for benchmarking and other interpretive studies. In addition, proposed
future work will calculate cycling cost variables for numerous populations or cross sections of
coal capacity. For coal units, we expect there will be no variable for hot starts, since that load
pattern would likely be reported simply as forced outages.
COST per UNIT START by Type of Start
$70.0
$20.9
$45.5
$3.5
$12.4
$31.3
$11.5
$29.1
$12.0
$4.1
$16.0
$38.2
$15.0
$34.3
$17.5
$51.0
$22.0
$42.5
$0
$5
$10
$15
$20
$25
$30
$35
$40
$45
$50
$55
$60
$65
$70
$75
EPRI (1004010)
Coal
Large Unit
APTECH
Coal
Small Unit
APTECH
Coal
Medium-Sized Unit
ETD
Gas
Small Unit
ETD
Oil
Medium-Sized Unit
AER
Gas
Medium-Sized Unit
0
0
0
$
/
S
t
a
r
t

(
2
0
0
0
=
1
.
0
)
Hot Start Warm Start Cold Start

Figure 1-1
Cost per Unit Start by Type of Start: AER Oil/Gas Units and Other Studies
(Coal and Gas Units)
Note: For details, definitions, and references, see Chapter 7.
1-5

Report Organization
The next two chapters of the report introduce why understanding cycling costs is becoming
important again (Chapter 2), giving the historical context of cycling going back to the late
1970s/early 1980s when the industry last experienced very high reserve margins (Chapter 3). By
the late 1980s/early 1990s, units that had been cycling moved into baseload service and damage
that had gone undetected started to appear. Chapter 3 includes recent examples of heat rate
degradation at low load operating levels, long thought to be the only significant cost associated
with cycling operations. It also includes information on outage trends and plant capital and
maintenance expenditures going back thirty years. Analytical approaches to quantify cycling
costs are summarized in Chapter 4. This chapter contrasts bottom up and top down approaches,
and gives background on EPRIs prior efforts and pitfalls encountered attempting to develop a
top down approach. Chapter 5 consults the engineering literature, relating the phenomena
observed in the field to the challenges of cost impact estimation. The framework of impacts has
four principal elements, as outlined in Figure 1-2.

Consequences
of Cycling
Cycling Damage
Mechanisms
Thermal Cycle
Transient Temp-
eratures, Pressures
and Relative Stresses
Load Cycle
Generating
Unit Output
Figure 1-2
Framework for Evaluating Effects of Load Cycling: Principal Elements
AERs exhaustive analysis of load cycles is introduced in Chapter 6. Examples of several of the
fourteen prototypical load patterns are described, along with the statistical procedures to describe
these mathematically (i.e., the first box in Figure 1-2). After reviewing engineering
considerations, the specifications or variables required to assess costs/performance are also
delineated (i.e., last box in Figure 1-2). The chapter concludes with a recommended work plan
for further methodological development and application of all the principles to various
populations of oil, gas and coal-fired Rankine steam units. Chapter 7 provides the studys first
quantitative results: estimates of several cycling cost variables of a large population of oil-gas
units never before examined as comprehensively using top down procedures. References and
charts on the different load cycles, including both actual unit load factors and changes in load
factors over time, are provided in Chapter 8 and the Appendix.
Metric Conversions
The following metric conversions are pertinent in this report:
English S.I. (Systeme Internationale)
Boiler characteristics:
1800, 2400 and 3200 psig (lbs per sq. in. gauge) 12,41; 16,55 and 22,06 MPa (megapascals)
1,000 degrees Fahrenheit 538 degrees Celsius [811 K]
Heat Rates:
10,000 Btu/kWh 10 550 kJ/kWh or 2 521 kcal/kWh

1-6
2
IMPETUS BEHIND INDUSTRY CONCERN OVER
CYCLING
Feasibility
Recently, the feasibility of cycling load at conventional fossil-fired Rankine cycle steam-electric
generating units, which were designed and built for steady state, high load level operation, has
become of increasing concern to the industry. Determining the feasibility of cycling these units is
key to assessing their future viability and profitability in an evolving competitive electricity
generation market. The elimination of ratebase recovery of power plant costs, compounded by
tough competition from new market entrants building/retrofitting plants with newer, relatively
more cost-efficient technologies, like combined cycle, calls into question the survival of many
conventional fossil steam units in competitive markets.
4

Flexibility
Survival for most conventional fossil steam units will depend upon their flexibility to switch
between baseload and cycling modes of operation, thereby exploiting the current market
economics and opportunities. Key to evaluating the flexibility of operating generating units in
various modes is being able to quantify the impacts of cycling load and switching between
modes of operation on unit costs and performance andequally importantbeing able to
forecast the cumulative effects of varying operating modes on life expectancy of equipment,
components, materials, etc. Those parameters are needed to assess the true costs of load cycling
(or, for that matter, of operating in any mode) and to determine prices at which a units power is
bid into a market. Over the longer run, this information is critical to projecting the level and
timing of replacement capital expenditures.
Profitability
Cycling costs, like fuel costs or scrubbing costs, are truly variable, i.e., they vary with a
generating units level (and pattern) of electricity production over timethey are incurred
principally when a unit is operating (including startup and shutdown). Because cycling costs are
variable, they should be included, or at least acknowledged, when: 1) developing pricing and
bidding strategies in a competitive market, 2) optimizing/selecting modes of unit operation and

4
EPRI is conducting a study of the impacts of new combined cycle units on retirements of capacity during 2002.
Contact J. Platt at EPRI. The phenomenon of new plant additions and their implications was addressed in the 2002
report, EPRI, Outlook for Regional Capacity BalancesReport Series on Natural Gas and Power Reliability, Palo
Alto, CA: 1004009.
2-1

Impetus behind Industry Concern over Cycling
3) assessing overall profitability of a units continued operation. However, unlike fuel costs or
scrubbing costs, cycling costs are not easily identified, quantified or even understood.
Specifically, it is relatively straightforward to calculate fuel costs over, say, a day, because the
amount of fuel burned, as well as the price paid for the fuel, can be tracked.
That is not the case with cycling costs. The effects of cycling load and switching modes of
operation are not immediately apparent; sometimes the damage to components takes years to
become manifest. That is, while cycling damage to equipment continues to accumulate with each
unit load cycle, it may be years before the consequences of cycling, such as lost reliability due to
equipment failures, shortened equipment life, premature capital replacement and increased
maintenance costs, become apparent.
Further complicating the quantification of cycling impacts is the fact that the rates of damage
accumulation resulting from various damage mechanisms are interdependent. That is, the rate at
which damage accumulates due to one type of damage mechanism is affected by the level of
damage that has occurred from other types. For example, creep life is reduced if corrosion and/or
erosion has occurred as well. One of the most detrimental interactions between damage
mechanisms occurs when switching from one mode of operation to another, e.g., switching from
baseload to load cycling, or vice versa (switching from cycling to baseload). The interaction of
creep stress (associated with steady state load operation) and fatigue stress (associated with
fluctuating loads) is complex, synergistic and severe in its deleterious effect on component life.
The combination exacerbates wear and tear by accelerating the rate at which damage
accumulates, and causes materials and components to fail much sooner than if they had been
subjected just to the stresses from either mechanism alone.
Finally, cycling impacts on costs and performance are difficult to quantify because they are not
unique to cycling. Indeed, cycling effects generally become manifest at the time in a units life
when equipment aging would also be causing similar effectse.g., poorer reliability and/or
increasing costs due to accumulated damage from erosion, corrosion, creep and fatigue. To
quantify the portion of these effects attributable to load cycling versus the portion attributable to
other drivers, such as aging, is difficult, especially when limited to the experience and data of a
few generating units.
5

Despite the difficulty in identifying and quantifying cycling impacts, they do eventually become
manifest. That is, as the number of load cycles at a unit increases over time (with concomitant
ranges of change and rates of change in transient temperatures and pressures), the stresses of
fluctuating load take their toll on equipment, component and material life, particularly if a unit
was operated as baseload capacity prior to cycling. Cycling damage will accumulate and
eventually cause unit performance to deteriorate as components fail, vessels crack, tubes leak
and pipes rupture. The result will show up in declines in overall unit reliability and availability,
as incidence, duration and severity of forced outages and forced deratings increase. Moreover,
actual heat rate curves will move away from (deteriorate from) the units design heat rate curve.
Deterioration in unit performance will eventually translate into higher operation and maintenance
costs and capital replacement costs (sometimes earlier than anticipated) if the unit is expected to
continue to operate profitably.
2-2

5
Specifically, for most fossil units, data on the quantity and quality of fuel burned must be submitted to the EPA as
required under its numerous emissions control programs.

Impetus behind Industry Concern over Cycling
Even more important, the deleterious effects of cycling on performance and costs will be
exacerbated significantly if, prior to cycling, the unit had been operating as baseload capacity or
vice versa (i.e., prior to baseload duty, it had been cycling), considerably shortening remaining
equipment life, causing it to fail much sooner than if the unit had continued to operate as it had in
the past.
The number of conventional fossil steam units that will be facing the possibility of load cycling
in the future is increasing as new sources of baseload supply continue to enter markets across the
country. Further exacerbating cycling will be penalties on coal generation, such as high seasonal
NO
X
credit prices and possible stringent SO
2
reduction requirements, that will further reduce the
competitiveness and duty cycle of marginal coal generation units.
6
Even with cancellations, some
275,000 MW of gas-fired CTs and CCs are anticipated to be added in the ten year period 1998-
2007, of which 190,000 MW is the likely share of combined cycles in this total.
7
Many fossil
steam units will no longer be a cost-competitive source of baseload power. Optimizing the mode
of operation at those units will be based on weighing the costs and consequences of cycling load
at units designed to operate as baseload against the cost of continuing to operate as baseload,
which could mean, at times, bidding power into the market at prices below running costs to be
dispatched ahead of more efficient plants that use newer technology.
If the costs/impacts of cycling, in spite of being anticipated in the future (and for some units, the
not-too-distant future), are not quantified, they cannot be included in the development of
planning/bidding strategies or at least factored into long-range capital budgets. Most important, it
is not possible to optimize a units operating mode(s) when the costs associated with each mode
are unknown. Ignorance of those costs (as well as those associated from operating in other
modes) is a surefire guarantee for undermining a units viability, or even survival, in a
competitive generation market. While, at one time, cycling costs could remain bundled with
other costs in the overall plant budget because these costs were expected to be recovered from
customers (with the approval of the public service commission), rate relief will no longer be
available as generation markets move to competition.

6
New Era of Plant Flexibility, presentation by J. Platt to EPRI Workshop on Power Plant Operational
FlexibilityBenefits and Technology, Dallas, Oct. 7-8, 2002.
7
EPRI Quarterly, Tracking the Building Boom of New Power Plants in the U.S, in Energy Markets and
Generation Response Newsletter; and editor personal communication with Energy Ventures Analysis, Inc. for latest
estimate.
2-3
3
HISTORY OF CYCLING: THE 1970s ONWARD
The history of cycling conventional fossil Rankine cycle steam unitsoriginally designed for
baseload operationhas been a rocky one, producing problems that were unanticipated and
unrecognized for many years. The problems probably would have remained hidden but for the
need to return conventional fossil steam units, which had been cycling for a number of years,
back to baseload duty to counter the tight electricity supply and imminent power shortages that
began to appear by the late 1980s.
The 1970s
The first experience with cycling larger capacity, conventional fossil baseload-design steam-
electric generating units began in the early 1970s when, in some regions of the country, a large
number of nuclear units came on line, displacing older conventional fossil steam units, generally
oil- or gas-fired, that had previously been operating as baseload capacity. By the late 1970s,
excess electricity supply in many regional markets caused other fossil steam units to be cycled as
well, including coal-fired units as well as oil- and gas-fired steam units, more recent vintage
units as well as older vintage units.
During this decade, the price shocks and other effects from the 1973 Arab oil embargo and the
1979 Iranian oil crisis dampened economic expansion, and growth in demand for electricity
along with it. Despite the significant slowdown in electricity demand growth in the 1970s (a
marked departure from the previously high rates of the 1960s), new baseload unitsparticularly
large, high temperature, high pressure fossil steam and nuclear unitscontinued to be designed,
built and begin operation during this period. New capacity additions reached record heights in
the years 1968-1976, averaging 25,000-30,000 MW per year (close to 44,000 MW were added in
1972 alone). New capacity additions decelerated slightly thereafter, to roughly 15,000 MW per
year, through 1982. (To provide an idea of the magnitude of the new capacity additions, in 1968,
total capacity of electric generating plants in the United States was 300,000 MW; by 1982, that
number was 615,000 MW.)
As a result, by the late 1970s/early 1980s, reserve margins in most regions of the United States
were between 35% and 40%, well above the 25% reserve margin the industry believed necessary
to insure reliability of electricity supply.
8
And much of the excess supply consisted of older
oil- and gas-fired steam baseload-design units which, if not already operating in some type of

8
The 25% rule of thumb (which translates into a 20% capacity margin) was based on the assumption that consumers
wanted the electricity supply to be so reliable that the probability of its loss would be one hour in ten years. This
LOLP (loss of load probability) combined with the perceived reliability of units (the supply source) gave rise to the
25% reserve margin or 20% capacity margin figure. Over time, required reserve margins were decreased as
reliability improved, and until recently, reserve margins as low as 15% were considered more than adequate.
3-1

History of Cycling: The 1970s Onward
cycling mode in the mid-1970s, were certainly doing so by the end of the decadeat least in off-
peak demand seasons. In addition, in certain regions where nuclear power had made significant
inroads, some relatively newer vintage units as well as coal-fired steam units were being cycled.
The general belief in the industry was that cycling load at conventional fossil Rankine cycle
steam units would result in minimal equipment damage, despite their baseload design and prior
baseload operating history. Indeed, the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME)
design codes for materials and components at conventional Rankine cycle steam units focused on
specifications and standards for materials being subjected to creep stress (an inherent damage
mechanism associated with continuously subjecting metal to high temperatures and pressures).
Any fatigue damage, resulting from a couple of starts and stops in a year due to outages, was not
considered to be significant and certainly not identified as a cause of equipment failure at those
baseload units. Further, it was held that fatigue damage was more than handled by the
conservative design codes for other types of stresses.
In general, it was believed that the principal effect of cycling load at conventional fossil steam
baseload-designed units would be a loss in efficiency (higher heat rates) due to operating outside
efficient load ranges. The losses could be significant at newer baseload steam units, which were
specifically designed to operate at maximum efficiency (lowest heat rates) when operating at
steady state, high load levels (close to 95% of rated capacity). Heat rates of the newer units
increased exponentially when operating at lower load levels. (See last subsection.) Efficiency
losses were certainly considered a serious problemparticularly at the newer baseload units
where the justification for their higher construction costs was supposedly the offset provided by
higher fuel efficiencies and, consequently, lower fuel costs. Even if the newer units were forced
to cycle, however, it was believed that the impacts (higher heat rates) were immediate,
recoverable,
9
and reversible.
10
And the likelihood of cycling the newer vintage fossil steam units
seemed almost nonexistent in the 1960s and early 1970s when many of those units were either in
the planning stages, under construction or coming on line and demand growth was a robust 8%
per annum. By the late 1970s, however, the impossible had become reality. Nonetheless, the
condition was expected to be short-lived and not harmful to equipment (other than causing
minimal fatigue damage).
The 1980s
In the 1980s, the electricity supply-demand balance began to tilt in the opposite directionfrom
too much supply relative to demand (at the beginning of the decade) to not enough supply to
meet demand (by the end of the decade). The economy rebounded in the 1980s, and, as a result,
electricity demand resurged, growing at rates approaching the historical highs of the 1960s.
Despite robust growth in the economy and electricity demand, the number of new units expected
to come on line in the foreseeable future had dwindled considerably from the record numbers of
only a few years before. By the mid-1980s, growth in electricity demand was easily dwarfing
capacity additions. By the end of the decade, reserve margins (which had been between 35% and
40% for most of the country in 1982) were close to zero, posing threats of possible supply
shortages in many parts of the United States. (Indeed, the summer of 1988 was marked by rolling
blackouts and brownouts in Florida, the Mid-Atlantic and the Northeast.)

9
Could pass through higher fuel costs to ratepayers with fuel adjustment clauses.
10
Higher heat rates from operating in a cycling mode simply reflected movements along a units design heat rate
curve, not shifts or deterioration in the actual heat rate curve away from the design curve.
3-2

The reasons for electricity supply shortages were apparent. First, as a result of the disastrous
experience with expensive nuclear plants, culminating with the accident at the Three Mile Island
nuclear plant in 1979 and disallowance of imprudent construction costs from ratebase, no new
nuclear plants were being contemplated, and many that had been on the drawing board or under
construction had been cancelled. Nuclear problems not only limited new nuclear plant
construction, they essentially discouraged many utilities from building or designing new fossil-
fired units as well. Those utilities brave enough to attempt to add new capacity found it difficult
to raise money in capital markets for any new power plant construction project.
In the face of tightening electricity supply constraints, utilities turned to exploiting existing
capacity to meet increased demand needs. Specifically, they considered returning their fossil
steam units that had been cycling for years to baseload duty. That strategy seemed to make sense
in the face of impending power shortages, no new plants coming on line and a general reluctance
on the part of the industry to embark on new plant construction. Besides, the transition from
cycling back to baseload duty cycles at conventional fossil steam units was expected to be
relatively effortless. That was not to be the case.
By the late 1980s, many conventional fossil steam units had been cycling for years, with no
apparent discovery that cycling damage was accumulating. Because damage to equipment from
cycling baseload-designed plants had not been anticipated and manifestations of many of the
consequences of cycling, such as equipment failure, tube ruptures, premature replacement of
equipment, etc., are delayed, accumulating cycling damage could and did go undetected for
years. (By the mid-1980s, some units had been cycling for almost ten years.) Indeed, it was not
until some of the units that had cycled were being switched back to baseload operation that
problems began to occur as components and equipment failed prematurely (in some cases, only a
short time after the switch in operating modes).
It became apparent that to return to baseload operation successfully, units would have to be
refurbished, and the first step in that process was an assessment of equipment condition.
Condition assessments were expected to identify the types of damage mechanisms that had been
triggered as a result of cycling, determine resultant accumulated damage and assess the severity
of the consequent impacts of cycling, especially in terms of its effect on components remaining
life, overall unit reliability, costs, etc. Further, with the information gained from the condition
assessments, it was expected to be possible to decide the optimal strategy for a specific unit, such
as repair versus replace damaged equipment, or delay actions and continue to operate, or retrofit
equipment for greater operating flexibility. In any case the general industry belief that unit could
easily move from one mode of operation to another with no problem.
The 1990s
By the late 1980s/early 1990s, it became apparent from the condition assessments of
conventional steam units that had been cycling for years that the effects of cycling extended
beyond the efficiency losses and the limited fatigue damage generally believed to be the
principal repercussions of cycling. Further investigation into the effects of cycling and switching
modes of operation was warranted for this group of units.
3-3

The 1990s marked the beginning of the first major engineering (bottom up) and industrywide
statistical (top down) analyses of the effects of cycling on unit performance and costs. The next
chapter compares the two types of approaches and, for each, describes the state of the art, key
findings and results of cycling impacts studies that have been conducted to date. Most important,
we review key insights and findings concerning cycling impacts gleaned from these studies.
Note on Heat Rates
Degradation of heat rates is readily illustrated from charts obtained during this studys
examination of EPA data from Continuous Emissions Monitoring Systems. The use of CEMS
data are described more fully in the next chapter. Of interest to the impact of low load cycles on
heat rates are the relationships indicated in Figure 3-1, where the units with the most extreme
cycling operations (e.g., two-shifting) show extreme degradation of heat rates when operating at
low load factors. The opposite is seen in baseload operations where the unit adheres with
regularity to its most efficient set-points.
LOAD FOLLOW 4c
Max Daily, Min
Night
SUMMER PEAK 3b
Daily Peak, Min Night
2-SHIFT 1a
Load Follow Day, Off Night
RANDOM 0b
70-90% CF
% 1 0% 2 0% 3 0% 40 % 50 % 60 % 70 % 80 % 90 % 1 00% % 1 0% 2 0% 3 0% 40% 50% 60% 7 0% 8 0% 9 0% 1 00%
0
5, 0 00
1 0, 0 00
1 5, 0 00
2 0, 0 00
2 5, 0 00
3 0, 0 00
3 5, 0 00
4 0, 0 00
0% 1 0% 20% 30% 40 % 50 % 60 % 70 % 80 % 9 0 % 10 0%
10,000
40,000 Btu/kWh
Capacity Factor
50% 0% 100%
BASELOAD (5b)
Minor load follow nightly.
20,000
30,000
0
LOAD FOLLOW 4c
Max Daily, Min
Night
SUMMER PEAK 3b
Daily Peak, Min Night
2-SHIFT 1a
Load Follow Day, Off Night
RANDOM 0b
70-90% CF
% 1 0% 2 0% 3 0% 40 % 50 % 60 % 70 % 80 % 90 % 1 00% % 1 0% 2 0% 3 0% 40% 50% 60% 7 0% 8 0% 9 0% 1 00%
0
5, 0 00
1 0, 0 00
1 5, 0 00
2 0, 0 00
2 5, 0 00
3 0, 0 00
3 5, 0 00
4 0, 0 00
0% 1 0% 20% 30% 40 % 50 % 60 % 70 % 80 % 9 0 % 10 0%
10,000
40,000 Btu/kWh
Capacity Factor
50% 0% 100%
BASELOAD (5b)
20,000
30,000
0
0
5, 0 00
1 0, 0 00
1 5, 0 00
2 0, 0 00
2 5, 0 00
3 0, 0 00
3 5, 0 00
4 0, 0 00
0% 1 0% 20% 30% 40 % 50 % 60 % 70 % 80 % 9 0 % 10 0%
10,000
40,000 Btu/kWh
Capacity Factor
50% 0% 100%
BASELOAD (5b)
20,000
30,000
0

Figure 3-1
Examples of Heat Rates Plotted Against Capacity Factors
Note: Vertical axis is 0 to 40,000 Btu/kWh, at 5,000 intervals. Horizontal axis is 0-100% CF, at 10% intervals.
See Chapter 6 for detailed discussion of operating modes characterized
3-4

Trends in EFORs
This historical review would not be complete without presenting data and some original analysis
on units equivalent forced outage rates (EFOR) and expenditures on capital and maintenance.
The analysis below is an update of the analysis conducted by AER as part of its submission to
the Province of Alberta to assist in the transition from regulation to competition. The AER
analysis, which at that time covered the years 1970-1996, was used by the Province to design
electric power contracts for utility plants power sales in the Province. At the time of the
hearings, we basically had reviewed the operating and expenditure history of several hundred
coal plants and units. Based on characteristics (mainly 100% coal-fired) and data availability, the
final sample comprised 226 plants. Seven AER Final Classification Groups were developed
based on Lifetime Performance, i.e., reliability levels achieved over the period 1970-1996.
Group 1 had the best reliabilities and Group 7, the worst.
Over time, we have continued to track the performance of these seven groups of coal plants.
Below (Figure 3-2) is the most recent update, covering the period 1970-2000. We have selected
the older plants in the seven groups to control for aging effects on expenditures and/or
reliability: 172 older plants (over 24 years old in 2000), comprising over 180,000 MW capacity.
(Note COD Group labels on charts indicate age range in 1996).
AER Final COD Group
Classification All
Group 1<4 4<10 10<18 18<26 26<33 33<38 38+ Groups
1 0 5 14 8 0 5 7
2 0 4 9 0 6 0 4
3 0 0 6 6 6 4 9
4 0 0 10 8 4 0 6
5 0 0 6 14 9 4 7
6 0 0 0 12 7 8 4
7 0 0 0 8 14 12 0
All FC Groups 0 9 45 56 46 33 37 226
AER Final COD Group
Classification All
Group 1<4 4<10 10<18 18<26 26<33 33<38 38+ Groups
1 0 5,716 18,914 6,378 0 775 4,501 36,284
2 0 4,156 10,767 0 3,434 0 2,214 20,571
3 0 0 6,912 7,691 7,845 1,097 6,828 30,373
4 0 0 12,045 13,072 3,469 0 1,706 30,292
5 0 0 6,330 26,188 7,173 2,183 2,839 44,713
6 0 0 0 20,700 7,228 6,174 2,677 36,779
7 0 0 0 15,312 20,076 11,240 0 46,628
All FC Groups 0 9,872 54,968 89,341 49,225 21,469 20,765 245,640
MW CAPACITY of SAMPLE PLANTS
NUMBER of SAMPLE PLANTS

"Older Plants"
"Older Plants"
39
23
31
28
40
31
34
Figure 3-2
Two-Way Frequency Distribution: Final Classification Group v. COD Group
3-5

The figures below depict annual trends in both expenditures and reliability, as well as age trends
in expenditures, for the older plants in each of the seven groups. The median value of
expenditure and EFOR are used to minimize impacts of outliers on ascertaining trends. However,
the median is not indicative of levels which are best represented by the mean (average) value
accumulated over plant life. A discussion of the patterns follows these three figures and the next.
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
28
30
1
9
7
0
1
9
7
2
1
9
7
4
1
9
7
6
1
9
7
8
1
9
8
0
1
9
8
2
1
9
8
4
1
9
8
6
1
9
8
8
1
9
9
0
1
9
9
2
1
9
9
4
1
9
9
6
1
9
9
8
2
0
0
0
E
F
O
R

(
%
)
Group 1 Group 2
Group 3 Group 4
Group 5 Group 6
Group 7
Median (50th Pctle) EFOR values
by AER Final Classification Group

Figure 3-3
Annual Trends in Equivalent Forced Outage Rate [EFOR] by AER Final Classification
Group, Older Coal Plants, 1970-2000
3-6

$0
$2
$4
$6
$8
$10
$12
$14
$16
$18
$20
$22
$24
$26
$28
$30
$32
$34
1
9
7
0
1
9
7
1
1
9
7
2
1
9
7
3
1
9
7
4
1
9
7
5
1
9
7
6
1
9
7
7
1
9
7
8
1
9
7
9
1
9
8
0
1
9
8
1
1
9
8
2
1
9
8
3
1
9
8
4
1
9
8
5
1
9
8
6
1
9
8
7
1
9
8
8
1
9
8
9
1
9
9
0
1
9
9
1
1
9
9
2
1
9
9
3
1
9
9
4
1
9
9
5
1
9
9
6
1
9
9
7
1
9
9
8
1
9
9
9
2
0
0
0
C
M
K
W
D

(
U
S
$
/
K
w
,

2
0
0
0
=
1
.
0
)
Group 1 Group 2
Group 3 Group 4
Group 5 Group 6
Group 7
Median (50th Pctle) CMKWD values
for Final Classification Groups:

Figure 3-4
Annual Trends in Capital and Maintenance Expenditures by AER Final Classification
Group, Older Coal Plants, 1970-2000
3-7

0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
28
30
32
34
36
38
40
42
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42
AGE (Service Years)
C
M
K
W
D

(
U
S
$
/
K
w
,

2
0
0
0
=
1
.
0
)
Group 1 Group 2
Group 3 Group 4
Group 5 Group 6
Group 7
Median (50th Pctle) CMKWD values
by AER Final Classification Group

Figure 3-5
Age Trends in Capital and Maintenance Expenditures by AER Final Classification Group,
Older Coal Plants, 1970-2000
The Interrelationship of Plant Expenditures and Reliability/Availability
The interrelationship and trade-off between plant expenditures and resulting reliability/
availability is complex for a number of reasons:
It takes place over a period of years and not unexpectedly, the relationship is dynamic and
changes over time as a plant ages, in particular, the effects of aging and operations vary by
plant component.
It varies across plants because the equipment design, generation of technology, vintage, duty
cycle, etc., vary across plants.
3-8

It is affected by the technology of steam power and related materials technologies currently
available at the time the work is being done.
Finally, one of the most significant factors influencing the relationship between maintenance
expenditures, reliability, and aging is the individual plants specific history of maintenance
practicesdictated not only by the maintenance philosophy of the utility owner/plant
manager, but also by the owners financial ability to provide a budget sufficient to support
that philosophy which, in turn, may or may not be within its control.
Figure 3-6 summarizes typical trends in plant performance and expenditures and reliability /
availability of fossil steam plants as they occurred in the U.S. power industry since the 1960s
indicates that maintenance practices as represented by expenditures varied significantly, in large
part dictated by factors outside the control of utilities, including economic growth, issues
surrounding new nuclear construction projects, world petroleum prices, inflationary economics,
surging interest rates that reached record levels, and very importantly, by the rulings of their
PUC regulators. Indeed, this last factor, the PUC, had a direct effect on maintenance practices
not only through the maintenance budget approval power, but also by the setting of operating
performance standards (requirements) for reliability and availability at existing coal-fired
steam plants which began in the late 1970s.
(1) Post-War Expansion
(2) Exploitation of Electricity Technology
(3) Results of (1)+(2) = High Demand / New Plant Capacity Needed
(4) New Larger Fossil Plant Construction
(5) New Nuclear Construction
(6) Low Maint $ -- Declining Reliability/Availability
(7) Oil Prices Increasing
(8) Slowed Economy & Load Growth
(9) Inflation, High Interest Rates
(10) "Regulatory Lag" Effect of Cash Flows
(11) TMI Incident
(12) Post TMI Effects
(13) Costly Post-TMI Nuclear Cancellations
(14) Fossil Power Needed - Reg Perf. Stds. => Increase Maint $ to ReclaimCapability
(15) Fossil Reliability / Availability Bottoms, Begins to Return
(16) Maint. $ slows in response to competition
EFFECTS ON PLANT EXPENDITURES AND RELIABILITY, 1970-2000
%
%
%
%
%
%
1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000
$0
$1
$2
$3
$4
$5
$6
$7
$8
$9
$10
$11
$12
$13
$14
$15
$16
$17
$18
$19
$20
$21
$22
$23
$24
$25
$26
$27
$28
$29
$30
$31
$32
$33
$34
$35
$36
$37
$38
$39
$40
~~~~~~~~~~
~~~
~~~
~~~
~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~
Typical Expenditures vs. Reliability Trends
Large, Coal-Fired Electric Power Plants
Reliability
(%)
Expenditures
($/kW)
x x
*
~~~~~

Figure 3-6
Reliability v. Expenditures, Coal-Fired Power Plants: AER Final Classification Group 3,
1970 2000
3-9

Plant reliability reacts to plant budget expendituresit suffers when budgets are constrained, and
can recover when expenditures are allowed. In fact, examination of the history of expenditures
and reliability since 1970 indicates that on an industrywide basis, plant expenditures of the 1980s
were not exceptional expenditures used to increase performance above the expected norm, but
rather a recovery from exceptionally low levels of reliability to which plants had been allowed to
deteriorate due to low expenditure levels in the previous years. This came about early in the
period (1970s) when macro economic, technological, and industry forces came together to
increase the costs of power generation and capital programs. And this resulted in low plant
maintenance expenditure levels at coal-fired plants across the industry, which in turn led to
declining reliability and availability levels (to 70% availability range overall, and as low as 45-
50% in some cohort groups of generating units). Critically, these were levels of reliability and
productive output well below the capability that can be expected of large capitalization heavy
industrial plant and equipment in general.
As noted above the forces behind this pattern were largely outside the control of utilities.
Specifically, they included, among others: the effects of the post-war economic expansion; the
largest growth period of the electrical age in America which led to the need for large new
generating plants requiring high capital outlays; dramatically increased energy prices of the oil
crises of the 1970s that caused record increases in the cost of generating electricity; petroleum
crisis-driven inflation; inflation-caused record high interest rates (double and more the historic
long term rates) with their drastic effects on the cost of building new generating plants; and the
failure of the nuclear promise of cheap power, which turned into vast increases in nuclear capital
and operating costs, as well as unreimbursed expenditures (disallowances).
In the latter part of the 1970s capital costs for building new generating capacity reached all time
highs (including interest rates of 15%+) and previously planned new capacity (including
expensive large fossil plants and much nuclear) were being canceled. Regulatory commissions
noticed the gap in existing fossil plant reliability versus what should be expected. As a result the
commissions enacted performance standards and plant budgets for existing coal-fired plants that
would be more consistent with bringing plants back to the reliability and generation levels of
which they were capable.
Several observations emerge from this history of the industry and the events and forces
surrounding it:
1. Reliability generally declines or increases in response to change in expenditure level.
2. All else being equal, as plants are operated over time, especially after age 18, expenditures
required to maintain reliability will increase or alternatively, reliability will decline. Between
ages 18-28, expenditures required to retain reliability increase at the highest rate, and peak by
age 28.
The aging effects (wear and tear effects of operating a plant) are not linear across time;
rather, the negative effects on reliability from operating a plant are relatively flat in the early
years and greatest from ages 18 to 28. This is the time when expenditures must be increased
the most to maintain operational reliability or the greatest declines in reliability will be
experienced.
3-10

3. The increase in reliability that took place in the 1980s cannot be looked at in isolation as
though it were an increase from a normative level; whereas, in fact, the full history running
back to the late 1960s shows that reliability had declined in the 1970s from much higher
levels to a low by the late 1970s, and then began recovering toward full capability in the
1980s and 1990s. (At the high end, reliability reached 80-90%levels one would expect of
mechanical-electrical operating equipmentwhereas the low levels in the 1970s fell into the
range of 60-70%).
4. Underlying this, in the early 1970s a number of major economic and technology-related
factors caused a severe constraint on industry fossil plant maintenance expenditures which, in
turn, drove reliability/availability levels down to uneconomically low levels.
5. These declines were gradually reclaimed in the 1980s and 1990s when budget dollars were
available to restore these plants to the levels of operation of which they were capable.
6. Thus, industry expenditures on coal fired plants would appear to have been driven by a vast
array of complex and difficult economic factors.
Of particular interest is Figure 3-7, which classifies starts by prominent categories. From this
table, in a manner that is not as apparent from the time-series dated just presented on forced
outage trends (Figure 3-3), one can see the late 1990s and continuing to the present ushered in a
new era of outages and reserve shutdowns. We hesitate to compare this directly with the troubled
years 1972-1982 as overall industry performance far exceeds the difficulties encountered then.
Nevertheless, it is apparent to us that something is going on and further interpretation is
warranted.
3-11

Coal Gas Oil
1965 RS
1966 RS
1967 RS
1968 RS,FO RS RS
1969 RS,OUT RS RS
1970 RS,OUT RS,SO
1971 RS
1972 MO,RS RS RS,SO
1973 RS RS RS,SO
1974 MO RS RS,OUT
1975 RS,MO RS RS,FO
1976 RS,MO RS,FO RS,FO
1977 RS,MO RS,FO RS,FO
1978 RS,MO FO RS,OUT
1979 RS,OUT MO,RS RS,MO
1980 RS,OUT RS,MO RS,MO
1981 RS,FO RS,OUT RS,OUT
1982 RS,FO RS RS,MO
1983 RS RS RS
1984 RS RS RS
1985 RS RS RS
1986 RS RS,MO RS
1987 RS RS RS
1988 RS RS RS
1989 RS RS RS
1990 RS RS RS
1991 RS RS RS
1992 RS RS RS
1993 RS RS RS
1994 RS RS RS,OUT
1995 RS RS RS
1996 RS RS, OUT RS
1997 RS, FO RS, OUT RS
1998 RS, OUT RS RS, SO
1999 RS, OUT RS, OUT RS, SO
2000 RS, OUT RS RS, OUT
RS = Reserve Shutdown Event
FO = Forced Outage Event
MO = Maintenance Outage Event
PO = Planned Outage Event
SO =
OUT =
Type of Steam Electric Unit
Year
Scheduled Outage Event
(MO+PO)
All Outage Events
(PO+MO+FO)

Figure 3-7
Correlation between Number of Starts and Number of Outage Events (by Type of Event)

3-12
4
ANALYTICAL APPROACHES
Two Approaches
Two approaches have been used to quantify the effects of cycling on generating unit costs and
performance:
1. Engineering or Bottom Up: begins with on-site analyses and testing at the most disaggregate
level at a unit, i.e., components and materials (the bottom) and builds up to an overall
assessment of cycling impacts on performance and costs at the subject unit.
2. Statistical or Top Down: starts with a statistical analysis of unit- and plant-level data for a
large number of generating units industrywide (the top); the results of that analysis are then
used to infer the impacts of cycling on the performance and costs down to a specific
generating unit.
The discussion in the section below describes the two approaches, with particular focus on the
application of each to analyzing the impacts of cycling on overall plant and generating unit
performance. Following this discussion, we review the state of the art of cycling impacts studies
using each approach.
Engineering or Bottom Up Approach
The bottom up approach quantifies cycling impacts on costs and performance of a specific
generating unit by analyzing the experience of that unit, namely, the subject unit under analysis.
The starting point of the engineering analysis is usually an on-site condition assessment of the
subject units equipment, components and materials. Advances in technology have allowed these
sometimes literally microscopic examinations of the interior of a component to be conducted in a
non-destructive manner.
Using established engineering principles and hands-on experience, engineering analyses
determine accumulated damage and expected remaining life of equipment, based on the
condition assessment of equipment at the subject unit. The condition assessment results are
combined with a review of the units equipment design to determine the expected remaining life
for materials, components and equipment.
More recent bottom up analyses have expanded the traditional engineering approach to include
analyses of the subject units actual historical data, in addition to the condition assessment.
Specifically, using historical operating data for the subject unit over time, the rate at which
damage accumulated by damage mechanism is determined using engineering damage models.
4-1

Analytical Approaches
Accumulated damage can then be determined over a specific time period, say, for each year of a
units life, based on the accumulated number of load cycles and linked to corresponding
historical detailed cost data and component failures for the subject unit.
Because engineering analyses conduct detailed, on-site condition assessments of critical
components at the subject unit, they provide in-depth, precise information for developing
actionable component-specific strategies. Decisions based on engineering analyses of cycling
impacts could include: delay action and continue operating the unit as is; repair, refurbish,
replace equipment; retrofit certain equipment to provide greater cycling flexibility; or simply
retire the unit.
Traditional engineering analyses relied primarily on the results of the condition assessment and
equipment design to set up targets and standards, many of which are achievable only under a
specified (sometimes idealized) set of conditions, not necessarily what has actually been, or
might be, achieved by the subject unit. More recent engineering studies have sought to remedy
this by tailoring the analysis to the subject units history. That is, the subject units historical
data, e.g., detailed costs, failure rates by component, operating history and cycling activity, are
explicitly incorporated into the analysis. Depending upon data availability, the rate and level of
accumulated damage by mechanism for key components by, say, year of unit life are linked
directly to the outcomes, namely, to failure rates of components and then to the dollars expended
to repair/replace components.
Statistical or Top Down Approach
The top down approach quantifies cycling impacts on costs and performance of a specific
generating unit by analyzing the data that represents the experiences of a large number of
generating units industrywide. Data are generally on a unit- and plant-level basis and cover years
(quarters, months, hours, etc.) of unit life for each sample member. The results of that analysis
are then used to infer the impacts of cycling on the performance and costs of a specific
generating unit.
Statistical analyses involve the development of statistical measures and models, using data for a
large sample of generating units. In general, the starting point of the analysis is the specification
of multivariate regression models that mathematically describe the causal relationship between
unit costs or performance (dependent variables) and its principal drivers (independent
variables). The models are developed using multivariate econometric techniques that provide a
method for:
1. Statistically developing model coefficients using data for large samples that measure the
relative impacts of the independent variables on the dependent variable(s);
2. Identifying and quantifying the model coefficients that are statistically significant and,
consequently, deciding which independent variables are important (statistically significant)
determinants of the dependent variable;
4-2

3. Determining systematically which independent variables can be rejected from the final model
by providing various model test statistics (t-statistics, goodness-of-fit statistics, analyses of
model residuals, etc.)
Each independent variables model coefficient becomes the basis for quantifying its impact on
the dependent variable, i.e., the change in the dependent variable that would result from a change
in the value of the independent variablewhile holding all other independent variables constant.
The coefficients of the independent variables included in the model are estimated using data
from across the industry for a suitably large sample of generating units. Use of a large sample of
generating units with historical data covering most years (quarters, months, etc.) of each units
operating life, as well as a large number of cross sectional (cross generating unit) variables,
provides a wealth of information with which to test the significance of independent variables, as
well as test and validate hypothetical relationships. The model results can offer insights into
relationships and trade-offs among costs, performance and operation not discernible from data
for a few plants or generating units.
The statistical approach differs from the engineering approach in four important respects.
1. The statistical approach determines cycling impacts using data for many generating units
rather than only a few. Because the sample comprises a large number of generating units, the
collective industry experience encompasses a wide range of operating modes and cycling
activity, including the experience of units that have switched modes of operation over their
life.
2. The statistical approach provides quantitative measures of other units actual experience with
cycling load against which a specific generating unit can be compared.
3. The statistical approach looks at the question of what is to determine what if. In the case
of cycling, the impacts of operating in various modes can be predicted for a specific unit,
even if a mode is not part of its actual historical experience.
4. Statistical analyses use less detailed and disaggregate (i.e., component-specific) data but
cover a wider breadth of experience and types of generating units. Statistical analyses are less
time-consuming and less expensive than engineering analyses and can be used to determine
whether a specific unit has likely incurred cycling damage and warrants a more in-depth
engineering analysis. That is, statistical analyses can quantify the extent of cycling damage at
a specific unit, based on models developed using industrywide experience.
An additional attribute of statistical analyses, derived from tapping data on many rather than few
units, is that they can quantify the range of uncertainty likely associated with projections of
cycling impacts and costs
Both types of analyses have strengths and limitations. One consideration that needs to be
addressed in both approaches are the changes in power plant management and operating
philosophy that have taken place over the past decade. For example, pressures to maximize
profitability emphasize reliability during high price periods, such as during the summer in
summer-peaking regions. Conversely, companies may be largely indifferent as to the length of
4-3

outages during unprofitable periods, which could lead to greater lengths of time off-line on an
annualized basis even as the generator is achieving greater profitability.
Cycling Impacts Studies
Engineering Studies
The mid- to late 1980s marked the beginning of the first large-scope engineering studies. Those
analyses examined the effects of cycling on performance in detail for the specific unit under
examination to determine the optimal strategy to return it to baseload operation. Specifically, an
engineering study focused on the types of damage mechanisms that had occurred as a result of
cycling and how the effects of the damage mechanisms had accumulated over the years during
which the subject unit had cycled.
Applying established engineering principles and relationships and examinations of physical
evidence, the engineering analysis of cycling impacts assessed accumulated damage to
equipment, components and materials over time as a result of cycling, as well as a result of
operating in other modes. The information obtained from the condition assessment, combined
with historical load cycles (including transient temperatures, pressures and related stresses), was
used as input into engineering damage models to obtain estimates of accumulated damage over
time and to determine remaining equipment life under a variety of possible future operating
modes. In such studies, the link between cycling effects on equipment and the visible
consequence to costs and performance was typically determined either using a top down
approach or a detailed component-specific cost analysis. In either case, the subject units
historical cost data was correlated with cycling effects on equipment (developed from historical
load profiles and engineering models).
Over time, as the number of engineering studies grew, certain aspects of the effects of cycling as
well as switching operating modes became better understood. Specifically, key findings of
engineering studies of cycling impacts included identifying the types of damage mechanisms
attributable to cycling load and quantifying accumulating damage resulting there from and
determining the consequences for material and the impact on equipment life expectancy. But
even more significant was the discovery that switching from cycling to baseload operation (or
vice versa) caused an interaction between fatigue (a damage mechanism resulting from
fluctuating stress associated with varying load) and creep (a damage mechanism resulting from
continuous stress associated with operating at steady state load levels). For certain materials, the
interaction of creep and fatigue was discovered to be synergistic, causing far more damage and
causing equipment and materials to fail much sooner than would have been expected as a result
of either individual condition, a relationship that heretofore had essentially been unknown. And
it was that interaction that was determined to be responsible for the premature failure of
components and equipment occurring at many of the fossil steam units that were being switched
from cycling back to baseload duty.
In some bottom up analyses, cycling cost studies have been conducted at a more aggregate level.
Specifically, unit-level rather than component-level data on costs and reliability of the subject
unit (and possibly a few other comparable units) have been statistically correlated to
4-4

accumulated damage to equipment over time. While those aggregate studies resemble statistical
or top down analyses, in actuality, they do not have the statistical robustness and reliability
generally associated with top down analyses because the underlying sample is too small and the
experience of the sample too limited. Moreover, they cannot be used to draw inferences out of
sample, i.e., for generating units not included in the sample unless they are identical to the
sample units. And even for units included in the sample, these partial or quasi top down
analyses may be of limited used for forecasting unless the future operations of a unit are
expected to be the same as in the past or the period of concern is relatively short, i.e., a couple of
years.
Aptech Services, Inc. has been a major contributor to the state of the art in engineering or bottom
up cycling studies [26-29]. The core of most engineering cycling impacts analyses was the
condition assessment and limited detailed analysis of a few components. Aptech was the first to
develop a comprehensive, integrated approach to studying cycling impacts at subject units,
covering all critical components and developing an historical profile of cause (load cycles) and
its sequential effects on a units equipment and then on its performance. Specifically, Aptech
established the relationship between a unit load cycle and the eventual manifestation of its effects
on unit cost and performance by specifying a cascading sequence of intermediate, interrelated
causal relationships. The framework of Aptechs analyses has a strong grounding in established
engineering principles, augmented over the years with hands-on experience acquired from
analyzing cycling impacts at specific plant sites. As discussed below, that framework provided a
strong basis for developing the specifications of multivariate statistical or top down models
because it established the causal relationship between load cycling and switching operating
modes (the independent variables) on eventual outcomesi.e., the effects on costs and
performance (the dependent variables).
Engineering Studies Sponsored by EPRI
The Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) has been in the forefront in addressing the issue of
cycling impacts at generating units. Recognizing the problem early on, EPRI began sponsoring
programs and providing platforms for industry discussion in the mid-1980s and continues to do
so. EPRI conducted several cycling conferences on the effects of cycling on plant condition and
consequences of cycling. The conferences provided a forum for discussions of power plant
cycling issues, aimed at identifying methods to achieve quicker response and lower minimum
loads at the lowest total cost. Initially motivated in many areas by nuclear power taking over a
greater share of baseload operations, in later years the driver was the increasingly competitive
business environment. EPRI Fossil Plant Cycling Conferences were held in 1983, 1985, 1987,
1990, 1994, and 1997. EPRI published reports detailing the proceedings, e.g., Proceedings: 1994
EPRI Fossil Plant Cycling Conference.
Studies of cycling-related problems and solutions at individual units were assessed in the early
1990s in a multi-volume report: Cycling Operation of Fossil-Fueled Power Plants [35]. Volumes
1-4 of the report covered various cycling issues at specific generating units: Niagara Mohawks
Oswego Unit #5 [35, Vol. 1]; PG&Es Moss Landing Units 6 & 7 [35, Vol. 2]; Pepcos Potomac
River Generating Station [35, Vol. 3]; and PSE&Gs Hudson Unit 2 [35, Vol. 4]. The last two
volumes covered basic issues facing utilities considering cycling baseload units including
4-5

guidelines for converting from baseload to cycling [35, Vol. 5] and evaluation and strategy issues
[35, Vol. 6].
Other EPRI studies dealt with specific systems, such as cycling of flue gas desulfurization (FGD)
units. From an engineering point of view, research continues on reliability of boiler components
due to a variety of concerns, including cycling: Impact of Operating Factors on Boiler
Availability [36]. Cycling has also been considered in guidelines to improve plant reliability.
Better understanding of the impacts of cycling is addressed in the recent report, Damage to
Power Plants Due to Cycling [37]. Methods to minimize and mitigate cycling impacts, especially
in steam turbines and boilers, are detailed in Guidelines on the Effects of Cycling Operation on
Maintenance Activities [38].
Much of EPRIs earlier R&D concentrated on so-called thick-walled components. Corrosion in
precipitators due to temperatures dropping below sulfuric acid dew points had also been
encountered. In more recent years, attention has shifted to water chemistry.
During the early 1990s, research on economic impacts was carried out using various approaches.
The results of the research suggested the possible cost of a unit startup in the range of $10,000 to
$15,000. If savings from shutting down exceeded this cost, then it might make sense to keep a
unit running. Alternatively, if losses exceeded that amount, it might make sense to shut down and
restart. EPRI managers express limited confidence in the $10,000 to $15,000 cost estimates,
recognizing that they were based on limited operating data and experience. In fact, the costs for
supercritical units might be far greater due to impacts on their high temperature components. In
an effort to improve the basis of economic assessments, EPRI initiated work on the development
of what would be the first statistical or top down analysis of cycling impacts. Unlike earlier
research, which had relied on limited data and experience obtained primarily from engineering
analyses of subject units, this new EPRI analysis wouldat least in conceptionbe based on data
reflecting the collective experience of many conventional Rankine cycle steam units.
Statistical or Top Down Studies
The first top down analyses of cycling impacts were developed as part of bottom up engineering-
centric analyses and were not based on industrywide data. As discussed above, those analyses
were based on sample sizes that were too small to provide statistically reliable results for out of
sample predictions.
Until the late 1990s, data limitations prevented the development of statistical industrywide
analyses, which would quantify the impacts of cycling on costs and performance for
conventional fossil steam units across the industry. That is, there were no industrywide databases
containing information on unit load cycles. However, in 1995, the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) began its Continuous Emissions Monitoring System (CEMS) [8], which required
that most fossil steam-electric plants
11
report, among other data, hourly gross MW output for
stacks and boilers, from which, in most cases, unit-level hourly production could be
determined.
12
While CEMS reporting requirements and forms changed over time, the

11
Certain combined cycle and combustion turbine units are also required to report to CEMS.
12
Unit on/off status is implied, i.e., all hours in a quarter must be included in the quarterly report even hours in
which the unit was off line. Thus, in the hours a unit is off-line, gross output is either reported as zero or left blank.
4-6

requirements with respect to reporting hourly gross MW output have remained the same and
consequently, those data should be consistent across all years in the database, from 1995 to the
present. By the late 1990s, the CEMS database had been collected for a sufficient number of
fossil steam units and for enough years to serve as a starting point for developing industrywide
statistical models of cycling impacts. Unlike the earlier engineering studies that were unit-
specific, a statistical analysis of industry data would provide the opportunity to study the
pervasiveness of cycling problems and impacts at conventional fossil steam units across the
industry.
While the CEMS database opened a tremendous advance in cycling cost analysis, there are some
limitations. Data cover only one set of variablesunit production of electricity on an hourly
basisand only a few years of that set of variables. Data for several other variables such as
costs, reliability, equipment designwould have to be integrated with the CEMS database to
develop a successful statistical model of cycling impacts. In addition, a method and/or variables
would have to be developed to describe / quantify / measure modes of operation and load cycle
at generating units using the CEMS datathe metrics. Moreover, to tap a longer history, a
method had to be developed to backcast those metrics in order to be able to describe modes of
operation at generating units in the years prior to 1995, i.e., the years before CEMS data had
been collected.
A substantial amount of data is collected and analyzed as part of an engineering analysis. Most
data, however, relate to either the results of the subject units condition assessment or to its
operating history. Operating history includes modes of operation, load cycle data including
temperatures, pressures and related stresses in the transient, component failure rates,
maintenance costs, replacement capital costs, reliability, availability, forced outage rates, etc., for
the subject unit, compiled for as many years as available from in-house databases. To the extent
possible, data are disaggregated, where appropriate and available, to the component level.
Because engineering studies generally use component-level datafailure rates, outages, de-
ratings, costs, etc., cause and effect can be linked explicitly. That is, failure rates by component
are known and can be correlated to the costs of actions taken as a result (repaired, replaced, did
nothing and allowed reliability to deteriorate, etc.). Statistical analyses, however, rely on data
that are available industrywide; and component-level data are not publicly available.
Consequently, a multivariate econometric model of costs and cycling impacts must rely on data
collected on a unit and plant level. And data collected on a unit or plant level does not separately
identify, say, cycling-related costs from all other production costs.
As a result, if a statistical analysis is to be developed to study cycling impacts industrywide, data
availability industrywide dictates the level of aggregation to be modeled as well as the causal
relationship to be specified. The dependent variable of a statistical cycling impacts model will
have to be either plant costs or unit (or plant) reliability / availability / commercial
availability.
13
Consequently, the independent variables to be considered in the analysis will have
to include all drivers affecting plant costs or unit reliabilitymany more factors than simply

13
Commercial availability is a relatively new measure of reliability developed by NERC to measure the reliability of
a unit relative to the period in which it is needed. Traditionally, if a unit went out of service due to a forced outage
event, it was considered to be in that state until the cause of the forced outage was repaired. For some units, e.g.,
peaking units, if a forced outage occurs close to a period when the unit will not be needed, it may not make
economic sense to repair the unit immediately
4-7

cycling activities. Specifically, even if only a subset of the population, such as conventional
fossil Rankine cycle steam units, is selected, the resulting sample will still comprise a
heterogeneous group of generating units and the model specifications will have to include all
drivers that cause costs to vary across generating units and plants industrywide and over time
including, but not limited to:
maintenance-related activities

equipment design and manufacturer
redundancy
vintage of technology
turbine design and pressure
fuel type, quality and deviation from design fuel specifications
MW capacity (including permanent uprates and downrates)
age
environmental equipment (including retrofits)
time between planned outages (boiler overhauls)
timing of turbine/generator overhauls,
plant configuration, size, economies of scale and scope
controls and instrumentation
as well as:
modes of operation over time, including cycling activity variables (historically measured
with variables such as number of hot starts, warm starts, cold starts, power cycles.
14
)
retrofit of equipment, especially, for greater flexibility in moving among duty cycles.
In addition, reliability will affect costs, and costs will affect reliability. Reliability derives from,
not only traceable cost items, but also from intangible factors of plant management.
In order to isolate and quantify the impact of any one variable on the dependent variable, e.g., the
effect of the number of hot starts on costs, it is necessary to control for the effects of all other key
variables systematically affecting costs. If the effects of key drivers of costs, other than cycling,
are not explicitly taken into account in the model, the coefficients of the cycling variables could
conceivably include the effects of other drivers and therefore bias estimates of the impacts of
cycling on costs.

14
Although the definition of power cycle was not clear in the analysis in which it was used [39, 40], we assume
that it refers to a rapid change in output, up or down, and is sometimes represented as a change of, say 60% of rated
capacity, or a lesser amount. Such definitions are discrete, and therefore easy to count and track, aspects of the
varying dynamics of unit operation.
4-8

Preliminary Statistical Studies Sponsored by EPRI
In the late 1990s, the first attempt to develop an industrywide statistical analysis of cycling
impacts was initiated by EPRI and to date that study represents the state of the art in top down
analyses of cycling impacts. EPRI initiated its Cycling Impacts Program
15
to improve the basis of
economic assessments of the costs of a unit startup. Specifically, initial work was to expand the
scope of the earlier analyses, which had been based on little data and experience, to include data
for a broad set of conventional fossil Rankine cycle steam units. The intent was to develop
statistical analyses of cycling costs, which would produce statistically reliable and robust
measures of the impacts of cycling on plants costs. The success of the effort would depend
greatly on the quantity and scope of data that could be obtained.
Once developed, the models could be used to infer the effects of cycling on costs and
performance for a specific unit, as well as to determine the impact of switching modes of
operation modes in the future, even if a mode was not within a units historical experience.
Moreover, the models could quantify the benefit of retrofitting equipment to facilitate moving
between operating modes. Finally the models would be able to quantify the effects of various
damage mechanisms on costs as well as separate those effects into the portion due cycling
operation, the portion due to baseload operation, the portion due to wear and tear from normal
aging, etc. These remain the goals of the EPRI program, yet they have been proven to be more
difficult to achieve than first envisioned. The primary hurdle was data insufficiency, although
EPRI also encountered problems in data quality that have only been recognized and corrected in
the current study. EPRIs 2001 report [39, 40] nevertheless sets forth a description of the issues
and progress made during the first years of the Cycling Impacts Program. While this work has
been supplanted by AERs subsequent analysis, selected findings from that work are briefly
summarized here.
The prior EPRI cycling cost modeling essentially focused on quantifying the impacts of cycling
on fossil steam plant costs, using a pooled, cross sectional, time-series database. Specifically,
annual data were compiled for selected fossil steam-electric plants industrywide. The database
covered only four years of annual data for each sample plant, 1995-1998, because CEMS data
were available only for those years. For many oil- and gas-fired steam units, hourly load data
were not collected in CEMS until 1996. Consequently, data for those units covered only three
years, 1996-1998. The database was reduced even further because the prior model specifications
essentially eliminated the first year of data for each plant from the database. Finally, a large
number of plants for which CEMS data had been reported were unfortunately excluded because
of a misinterpretation of CEMS documentation.
Three separate models, one for each fossil fuel, were developed: 1) coal-fired plants (528 plant-
years), 2) oil-fired steam plants (12 plant-years) and 3) gas-fired steam plants (82 plant-years).
Three types of load cycling variables were examined: 1) number of starts by type per year,
2) number of power cycles within specified ranges, and 3) ramp-up and ramp-down rates. The
load cycle variables that were statistically significant in at least one of the three models
developed included:

15
Within EPRIs target on Understanding Power & Fuel Markets and Generation Response, the research area
dealing with cycling costs is titled: Cycling Impacts: Wear & Tear Effects for Bidding, Budgeting, Reliability.
It has been referred by the number 67B.
4-9

Number of starts for the year: number of cold starts, warm starts and hot starts
Power cycles: between 20-40%, between 40-60% and greater than 60% of plant capacity
Ramp rates: up and down.
Many other load cycle variables were tested but were found to be statistically insignificant. In
the conclusions of that research report, the following observations were made:
Adequate data exist for preliminary first-order modeling of coal plants.
Long-term historical cost data (> 10 years) are needed for a reasonable sample of plants to
improve the Level I regression models.
Level II models have been developed for three plants in the database by calibrating the Level
I model form to long-term data from individual plants. Although these models are
preliminary, their success and dramatic reduction in uncertainty indicates that further
modeling efforts using this approach are worthwhile.
The small size of the database is far more serious than implied in these conclusions. It is not a
situation that will be remedied over time as additional years of CEMS data become available in
the future because it is not future data that are needed; it is historical data for the years prior to
1995 that need to be included. Specifically, the effects of cycling load at a unit are cumulative,
growing with each unit load cycle and the visible manifestation of those effects are delayed. By
including only the most recent four years of plant operations, the study ignored 25 or more years
of unit service (depending upon a units commercial operation date) and, in some cases, 20 years
of accumulated cycling damage over the life of a unit.
AERs Role in EPRIs Cycling Impacts Program
In 2000, Applied Economic Research (AER) was tasked with refining EPRIs preliminary costs
models by focusing on one specific area: incorporating unit cycling/operating history. Given
available time and resources, the near-term AER objective was to develop a methodology to
implicitly incorporate the cumulative effects of cycling-operating history over unit life, to obtain
a more accurate assessment of the (cumulative) impacts of cycling load on costs. It was expected
that the methodology would require no change in prior model specifications and no new data
collection, apart from adding the two additional years of data that had become available since
1998.
To accomplish the near-term objectives, AER set out the following (initial) methodology:
1. Develop prototypical load cycles/operating profiles by season for conventional fossil steam
units by analyzing detailed load cycle data available from CEMS for generating units for the
years 1995-2001.
2. Establish unit-specific minimum and maximum load levels and develop unit-specific
seasonal load profiles for each sample unit representing one of the prototypical profiles.
4-10

3. Correlate (quarterly, monthly, etc.) load cycle profiles and minimum/maximum load levels to
more aggregate measures of operating modes (such as service factor, gross output factor,
number of starts, reserve shutdown hours, forced de-ratings, etc.), as well as equipment
design.
4. Using the aggregate operating variables found to be highly correlated with typical load
profiles, backcast operating modes for the years (and quarters) prior to 1995, going back to
as early as 1969, drawing on AERs proprietary database.
16

5. Develop criteria for setting up generating unit cohort groups, i.e., comprising generating
units similar with respect to equipment design, vintage of technology, age, MW capacity,
fueland most important, operating and cycling history.
6. Develop plant cohort groups based on generating unit cohort group representation of its
units.
7. Based on items 5 and 6 above, assign each plant included in the initial database to its
appropriate cohort group.
8. Using the same model specifications, functional forms and statistical methods used in the
preliminary models, develop separate cycling impacts models for each plant cohort group.
Once we began work as planned, we became aware of a number of problems arose with the prior
study, including treatment of significant reporting errors in the CEMS database. In addition,
questions concerning the interpretation of CEMS data as well as the validity of assumptions and
calculations of variables developed as part of the study called into question the statistical
reliability and robustness of the preliminary cycling cost model results.
Specifically, the reliability and accuracy of the CEMS data were severely impaired because of
reporting errors in the first two years of data collection (1995 and 1996). Moreover, the changes
in the reporting form (three versions to date) as well as changes and mistakes in plant, boiler and
stack identifiers from quarter to quarter created severe obstacles to tracking a units identity and
data, much less the plants identity and data file(s), over time. While it is possible to correct the
CEMS database by cross validating it with other databases and to correct mistakes in identifiers,
the task is arduous and time-consuming. To this day, the EPAs CEMS database remains one of
the most difficult databases with which to work.
An even more fundamental problem identified was the apparent lack of a cohesive framework
for model development and specification of causal relationships, much less the hypothetical
relationships and the functional form of those relationships to be tested for statistical
significance. (For example, as will be discussed in the next chapter, since cycling damage
accumulates with each load cycle, and the rate at which it accumulates is nonlinear, a key
independent variable in a cycling cost model is a variable measuring damage accumulation,

16
AER database covers the years 1969-2001. Consequently, for units that began operation prior to 1969, the initial
years of operation would not be included. The earliest year included in the AER plant/generating unit historical
database is 1969 because it was the year in which a number of data sources began to have consistent data available
for most conventional steam units and plants industrywide, as well as the year in which a number of key
industrywide databases were started.
4-11

and the functional form of that variable must be flexible enough to allow the determination of the
appropriate nonlinear function. While the top down treatment did not provide a framework or
establish the link/relationship between cycling and costs, engineering studies of cycling impacts
did [27, 28]. Those bottom up studies developed analyses starting with established engineering
principles as a basis and, in the course of their analyses, made discoveries that actually advanced
the state-of-the-art considerably beyond established principles. Among the more significant
findings from engineering studies are the following central points:
Load cycling, or for that matter, any mode of operation, does not directly affect generating
unit performance and costs. The link between operating mode and outcomes (i.e., effects on
costs and performance) is through a series of cascading interrelated causal models that link
operating mode/cycling activity to thermal cycle conditions, including transient temperatures,
pressures and related types of stresses. The type of operating mode creates specific types of
stresses:
Steady state load operation = continuous stress at high temperatures and pressures;
Cycling modes = fluctuating stresses associated with fluctuating temperatures and
pressures in the transient.
The stresses associated with each mode of operation, in turn, trigger certain types of damage
mechanisms, some predominantly associated with that mode of operation. Resulting damage
accumulates, and material and component life is expended. Eventually failure mechanisms
are triggered. At this point, the consequences of a particular operating mode become manifest
as components fail, tubes and pipes rupture, the incidence and duration of forced outages due
to malfunctioning of certain components increase, overall unit reliability deteriorates and
replacement capital costs and operations and maintenance expenditures increase.
In the end, the prior work raised several questions and issues that needed to be resolved.
Consequently, AER decided that continuing the efforts as originally planned would likely yield
only modestly better-specified statistical models which, while based on a larger database with
more recent information, would probably not provide substantively more insight.
To summarize, the following issues called for a redirection of cycling cost research:
1. As noted above, the prior database covers only the four years for which CEMS data were
available (1995-1998). The effects of cycling are cumulative and their manifestation,
delayed. By including only the most recent four years of plant operations, the analysis
excluded the very data needed to answer the question. By 1995, roughly 80% of the units
reporting CEMS data were over 20 years old and thus 20 years of operating and cycling
history and resulting damage were not captured. The majority of the units in EPRIs sample
had switched operating modes at least once during that 20-year period.
While the type of load data being collected as part of CEMS was an important determinant in
being able to develop top down analyses of cycling impacts, mere availability of such data
was not a sufficient basis for selecting years to include in the database that would be the basis
of statistical analysis of cycling impacts.
4-12

2. The CEMS data were initially obtained from compact discs, which are supplied by the EPA
to the public on a quarterly basis. The CDs for several quarters were data files, i.e.,
stacks/boilers. Specifically, the following years/quarters were missing a number of data files:
1998, Q3 missing roughly 165 out of 1,950 files; 1998, Q4 missing 125 out of 1,900 data
files; 1999, Q1 missing 130 out of 1,900 data files; 2000, Q2 missing 500 out of 2,500 data
files. We could not verify if the missing data files in 1998 had been noticed and downloaded
from the EPA website.
3. No mention was made or documentation provided regarding methods used to correct
erroneous CEMS data:
Changes in plant and unit identifiers from quarter to quarter created problems in
tracking unit and plant data from quarter to quarter over time;
Significant reporting errors in gross MW output, as well as overlapping records in
adjacent quarters (although, contrary to expectations, the values for the same variables do
not match across the overlapping quarters) were encountered.
4. Incorrect interpretations of CEMS documentation resulted in database errors:
An incorrect assumption was made that the unit identifier in CEMS represented a
generator identifier, when, in fact, it represented a boiler identifier.
At plants where a boiler identifier happened to match a generator identifier (but not
the generator with which it was associated), CEMS hourly load data for the boiler would
be incorrectly matched to, say, unit equipment design data from another source based on
mismatched identifiers.
Moreover, when multiple boilers are associated with a generator or generators, or
multiple generators are associated with a single boiler, the problem is exacerbated.
Specifically, any boiler identifier (within the associated group of boilers and generators)
that matches a generator identifier (within the group or a stand-alone generator) means
that the matched generator has essentially been defined as the unit, and basically
ignores the fact that the unit is a collection of boilers and generators that operate together.
The unit is now either being represented by one of the generators in the collected group
or, in the case of the stand-alone generator mismatch, is simply the wrong unit.
Roughly 10% of the sample in the prior EPRI study displayed this problem.
At plants where there was no match between boiler and generator identifiers, the plant
and its units were simply eliminated from database because they could not be matched by
consulting any other database. As a result, a large number of plants and associated units,
particularly gas- and oil-steam units, were unnecessarily eliminated from the database,
further shrinking the already small number of plant-years used to develop each of the
respective models.
Roughly 5% of the sample displayed this problem.
17

17
Indeed, one of the conclusions reached in the prior report was that the sample sizes for the oil and gas models were
too small to produce statistically reliable results.
4-13

5. Incorrect assumptions and resulting algorithms were used to develop certain key load
cycling variables, like number of hot starts variable.
No discussion was included on the definition of a unit load cycle and the underlying
basis for the load cycling variables created to represent cycling activity. Moreover,
many of the load cycle variables, with the exception of starts, were not statistically
significant in any of the preliminary cycling cost models.
Most fundamentally, no underlying paradigm or framework was used as a basis for
developing cost model specifications, i.e., no discussion of the underlying causal
relationship between load cycling and eventual manifestations of its effects on costs
and reliability (like the paradigm set out in engineering analyses like Aptechs.)
Finally, AERs proposed development of cohort groups of plants based on similarity of plant
operating history was difficult to do empirically. First, cohort groups of generating units were to
be derived on the basis of similarity of, among other factors, operating history. The criteria used
to define similarity in operating history were less than straightforward. For example, if two units
were 30 years old and both had two-shifted for 10 years and had been baseloaded the rest of the
time, did it matter that one unit had done so between ages 5 and 15 and the other between ages
15 and 25? And so forth.
18
Second, cohort groups of plants were to be developed based on their
composition of generating unit cohort groups (as represented by their units). The problem of
similarity of operating history on a plant level became almost intractable.
It became apparent that a methodology, which included operating history implicitly in cycling
impacts models, would be seriously flawed. Implicitly incorporating operating history involved
too many discretionary decisions concerning what constituted similarity in terms of plant
operating history. The cohort plant solution did not go a long way toward ameliorating the
original problem. It also introduced problems from severe pruning. For example, because the
Phase 2 database contained so few oil- and gas-steam plants, even if creating plant cohort groups
had been tractable, segmenting those plants into cohort groups would have further reduced the
already small sample sizes for these plants.
The issues outlined above prompted AER to conduct an in-depth investigation of the relationship
between unit load cycles and unit costs and performance. That relationship would provide a
framework for analyzing cycling impacts as well as a basis for developing model specifications.
The investigation focused on the fundamental logic, causal interrelationships and dynamics, key
model variables and principal issues that need to be addressed when identifying and quantifying
cycling impacts on unit performance and costs.
The revised methodology followed by AER and important findings on just what constitutes a
load cycle are addressed next.

18
From our investigation, we have reason to believe that these types of questions are generally worth raising and
testing statistically in our models.
4-14
5
ENGINEERING PRINCIPLES DISTILLED TO DEVELOP
AER STATISTICAL MODEL
We began this report asking the following questions:
What is cycling? What is a load cycle? How do you measure it?
What are the impacts of a load cycle? What specific parts of the cycle are harmful? How
are they harmful? And more specifically, why/how does cycling a unit affect its future costs and
performance?
Do the impacts of load cycling vary across units, depending upon unit design? And again, more
specifically, what is the basis for the generally held belief that cycling units designed baseload
duty is far worse than cycling units designed to operate in a cycling mode?
In the next two chapters, we will set a course to answering these questions, first reviewing the
essential physical concepts that must be honored in any statistical analysis, and then outlining
AERs response. The review of essential principles underlies our statistical modeling of cycling
costs/effects, and draws on information and insights gleaned from previous cycling studies,
related engineering principles, and AERs analyses and modeling to date. (The questions will be
addressed in a somewhat different order than above, in order to preserve flow of text.)
What is Cycling?
And what is a load cycle and what was the impetus for the practice of load cycling?
Before developing what will become the basis of our analysis of cycling impacts, a definition of
a cycle or cycling is needed. We have deliberately been somewhat loose and vague in our
use of the term cycling throughout the report to this pointbecause the studies and texts
reviewed were ambiguous and somewhat relaxed in their use of the term cycling. Moreover, to
the extent it was possible to discern, it appeared that the interpretation of the term varied
considerably among studies.
We limit our definition of a cycle to a generic description of a cycle, which is all that is needed
for the discussion immediately following.
19
A cycle is a recurring sequence/pattern of events
which, when viewed over a long enough period of time, is found to repeat itself. In a sense, when
observing cyclical behavior, time is circular (it comes back around), once the period of a cycle
is determined.

19
This definition will be amplified, as needed, in subsequent sections.
5-1

Engineering Principles Distilled to Develop AER Statistical Model
Cycles in Electricity Demand
With respect to electricity, electricity demand is the cycle that initiates the load cycle, and
indirectly causes a cascading series of cycles as a result of the load cycle.
The demand for electricity is a derived demand, that is, it is not consumed directly by the
customer (like a sandwich), but rather is used to fuel an end-use, like air conditioners, to
consume the final commodity (cooled air). Electricity demand is cyclical; it rises and falls in
the same pattern over a set period, say, a day, week, season, year. In the case of electricity,
demand varies in a consistent cyclical pattern by time of day, day of the week, season of the
year. However, what makes electricity unique among commodities for which demand is cyclical
is that typically electricity supply cannot be stored in inventory until it is needed.
20
Electricity
supply levels must match demand levels instantaneously; power must be available precisely at
the moment that demand occurs.
From the Demand Cycle to Cycles in Electricity Supply, i.e., the Load Cycle
It is the cycle in electricity demand that is the driver of load cycles of electricity supplythe
generating unitsin one way or another.
Baseload Mode. At one extreme are the baseloads operating continuously at close to full load.
Historically, some power plants, because of their relative economics compared to other supply
sources on the system, were among the first to be dispatched/run and ran continuously year-
round at high load factors (roughly 95% of maximum continuous rating [MCR]) and had few
shutdowns and startups over the course of a year (for a planned boiler or turbine overhaul).
These plants operated as baseload capacity. Units intended for baseload use were designed and
built to operate most efficiently at steady-state, high load levels. They were designed to take full
advantage of the energy available from high temperature, high pressure steam. Conventional
steam plants operate at temperatures over 1700 psig and final steam temperatures over 900F,
subcritical plants operate at 2400 psig and 1000F and supercritical plants operate at 3200+ psig
and 1000+ F). One additional design characteristic of Rankine cycle steam baseload-design
electric generating units, at least in the United States, was that they were normally designed for
operation with constant pressure and temperature at the turbine throttle throughout most of the
operating range, i.e., the steam exiting the boiler to the turbine throttle must be at design
temperature and pressure conditions for maximum efficiency.
Cycling Mode. Other electric generating units were designed to operate in cycling modes. In
some cases, the cycling mode was one that mimicked, to varying degrees, cycles in electricity
demand. That is, unlike baseload units that operate at steady-state, high load levels continuously
over the course of, say, a day, cycling units vary their hourly load depending upon demand
levels. Depending, once again, upon their relative economics within the group of non-baseload
units, some units smoothly followed load over the course of a day, while other units would be
expected to vary load continuously, responding to requests for load increases/reductions as
needed to balance load on a system.

20
Hydroelectric dams and batteries can only store limited amounts of electricity.
5-2

Generally, the load followers are considered to operate at intermediate duty cycles, and
indeed, while not constant like baseload plants, their production swings did not exhibit the high
intra-/inter-hour volatility/high frequency pattern of spinning reserve capacity (where
production can be considerably more volatile than demand). Generally, peaker, single cycle,
combustion turbines, hydroelectric units, and older, lower temperature, lower pressure oil and
gas steam units were expected to operate in a non-baseload mode.
We will discuss modes of unit operation in greater detail, specifying the functional
form/specification of load cycles in the next chapter. It is sufficient to understand that when a
unit cycles load, time enters as a variable in the equation. That is, if a unit is baseloaded, time is
irrelevant to describing cycles because load is invariant over time. However, when a unit cycles,
its production is a function of the hour of the day, day of the week, season of the year, etc.
What are the Impacts of a Load Cycle?
And more specifically, why/how does cycling a unit affect its future costs and performance?
From the Unit Load Cycle to Thermal Cycles (aka Temperatures and Pressures
in the Transient)
21

The Engineering Studies
Engineering analyses have linked the unit load cycle to its eventual impacts on unit costs and
performances through a cascading sequence of interrelated, intermediate causal relationships.
The nature of the relationships is depicted in the flow diagram in Figure 5-1. Load cycles are
linked to impacts on unit performance and costs through a progression of four cascading causal
cycles and interrelationships. The flow is from unit load cycle to thermal cycle to damage
mechanisms and accumulated damage to the ultimate impacts on unit performance and costs.
The relationships are not quite as linear and sequential as suggested above or depicted in Figure
5-1. Feedback occurs among the various stages as operating history grows and damage caused by
the units mode(s) of operation accumulates.
What Specific Parts of the Cycle are Harmful? and How are they
Harmful?
The following engineering precepts are some of the key hypotheses to be tested in the AER
statistical cycling cost models:
1. The effects of load cycling are caused by the rate and range of change in transient

21
Note on title: Everybody talks about temperatures and pressures in the Transient when discussing load cycling,
but nobody explains it, not unlike the way the term load cycling is tossed about. Ironically, the fuzziness in the
definition and metrics for cycling almost precludes obtaining any serious quantification of its impacts on unit
costs and performance.
5-3

5-4
Generating Unit Load Cycle
Thermal Cycle:
Transient Temperatures,
Pressures and Relative Stresses
Cycling Damage
Mechanisms
Consequences of Cycling
Daily Intra & Interhour Variations
Generating Unit Output
Equipment/Components/Materials Equipment/Components/Materials Decision: Delay Action, Repair,
Replace, Retire?
Load Cycle Types & Attributes
Cyclic Patterns in Output
Thermal Cycle. Heat Balance @
each load
Temperature (F)
Pressure (psi)
Flow (lb/h)
Fluctuating Stress:
= /(rate of change, range of change and
load cycles)
Continuous Stress:
= /(steady state operation at various load
levels)
Load cycling damage mechanisms
Accumulated damage:
= /(rate of change, range of change and
load cycles)
transient temperatures and pressures
Corrosion Fatigue
ErosionCorrosion
Solid Particle Erosion
Cavitation
Low Cycle Mechanical Fatigue
High Cycle Mechanical Fatigue
Thermal Fatigue
Contaminants in-Leakage etc.
Steady state load damage
mechanisms
Accumulated damage:
= /(steady state operation at various
load levels)
Creep
Erosion
Corrosion
Stress Corrosion
Switch
Between steady state and varying load
or vice versa
Interaction of cycling and steady state
damage mechanisms
Creep-Fatigue Interactionsynergistic
Equipment
High Failure Rate
Shortened Life Expectancy
Cracking due to Fatigue
Tube Leaks, Ruptures
Thinning Tube Wells
Unit Technical Performance
Increase in Outages: incidence &
duration
Forced
Planned
Increase in Forced Derates:
frequency & magnitude
Decreased Unit Availability
Deterioration in Heat Rate Curve
Increase in Fuel Use
Lower than Expected MWh Output
Production Costs
Increase in Maintenance
Expenditures
Increase in Operations
Expenditures
Increase in Fuel Expenditures
Increase in Capital Replacement
deterioration of heat rate curve

Figure 5-1
Framework for Evaluating Effects of Load Cycling on Power Plant Costs and Performance

2. Operating in any mode triggers damage mechanisms, and damage to materials and equipment
accumulates over time (i.e., service years).
3. Cycling load is associated with stresses from varying temperatures and pressures in the
transient, which trigger fatigue and fatigue-related damage mechanisms. Damage
accumulates with each cycle and severity of damage is a function of type of load cycle.
4. Steady-state load operation is associated with stresses from operating constantly at high
temperatures and high pressures, which trigger creep and creep-related damage mechanisms.
Damage accumulates with the duration of operation at specific temperature and pressure
levels.
The brief discussion here on cycling load at conventional fossil Rankine cycle steam units is
presented in order to set up an analytic framework within which AER can specify and develop
multivariate econometric models that explain the relationship between load cyclingor, for that
matter, any mode of operationand generating unit cost and performance. The framework
should address the major questions raised in this chapter. To these questions we also add: Do the
impacts of load cycling vary across units, depending upon unit design? Or more specifically,
what is the basis for the generally held belief that cycling units designed for baseload duty is far
worse than cycling units designed to operate in a cycling mode?
Cycling Conventional Fossil Rankine Cycle Steam-Electric Generating Units
Conventional fossil-fired steam-electric units are a complex configuration of highly interrelated,
engineered systems and interactive processes that work together to produce electricity by
transforming energy from one form to another. The design of a unit depends upon, among other
factors, the anticipated mode of operation. As mentioned, conventional fossil steam units were
typically designed to operate as baseload capacity. That is, they were designed to operate most
efficiently at steady state, high load levels (roughly 95% of their maximum continuous rating)
with few startups over a year, thereby taking full advantage of the energy available from high
temperature, high pressure steam.
Over time, with advances in metallurgy, subsequent generations of fossil steam-electric
generating units were not only larger than their predecessors, they could handle progressively
higher pressure and temperature steam, thereby operating at greater efficiencies. An important
characteristic of conventional baseload fossil steam units built in the United States is that they
were normally designed for operation at constant pressure and temperature at the turbine throttle
throughout most of the operating range, i.e., steam exiting the final superheater outlet to the
turbine throttle must be at design temperature and pressure conditions for maximum efficiency.
While that design feature maximizes efficiency when a unit is baseloaded, it is the least efficient
for non-baseload modes of operation and would not have been included as part of the design of a
generating unit intended for cycling operations. Other types of electric generating units, such as
single-cycle combustion turbines, were specifically designed to operate efficiently in cycling
modes.
5-5

Figure 5-2 traces the sequential changes in water/steam temperature, pressure, enthalpy and
steam mass flow rate by system and component, moving through the entire thermal cycle for a
typical 2400 psig/1000F unit, operating at steady state, close to full load. As shown, the steam
exiting the superheater into the turbine throttle is at design pressure and temperature (rendered in
red on diagram). Load is cycled at a unit through changes in water and steam temperatures and
pressures in all components with one exception: steam exiting the superheater to the turbine
throttle is still at design temperature (and pressure) for most of the load range.
100

240
2400
1000F
Figure 5-2
Thermal Cycle: Heat Balance Diagram for Typical 2400psig/1000F Unit @ Full Load
Source: 1992, The Babcock & Wilcox Company, STEAM, its generation and use [14]
When a unit is shut down, both temperatures and pressures of components are affected. As the
unit cycles and comes down in load, most of the steam and water systems experience significant
reductions in temperature and pressure, with concomitant shortening of the life of components
and materials due to repeated thermal and cyclic stresses. The cumulative effects of cycling
5-6

damage are exacerbated by the rate of change of those parameters. Specifically, the range of
temperature change during the transient period varies by type of load cycle and component. For
example, if a unit has been shut down for two weeks, its boiler experiences a larger temperature
range from startup to steady state operation than a unit that has been offline for only 24 hours
prior to startup; a unit that follows load, with a downswing from 101% to 8% of its rated
capacity, experiences a wider range in boiler temperature during its transient period than one
whose load downswing is within a narrower range of 95% and 65% of rated capacity.
Cycling baseload fossil steam units results in damage to equipment; that damage accumulates
over time. Specifically, varying load at a unit causes mechanical, thermal, corrosion fatigue,
erosion, erosion-corrosion and other failure mechanisms to act on plant systems and components.
That leads to excessive tube failures, shortened equipment life, exacerbated premature aging of
equipment, cracking of vessels and many other types of equipment deterioration or failures.
Cycling problems are even more severe at high pressure, high temperature steam units (units
operating at pressures 1800+ psig and temperatures 1000+ F) because the design of those types
of units requires thicker pressure parts such as tubes, headers, drums, turbine casings, etc. Thick-
walled components are particularly susceptible to fatigue damage because the temperature
differential across the gradient from the outer surface to the interior of the vessel causes unequal
rates of expansion and contraction. In addition, steam cycles are more complex, and their design
includes more components. The larger units utilize a greater number of feedwater heaters,
waterwalls and superheaters, as well as much thicker casings, cylinders, valve bodies, etc. The
effects of drops in pressure and temperatures are more severe when components have heavier
walls, and that increases the likelihood of thermal fatigue as well.
The discovery of the synergy between creep and fatigue is relatively recent (early 1990s) in the
history of conventional fossil Rankine cycle steam-electric generating units, and is not yet
completely understood. Nonetheless, what has become apparent from the collective industry
experience is that creep-fatigue interaction causes significantly more damage and curtails
material and component life much sooner than either damage mechanism would on its own. The
combination of sustained damage due to one type of stress is compounded when components are
subjected to another, different type of stress.
For example, if a unit has operated as baseload capacity, it will have been subjected to
continuous stress associated with steady state, high load operation at corresponding high
temperatures and pressures. As a result, over the years, the unit will have sustained creep
damage. As noted, if a unit cycles load, the stress damage mechanism that is triggered is fatigue
(thermal and mechanical) because of fluctuating temperatures and pressures in the transient. For
the unit in our example, however, because it had been baseloaded, the effect of fatigue stresses
are compounded by the sustained creep damage and, for some material, the rate of damage
accumulation is accelerated and life expectancy considerably shortened from that expected if it
had continued to operate as a baseload unit. The opposite case, switching from cycling to
baseload operation causes similar accelerated damage and shortening in material life because
of continuous stress and creep damage in the presence of sustained fatigue damage.
5-7

What is a Load Cycle? How do you Measure it?
The Metrics of a Load Cycle
Developing the metrics to describe cycling is one of the most difficult parts of conducting a
statistical industrywide cycling cost analysis because it involves the creation of definitions and
metrics that are both flexible enough and precise enough to characterize the load cycle across
myriad different types of units (the only commonality being that they are Rankine cycle fossil
steam electric generating units), across myriad load cycle patterns, across the various demand
seasons in a year, across all days of the week, etc.
Initially we sorted through the various ways and contexts in which a load cycle had been defined
in previous studies. For guidance, we turned to: (1) engineering and construction firmsthe
people who designed and built these units, (2) electric industry sourcespeople who run the
units, and (3) previous cycling impacts studies conducted via applying both engineering (bottom
up) and statistical (top down) methodologies. Different definitions are provided below, along
with a discussion of cycling variables commonly used to describe load cycles.
Engineering and Construction Firms
There are two types of cycles at electric generating units: the On/Off Cycle and the Load Cycle
(when the unit is on). The first type of cycle activity, On/Off Cycle, is the most well documented
and easily understood. Babcock & Wilcox [14] offers the following definitions of cycles:
Two types of cycling service are usually considered: load cycling and on/off cycling. The
on/off type has also been called two shifting.
A cycle is considered to start at full load, full temperature steady-state conditions. It goes
through a load change, then returns to the initial conditions. A typical load cycle is then
composed of three phases: 1) load reduction, 2) low load operation and 3) reloading. A
typical on/off cycle has four phases: 1) load reduction, 2) idle, 3) restart, and 4) reload. The
phase that is often ignored, the idle period, can offer the greatest potential for reducing cyclic
damage.
Electric Industry Sources
One schema in wide use among the people who run generating units emanates from The North
American Electric Reliability Council (NERC). In NERCs Generating Availability Data System
[2], Fossil Unit Design database, the understanding of load can be inferred from its
classification of fossil-fired steam generating units into one of five possible design modes of
operation (based on plant operator response):
1. Baseload with minor load following
2. Periodic startup, load follow daily, reduced load nightly
5-8

3. Weekly startup, load follow daily, reduced load nightly
4. Daily startup, load follow daily, off-line nightly
5. Startup chiefly to meet daily demand.
Today, as we move from regulated to competitive generation markets, cycling modes of fossil
steam unit operation include not only the five listed above, but also high intra- and inter-hour
frequency load cycles, which occur when supplying ancillary services such as regulation
requiring automatic generation control (AGC) and reactive load (VARs) to a centralized,
regional, generation dispatch and control center. It should be noted that high frequency intra- and
inter-hour cycles are not included among the NERC GADS list above because most conventional
fossil steam units were not designed, or even considered, for such service during their design
phase. It is interesting to note that the NERC Pedigree database indicates that 95% of
conventional fossil-fired steam-electric generating units in the United Statesthe focus of this
study as well as the previous EPRI statistical studywere designed to operate as baseload with
minor load following (Mode #1).
As discussed, most large baseload fossil steam units have been cycled at some time over the past
20 years. Usually, their daily cycles were demand-related, that is, the pattern of their hourly load
over the course of a day has closely mimicked the movement in hourly electricity demand and
usually their load cycles can be described as load follow daily, reduced load nightly (Modes #2
and #3 above). Fossil steam units that have been two-shifting (daily startup and shutdown) have
generally been smaller and older vintage units; almost no coal units have been two-shifting,
because half the day would be spent ramping up and ramping down, leading to significant cost
inefficiencies.
22

Previous Cycling Impacts Studies
Engineering/Bottom Upfrom ApTech:
Owners, operators, and analysts all operate from individual understandings and definitions
of cycling. These have varied from on/off starts (normally defined as hot, warm, and cold
starts) and two-shifting to load cycling and high frequency load variations. [27, 28] ApTech
includes hot starts, warm starts, cold starts and equivalent hot starts in quantifying the
on/off cycle. It characterizes a typical load cycle for the unit under analysis in terms of the
numbers of upswings and downswings based on an analysis of that units pattern of
production.
Statistical/Top Downfrom prior EPRI statistical models:
Three types of load cycling variables were used to characterize cycling of generating units:
1) number of starts per year by type, 2) number of power cycles within specified ranges, and
3) ramp-up and ramp-down rates. No clarification was given of the variable power cycles.
[40]

22
In England, because of the cost competitive position of coal units relative to new merchant power plants, coal units
were retrofit to permit two-shifting with considerable success.

5-9

The implicit assumption underlying the statistical cycling impact models developed to date is
that the cycling variables (numbers of hot starts, power cycles, etc.) are sufficient to capture
the intermediate sequential causal interrelationships that occur before the manifestations of
cycling effects become visible. That is, the cycling variables capture the damage mechanisms
that are triggered, accumulated damage to components, equipment and materials, as well as the
effect of the interaction of damage mechanisms on equipment life expectancy, which, in turn,
eventually become manifest in their effects on performance and costs.
The metrics used to set up load variables in the statistical studies done to date are problematic
and do not adequately describe the load cycle. The load cycle pattern portrayal is key to
statistical analyses of cycling impacts because the load cycle is the embodiment of its effects
on physical damage to equipment. Specifically, the load cycle drives thermal cycles and
associated temperatures and pressures in the transient. These cycles, in turn, trigger certain
damage mechanisms, causing damage to materials, components and equipment to accumulate.
The rate of damage accumulation, in turn, affects remaining equipment life.
The load cycle variables developed in the cycling studies to date, are static, discrete and under-
representations of load cycles in the sense that they simplistically characterize the dynamic
nature of a cycle, which is the sequential pattern of unit load over time. Specifically, they
break up the load cycle into discrete pieces, such as the number of upswings of 60+ percentage
points in capacity factor over a year, the number of upswings between 40 and 60 percentage
points over the same period, etc. The sequence of upswings over time is lost, implying that the
impacts of the change in hourly load between 8 am and 9 am is unaffected by the change
between 7 am and 8 am, 6 am and 7 am, etc.
Also, the criteria used to develop a specific load cycle variable were typically applied
universally to all generating units in a sample, ignoring the fact that load cycles are unit-
specific. The attributes of a cycle (e.g., amplitude, frequency, periodicity) are a function of a
units equipment design and capability for flexible cycling operation, e.g., bypass systems and
constant versus variable turbine throttle pressure, etc. Those factors include thermal cycle
temperatures, pressures and related stresses in the transient, minimum MW load, control point
load, ramp rates, HP turbine tolerance for deviations from design temperature and pressure, etc.
The discrete variables that have been used to categorize and measure load cycles have generally
removed time as a variable in the equation. In many cases, we have found that two units may
have completely different time patterns, yet their values measured using traditional discrete
variables are similar.
23
This almost universal simplification may be misleading where estimates
of damage are not backed up by detailed condition assessments. Given that the thermal stresses
associated with cycling load are affected by the distribution of the stress (which is uneven),
damage rates are most likely affected by the type of prior cycle, associated timing and transients,
relative to the current cycle.

23
The Appendix includes a table where similar mathematical distributions of load changes can be compared to the
rather different round-the-clock patterns of plant operations. Operating patterns are discussed in the next chapter.
5-10
6
AER STATISTICAL MODELS: STRUCTURE,
SPECIFICATIONS AND DATA
In this chapter we set out the statistical specifications of the AER cycling cost models and
discuss database and related issues. In the next chapter we present results of some preliminary
statistical analyses.
The Load Cycle: Specification
We found the terms used by builders, operators and analyst/modelers to be insufficiently precise
to be expressed in an equation that demonstrates and measures the relationships between the
variables and allows us to identify correlations. However, we did adopt the concept of two types
of cycles: the On/Off Cycle and the Load Cycle.
The On/Off Cycle is mainly characterized by hot, warm and cold starts, i.e., the time between a
units stop and startup. AER has developed its own metrics to describe and quantify the key
attributes of a load cycle. Lets start with cycle. A cycle is a periodically repeated pattern
of eventsin this context: load levelsand a cycle can be conveniently represented as a
circle. That is, once a series of events has completed one round, effectively we are back at the
beginning of the sequence and the next round of events follows the same pattern as the first. The
attributes of a simple cycle are:

Periodicity - recurrence at regular intervals
Frequency - the number of times a specified phenomenon occurs within a specified interval
Amplitude - greatness of size; magnitude
The AER prototypical cycles depict loading patterns observed at conventional fossil Rankine
cycle steam-electric units across the United States, the units under analysis in this study.
Specifically, a unit load cycle was assumed to recur weekly for a specific seasonthat is, the
hourly pattern in load repeats itself after one week. (Initially we had selected a 24-hour day as
the period of the cycle, but it became obvious for certain cycling modes that the pattern in load
varied by day of the week; the most notable differences were between weekends and weekdays.)
Based on the cycle patterns found in reviewing CEMS hourly production data for significant
numbers of fossil steam units,
24
AER set up 14 prototypical patterns of unit load cycles.
Basically, we found five broad categories of operating modes:

24
Over 2,000 unit-quarters of CEMS hourly data were reviewed to develop the 14 prototypical patterns.
6-1

AER Statistical Models: Structure, Specifications and Data
1. baseload - constant, high level of output (3 subtypes)
2. intermediate - maximum output during day/minimum load at night (3 subtypes)
3. load following (4 subtypes, summer and winter, different minimum loads)
4. peakers (2 types, two-shifting)
5. high intra- and inter-hour frequencies (2 types, random load fluctuation)
Within each category, two or three variations were suggested by the data. The 14 prototypes are
detailed in Appendix A. Here we consider one from each of the five categories.
The duty cycle nomenclature used to describe the prototypes is close to the categories used in
the NERC Pedigree database and actually now, with these depictions, the Pedigree descriptions
become obvious. The one additional operating mode not included in Pedigree is that depicted in
Cycle 0a and Cycle 0b, which resembles the type of inter-hour load pattern associated with
provision of regulation with automatic generation control.
Layout of Load Cycle Charts. The radial gridlines on these charts are the 168 hours in a week;
the circular gridlines are graduated capacity factors, with the center of the circles representing
the lowest capacity, i.e., 0%; and each successive circle represents a higher level capacity factor,
with the outermost at 100%+. Each line charted represents a week of hourly capacity factors for
the prototypical unit in the season or quarter (usually 12-13 such lines).
The methodology that will be used will mathematically represent the entire load cycle and is
detailed below. The benefits of using equations are that: 1) load cycles, which have proven
stubbornly resistant to definition, do not have to be broken down into discrete bits; 2) they are
completely characterized by the functional form that best fits the data and its properties; and
3) differences in load patterns can be described simply by comparing respective equations. Once
the equations are developed, the functional forms for the 14 patterns can be fit to load cycle data
for each generating unit in the sample. Obviously, because the principal driver of load cycle
electricity demand from the end-uservaries by season of the year, a unit could have a different
loading pattern depending upon season. Consequently, load cycle equations will be allowed to
vary by season.
Fitting the Load Cycle Curves
The modeling framework for the dynamic behavior of cycling load is based on a set of
fundamental factors:
The physical characteristics and limitations of the underlying power generation system
Dynamic changes in the economic arena in which the system participates
The relative cost competitive position of unit with respect to competitors, or alternate sources
of supply
Changes in the regulatory environment in which the system operates
Climate and weather volatility.
6-2

0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Su n 1 2 AM
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
9 1 0
1 1
1 2 PM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1 0
11
Mon 12 AM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
1 2 PM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 1
Tue s 1 2 A
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1 0
1 1
12 P M
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 1
We d 1 2 AM
1
2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 0 11
1 2 P M
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10
11
Thu rs 12 AM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1 0
1 1
1 2 P M
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 1
Fri 1 2 AM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1 0
11
1 2 PM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1 0
1 1
S a t 1 2 AM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12 P M
1
2 3
4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Sun 12 AM
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10
11
12 P M
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Mon 12 AM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12 P M
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Tues 12 AM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12 P M
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Wed 12 AM
1
2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
12 P M
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10
11
Thurs 12 AM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12 P M
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Fri 12 AM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12 P M
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Sat 12 AM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12 P M
1
2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Sun 12 AM
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
9 10
11
12 PM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Mon 12 AM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12 PM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Tues 12
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12 PM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Wed 12 AM
1
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
12 PM
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11
Thurs 12 AM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12 PM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Fri 12 AM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12 PM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Sat 12 AM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12 PM
1
2 3
4 5 6 7 8 910 11
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Sun 12 AM
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
9 10
11
12 P M
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Mon 12 AM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12 PM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Tue s 12
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12 P M
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Wed 12 AM
1
2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
12 PM
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10
11
Thurs 12 AM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12 PM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Fri 12 AM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12 PM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Sat 12 AM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12 PM
1
2 3
4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Sun 12 AM
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10
11
12 PM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Mon 12 AM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12 PM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Tues 12 AM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12 PM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Wed 12 AM
1
2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
12 PM
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10
11
Thurs 12 AM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12 PM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Fri 12 AM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12 PM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Sat 12 AM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12 PM
1
2
3 4 5 6 7 8 91011
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Sun 12 AM
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
9
10
11
12 PM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Mon 12 AM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12 PM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Tues 12 AM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12 PM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Wed 12 AM
1
2
3
4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
12 PM
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
9
10
11
Thurs 12 AM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12 PM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Fri 12 AM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12 PM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Sat 12 AM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12 PM
1
2
3
4 5 6 7 8 910 11
Load Cycle 0b: Random Continuously
Varying Load 70-90% CF
Load Cycle 1b: 2 Shifter, Max Daily
Off Night
Load Cycle 2b: Load Follow, Winter Peak
Min 30%
Load Cycle 3b: Load Follow Summer
Peak, Min 30%
Load Cycle 4c: Load Follow, Intermediate
Max Daily, Min 30%
Load Cycle 5c: Baseload
Continuous Max (96%)
1 week
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Su n 1 2 AM
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
9 1 0
1 1
1 2 PM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1 0
11
Mon 12 AM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
1 2 PM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 1
Tue s 1 2 A
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1 0
1 1
12 P M
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 1
We d 1 2 AM
1
2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 0 11
1 2 P M
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10
11
Thu rs 12 AM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1 0
1 1
1 2 P M
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 1
Fri 1 2 AM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1 0
11
1 2 PM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1 0
1 1
S a t 1 2 AM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12 P M
1
2 3
4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Sun 12 AM
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10
11
12 P M
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Mon 12 AM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12 P M
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Tues 12 AM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12 P M
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Wed 12 AM
1
2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
12 P M
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10
11
Thurs 12 AM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12 P M
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Fri 12 AM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12 P M
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Sat 12 AM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12 P M
1
2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Sun 12 AM
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
9 10
11
12 PM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Mon 12 AM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12 PM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Tues 12
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12 PM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Wed 12 AM
1
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
12 PM
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11
Thurs 12 AM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12 PM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Fri 12 AM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12 PM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Sat 12 AM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12 PM
1
2 3
4 5 6 7 8 910 11
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Sun 12 AM
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
9 10
11
12 P M
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Mon 12 AM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12 PM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Tue s 12
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12 P M
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Wed 12 AM
1
2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
12 PM
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10
11
Thurs 12 AM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12 PM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Fri 12 AM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12 PM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Sat 12 AM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12 PM
1
2 3
4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Sun 12 AM
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10
11
12 PM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Mon 12 AM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12 PM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Tues 12 AM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12 PM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Wed 12 AM
1
2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
12 PM
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10
11
Thurs 12 AM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12 PM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Fri 12 AM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12 PM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Sat 12 AM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12 PM
1
2
3 4 5 6 7 8 91011
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Sun 12 AM
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
9
10
11
12 PM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Mon 12 AM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12 PM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Tues 12 AM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12 PM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Wed 12 AM
1
2
3
4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
12 PM
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
9
10
11
Thurs 12 AM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12 PM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Fri 12 AM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12 PM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Sat 12 AM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12 PM
1
2
3
4 5 6 7 8 910 11
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Su n 1 2 AM
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
9 1 0
1 1
1 2 PM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1 0
11
Mon 12 AM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
1 2 PM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 1
Tue s 1 2 A
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1 0
1 1
12 P M
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 1
We d 1 2 AM
1
2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 0 11
1 2 P M
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10
11
Thu rs 12 AM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1 0
1 1
1 2 P M
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 1
Fri 1 2 AM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1 0
11
1 2 PM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1 0
1 1
S a t 1 2 AM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12 P M
1
2 3
4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Sun 12 AM
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10
11
12 P M
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Mon 12 AM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12 P M
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Tues 12 AM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12 P M
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Wed 12 AM
1
2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
12 P M
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10
11
Thurs 12 AM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12 P M
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Fri 12 AM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12 P M
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Sat 12 AM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12 P M
1
2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Sun 12 AM
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
9 10
11
12 PM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Mon 12 AM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12 PM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Tues 12
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12 PM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Wed 12 AM
1
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
12 PM
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11
Thurs 12 AM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12 PM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Fri 12 AM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12 PM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Sat 12 AM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12 PM
1
2 3
4 5 6 7 8 910 11
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Sun 12 AM
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
9 10
11
12 P M
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Mon 12 AM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12 PM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Tue s 12
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12 P M
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Wed 12 AM
1
2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
12 PM
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10
11
Thurs 12 AM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12 PM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Fri 12 AM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12 PM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Sat 12 AM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12 PM
1
2 3
4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Sun 12 AM
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10
11
12 PM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Mon 12 AM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12 PM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Tues 12 AM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12 PM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Wed 12 AM
1
2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
12 PM
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10
11
Thurs 12 AM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12 PM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Fri 12 AM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12 PM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Sat 12 AM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12 PM
1
2
3 4 5 6 7 8 91011
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Sun 12 AM
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
9
10
11
12 PM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Mon 12 AM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12 PM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Tues 12 AM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12 PM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Wed 12 AM
1
2
3
4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
12 PM
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
9
10
11
Thurs 12 AM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12 PM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Fri 12 AM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12 PM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Sat 12 AM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12 PM
1
2
3
4 5 6 7 8 910 11
Load Cycle 0b: Random Continuously
Varying Load 70-90% CF
Load Cycle 1b: 2 Shifter, Max Daily
Off Night
Load Cycle 2b: Load Follow, Winter Peak
Min 30%
Load Cycle 3b: Load Follow Summer
Peak, Min 30%
Load Cycle 4c: Load Follow, Intermediate
Max Daily, Min 30%
Load Cycle 5c: Baseload
Continuous Max (96%)
1 week 1 week

Figure 6-1
Examples of Load Cycle Prototypes
6-3

These interrelated and mutually dependent dynamics produce a highly complex pattern of hourly
changes in load and thermal cycles, requiring sophisticated modeling techniques to discriminate
cycling and load-following-related costs.
The conclusions of engineering studies of power generation systems conducted over a period of
ten years established the causal relationship between cycling and reliability. The engineering
precept of accumulated damage and the formulation of a methodology consistent with and
capable of assessing its manifestations are critical to predicting operational cost, operational risk,
and efficient management of generating units. Engineering analyses can be extremely helpful in
identifying and quantifying factors leading to accumulated damage, but they produce a static
picture (a snapshot in time) of the problem, ignoring the complexity of predicting a units
reliability under a wide spectrum of realistic supply/demand scenarios. The statistical approach
can complement the engineering analysis in one very important aspect: by creating consistent
and statistically valid scenarios with which to (a) estimate the probability of a systems going
into three or more possible statesforced, maintenance, and planned outagesunder a wide range
of generation unit conditions and configurations (type of the unit, equipment design and
materials, market environment, switching regimes, unit age and vintage of technology,
maintenance history, etc.) and (b) evaluate the potential cost associated with such outages.
Overview of the Methodology
The methodology we will apply to build the dynamic modeling framework of the cycling load
and corresponding cost is based on decomposition principles to identify and model the
deterministic and stochastic components of the load behavior.
The deterministic component represents the predictable trends in the cycling behavior of the
load over time. Producing electricity efficiently basically requires some combination of four
major types of generating units: baseload, load following, peaking, and auxiliary service
facilities. The very underlying engineering principles, design and limitations of these units are
based on the mode of operation in which they are expected to function and generate reliable and
predictable quantities of electricity over time. The influential external factors, such as
supply/demand, weather, etc., exhibit a high degree of stationarity (their statistical properties do
not change with time) and predictability over time (day/night changes in consumption,
weekend/weekday effects, seasonality, etc.). All of these considerations make it possible to
explain the existence of the highly deterministic cyclical global trends in demand cascading to
the pattern of unit-specific levels of electricity generation over time. As a matter of fact, the
trends reveal consistently cyclical patterns.
25
We will refer to the numerical values of the load,
modeled by the deterministic cyclical trend, as a load level at time t.
After completing the first phase of modelingmodeling and filtering out the deterministic
component, we proceed to the next phasemodeling the stochastic (random) volatility
around a cyclical trend. The principle of accumulated damage to materials and equipment (as a
result of unit cycling) is based on two critical components responsible for triggering destructive
changes in the system:

25
Our comments on stationarity refer to patterns of operation at single units exhibited over many weeks.
The volatility of power prices is a very different matter, responding to many other factors.
6-4

1. regime changeslong-term effects (baseload v. cycling) and
2. unexpected, short-term volatility.
If the deterministic cyclical trends are removed from the equation, the remaining load (residuals)
should exhibit pure stochastic behavior for a given time interval. (We will analyze the
structure of volatility for different time intervals.)
Modern stochastic theory identifies two distinctive sources of randomness: continuous and
discrete manifestations. The notion of two types of randomness plays a critical role in identifying
the so-called smooth fluctuation of the load around the deterministic trend and the jump
processes of changes in operational mode: full forced, maintenance and planned outages. The
preferred modeling tools for smooth volatility are continuous distribution functions; for
jump processes the choice is for discrete Poisson type processes with appropriate
distributions to reflect the severity (intensity) of jumps.
To preserve the integrity of both the engineering and statistical aspects of the modeling
framework, we introduce the concept of accumulated jump probabilities. The jump
probability is the likelihood to have an event of forced or planned outage given the existing state
of the system. The jump probabilities are represented by functional structures to absorb all
relevant operational events in the history of the unit.
The final phase of the modeling is estimating the potential cost of operating a plant based on a
consistent and nearly complete universe of simulated scenarios. Monte Carlo (or its variants) is
the appropriate technique with which to accomplish the task. The idea is to run massive parallel
and interrelating simulations to produce hypothetical load volumes with corresponding thermal
cycles and engineering characteristics, and thereby emulate the states of regime changes, based
on the jump probabilities and intensities developed in the prior phase.
Deterministic Component
Accepting the engineering theory of accumulated damage as a working hypothesis, we then
model daily load volatility at a minimal level of resolution (hourly) to capture the essence of
damage mechanisms. The data collected at hourly intervals allows us to construct a statistically
accurate behavior of the system under changing environments with accumulated damage at the
central stage (third box, Figure 5-1). Because damage (accumulated damage) are mirrored in a
units hourly production pattern, capturing the key parameters and properties of the load curve
allow us to incorporate the second and third box of Figure 5-1.
Our graphical analysis of over 2,000 unit-quarters of historical hourly load data allowed us to
identify two major cycling patterns: weekly and seasonal. The weekly component has to be
broken into daily patterns in order to capture the distinct characteristics of weekdays and
weekends. The deterministic element represents the cycling behavior of the load with
parameters (amplitudes) fitted to historical daily and seasonal patterns. Equation (6-1) represents
the deterministic component:
6-5

) )) ( sin( ( ) (
4
1
7
1
, , , , ,
= =
+ =
i j
j i j i j i j i j i
t f A C I t L [6-1]
where:
) (
,
t L
j i
= load at time t
j i
I
,
= indicator operator to identify time interval
j i
C
,
= load level constant at time t (could be a function of weather conditions)
j i
A
,
= amplitude to represent season i and day j (could be a function of weather
conditions)
) (
, j i
t f = time function
The constant
j i
C
,
represents an average daily load for a particular plant (a function of the
weather conditions). The parameters reflect the non-homogeneous average maximum
response to produce a load at particular day and season ( corresponds to summer/Friday).
Fitting equation (6-1) with historical data comprises several steps:
j i
A
,
5 , 3
A
Descriptive statistics: revealing the functional form of equation (1), spectral analysis,
detecting outliers, identifying useful data limits, establishing significant correlations with
weather/economic variables, etc.
Fitting the parameters of the equation (6-1): time-series analysis ARIMA (autoregressive
integrated moving averages), maximum likelihood estimate, residual analysis, regression
analysis with exogenous variables, etc.
Model verification and justification.
An example of a deterministic fitted cycle is presented below (Figure 6-1). The heavy red line
with markers represents the cycle fit to the quarterly week cycles (thin colored lines on chart).
Stochastic Component
26

Once we have filtered out the deterministic component, we proceed to modeling volatility around
cyclical trends. The unexplained portion of the load, the residual, should exhibit pure
stochastic behavior for given time interval. The tool used to verify this concept is residual
analysis. We will demonstrate this result by analyzing residuals for appropriate time intervals
(for example, the residuals for winter-Monday cyclic deterministic equation should be
completely random). We will analyze the structure of volatility for different time intervals. The
modern theory of stochastic processes identifies two distinctive sources of randomness:
continuous and discrete manifestations. The notion of the two type of randomness plays a critical
role in identifying so-called smooth fluctuation of the load around deterministic trend and
jump process of changes in operational mode: forced and planned outages. In mathematical
form, the proposed model for the stochastic component follows the equation below:

26
Our comments on stationarity refer to patterns of operation at single units exhibited over many weeks. The
volatility of power prices is a very different matter, responding to many other factors.
6-6

) ( ) (
, ,
4
1
7
1
, , ,
S
j i
U
j i
i j
j i j i j i
G G F I t V + + =
= =
[6-2]
where:
) (
,
t V
j i
= volatility at time t
j i
F
,
= continuous component of volatility to represent i season and j day
U
j i
G
,
= jump process component of volatility to represent forced outage events
S
j i
G
,
= jump process component of volatility to represent planned/maintenance outage
events
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100
%
S un 12 AM
1 2 3
4 5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12 P M
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Mon 12 AM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12 P M
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
T ues 12 AM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12 P M
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Wed12 AM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7 8
9 10 11
12 PM
1 2 3
4 5
6
7
8
9
10
11
T hurs 12 AM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12 PM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
F ri 12 AM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12 PM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
S at 12 AM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12 PM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7 8
910 11
6/30/1996 7/7/1996 7/14/1996 7/21/1996
7/28/1996 8/4/1996 8/11/1996 8/18/1996
8/25/1996 9/1/1996 9/8/1996 9/15/1996
9/22/1996 Fitted Equation

Figure 6-2
Hourly Capacity Factor over 1-Week Intervals: Load Follower, Intermediate, Maximum
Load Daily, Minimum Load (30%) Nightly
6-7

Smooth Fluctuation
The continuous (smooth) component of volatility structure could be modeled by
appropriate statistical distribution fitted directly to the data. The wide spectrum of distribution
functions provides great flexibility to represent different degrees of volatility. The Gamma or
Normal distributions are candidates for modeling moderate changes in load. Lognormal or
Pareto distribution functions could be used to identify extreme or heavy tailed (spiky)
volatility. The parameters of distributions under consideration will be identified by time interval
(day/season) and could be dependent on load value (heteroscedasticity effect).
j i
F
,
The technique of fitting statistical distributions to historical data consists of several steps:
Preliminary analysis: Q-Q plots to measure thickness of the tail, analysis of
heteroscedasticity (dependence on load level), detecting outliers, identification of useful data
limits, etc.
Fitting parameters of distributions: maximum likelihood estimate, weighted minimum
distance, method of moments, etc.
Model validation: producing goodness-of-fit statistics, Kolmogorov-Smirnov, Anderson-
Darling tests, reasonability check, residual analysis in case of heteroscedasticity.
Jump Processes
The methodology to model discrete (jump) components of the volatility structure is based on
aggregation of deterministic and stochastic factors. Following the engineering theory of
accumulated damage as a source of isolated events of random jumps, we introduce the concept of
accumulated jump probabilities. The jump probability is the likelihood of having an event of
forced or planned outage given the existing state of the system. The structure of the jump
probabilities could be analyzed by using special functions to represent all relevant operational
history of the plant. Mathematically, jump probabilities could be modeled by any binary
probability distribution (Bernoulli distribution). The parameters of the binary distribution should
be linked to the set of principal variables to reflect all previous information about the system.
The proposed technique to model probabilities is Probit or Logit regression analysis. An outline
of relevant steps is provided below:
Descriptive statistics: variety of plots to identify appropriate regression model, identify set of
principal explanatory variables (maximum-minimum over some periods, standard deviation
of volatility, detecting outliers, identification of useful data limits, etc.)
Fitting regression model: SAS or S+ packages, quasi-maximum likelihood estimate,
weighted minimum distance, method of moments, etc.
Model validation: producing goodness-of-fit statistics, reasonability check, residual analysis,
parsimony analysis, evaluation of the nested models, etc.
The parameters (or single parameter for Bernoulli distribution) of binary distributions will be
analyzed for three distinctive regime changes: forced, maintenance, and planned outages.
6-8

(Additional, more disaggregate regime changes will be tested to determine if further
disaggregation is warranted, such as separating forced outages into the three NERC categories,
which NERC set up based on the severity of the forced outage.
27
)
The next step is to model the size of the jump. The size of the jump represents the duration of
the outage, cost, or other factor. The standard approach to modeling the size of the jump is to use
continuous distribution functions with parameters linked to the underlying state of the system.
The task could be accomplished by regression analysis to model parameters of distributions as a
function of the set of explanatory variables. The classical regression or log-linear regression
could be applied for Normal or Lognormal distributions. In mathematical terms, these
dependencies can be expressed as follows:
) ( ) (

=
i
i i U
V t P [6-3]
where:
) (t P
U
= probability of a forced outage event at time t
(.) = probit function
{ }
i
V = set of explanatory variables
{ }
i
= set of regression parameters
) ( ) (

=
i
i i U
V S t [6-4]
) ( ) (

=
i
i i U
V T t s [6-5]
where:
) (t
F
= mean of severity distribution for a forced outage event at time t
) (t s
F
= standard deviation of severity distribution for a forced outage event at time t
{ }
i
V = set of explanatory variables
{ }
i
= set of regression parameters for the mean
{ }
i
= set of regression parameters for the standard deviation

27
Specifically, a U1forced outage requires that a unit be taken out of service immediately, a U2, within 6 hours,
and a U3, before the end of the next weekend. Examination of the data indicates that U3 forced outages more
closely resemble maintenance outages than they do U1 forced outages, and could possibly be combined with the
former.
6-9

The natural set of explanatory variables should be based on the model for the thermal cycle. We
stress, however, that this interpretation is not attempting to replicate outage prediction such as
can be achieved on a component basis using state-of-the-art engineering models. The statistical
assessment is at a birds eye level, by comparison.
From the Load Cycle to the Thermal Cycle
The prototypical load cycle patterns developed by AER have implications for transient
temperatures and pressures. Specifically, by combining information on temperatures and
pressures at critical components from heat balance diagrams
28
for a unit at specific load levels
and a typical load cycle for the unit, we were able to demonstrate the effect of varying load on
transient temperatures and pressures at various components and systems at the unit. As shown in
Figure 6-2, the upswings and downswings of the thermal cycle temperature and pressure charts
are in sync with fluctuations in the original load cycle but sometimes more or less extreme.
However, statistical modeling will allow us to take into account the nature of that relationship.
Thus we can conclude that the load cycle is an excellent surrogate measure of temperatures and
pressures in the transient once the load cycle curves are fit in the method described above.
The Rate and Range of Change in the Transient
The final set of charts relevant to this discussion are the delta charts, which represent the
change in capacity factor from hour to hour for each prototypical load cycle. They are germane
to this discussion because the engineering studies have repeatedly noted that it is the rate and
range of change in transient temperatures and pressures during a load cycle that trigger damage
mechanisms. The delta charts represent the rate and range of change in hourly load, which are
surrogates for the rate and range of change in transient temperatures and pressures. It should be
noted in the charts in Figure 6-4 that, in some cases (more obvious in the complete prototype
collection in Appendix A) that some of the delta charts for the prototypes look identical even
though the underlying load cycle patterns look completely different. Moving to the next phase of
this study, we will be testing the hypothesis set out in the engineering studies that the rate and
range of change is the only thing that matters. We will also be able to test our alternate
hypothesis that it matters where youve been as much as where you are when measuring cycling
impacts on costs and reliability. The method that we have chosen for fitting the load cycle curves
provides a high degree of flexibility and offers broad capability for testing those two hypotheses
and any additional hypothesis suggested as initial results of analyses are obtained.

28
The most severe stresses from varying load occur within the boiler. Unfortunately, on a heat balance diagram, the
boiler is represented as a single aggregate system and we are unable to demonstrate the magnitude of the swings in
temperature and pressure therein. However, for purposes of a statistical analysis, the information from the heat
balance diagram was sufficient to demonstrate the relationship between hourly load and the rate and range of
changes in temperature and pressureand most importantly, show that hourly load was an excellent surrogate in the
statistical models for capturing temperatures and pressures in the transient.
6-10


F r
100
200
300
400
500
S un12 AM
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10
11
12 PM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Mon12 AM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12 PM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
T ues 12 AM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12 PM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Wed12 AM
1
2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
12 PM
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10
11
T hurs 12 AM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12 PM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
F ri 12 AM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12 P M
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
S at 12 AM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12 P M
1
2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
Sun12 AM
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10
11
12 PM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Mon12 AM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12 P M
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
T ues 12 AM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12 P M
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Wed12 AM
1
2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
12 P M
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10
11
T hurs 12 AM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12 P M
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
F ri 12 AM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12 P M
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Sat 12 AM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12 P M
1
2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
S un12 AM
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10
11
12 PM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Mon12 AM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12 PM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
T ues 12 AM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12 P M
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Wed12 AM
1
2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
12 PM
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10
11
T hurs 12 AM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12 PM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
i 12 AM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12 P M
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
S at 12 AM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12 P M
1
2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Load Cycle
Transient Temperatures
Leaving Feedwater Heaters
1 week

Transient Pressures at
Extraction Points

Figure 6-3
From Load Cycle to Thermal Cycle
6-11

6-12
-50%
-40%
-30%
-20%
-10%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
Sun12AM
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10
1112PM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Mon12AM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12PM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
T ues 12AM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12PM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Wed12AM 1
2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
12PM
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10
11 T hurs 12AM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12PM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Fri 12AM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12PM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Sat 12AM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12PM 1
2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
-50%
-40%
-30%
-20%
-10%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
Sun12AM
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10
11
12PM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Mon12AM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12PM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
T ues 12AM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12PM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Wed12AM
1
2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
12PM
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10
11
T hurs 12AM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12PM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Fri 12AM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12PM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Sat 12AM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12PM
1
2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
-40%
-30%
-20%
-10%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
Sun12AM
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10
11
12PM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Mon12AM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12PM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
T ues 12AM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12PM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Wed12AM
1
2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
12PM
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10
11
T hurs 12AM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12PM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Fri 12AM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12PM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Sat 12AM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12PM
1
2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
-50%
-40%
-30%
-20%
-10%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
Sun12AM
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10
11
12PM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Mon12AM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12PM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Tues 12AM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12PM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Wed12AM 1
2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
12PM
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10
11 Thurs 12AM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12PM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Fri 12AM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12PM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Sat 12AM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12PM
1
2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
-50%
-40%
-30%
-20%
-10%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
Sun12AM
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10
11
12PM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Mon12AM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12PM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
T ues 12AM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12PM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Wed12AM
1
2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
12PM
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10
11
T hurs 12AM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12PM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Fri 12AM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12PM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Sat 12AM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12PM
1
2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Sun 12 AM
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10
11
12 PM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Mon 12 AM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12 PM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Tues 12 AM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12 PM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Wed 12 AM
1
2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
12 PM
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10
11
Thurs 12 AM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12 PM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Fri 12 AM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12 PM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Sat 12 AM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12 PM
1
2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Figure 6-4
Change in Hourly Load

From the Thermal Cycle to Damage Mechanisms
Cycling damage mechanisms commonly associated with load cycling include mechanical and
thermal fatigue, corrosion fatigue, erosion corrosion and cavitation. Damage to equipment from
those damage mechanisms is a function of range and rate of change in transient temperatures
associated with the type of load cycle and accumulates with damage incurred from each
additional load cycle.
As noted above, the types of stress-related damage mechanisms triggered differ depending upon
the mode of operation. Cycling load triggers certain types of damage mechanisms, and steady
state load operation triggers certain other types of damage mechanisms. In each case, damage
accumulates from the damage mechanism, using up component and equipment life and
eventually causing equipment to fail.
Specifically, operating at steady state high load levels (and associated high temperatures and
pressures) places continuous stress on materials and components and creep damage accumulates
over time. The rate at which creep damage accumulates is functionally related to operating
temperatures, pressures and number of hours spent at operating steady state at specific levels of
load.
29
Materials and components fail when they reach the end of their creep life.
Cycling load (associated with varying temperatures and pressures in the transient) puts
fluctuating stresses on components and materials. Fatigue damage accumulates over time with
each load cycle. The rate at which fatigue damage accumulates is functionally related to the
range and rate of change in transient temperatures and pressures associated with the type of load
cycle. (Load cycles are differentiated by type based on the range and rate of change in transient
temperatures, pressures and related stresses.) Materials and components fail when they reach the
end of their fatigue life.
As noted above, damage as a result of cycling (second box of Figure 5-1) can be captured by the
hourly load curve.
From Damage Mechanisms to Accumulated Damage
Thus, in either mode of operationcycling load or steady state loaddamage to materials and
components accumulates, and eventually causes them to fail. Life expectancies resulting from
either type of stress alone have been analyzed, and engineering models and equations have been
established that estimate the amount of accumulated damage and expected remaining life for
each component.
If a unit is switched from baseload to load cycling (or vice versa), the interaction of creep-
fatigue resulting from switching operating modes accelerates damage and causes equipment to
fail much sooner than would have been the case for either damage mechanism alone. But,
determining how much sooner equipment fails is problematic because the relationship between
creep and fatigue is complex and was basically unknown until the late 1980s and, when
discovered, the relationship could not be derived analytically from established engineering

29
Baseload units experience limited fatigue damage to equipment as a result of on-off cycles due to outages.
6-13

principles. It was not until the 1990s that sufficient data became available to develop and
quantify the relationship between the two mechanisms empirically. And then it was found that
the interrelationship not only causes components to fail prematurely, but for certain alloys,
especially 2.25Cr1Mo steelthe steel most widely used in Rankine cycle steam unitsthe
effect is much more damaging than for other alloys, sometimes even resulting in catastrophic
failures
Figure 6-5 shows the impact of switching modes of operation upon material life, as detailed in
Damage to Power Plants due to Cycling, EPRI, Palo Alto, CA: 2001. 1001507, Figure 2-17.
As noted therein: The interaction of creep and fatigue effects dramatically shortens life in
components such as turbine forgings and other thick wall components. [In the future] units are
likely to see more cycling duty to take advantage of volatile electricity markets, and this makes
high-temperature units particularly vulnerable.

Figure 6-5
Creep-Fatigue Interaction (ASME Chart)
Source: Damage to Power Plants due to Cycling, EPRI, Palo Alto, CA: 2001. 1001507
Once the hourly load curve is fit using the methodology described above, the number of load
cycles by type of load cycle (including deterministic cyclical curve and stochastic parameters)
can be accumulated over unit life to represent accumulated damage, i.e., the third box of
Figure 5-1. (Note: this means in each year of a units life we will be able to assess accumulated
damage from operating in various modes up to that point.)
6-14

From Accumulated Damage to Costs and Performance
To quantify the impacts of accumulated cycling damage on costs and performance, AER
proposes to develop new specifications of statistical cycling impacts models using an
engineering framework to establish the causal relationship between load cycling (the first of the
sequence of stages in our framework) and cost and performance. Because we have a database of
generating unit history and design covering more than 30 years, we will be incorporating the
entire operating history of a unit, starting from its first year of commercial operation. (AERs
database tracks unit- and plant-level data beginning in 1969, the first year in which data from a
number of primary sources became available consistently for fossil steam units industrywide).
We have developed a nested model specification that will allow us to exploit the information that
has been collected on an hourly, monthly, quarterly and annual basis. Specifically, the nested
models would include: a cycle impacts model using CEMS detailed unit-specific hourly load
data available from 1995-2001 nested within a more aggregate model specification, using
quarterly data covering 1982 for 2001 and finally, an even more aggregate specification using
annual data from 1969-2001.
AER Database
Scope of AER Fossil-Fired Steam Electric Plants/Units Database
The AER database of fossil-fired steam electric capacity comprises the following:
Primary Fossil Fuel Plants Generating Units Capacity
Coal Steam 366 743 303,587
Gas/Oil Steam 263 945 134,533
Mixed Fossil Fuel 74 355 51,818
Total Fossil Steam 703 2,043 489,938
The breakdown of units by AER Cohort Groups (not all units have been assigned to a cohort
group due to insufficient data) is given in Figure 6-6.
Variables Included in the AER Fossil Steam Database
The AER database comprises many variables that are key to describing unit operation over time.
The specific types of variables that should be included in a database being developed for
modeling cycling impacts are summarized below. The broad categories of variables would
include:
On a generating unit level (and by year, season, month, hourly, as relevant): equipment
design and retrofits, vintage of technology, capacity, primary/secondary fuels, cohort group
designation(s), operating history including modes of operation (and switches), cycling
activity (intra- and inter-hour production), reliability, availability, MWh production,
production costs, etc.
6-15

Coal Gas Oil
All Fossil
Fuel Types
psig
650 not applicable 14 13 3 30
850 not applicable 70 84 39 193
1250 prior to 1956 47 21 25 93
prior to 1956 74 11 33 118
1956+ 56 27 38 121
1949-1955 93 4 14 111
1956-1959 70 10 36 116
1970+ 21 15 27 63
1952-1959 31 3 4 38
1960-1969 91 1 36 128
1970-1973 34 9 15 58
1974-1981 102 9 38 149
1982+ 74 0 0 74
1
st
Generation 51 10 20 81
2
nd
Generaton 67 3 10 81
969 242 389 1,600
Supercritical
numbers of units
All Cohort Groups
Fossil Steam Units by Type of Fuel
Commerical
Operation
Year
Turbine
Pressure
Group
1800
2400
1450

Figure 6-6
Breakdown of Generating Units in AER Fossil Steam Database by AER Cohort Group
On a plant level (and by year, season, month, hourly, as relevant): plant configuration,
number of units, total MW capacity, year of start up, cohort representation of its units,
production costs, statistical characterization of unit activity by cohort group (e.g., average,
minimum and maximum annual equivalent forced outage rate (EFOR) for units of plant in
the first generation supercritical coal cohort group), total MW scrubbed, etc.
1. Unit-level variables that are fixed or change occasionally over unit life
commercial operation year
equipment design, configuration and manufacturer
primary fuel, secondary fuel, tertiary fuel including design fuel specifications
vintage of technology
MW capacity (including permanent rating changes)
cohort group designations (AER-defined cohort groups, covered later)
equipment retrofits and year of retrofit including
retrofits for cycling flexibility
environmental equipment retrofits (NO
x
, SO
x
)
balanced draft conversions
6-16

2. Unit-level variables that change over time
unit age
modes of operation
type and level of cycling activity
including intra-hour and inter-hour MW production
net and gross MWh generation
fuel burned including
type
quantity (translated to Btus as well)
quality (including deviations from design specifications)
fuel switching (if applicable)
heat rates (heat rate curves)
reliability, availability
planned outages
duration
time between planned outages
forced outages
frequency and duration
cause(s) of outage
breakdown of EFOR between full forced outages and forced deratings
HILPs (High Impact, Low Probability events)
service hours, reserve shutdown hours
production costs including
operations expenditures (nonfuel, fuel)
maintenance expenditures
capital expenditures
3. Plant-level variables (configuration can change over time)
plant start-up year
plant configuration including
number of generating units (unit-specific information as detailed above)
cohort group representations of its units
total plant MW capacity
primary fuel (if consistent across its units)
total MW scrubbed (if applicable and by year)
6-17

Combining the Best of the Engineering Approach and Statistical Approach
to Develop Cycling Impacts Models
We view the engineering and statistical approaches as complementary and synergistic, with
benefits to be derived from each. However, the two approaches are probably most powerful
when used together in a single study. In combination, they can provide insights not discernible
from either individually and resulting from the combination only if the best of each approach is
exploited.
Statistical or top down analyses focus on explaining cycling impacts on plant performance, by
directly relating load cycling to its consequences on plant performance. That is, the intermediate
causal relationships between the twothermal cycle and accumulated damage from cycling
damage mechanismsare assumed to be implicitly captured in the metrics the modeler has used
to describe load cycles in question for the purposes of maintenance planning and long-term
capital expenditure forecasting for equipment replacement. And while statistical studies of
cycling impacts do not provide the level of unit-specific detail required to make strategic
decisions, they offer the opportunity to answer what if questions, whereas engineering studies
can only address the issue of what is for the unit under analysis.
The body of engineering knowledge, expertise, engineering models (developed from combining
intelligence from several disciplines, not the least of which is recent advances in metallurgy), as
well as hands-on experience accumulated over time from unit-specific engineering studies over
the past 15 years, provide the framework deriving specifications for the statistical models. The
industrywide database provides not only a large sample of generating units, but a wealth of
information for each sample unit, with respect to both generic and design characteristics and a
wide span of years covering much, if not all, of unit life. The large database provides the
opportunity to use sophisticated mathematical and statistical modeling techniques, as well as test
a large number of hypotheses concerning the relationship between costs and performance and
myriad possible drivers.
Next Steps and Recommendations
We propose a redefinition of analytical steps based on our research and investigations as follows:
1. Develop new specifications of statistical cycling impacts models using an engineering
framework to establish the causal relationship between load cycling and costs and
performance, as discussed above.
2. Incorporate the entire operating history of a unit, starting from its first year of commercial
operation, if data are available. (AERs database tracks unit- and plant-level data beginning
in 1969, the first year in which data from a number of primary sources became available
consistently for fossil steam units across the industry).
3. Develop a nested model specification: cycle impacts model using CEMS detailed unit-
specific hourly load data available from 1995-2001 nested within a more aggregate model
specification, covering 1969-2001 using more aggregate data, including aggregate load
variables found to be highly correlated to detailed load data.
6-18

4. Compile, edit and expand a comprehensive database as follows:
Include more than 2,000 conventional fossil steam-electric units industrywide in the
sample, considerably more units than previously considered possible.
Include up to 33 years of time-series data for each generating unit in the sample (as
relevant).
Include more than 33 years of associated plant history, including plant start-up year, total
MW capacity, composition of generating units by type and fuel, configuration, unit
additions and retirements, etc.
Consider many more cross-sectional (unit and plant) variables for inclusion in the AER
statistical models than was possible previously. Variables to consider from AER database
include, at a minimum: equipment design, configuration, redundancy, manufacturer,
operations, performance, fossil fuel type and quality, vintage of technology, age, MW
size, etc.
Corroborate and validate data from primary sources, by making cross comparisons
among several sources. Correct calculation errors, as required, for variables developed in
prior statistical studies.
6-19
7
PRELIMINARY AER RESULTS ON COST OF STARTS
AND STUDY CONCLUSIONS
This chapter presents results based on some preliminary statistical models to demonstrate the
power of statistical analyses using large, industrywide databases to quantify the impact of
cycling on costs. The preceding chapters complete our presentation and discussion of
methodology. Next steps will improve model specification and quantify cycling/load-following
and related costs for numerous groups of plants and different operating histories. But it is natural
to ask: does the new methodology work, i.e., does it lead to relevant quantitative results? This
last chapter extends the scope of analysis beyond methodology to demonstration, so as to
confirm the promise of the concepts and to show that practical quantitative results are feasible.
For this analysis we chose to model the costs of starts by type (costs associated with On/Off
Cycle) for a sample of oil and gas plants that were cohorts of plants owned by companies
collaborating with EPRI during this project. With respect to these preliminary findings, a number
of caveats and stipulations must be made. The AER analyses were limited to ascertaining the
cost of hot, warm and cold starts for a specific group of oil and gas steam plants, which
were comprised of specific cohort units. The AER results are then compared to results from
several engineering studies, as well as those from the previous EPRI statistical cycling study.
We would note the following: This exercise was done to demonstrate the power of statistical
analyses, not to provide a comprehensive picture of the costs of cycling. It focuses on only one
aspect of cycling: cost of start-ups by type of startthe On/Off Cycle. A comprehensive
evaluation of the costs of cycling requires that the hourly load data be fit using the methodology
described in Chapter 6, the number of cycles (as represented by the fitted cycles) be accumulated
over unit life, and then statistically develop the cost model including these variables (among
others). Thus, we make the following qualifications:
The On/Off Cycle cost models are important to two-shifting units where most damage occurs
as a result of stopping and starting a unit.
However, for units which load follow and do not have a large number of hot starts in a their
normal cycling mode of operation (e.g., coal units and large oil/gas steam units which cycle
down to minimum load nightly), the damage resulting from their On Cycle characteristics is
more important and would need to be addressed using the AER methodology described in
Chapter 6.
7-1

Preliminary AER Results on Cost of Starts and Study Conclusions
Sample
The sample of oil- and gas-fired steam electric generating units/plants for this preliminary
statistical analysis was selected based on the characteristics of the study units of the cooperating
companies in this project. Specifically, the plants selected were comprised of units that met the
following criteria:
were oil- or gas-fired over the sample period
came on-line between the mid-sixties and mid-seventies
were between 200 and 550 MW (nameplate capacity)
had tandem or cross-compound turbines
had turbines with single reheat
had turbine pressures between 1800 and 2400 psig
had natural or controlled circulation.
Finally, data for plants meeting the above criteria must be reliable and comprehensive. The total
sample meeting all the criteria were 55 plants comprising 158 generating units and totaling over
40,000 MW of capacity. The median size of the plants in the sample was three units and 700
MW of total capacity.
It was not possible to limit the cohort sample further (e.g., by including only units/plants with
tandem turbines, tangentially fired Combustion Engineering boilers, and controlled circulation)
because the sample size would have been too small to ensure statistically reliable results (38
units and 20 plants). The design characteristics used to select the cohort sample were considered
to be the most important ones affecting costs and reliability.
Database
The database used for our analyses and models included the 55 plants and 158 units described
above. The sample period was 1982-1993, inclusive. Annual, quarterly, and continuous time
periods were used, depending upon the variable being studied. The variables considered in this
project spanned cost variables, unit performance, operating history, equipment design, unit and
plant age, measures of cycling activity, and generic plant and unit characteristics including MW
capacity, vintage, etc. The sample period was limited to the 1982-1993 period because this
period was marked by sustained high reliability almost across the industry, in contrast to the
previous and subsequent periods. Moreover, the industry had just been through a period of major
reinvestment in existing fossil steam units in an attempt to improve reliabilities which had
deteriorated significantly through the 1970s. Thus, having made substantial gains in reliability as
a result of increased spending in the late 1970searly 1980s, the plants were in good condition at
the beginning of our sample period, and stayed that way until the end of our sample period. By
1994, utilities were beginning to cut spending to meet perceived upcoming competition in the
generation market, effectively moving into a new regime of plant spending/reliability. As will be
seen below, the 1982-1993 period was one in which, rather than take major hits on reliability as a
results of cycling, plant owners appeared to be paying up for maintaining reliability.
7-2

Development of Starts by Type of Start
The effect of a start on costs and reliability depends upon the length of time the equipment has
had to cool down. The colder the equipment, the greater potential for damage and aggravated
wear and tear. Consequently, we defined several types of starts based on the length of the outage
immediately preceding them. Specifically, we defined five types of starts:
Hot Starts, Group 1: Startups following outages which lasted less than 12 hours;
Hot Starts, Group 2: Startups following outages which lasted between 12 and 24 hours;
Warm Starts: Startups following outages which lasted between 24 and 48 hours;
Cold Starts, Group 1: Startups following outages which lasted between 48 and 90 hours;
Cold Starts, Group 2: Startups following outages which last at least 90 hours.
In addition, starts were calculated on both an annual basis and cumulative from 1982. Starts by
type were constructed using North American Electric Reliability Councils (NERC) Event
database. This database contains data on outages and deratings on a continuous time basis for
individual generating units, thus allowing the calculation of time between stop and start, which is
needed for determining the type of start (e.g., hot, warm, etc.). These data had to be
supplemented with NERC GADS Quarterly Summary data, since many small units do not (and
are not required to) report reserve shutdown events. Significant additional effort was required to
accomplish this, but it was determined to be necessary to insure the reliability of the modeling
effort. The Event and Quarterly Summary database provided the data necessary to determine
the length of the outage immediately preceding a startup.
Other New Variables
While cost data are only available on a plant-level, analyses of unit-level reserve shutdown hours
and planned outage factors led to the development of two new variables.
Adjusted Plant Capacity. First, we found a sharp decrease in expenditures per kW when a plant
had unit(s) on reserve shutdown. Several units included in FERC Form 1 data as part of plant
capacity were on reserve shutdown. Consequently, MW of units on reserve shutdown (defined as
reserve shutdown factor (RSF) multiplied by generating unit MW, for units with RSF > 0.84)
was subtracted from total plant capacity.
Lengthy Outage Subset. Second, an analysis of plant maintenance plus capital expenditures and
units scheduled outage factors indicated that, in years when a plant had a unit(s) on scheduled
outages which lasted more than 20% of the year, costs increased markedly. Consequently, to
capture the effect on costs of lengthy scheduled outages, we constructed a variable equal to the
total MW of units with scheduled outage factors greater than 20%.
7-3

Models and Results
Two sets of econometric models were developed: (1) reliability models, and (2) cost models to
capture the impact of cycling on reliability and costs. Separate cost models were estimated for:
(1) operations expenditures; (2) maintenance expenditures; and (3) combined maintenance and
capital expenditures.
The models developed to explain the effects of On/Off cycling, known as lagged adjustment
models, include the dependent variable lagged one year as an independent variable explaining
the dependent variable in the current year. For example, in the case of maintenance expenditures,
maintenance expenditures in the previous year would be included as an independent variable
explaining maintenance expenditures in the current year. In a lagged adjustment model, a change
in an independent variable has an exponentially declining impact on the dependent variable over
time, with the largest impact occurring in the first year. Short-run and long-run impacts of
independent variables are explicitly measured in a lagged adjustment model. The short-run
impact of an independent variable is measured by its regression coefficient; its long-run impact is
obtained by dividing its coefficient by the quantity 1.0 minus the coefficient of the lagged
dependent variable.
30

As expected, because of the sample period selected, i.e., 1982-1993, we found no (statistically)
significant impact of starts, regardless of type, on unit reliability. However, the impact of starts
on spending for operations, maintenance and capital expenditures was significant. Moreover, the
impact of starts varied by type of start. As expected, the most expensive type of start was a cold
start (Group 2), followed by a semi-cold start (Group 1), then warm starts, then hot starts
(Group 1 and Group 2 combined). The results for the reliability and cost models suggest that
utilities during this period would pay the costs incurred from startups rather than suffer
deterioration in reliability. Note: reliability problems in the period 1982-1993 were far less
frequent and of shorter duration than in the prior 10 years. In recent years, with the advent of
competition in the generation market, maintenance budgets have been held fixed or even been
decreased in an attempt to be cost competitive. And for many, this action has negatively affected
reliability.
AER Cost Model Results
Several specifications of the cost models were tested. The final models were the most
statistically robust. The variables found to be statistically significant in these models and their
respective effects on costs are outlined in Table 7-1 and described below.

30
For a discussion of lagged dependent variable models, see Kmenta, Jan, Elements of Econometrics (Macmillan
Publishing Co., New York: 1986), Second Edition, pp. 528-536.
7-4

7-5
Dependent Variables: Expenditures by Type

Independent Variables

Operations

Maintenance
Capital +
Maintenance
Annual Starts, accumulated
- Cold: Group 2 Increase Increase
- Cold: Group 1 Increase Increase
- Warm Increase Increase
- Hot: Groups 1 & 2 Increase Increase
- All Types of Starts Increase
Operating & Outage Variables
- Reserve Shutdown) Decrease Decrease Decrease
- Planned Outage Factor Decrease Increase Increase
- Maintenance Outage Factor Increase
- Number of Forced Outages Increase Increase
Fuel Type & Equipment Design
- Oil-fired (vs. gas-fired) Increase Increase Increase
- Balanced Draft System Increase Increase Increase
- Cross Compound Turbine
(vs. Tandem Turbines)

Increase

Increase

Increase
- GE Turbine
(v. other manufacturers turbines)

Decrease

Decrease

Decrease
Generic Variables
- Age Increase Increase
- MW size Increase Increase Increase

Figure 7-1
Statistically Significant Variables and Their Respective Effects on Costs
AER Cost Model Predictions: Cost of a Start
The models developed for this analysis were developed specifically to accurately quantify the
cost of one aspect of cyclingnamely, the cost of startups (i.e., one of the key cycling costs
associated with the On/Off Cycle. The results of the preliminary AER statistical cost analyses
support the generally widely held belief that there are costs related to starting and stopping a
unit, in addition to fuel. Moreover, as can be seen in , which details the costs of a start by type
obtained in our preliminary analyses, these cycling-related non-fuel costs are not insignificant.
Figure 7-2 also contains costs of a start by type reported in other studies.
Thus, when a unit is expected to start and stop to meet load, the costs associated with this activity
must be included in planning and financial calculations in order to determine whether this
activity is consistent with a least cost strategy. When weighing the use of a unit in this capacity
against alternative roles, the costs of starts should be included to ensure that economic efficiency
is achieved.
Given the successful initial modeling effort, its robust results, and the significant cost of startups
as demonstrated in this project, we are encouraged to proceed with the project to quantify cycling
costs more fully and to evaluate effects for the remainder of the units in the comprehensive
database. This information will be crucial in determining cost-economic bids for generating units
into the competitive marketplace. Further, we will be able to provide guidance on the confidence
to place in these cost/reliability estimates, keyed to individual units operating histories.

7-6

Note:
These estimates are not exactly comparable. They employ different definitions, below. Most are for individual units
and not representative of units in their class. As noted in text, the EPRI-AER estimates are averages for many units.
Hot Start: Unit start-up after outage lasting up to: EPRI-1 & EPRI-AER: 24 hours; all others, 8 hours
Warm Start: Unit start-up after outage lasting: EPRI-1: between 24 and 120 hours; EPRI-AER: between 24 and 48
hrs; all others, between 8 and 48 hours
Cold Start: Unit start-up after outage lasting: EPRI-1: more than 120 hours; all others, more than 48 hours
Legend: Source:
APTECH = Aptech Engineering Services
SW = Stone & Webster
PTA = Power Tech Associates
EPRI-1 = Prior EPRI statistical analysis
ETD = European Technology Development Ltd.,
UK
S&L = Sargent & Lundy
AER = Applied Economic Research
PTECH, SW, PTA, S&L:
Independent Assessment Team, Report to the EUB
Pursuant to the Electric Utilites Act, Section 45, Chapter
4-Payments for Flexible Operation,Table 1, Alberta,
Canada, August 1999.
EPRI-1:
EPRI Report No. 1004010 [40]
ETD:
Damage to Power Plants Due to Cycling, Chapter 6,
EPRI, Palo Alto, CA: 2001. 1001507. [37]
Figure 7-2
Cost per Unit Start by Type of Start: AER Oil/Gas Units and Other Studies (Coal and Gas Units)

The costs of starts obtained in this preliminary represent an average cost for the selected group
of cohort units and plants. The results of AERs work in applying a technique called frontier
analysis to plant performance and costs has demonstrated that, in this industry, there is a large
difference between the cost efficiency achieved on average and that achieved by the most cost
efficient plants. Frontier analysis is a tool for benchmarking the cost efficiency of plants by
comparing a plants efficiency to the best achieved practice observed in similar plants. Further,
frontier analyses can be used to construct marginal cost curves which, together with marginal
value curves, are the basis for determining optimal spending strategies needed to achieve lowest
cost of electricity. Consequently, a frontier analysis study including the effects of starts and
changing modes of operations will be included in subsequent model development for both the
On/Off Cycle and the Load Cycle.
31

Summary and Conclusions
AER has developed a new approach and structure for statistically modeling the impacts of
cycling on costs and reliability. Is a multi-faceted approach and incorporates several new
developments, which we believe will enhance industrys the problem. It will provide the level of
detail needed to successfully model the relationships statistically and could advance the state of
the art in statistically modeling cycling impacts. The main accomplishments are:
New way to characterize the load cycle: 14 prototypes for fossil steam units
New methodology to fit load cycles mathematically, with the flexibility and capability to test
several hypotheses concerning the impacts of cycling on costs and reliability.
Mapped load cycles to thermal cycles to determine the impact of a load cycle on transient
Developed nested model specifications of cycling impacts to exploit the use of AERs 30+
year history of operating experience for generating units and plants as well as to exploit the
recent emergence of systematic hourly and quarterly data.
Develop statistical models based on engineering principles and expertise in analyzing cycling
impacts, specifically incorporating the dynamic interrelationships between load cycles
thermal cycles, damage mechanisms, accumulated damage and final consequences of cycling
in terms of cost and reliability.
A concluding remark is warranted. From the day a unit begins operation, its aging profile is
being shaped. That profile is determined by many things, but among the most important is how
the unit is maintained and operated. It is not the incremental hot, warm or cold start that has the
major impact on that profile. It is the number of years the unit operates in one mode before
switching to another (e.g., baseload versus cycling). Finally, and most important, is how
maintenance is conducted at the unit. Far more damaging than any start to the equipment and
materials is the stop because of a forced outage that has required the unit to come offline
immediately without following the required protocol. Periods of history have demonstrated that,
for this industry, the amount of damage and the cost of repairing the damage from frequent,
severe forced outages is orders of magnitude greater than the damages and costs associated with
cycling. Further analyses with the comprehensive plant database available for this project, and on
collaborating companies individual units, will develop these quantitative relationships.

31
The charts on EFORs and capital/maintenance spending employed AERs frontier analysis technique.
See Chapter 3.
7-7

0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
S un12 AM
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11 12 P M
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Mon12 AM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12 PM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
T ues 12 AM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12 P M
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Wed12 AM 1
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
12 P M
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11 T hurs 12 AM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12 P M
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
F ri 12 AM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12 P M
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
S at 12 AM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12 P M 1
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
100
200
300
400
500
S un12 AM
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11 12 PM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Mon12 AM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12 PM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
T ues 12 AM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12 PM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10 11
Wed12 AM 1
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
12 PM
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11 T hurs 12 AM
1 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12 PM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
F ri 12 AM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12 PM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
S at 12 AM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12 P M 1
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
S un12 AM
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11 12 P M
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Mon 12 AM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12 PM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
T ues 12 AM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12 P M
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Wed12 AM 1
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
12 P M
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11 T hurs 12 AM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12 P M
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
F ri 12 AM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12 PM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
S at 12 AM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12 P M 1
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
0
10,000
20,000
30,000
40,000
50,000
60,000
Sun12AM
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
1112PM 1 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Mon12AM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12PM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
T ues 12AM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12PM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10 11 Wed12 AM 1
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
12PM
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11 T hurs 12AM 1 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12PM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Fri 12AM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12PM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Sat 12AM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1011 12PM1
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 91011
Demand
1 week
Load Cycle
Transient Temperatures
Leaving Feedwater Heaters
Transient Pressures
at Extraction Points

Figure 7-3
Cascading Cycles: from Demand Cycle to Load Cycle to Thermal Cycle to Temperatures
and Pressures in the Transient
7-8
8
REFERENCES
Principal Data Sources for Cycling Impacts
1. Applied Economic Research Co.:
Plant and Generating Unit History: Fossil-Fired Steam-Electric Plants and Units
AER Cohort Groups: Fossil-Fired Steam-Electric Plants and Units
AER Transaction Tracking Database
2. North American Electric Reliability Council (NERC):
Generating Availability Data System (GADS), 19692000:
Pedigree Data (Unit and Equipment Design)
Performance & Event Data
Electricity Supply and Demand, 10-Year Forecasts, 1981-2001.
3. United States Energy Information Administration (EIA), Steam-Electric Plant Operation and
Design Report, EIA Form 767, 1985-2000, 2001 (forthcoming 9/2002).
4. United States Energy Information Administration (EIA), Annual Electric Control and
Planning Area Report, FERC Form-714 Database, FERC Form 714, 1985-2000, 2001
(forthcoming 9/2002).
5. Historical Plant Cost and Annual Production Expenses for Selected Electric Plants, Federal
Power Commission (U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration post-
1974), 1948-1988.
6. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), Electric Power Regulation, FERC Form
No. 1 (Electric Utility Annual Report), selected years.
7. Various ISO and Market Hub Data: Cal-ISO, ISO-NE (New England), NYISO (New York),
PJM (PA-NJ-MD) and ERCOT.
8. United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Acid Rain Program, Continuous
Emissions Monitoring System (CEMS), Quarterly, 1995-2001, Q1, 2002.
9. Utility Data Institute, A Division of The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc., North American
Electric Power Data, 19811997.Utility Data Institute, A Division of The McGraw-Hill
Companies, Inc., World Electric Power Plants Data Base3rd Edition, 1981 - 2001.
8-1

References
Engineering References
10. John R. Allen and Bursley, Joseph A., Heat Engines: Steam, Gas, Steam Turbines and Their
Auxiliaries (McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc.: New York and London, 1931).
11. Gustaf A. Gaffert, Sc.D., Steam Power Stations (McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc.: New
York and London, 1940).
12. Carl D. Shields, Boilers: Types, Characteristics and Functions (McGraw-Hill Book
Company, Inc.: New York San Francisco Toronto London Sydney, 1961).
13. Babcock & Wilcox, Steam/its generation and use, 39
th
Edition (The Babcock & Wilcox
Company: New York, 1978).
14. Babcock & Wilcox, Steam/its generation and use, 40
th
Edition (The Babcock & Wilcox
Company: Barberton, Ohio, 1992).
15. General Electric, Eight Decades of Progress, A Heritage of Aircraft Turbine Technology,
(General Electric Co.: Cincinnati and Lynn, 1990).
Related References
16. C. W. J. Granger, Spectral Analysis of Time Series, (Princeton University Press: Princeton,
1964).
17. L. H. Koopmans, Dept. of Mathematics and Statistics, University of New Mexico, The
Spectral Analysis of Time Series (Academic Press, Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, Publishers:
New York, 1974).
18. M. B. Priestley, Princeton University, Analysis and Control of Dynamic Economic Systems
(John Wiley & Sons New York, 1975).
19. M. B. Priestley, Dept. of Mathematics, University of Manchester, Non-linear and Non-
stationary Time Series Analysis (Academic Press, Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, Publishers,
London, 1988).
20. Michael Barnsley, Fractals Everywhere (Academic Press, Harcourt Brace Jovanovich,
Publishers: San Diego, 1988).
21. Michael Barnsley, et al., The Science of Fractal Images, (Springer-Verlag: New York, 1988).
22. W. A. Brock and Mallaris, A. G., Differential Equations, Stability and Chaos in Dynamic
Economics (North-Holland Elsevier Science Publishers: Netherlands, 1989).
23. L. Christine Kinsey, Topology of Surfaces (Springer-Verlag: New York, 1993).
24. George A. Jennings, Modern Geometry with Applications (Springer-Verlag: New York,
1994).
8-2

References
Related Papers
25. Stephen A. Lefton, Rettig, Terry W., Cohn, Marvin J., Tordonato, Sebastian, Grover, Jeffrey
L. and Clark, Kimble J., Aptech Engineering Services, Inc., Methodology for Assessing the
Remaining Useful Life of Critical Power Plant Components, June 1986 (revised).
26. Steve R. Paterson, Rettig, Terry W. and Clark, Kimble J., Aptech Engineering Services, Inc.,
Creep Damage and Remaining Life Assessment of Superheater and Reheater Tubes,
Proceedings from Conference on Life Extension and Assessment of Fossil Plants, sponsored
by EPRI, Washington, D.C., June 1986.
27. Stephen A. Lefton, Besuner, Philip M. and Kuntz, Ted A., Aptech Engineering Services,
Inc., Power Plant Operations and Cost Optimization using Real-Time Cost Analysis Tools,
International Conference on Advances in Life Assessment and Optimization of Fossil Power
Plants, TP136, January 2002
28. Stephen A. Lefton, Besuner, Philip M., Grimsrud, G. Paul and Kuntz, Ted A., Aptech
Engineering Services, Inc., Experience in Cost Analysis of Cycling Power Plants in North
America and Europe, TP133, February 2002.
29. J. J. Lofe, Quinn, A. B., Richwine, R. R., The Southern Company, Availability Model for a
Coal-Fired Cycling Plant, ASME/IEEE Power Generation Conference, Boston, MA,
October 1990.
30. Vera, Ricardo L. G., Two-Stage Pressurization Improves Flexibility of Supercritical
Boilers, Power Engineering, October 2000.
31. Robert R. Richwine and Newton, Thomas U., The Southern Company, Gas Turbine Design
Requirements Changing for U.S. Utilities, Global Gas Turbine News, 1995: Volume 35, ,
1995: Volume 35, Number 4.
32. J. Gostling, European Technology Development, UK, Two-Shifting of Power Plant:
Damage to Power Plant Due to Cycling, A Brief Overview, OMMI (Vol. 1, Issue 1), April
2002.
33. F. Starr, European Technology Development, UK, Potential Issues in the Cycling of
Advanced Power Plants, OMMI (Vol. 1, Issue 1), April 2002.
34. A. Jovanovich, MPA Stuttgart, Risk-Based Component Life Management in Fossil Power
Plants, OMMI (Vol. 1, Issue 1), April 2002.
8-3

References
EPRI Cycling Reports: Engineering Studies
35. Cycling Operation of Fossil-Fueled Power Plants, GS-7219, 1991 - 1993:
Volume 1: Cycling Considerations for Niagara Mohawks Oswego Unit 5
Volume 2: Converting PG&Es Moss Landing Units 6 & 7 to Cycling Duty
Volume 3: Cycling Evaluation of Pepcos Potomac River Generating Station
Volume 4: Cycling Considerations for PSE&Gs Hudson Unit 2
Volume 5: Guidelines for Converting Baseload Boilers to Cycling
Volume 6: Evaluation and Strategy.
36. Impact of Operating Factors on Boiler Availability, 2000: 1000560.
37. Damage to Power Plants Due to Cycling, 2001: 1001507.
38. Guidelines on the Effects of Cycling Operation on Maintenance Activities, 2001: 1004017.
EPRI Cycling Reports: Statistical Studies
39. Calculating Cycling Wear and Tear Costs: Methodology and Data Requirements, 1997:
TR-109470.
40. Correlating Cycle Duty with Cost at Fossil Fuel Power Plants, 2001: 1004010.

8-4
A
APPENDIX
Prototypical Load Cycle Patterns, Hourly Capacity Factors over 1-Week Intervals
ourly Capacity Factors over 1-Week Intervals for Prototypical Load Cycles
Summary Chart of 14 Prototypical Load Cycles
Continuously Varying Load: Cycle 0a

Cycle 0b
2-Shifting: Cycle 1a
Cycle 1b
Load Following, Winter Peak: Cycle 2a

Cycle 2b
Load Following, Summer Peak: Cycle 3a

Cycle 3b
Intermediate: Cycle 4a
Cycle 4b
Cycle 4c
Baseload: Cycle 5a
Cycle 5b
Cycle 5c
Heat Rate Curves
Summary of 14 Prototypical Load Cycles
Continuously Varying Load: Cycle 0a

Cycle 0b
2-Shifting: Cycle 1a
Cycle 1b
Load Following, Winter Peak: Cycle 2a

Cycle 2b
Load Following, Summer Peak: Cycle 3a

Cycle 3b
Intermediate: Cycle 4a
Cycle 4b
Intermediate: Cycle 4c
Baseload: Cycle 5a
Cycle 5b
Baseload: Cycle 5c

H
A-1

Appendix
PROTOTYPICAL LOAD CYCLE PATTERNS: Hourly Capacity Factors over 1-Week Intervals in Relevant Season (Quarter)
Individual lines on charts are one week's hourly capacity factors for weeks in relevant quarter for prototypical generating unit.
R
A
N
D
O
M
L
O
A
D
2
-
S
H
I
F
T
CYCLE: 0b
CapFac Range: 0% to +110%,
@10% intervals (circles)
- major gridlines @20% intervals
- minor gridlines @10% intervals
CYCLE: 0a
FOSSIL-FIRED STEAM ELECTRIC GENERATING UNITS
W
I
N
T
E
R
@
M
A
X

D
A
I
L
Y
CYCLE: 4a
CYCLE: 1a
B
A
S
E
L
O
A
D
CYCLE: 5a
CYCLE: 2a
CYCLE: 3a
L
O
A
D

F
O
L
L
O
W
P
E
A
K
E
R
S
I
N
T
E
R
M
E
D
I
A
T
E
S
U
M
M
E
R
CYCLE: 5c
CYCLE: 4c
Note:
CYCLE: 5b
CYCLE: 2b
CYCLE: 3b
CYCLE: 4b
CYCLE: 1b
Hourly Capacity Factor over 1-Week Intervals
2 Shifter: Daily Start-Up, Load Follow Daily, Off-Line Nightly
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
S un 12 AM1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12PM 1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9
1011Mon12 AM
1
2
3 4
5 6
7
8
9
10
11
12 PM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
T ues 12 AM
1
2
3
4
5
6 7
8
9
10
11
12 PM 1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 Wed12AM 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12PM 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Thur s12 AM 1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9 10 11 12 PM
1
2
3
4
5 6
7
8
9
10
11
Fr i 12AM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12PM
1
2
3
4
5
6 7
8 9
10
11
S at 12 AM 1 2
3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12 PM 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
7/2/00
7/9/00
7/16/00
7/23/00
7/30/00
8/6/00
8/13/00
8/20/00
8/27/00
9/3/00
9/10/00
9/17/00
9/24/00
Load Follower, Daily: Daily Peaks, Winter, else at Min Load (30%)
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
S un12 AM1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12PM 1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9 1011Mon 12 AM
1 2 3
4
5 6
7
8
9
10
11
12 PM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
T ues12 AM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8 9 10
11
12 PM 1 2
3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 Wed12AM 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12PM 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 T hur s 12AM 1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9
10 11 12PM
1
2 3 4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Fr i 12 AM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12 PM
1
2
3
4
5
6 7
8
910 11
Sat 12AM 1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12PM 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
1/1/95
1/8/95
1/15/95
1/22/95
1/29/95
2/5/95
2/12/95
2/19/95
2/26/95
3/5/95
3/12/95
3/19/95
3/26/95
Load Follower, Daily: Daily Summer Peaks, Min Load (10%) Nightly
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Sun 12 AM1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 PM 1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9 1011Mon 12AM
1
2 3 4
5
67
8
9
10
11
12 PM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Tues 12 AM
1
2
3
4
5 6
7
8 9 10
11
12PM
1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 Wed12 AM 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 PM 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 T hurs 12 AM 1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9 10 11
12 PM
1
2 3 4
5
6 7
8
9
10
11
Fr i 12AM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12PM
1
2
3
4
56
7
8 910
11
S at 12 AM 1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12 PM 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
3/29/98
4/5/98
4/12/98
4/19/98
4/26/98
5/3/98
5/10/98
5/17/98
5/24/98
5/31/98
6/7/98
6/14/98
6/21/98
Load Follower, Nightly: Max Load Daily, Load Follow / Min Load (15%) Nightly
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
S un12 AM1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 PM 1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9 1011Mon12 AM
1
2 3 4
5 6
7
8
9
10
11
12 PM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
T ues12 AM
1
2
3
4
5
6 7
8 9 10
11
12 PM 1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 Wed12 AM 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 PM 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 T hur s12 AM 1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9 10 11 12 PM
1
2 3 4
5 6
7
8
9
10
11
Fr i 12 AM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12 PM
1
2
3
4
5
6 7
8 910
11
S at 12 AM 1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12 PM 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
7/2/00
7/9/00
7/16/00
7/23/00
7/30/00
8/6/00
8/13/00
8/20/00
8/27/00
9/3/00
9/10/00
9/17/00
9/24/00
Load Follower, Nightly: Max Load Daily, Load Follow / Min Load (30%) Nightly
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Sun 12 AM1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 PM 1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9 1011Mon 12AM
1
2 3
4 5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12PM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
T ues 12AM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8 9 10
11
12PM 1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 Wed12 AM 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 PM 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 T hur s 12 AM 1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9 10 11 12 PM
1
2 3 4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Fr i 12 AM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12 PM
1
2
3
4
5
6
78
910
11
S at 12 AM 1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12 PM 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
6/30/96
7/7/96
7/14/96
7/21/96
7/28/96
8/4/96
8/11/96
8/18/96
8/25/96
9/1/96
9/8/96
9/15/96
9/22/96
Baseload: Minor Load Following
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
S un12 AM1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12PM 1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9
10 11Mon12 AM
1
2 3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12PM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
T ues 12AM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8 9 10
11
12 PM 1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 Wed12 AM 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 PM 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 T hurs 12 AM 1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9 10 11 12 PM
1
2 3 4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Fr i 12 AM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12 PM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
910
11
S at 12 AM 1 2
3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12 PM 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
4/2/95
4/9/95
4/16/95
4/23/95
4/30/95
5/7/95
5/14/95
5/21/95
5/28/95
6/4/95
6/11/95
6/18/95
6/25/95
Random: Continuously Varying Load, between 70% & 90%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Sun 12 AM1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 P M 1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9 1011Mon 12 AM
1
2 3
4
56
7
8
9
10
11
12 P M
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Tues 12 AM
1
2
3
4
5
6 7
8
9 10
11
12 P M 1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 Wed12 AM 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 P M 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 T hur s 12 AM 1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9 10 11 12 P M
1
2 3
4
5 6
7
8
9
10
11
Fr i 12 AM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12 PM
1
2
3
4
5
67
8
910
11
Sat 12 AM1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 910 11 12 P M 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
4/8/01
4/15/01
4/22/01
4/29/01
5/6/01
5/13/01
5/20/01
5/27/01
6/3/01
6/10/01
6/17/01
6/24/01
7/1/01
Baseload: Operating Continuously at Max Load (96%)
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Sun 12 AM1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 PM 1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9 1011Mon12 AM
1 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12 PM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
T ues12 AM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9 10 11
12 P M
1 2 3
4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 Wed12 AM 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 PM 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Thur s12 AM 1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8
9 10 11
12P M
1 2 3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Fri 12 AM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12P M
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10 11
S at 12AM 1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12 PM 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
6/30/96
7/7/96
7/14/96
7/21/96
7/28/96
8/4/96
8/11/96
8/18/96
8/25/96
9/1/96
9/8/96
9/15/96
9/22/96
Load Follower, Winter Peaker: Daily Peaks, Min Load (30%) Nightly
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
S un 12AM1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 P M 1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9 1011Mon 12AM
1
2 3 4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12 P M
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
T ues 12AM
1
2
3
4
5
6 7
8 9 10
11
12P M 1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 Wed12AM 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 P M 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Thurs 12 AM 1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9 10 11 12 PM
1
2 3 4
5 6
7
8
9
10
11
Fri 12 AM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12 P M
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8 910
11
S at 12 AM 1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12 P M 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
10/5/97
10/12/97
10/19/97
10/26/97
11/2/97
11/9/97
11/16/97
11/23/97
11/30/97
12/7/97
12/14/97
12/21/97
12/28/97
Load Follower, Summer Peaker: Daily Summer Peaks, Min Load (30%) Nightly
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
S un12 AM1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 P M 1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9 10 11Mon12 AM
1 2
3 4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12 PM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
T ues12 AM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8 9 10
11
12 PM 1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 Wed12AM 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12P M 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 T hur s 12AM 1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9 10 11 12 PM
1
2 3 4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Fr i 12 AM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12 PM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8 9
1011
S at 12 AM 1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12P M 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
6/29/97
7/6/97
7/13/97
7/20/97
7/27/97
8/3/97
8/10/97
8/17/97
8/24/97
8/31/97
9/7/97
9/14/97
9/21/97
2-Shifter: Daily Start-Up, Max Load Daily (11am-10pm), Off-Line Nightly
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
S un12AM1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 PM 1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9 1011Mon12 AM
1
2 3
45
6
7
8
9
10
11
12 PM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
T ues 12 AM
1
2
3 4
5
6
7 8
9 10
11
12 PM 1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 Wed12 AM 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 PM 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 T hur s 12 AM 1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9 10 11 12 PM
1
2 3
4 5
6
7
8 9
10
11
Fr i 12 AM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12 PM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7 8
910
11
S at 12 AM 1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12 PM 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
6/28/98
7/5/98
7/12/98
7/19/98
7/26/98
8/2/98
8/9/98
8/16/98
8/23/98
8/30/98
9/6/98
9/13/98
9/20/98
Baseload: Minor Load Follow Daily (6am-10pm), Min Load (70%) Nightly
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
S un12 AM1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 PM 1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9 1011Mon12 AM
1
2 3
4 5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12 PM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
T ues 12AM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9 10
11
12 PM 1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 Wed12 AM 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12PM 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 T hurs 12 AM 1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9 10 11 12 PM
1
2 3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Fr i 12 AM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12 PM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7 8
910
11
Sat 12 AM 1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12 PM 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
6/29/97
7/6/97
7/13/97
7/20/97
7/27/97
8/3/97
8/10/97
8/17/97
8/24/97
8/31/97
9/7/97
9/14/97
9/21/97
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Sun 12 AM 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 PM 1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9 1011Mon 12 AM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12 PM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
T ues 12 AM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10 11
12 PM 1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 Wed 12 AM 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 PM 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 T hurs 12 AM 1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9 10 11 12 PM
1 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Fri 12 AM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12 PM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
S at 12 AM 1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 91011 12 PM 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
10/5/97
10/12/97
10/19/97
10/26/97
11/2/97
11/9/97
11/16/97
11/23/97
11/30/97
12/7/97
12/14/97
12/21/97
12/28/97
Load Follower, Intermediate: Max Load Daily, Min Load (8%) Nightly
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Sun 12 AM1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12P M 1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9 1011Mon 12AM
1
2
3 4
5 6
7
8
9
10
11
12P M
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
T ues 12 AM
1
2
3
4
5
6 7
8 9
10
11
12 P M 1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 Wed12 AM 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 PM 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 T hur s 12 AM 1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9 10 11 12 PM
1
2
3 4
5 6
7
8
9
10
11
Fr i 12 AM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12 P M
1
2
3
4
5
6 7
8 9
10
11
Sat 12 AM 1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12 P M 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
1/2/00
1/9/00
1/16/00
1/23/00
1/30/00
2/6/00
2/13/00
2/20/00
2/27/00
3/5/00
3/12/00
3/19/00
3/26/00
1 week

A-2

Appendix
PROTOTYPICAL LOAD CYCLE PATTERNS: ourly Capacity Factors over 1-Week Intervals in Relevant Season (Quarter)
Individual lines on charts are rly capacity factors derived using hourly CF (derived from CF data depicted on "CapFac" charts).
R
A
N
D
O
M
L
O
A
D
2
-
S
H
I
F
T
CYCLE: 0a CYCLE: 0b
CYCLE: 1b
CYCLE: 5c
CYCLE: 4c CYCLE: 4a CYCLE: 4b
CYCLE: 5a CYCLE: 5b
CYCLE: 2b
CYCLE: 3a
CYCLE: 2a
CYCLE: 3b
CF Range: -50% to +50%,
@10% intervals (circles)
- gridlines @10% intervals
- red circle @ 0.0%
(no change)
Note:
CYCLE: 1a
B
A
S
E
L
O
A
D
@
M
A
X

D
A
I
L
Y
L
O
A
D

F
O
L
L
O
W
P
E
A
K
E
R
S
I
N
T
E
R
M
E
D
I
A
T
E
W
I
N
T
E
R
S
U
M
M
E
R
Load Follower, Winter Peaker: Daily Peaks, else at Min Load (30%)
-50%
-40%
-30%
-20%
-10%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
Sun12 AM1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 PM 1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8
9 1011Mon12 AM
1 2
3 4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12 PM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
T ues 12 AM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8 9
10
11
12 PM
1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 Wed12 AM 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 PM 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Thur s 12 AM 1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9 10 11
12 PM
1
2
3 4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Fr i 12 AM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12 PM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8 9
10 11
S at 12 AM 1 2 3
4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12PM 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
1/1/95
1/8/95
1/15/95
1/22/95
1/29/95
2/5/95
2/12/95
2/19/95
2/26/95
3/5/95
3/12/95
3/19/95
3/26/95
-50%
-40%
-30%
-20%
-10%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
Sun12 AM 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12PM 1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9 1011Mon12 AM
1
2 3 4
5 6
7
8
9
10
11
12 PM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
T ues12 AM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7 8 9 10
11
12 PM 1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 Wed12 AM 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 PM 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 T hur s 12 AM 1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9 10 11 12PM
1
2 3 4 5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Fr i 12 AM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12 PM
1
2
3
4
5
67
8 910
11
S at 12AM 1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 910 11 12 PM 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
6/29/97
7/6/97
7/13/97
7/20/97
7/27/97
8/3/97
8/10/97
8/17/97
8/24/97
8/31/97
9/7/97
9/14/97
9/21/97
-50%
-40%
-30%
-20%
-10%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
S un12 AM1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 P M 1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9 1011Mon 12 AM
1 2 3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12 PM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
T ues 12 AM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9 10 11
12P M 1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 Wed12AM 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12P M 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 T hur s 12 AM 1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9 10 11 12P M
1 2 3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Fri 12 AM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12 PM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
910 11
Sat 12AM 1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12 P M 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
7/2/00
7/9/00
7/16/00
7/23/00
7/30/00
8/6/00
8/13/00
8/20/00
8/27/00
9/3/00
9/10/00
9/17/00
9/24/00
Load Follower, Intermediate: Max Load Daily, Load Follow Nightly to Min Load (15%)
-50%
-40%
-30%
-20%
-10%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
S un12 AM1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12P M 1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9 1011Mon 12 AM
1 2 3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12 PM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
T ues 12AM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9 10 11
12P M
1 2 3
4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 Wed12 AM 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 P M 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 T hur s 12 AM 1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8
9 10 11
12 P M
1 2 3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Fri 12 AM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12 P M
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
91011
Sat 12 AM 1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12 PM 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
7/2/00
7/9/00
7/16/00
7/23/00
7/30/00
8/6/00
8/13/00
8/20/00
8/27/00
9/3/00
9/10/00
9/17/00
9/24/00
Random: Continuously Varying Load, between 70%& 90%
-50%
-40%
-30%
-20%
-10%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
S un 12AM 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12P M 1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9 1011Mon 12 AM
1 2
3 4 5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12P M
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Tues 12 AM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7 8 9
10 11
12 P M 1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 Wed12 AM 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 PM 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Thur s12 AM 1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9 10 11 12 PM
1 2
3 4 5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Fr i 12 AM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12 PM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7 8 9
1011
Sat 12 AM 1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12 PM 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
4/8/01
4/15/01
4/22/01
4/29/01
5/6/01
5/13/01
5/20/01
5/27/01
6/3/01
6/10/01
6/17/01
6/24/01
7/1/01
-50%
-40%
-30%
-20%
-10%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
Sun 12 AM1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 PM 1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9 1011
Mon 12AM
1 2 3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12P M
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Tues 12 AM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9 10 11
12 P M 1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 Wed12 AM 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 P M 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 T hur s 12AM 1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9 10 11 12 P M
1 2 3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Fr i 12 AM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12 PM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
910 11
S at 12 AM
1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12P M 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
6/28/98
7/5/98
7/12/98
7/19/98
7/26/98
8/2/98
8/9/98
8/16/98
8/23/98
8/30/98
9/6/98
9/13/98
9/20/98
Load Follower, Summer Peaker: Daily Peaks, Min Load (10%) Nightly
-50%
-40%
-30%
-20%
-10%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
S un12 AM1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 P M 1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8
9 1011
Mon 12 AM
1
2 3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12 PM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Tues12 AM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9 10 11
12P M 1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 Wed12AM 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12P M 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 T hur s 12 AM 1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9 10 11 12P M
1 2 3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Fr i 12 AM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12 PM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
910
11
S at 12AM
1 2 3
4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12 P M 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
3/29/98
4/5/98
4/12/98
4/19/98
4/26/98
5/3/98
5/10/98
5/17/98
5/24/98
5/31/98
6/7/98
6/14/98
6/21/98
-50%
-40%
-30%
-20%
-10%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
S un12 AM1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 PM 1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8
9 1011
Mon12 AM
1
2 3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12 PM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
T ues 12 AM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9 10 11
12 P M 1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 Wed12 AM 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 P M 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 T hurs 12AM 1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9 10 11 12P M
1 2 3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Fr i 12AM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12P M
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
910
11
Sat 12AM
1 2 3
4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12P M 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
6/29/97
7/6/97
7/13/97
7/20/97
7/27/97
8/3/97
8/10/97
8/17/97
8/24/97
8/31/97
9/7/97
9/14/97
9/21/97
Baseload: Minor Load Following Nightly
-50%
-40%
-30%
-20%
-10%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
S un12 AM1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 PM 1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9 1011Mon12 AM
1
2
3 4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12 PM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
T ues 12 AM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7 8
9
10
11
12 PM 1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 Wed12 AM 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12PM 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 T hur s 12AM 1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9 10 11 12 PM
1
2
3
4 5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Fr i 12AM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12PM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8 9
10
11
S at 12 AM 1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12 PM 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
4/2/95
4/9/95
4/16/95
4/23/95
4/30/95
5/7/95
5/14/95
5/21/95
5/28/95
6/4/95
6/11/95
6/18/95
6/25/95
-50%
-40%
-30%
-20%
-10%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
S un12AM 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 PM 1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9 1011Mon12 AM
1
2 3 4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12 PM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
T ues 12AM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8 9
10
11
12 PM 1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 Wed12 AM 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 PM 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 T hur s 12 AM 1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9 10 11 12PM
1
2
3 4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Fr i 12 AM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12 PM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8 910
11
S at 12AM 1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12 PM 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
6/30/96
7/7/96
7/14/96
7/21/96
7/28/96
8/4/96
8/11/96
8/18/96
8/25/96
9/1/96
9/8/96
9/15/96
9/22/96
-50%
-40%
-30%
-20%
-10%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
Sun12 AM 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 PM 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
1011Mon12AM
1 2
3 4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12PM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
T ues 12 AM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7 8
9 10
11
12 PM 1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 Wed12AM 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 PM 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 T hur s 12 AM 1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9 10 11 12 PM
1
2 3
4 5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Fr i 12AM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12PM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
89
10 11
Sat 12 AM 1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 PM 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
6/30/96
7/7/96
7/14/96
7/21/96
7/28/96
8/4/96
8/11/96
8/18/96
8/25/96
9/1/96
9/8/96
9/15/96
9/22/96
-50%
-40%
-30%
-20%
-10%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
Sun12 AM1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 PM 1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9 1011Mon12AM
1 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12 PM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Tues12 AM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9 10
11
12PM
1 2 3
4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 Wed12AM 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12PM 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 T hur s 12AM 1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8
9 10 11
12PM
1
2 3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Fr i 12 AM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12 PM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10 11
S at 12AM 1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12 PM 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
10/5/97
10/12/97
10/19/97
10/26/97
11/2/97
11/9/97
11/16/97
11/23/97
11/30/97
12/7/97
12/14/97
12/21/97
12/28/97
Random: Continuously Varying Load, between 15% &80%
-50%
-40%
-30%
-20%
-10%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
S un 12AM1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 P M 1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9 1011Mon 12AM
1 23
4
56
7
8
9
10
11
12 PM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
T ues 12AM
1
2
3
4
5
6 7
8 9 10 11
12 PM 1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 Wed12 AM 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 PM 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 T hur s 12 AM 1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9 10 11 12P M
1 2 3 4
5 6
7
8
9
10
11
Fr i 12AM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12P M
1
2
3
4
5
67
8
910 11
S at 12AM 1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12 PM 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
10/5/97
10/12/97
10/19/97
10/26/97
11/2/97
11/9/97
11/16/97
11/23/97
11/30/97
12/7/97
12/14/97
12/21/97
12/28/97
-50%
-40%
-30%
-20%
-10%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
Sun 12 AM1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 P M 1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9 1011
Mon12 AM
1
2 34
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12 PM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
T ues12 AM
1
2
3
4
5
6 7
8 9
10
11
12 PM 1 2
3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 Wed12AM 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 PM 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Thur s12 AM 1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9
10 11 12P M
1
2
3 4
5 6
7
8
9
10
11
Fr i 12AM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12P M
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8 910
11
Sat 12AM
1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12 PM 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
1/2/00
1/9/00
1/16/00
1/23/00
1/30/00
2/6/00
2/13/00
2/20/00
2/27/00
3/5/00
3/12/00
3/19/00
3/26/00
1 week

H
hou

O
in
in
in
in
in
in
in in
in
in
in
in
in
in
A-3

Appendix
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
S un 12 AM
1 2 3 4 5 6
7
8
9
10
11
12 PM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Mon 12 AM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12 PM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
T ues 12 AM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12 PM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Wed12 AM
1
2
3
4
5
6 7 8 9 10 11
12 PM
1 2 3 4 5 6
7
8
9
10
11
T hurs 12 AM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12 PM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Fri 12 AM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12 PM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
S at 12 AM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12 PM
1
2
3
4
5
6 7 8 9 10 11
10/5/97
10/12/97
10/19/97
10/26/97
11/2/97
11/9/97
11/16/97
11/23/97
11/30/97
12/7/97
12/14/97
12/21/97
12/28/97

CYCLE: 0a
n Hourly Capacity Factor over 1-Week Intervals
-50%
-40%
-30%
-20%
-10%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
S un12 AM
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8
9
10
11
12 PM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Mon12 AM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12 PM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
T ues 12 AM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12 PM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Wed12 AM
1
2
3
4
5 6 7 8 9 10 11
12 PM
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8
9
10
11
T hur s 12 AM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12 PM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Fr i 12 AM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12 PM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
S at 12 AM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12 PM
1
2
3
4
5 6 7 8 9 10 11
10/5/97
10/12/97
10/19/97
10/26/97
11/2/97
11/9/97
11/16/97
11/23/97
11/30/97
12/7/97
12/14/97
12/21/97
12/28/97

i
A-4

Appendix
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
S un12 AM
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8
9
10
11
12PM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Mon12AM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12 PM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
T ues 12 AM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12 PM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Wed12 AM
1
2
3
4
5 6 7 8 9 10 11
12 PM
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8
9
10
11
T hur s 12 AM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12 PM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Fr i 12 AM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12 PM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
S at 12 AM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12 PM
1
2
3
4
5 6 7 8 9 10 11
4/8/01
4/15/01
4/22/01
4/29/01
5/6/01
5/13/01
5/20/01
5/27/01
6/3/01
6/10/01
6/17/01
6/24/01
7/1/01

CYCLE: 0b
-50%
-40%
-30%
-20%
-10%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
S un12 AM
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8
9
10
11
12PM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Mon12AM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12 PM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
T ues 12 AM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12 PM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Wed12 AM
1
2
3
4
5 6 7 8 9 10 11
12 PM
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8
9
10
11
T hur s 12 AM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12 PM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Fr i 12 AM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12 PM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
S at 12 AM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12 PM
1
2
3
4
5 6 7 8 9 10 11
4/8/01
4/15/01
4/22/01
4/29/01
5/6/01
5/13/01
5/20/01
5/27/01
6/3/01
6/10/01
6/17/01
6/24/01
7/1/01

in
A-5

Appendix
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
S un12AM
1 2 3 4 5
6 7
8
9
10
11
12PM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Mon12 AM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12PM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
T ues 12AM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12PM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Wed12 AM
1
2
3
4
5 6
7 8 9 10 11
12 PM
1 2 3 4 5
6 7
8
9
10
11
T hur s 12 AM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12PM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Fr i 12AM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12PM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
S at 12AM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12 PM
1
2
3
4
5 6
7 8 9 10 11
7/2/00
7/9/00
7/16/00
7/23/00
7/30/00
8/6/00
8/13/00
8/20/00
8/27/00
9/3/00
9/10/00
9/17/00
9/24/00

CYCLE: 1a
ourly Capacity Factor over 1-Week Intervals
-50%
-40%
-30%
-20%
-10%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
S un12 AM
1 2 3 4 5 6
7
8
9
10
11
12 PM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Mon12 AM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12 PM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
T ues 12 AM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12 PM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Wed12 AM
1
2
3
4
5
6 7 8 9 10 11
12 PM
1 2 3 4 5 6
7
8
9
10
11
T hur s 12 AM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12 PM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Fr i 12 AM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12 PM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
S at 12 AM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12 PM
1
2
3
4
5
6 7 8 9 10 11
7/2/00
7/9/00
7/16/00
7/23/00
7/30/00
8/6/00
8/13/00
8/20/00
8/27/00
9/3/00
9/10/00
9/17/00
9/24/00

in H
A-6

Appendix
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
S un12 AM
1 2 3 4 5
6 7
8
9
10
11
12 PM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Mon12AM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12 PM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
T ues 12AM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12 PM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Wed12 AM
1
2
3
4
5 6
7 8 9 10 11
12 PM
1 2 3 4 5
6 7
8
9
10
11
Thur s 12AM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12 PM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Fr i 12 AM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12 PM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
S at 12 AM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12 PM
1
2
3
4
5 6
7 8 9 10 11
6/28/98
7/5/98
7/12/98
7/19/98
7/26/98
8/2/98
8/9/98
8/16/98
8/23/98
8/30/98
9/6/98
9/13/98
9/20/98

CYCLE: 1b
-50%
-40%
-30%
-20%
-10%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
S un12 AM
1 2 3 4 5 6
7
8
9
10
11
12 PM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Mon12 AM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12 PM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
T ues 12 AM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12 PM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Wed12 AM
1
2
3
4
5
6 7 8 9 10 11
12 PM
1 2 3 4 5 6
7
8
9
10
11
T hur s 12 AM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12 PM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Fr i 12 AM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12 PM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
S at 12 AM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12 PM
1
2
3
4
5
6 7 8 9 10 11
6/28/98
7/5/98
7/12/98
7/19/98
7/26/98
8/2/98
8/9/98
8/16/98
8/23/98
8/30/98
9/6/98
9/13/98
9/20/98

i
A-7

Appendix
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
S un 12 AM
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8
9
10
11
12 PM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Mon 12 AM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12 PM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
T ues 12 AM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12 PM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Wed12 AM
1
2
3
4
5 6 7 8 9 10 11
12 PM
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8
9
10
11
T hurs 12 AM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12 PM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Fri 12 AM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12 PM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
S at 12 AM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12 PM
1
2
3
4
5 6 7 8 9 10 11
1/1/95
1/8/95
1/15/95
1/22/95
1/29/95
2/5/95
2/12/95
2/19/95
2/26/95
3/5/95
3/12/95
3/19/95
3/26/95

CYCLE: 2a
ourly Capacity Factor over 1-Week Intervals
-50%
-40%
-30%
-20%
-10%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
S un12 AM
1 2 3 4 5 6
7
8
9
10
11
12 PM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Mon12 AM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12 PM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
T ues 12 AM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12 PM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Wed12 AM
1
2
3
4
5
6 7 8 9 10 11
12 PM
1 2 3 4 5 6
7
8
9
10
11
T hur s 12 AM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12 PM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Fr i 12 AM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12 PM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
S at 12 AM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12 PM
1
2
3
4
5
6 7 8 9 10 11
1/1/95
1/8/95
1/15/95
1/22/95
1/29/95
2/5/95
2/12/95
2/19/95
2/26/95
3/5/95
3/12/95
3/19/95
3/26/95

in H
A-8

Appendix
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
S un12 AM
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8
9
10
11
12 PM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Mon12 AM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12 PM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
T ues 12 AM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12 PM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Wed12 AM
1
2
3
4
5 6 7 8 9 10 11
12 PM
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8
9
10
11
T hur s 12 AM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12 PM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Fr i 12 AM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12 PM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
S at 12 AM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12 PM
1
2
3
4
5 6 7 8 9 10 11
10/5/97
10/12/97
10/19/97
10/26/97
11/2/97
11/9/97
11/16/97
11/23/97
11/30/97
12/7/97
12/14/97
12/21/97
12/28/97

CYCLE: 2b
-50%
-40%
-30%
-20%
-10%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
S un12 AM
1 2 3 4 5 6
7
8
9
10
11
12 PM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Mon12 AM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12 PM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
T ues 12 AM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12 PM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Wed12 AM
1
2
3
4
5
6 7 8 9 10 11
12 PM
1 2 3 4 5 6
7
8
9
10
11
T hur s 12 AM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12 PM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Fr i 12 AM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12 PM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
S at 12 AM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12 PM
1
2
3
4
5
6 7 8 9 10 11
10/5/97
10/12/97
10/19/97
10/26/97
11/2/97
11/9/97
11/16/97
11/23/97
11/30/97
12/7/97
12/14/97
12/21/97
12/28/97

in
A-9

Appendix
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
S un12 AM
1 2 3 4 5
6 7
8
9
10
11
12 PM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Mon12 AM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12 PM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
T ues 12 AM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12 PM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Wed12 AM
1
2
3
4
5 6
7 8 9 10 11
12 PM
1 2 3 4 5
6 7
8
9
10
11
T hur s 12 AM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12 PM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Fr i 12 AM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12 PM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
S at 12 AM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12 PM
1
2
3
4
5 6
7 8 9 10 11
3/29/98
4/5/98
4/12/98
4/19/98
4/26/98
5/3/98
5/10/98
5/17/98
5/24/98
5/31/98
6/7/98
6/14/98
6/21/98

CYCLE: 3a
-50%
-40%
-30%
-20%
-10%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
S un12 AM
1 2 3 4 5 6
7
8
9
10
11
12 PM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Mon12 AM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12 PM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
T ues 12 AM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12PM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Wed12AM
1
2
3
4
5
6 7 8 9 10 11
12 PM
1 2 3 4 5 6
7
8
9
10
11
T hur s 12 AM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12PM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Fr i 12 AM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12 PM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
S at 12AM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12 PM
1
2
3
4
5
6 7 8 9 10 11
3/29/98
4/5/98
4/12/98
4/19/98
4/26/98
5/3/98
5/10/98
5/17/98
5/24/98
5/31/98
6/7/98
6/14/98
6/21/98

in
A-10

Appendix
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
S un12 AM
1 2 3 4 5 6
7
8
9
10
11
12 PM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Mon12 AM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12 PM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
T ues 12 AM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12 PM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Wed12 AM
1
2
3
4
5
6 7 8 9 10 11
12 PM
1 2 3 4 5 6
7
8
9
10
11
T hur s 12 AM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12 PM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Fr i 12 AM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12 PM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
S at 12 AM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12 PM
1
2
3
4
5
6 7 8 9 10 11
6/29/97
7/6/97
7/13/97
7/20/97
7/27/97
8/3/97
8/10/97
8/17/97
8/24/97
8/31/97
9/7/97
9/14/97
9/21/97

CYCLE: 3b
-50%
-40%
-30%
-20%
-10%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
S un12 AM
1 2 3 4 5 6
7
8
9
10
11
12 PM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Mon12 AM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12 PM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
T ues 12 AM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12 PM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Wed12 AM
1
2
3
4
5
6 7 8 9 10 11
12 PM
1 2 3 4 5 6
7
8
9
10
11
T hur s 12 AM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12 PM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Fr i 12 AM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12 PM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
S at 12 AM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12 PM
1
2
3
4
5
6 7 8 9 10 11
6/29/97
7/6/97
7/13/97
7/20/97
7/27/97
8/3/97
8/10/97
8/17/97
8/24/97
8/31/97
9/7/97
9/14/97
9/21/97

i
A-11

Appendix
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
S un12 AM
1 2 3 4 5 6
7
8
9
10
11
12 PM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Mon12 AM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12 PM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
T ues 12 AM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12 PM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Wed12 AM
1
2
3
4
5
6 7 8 9 10 11
12 PM
1 2 3 4 5 6
7
8
9
10
11
T hur s 12 AM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12 PM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Fr i 12 AM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12 PM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
S at 12 AM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12 PM
1
2
3
4
5
6 7 8 9 10 11
7/2/00
7/9/00
7/16/00
7/23/00
7/30/00
8/6/00
8/13/00
8/20/00
8/27/00
9/3/00
9/10/00
9/17/00
9/24/00

CYCLE: 4a
-50%
-40%
-30%
-20%
-10%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
S un12 AM
1 2 3 4 5 6
7
8
9
10
11
12 PM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Mon12 AM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12 PM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
T ues 12 AM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12 PM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Wed12 AM
1
2
3
4
5
6 7 8 9 10 11
12 PM
1 2 3 4 5 6
7
8
9
10
11
T hur s 12 AM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12 PM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Fr i 12 AM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12 PM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
S at 12 AM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12 PM
1
2
3
4
5
6 7 8 9 10 11
7/2/00
7/9/00
7/16/00
7/23/00
7/30/00
8/6/00
8/13/00
8/20/00
8/27/00
9/3/00
9/10/00
9/17/00
9/24/00

i
A-12

Appendix
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
S un12 AM
1 2 3 4 5 6
7
8
9
10
11
12 PM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Mon12 AM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12 PM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
T ues 12 AM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12 PM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Wed12 AM
1
2
3
4
5
6 7 8 9 10 11
12 PM
1 2 3 4 5 6
7
8
9
10
11
T hur s 12 AM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12 PM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Fr i 12 AM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12 PM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
S at 12 AM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12 PM
1
2
3
4
5
6 7 8 9 10 11
1/2/00
1/9/00
1/16/00
1/23/00
1/30/00
2/6/00
2/13/00
2/20/00
2/27/00
3/5/00
3/12/00
3/19/00
3/26/00

CYCLE: 4b
-50%
-40%
-30%
-20%
-10%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
S un12 AM
1 2 3 4 5 6
7
8
9
10
11
12 PM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Mon12 AM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12 PM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
T ues 12 AM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12 PM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Wed12 AM
1
2
3
4
5
6 7 8 9 10 11
12 PM
1 2 3 4 5 6
7
8
9
10
11
T hur s 12 AM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12 PM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Fr i 12 AM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12 PM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
S at 12 AM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12 PM
1
2
3
4
5
6 7 8 9 10 11
1/2/00
1/9/00
1/16/00
1/23/00
1/30/00
2/6/00
2/13/00
2/20/00
2/27/00
3/5/00
3/12/00
3/19/00
3/26/00

i
A-13

Appendix
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
S un12 AM
1 2 3 4 5
6 7
8
9
10
11
12 PM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Mon12 AM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12 PM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
T ues 12 AM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12 PM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Wed12 AM
1
2
3
4
5 6
7 8 9 10 11
12 PM
1 2 3 4 5
6 7
8
9
10
11
T hur s 12 AM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12 PM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Fr i 12 AM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12 PM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
S at 12 AM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12 PM
1
2
3
4
5 6
7 8 9 10 11
6/30/96
7/7/96
7/14/96
7/21/96
7/28/96
8/4/96
8/11/96
8/18/96
8/25/96
9/1/96
9/8/96
9/15/96
9/22/96

CYCLE: 4c
-50%
-40%
-30%
-20%
-10%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
S un12 AM
1 2 3 4 5
6 7
8
9
10
11
12 PM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Mon12 AM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12 PM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
T ues 12 AM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12PM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Wed12AM
1
2
3
4
5 6
7 8 9 10 11
12PM
1 2 3 4 5
6 7
8
9
10
11
T hur s 12 AM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12 PM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Fr i 12AM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12PM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
S at 12 AM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12 PM
1
2
3
4
5 6
7 8 9 10 11
6/30/96
7/7/96
7/14/96
7/21/96
7/28/96
8/4/96
8/11/96
8/18/96
8/25/96
9/1/96
9/8/96
9/15/96
9/22/96

i
A-14

Appendix
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
S un12 AM
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8
9
10
11
12 PM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Mon12 AM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12 PM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
T ues 12 AM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12 PM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Wed12 AM
1
2
3
4
5 6 7 8 9 10 11
12 PM
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8
9
10
11
T hur s 12 AM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12 PM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Fr i 12 AM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12 PM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
S at 12 AM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12 PM
1
2
3
4
5 6 7 8 9 10 11
6/29/97
7/6/97
7/13/97
7/20/97
7/27/97
8/3/97
8/10/97
8/17/97
8/24/97
8/31/97
9/7/97
9/14/97
9/21/97

CYCLE: 5a
-50%
-40%
-30%
-20%
-10%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
S un12 AM
1 2 3 4 5 6
7
8
9
10
11
12 PM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Mon12 AM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12 PM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
T ues 12 AM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12 PM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Wed12 AM
1
2
3
4
5
6 7 8 9 10 11
12 PM
1 2 3 4 5 6
7
8
9
10
11
T hur s 12 AM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12 PM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Fr i 12 AM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12 PM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
S at 12 AM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12 PM
1
2
3
4
5
6 7 8 9 10 11
6/29/97
7/6/97
7/13/97
7/20/97
7/27/97
8/3/97
8/10/97
8/17/97
8/24/97
8/31/97
9/7/97
9/14/97
9/21/97

i
A-15

Appendix
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
S un12AM
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8
9
10
11
12PM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Mon12AM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12 PM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
T ues 12 AM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12 PM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Wed12 AM
1
2
3
4
5 6 7 8 9 10 11
12 PM
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8
9
10
11
T hur s 12 AM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12PM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Fr i 12AM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12PM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
S at 12AM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12 PM
1
2
3
4
5 6 7 8 9 10 11
4/2/95
4/9/95
4/16/95
4/23/95
4/30/95
5/7/95
5/14/95
5/21/95
5/28/95
6/4/95
6/11/95
6/18/95
6/25/95

CYCLE: 5b
-50%
-40%
-30%
-20%
-10%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
S un12AM
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8
9
10
11
12 PM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Mon12AM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12PM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
T ues 12AM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12PM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Wed12 AM
1
2
3
4
5 6 7 8 9 10 11
12PM
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8
9
10
11
Thur s 12 AM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12PM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Fr i 12 AM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12 PM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
S at 12AM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12 PM
1
2
3
4
5 6 7 8 9 10 11
4/2/95
4/9/95
4/16/95
4/23/95
4/30/95
5/7/95
5/14/95
5/21/95
5/28/95
6/4/95
6/11/95
6/18/95
6/25/95

i
A-16

Appendix
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
S un12 AM
1 2 3 4 5 6
7
8
9
10
11
12 PM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Mon12 AM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12 PM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
T ues 12 AM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12 PM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Wed12 AM
1
2
3
4
5
6 7 8 9 10 11
12 PM
1 2 3 4 5 6
7
8
9
10
11
T hur s 12 AM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12 PM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Fr i 12 AM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12 PM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
S at 12 AM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12 PM
1
2
3
4
5
6 7 8 9 10 11
6/30/96
7/7/96
7/14/96
7/21/96
7/28/96
8/4/96
8/11/96
8/18/96
8/25/96
9/1/96
9/8/96
9/15/96
9/22/96

CYCLE: 5c
-50%
-40%
-30%
-20%
-10%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
S un12 AM
1 2 3 4 5
6 7
8
9
10
11
12 PM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Mon12 AM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12 PM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
T ues 12 AM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12 PM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Wed12 AM
1
2
3
4
5 6
7 8 9 10 11
12 PM
1 2 3 4 5
6 7
8
9
10
11
T hur s 12 AM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12 PM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Fr i 12 AM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12 PM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
S at 12 AM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12 PM
1
2
3
4
5 6
7 8 9 10 11
6/30/96
7/7/96
7/14/96
7/21/96
7/28/96
8/4/96
8/11/96
8/18/96
8/25/96
9/1/96
9/8/96
9/15/96
9/22/96

i
A-17

Appendix
Cycle Cycle Cycle Cycle Cycle Cycle Cycle Cycle Cycle Cycle Cycle Cycle Cycle Cycle
0a 0b 1a 1b 2a 2b 3a 3b 4a 4b 4c 5a 5b 5c
-100% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
-100% < -50% 0 0 4 48 1 0 0 0 0 0 5 3 0 0
-50% < -32% 5 5 75 58 1 1 3 1 21 28 71 0 1 1
-32% < -20% 33 54 50 30 9 41 27 1 86 56 64 8 2 0
-20% < -10% 126 249 41 35 199 217 140 51 236 104 98 80 12 2
-10% < -5% 253 289 62 20 290 262 196 307 152 79 74 98 91 6
-5% < < 0% 481 377 141 102 619 566 413 701 437 256 327 539 737 724
CF = 0% 127 94 62 311 153 44 162 142 350 505 834 520 470 699
0% < < 5% 403 399 144 143 432 418 413 625 426 254 373 709 755 742
5% < 10% 129 301 114 46 161 190 234 274 150 79 77 107 101 6
10% < 20% 138 258 98 66 222 205 120 75 202 104 75 84 14 3
20% < 32% 51 44 86 96 48 84 24 3 93 40 68 5 1 1
32% < 50% 13 3 27 73 0 1 5 0 30 44 65 0 0 0
50% 100% 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 9 1 0 0
0% 1,632 1,979 843 717 1,982 1,985 1,575 2,038 1,834 1,044 1,306 1,634 1,714 1,485
1,759 2,073 905 1,028 2,135 2,029 1,737 2,180 2,184 1,549 2,140 2,154 2,184 2,184
2,184 2,184 2,184 2,184 2,184 2,184 2,184 2,184 2,184 2,184 2,184 2,184 2,184 2,184
Cycle Cycle Cycle Cycle Cycle Cycle Cycle Cycle Cycle Cycle Cycle Cycle Cycle Cycle
0a 0b 1a 1b 2a 2b 3a 3b 4a 4b 4c 5a 5b 5c
-100% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
-100% < -50% 0.0% 0.0% 0.4% 4.7% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.2% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0%
-50% < -32% 0.3% 0.2% 8.3% 5.6% 0.0% 0.0% 0.2% 0.0% 1.0% 1.8% 3.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
-32% < -20% 1.9% 2.6% 5.5% 2.9% 0.4% 2.0% 1.6% 0.0% 3.9% 3.6% 3.0% 0.4% 0.1% 0.0%
-20% < -10% 7.2% 12.0% 4.5% 3.4% 9.3% 10.7% 8.1% 2.3% 10.8% 6.7% 4.6% 3.7% 0.5% 0.1%
-10% < -5% 14.4% 13.9% 6.9% 1.9% 13.6% 12.9% 11.3% 14.1% 7.0% 5.1% 3.5% 4.5% 4.2% 0.3%
-5% < < 0% 27.3% 18.2% 15.6% 9.9% 29.0% 27.9% 23.8% 32.2% 20.0% 16.5% 15.3% 25.0% 33.7% 33.2%
CF = 0% 7.2% 4.5% 6.9% 30.3% 7.2% 2.2% 9.3% 6.5% 16.0% 32.6% 39.0% 24.1% 21.5% 32.0%
0% < < 5% 22.9% 19.2% 15.9% 13.9% 20.2% 20.6% 23.8% 28.7% 19.5% 16.4% 17.4% 32.9% 34.6% 34.0%
5% < 10% 7.3% 14.5% 12.6% 4.5% 7.5% 9.4% 13.5% 12.6% 6.9% 5.1% 3.6% 5.0% 4.6% 0.3%
10% < 20% 7.8% 12.4% 10.8% 6.4% 10.4% 10.1% 6.9% 3.4% 9.2% 6.7% 3.5% 3.9% 0.6% 0.1%
20% < 32% 2.9% 2.1% 9.5% 9.3% 2.2% 4.1% 1.4% 0.1% 4.3% 2.6% 3.2% 0.2% 0.0% 0.0%
32% < 50% 0.7% 0.1% 3.0% 7.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.3% 0.0% 1.4% 2.8% 3.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
50% 100% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.4% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
0% 92.8% 95.5% 93.1% 69.7% 92.8% 97.8% 90.7% 93.5% 84.0% 67.4% 61.0% 75.9% 78.5% 68.0%
80.5% 94.9% 41.4% 47.1% 97.8% 92.9% 79.5% 99.8% 100.0% 70.9% 98.0% 98.6% 100.0% 100.0%
PERCENT DISTRIBUTION of CHANGES in HOURLY CAPACITY FACTOR
by Load Cycle Prototype in Relevant Quarter
Service Factor =
SH/PH
(Percent of Service Hours)
CF Range
Lower Upper
Service Hours (SH)
Period Hours (PH)
FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION of CHANGES in HOURLY CAPACITY FACTOR
by Load Cycle Prototype in Relevant Quarter
Lower Upper
CF Range
Frequency (# of Hours in Quarter)

CF
CF
CF
CF
CF
CF
CF
CF
CF
CF
CF
CF
CF
CF
CF
CF
CF
CF
CF
CF
CF
CF
CF
CF
CF
CF
CF
CF

A-18

Appendix
Capacity Factor (x-Axis)
Range: 0 to 40,000Btu/kWh;
- gridlines @ intervals of 5,000
Btu/kWh
Heat Rate (y-Axis)
Range 0% to 100%;
- gridlines @ intervals of 20%
@
M
A
X

D
A
I
L
Y
HEAT RATE CURVES corresponding to PROTOTYPICAL LOAD CYCLE PATTERNS
Based on prototyical unit's hourly Btus & gross kWh in relevant quarter
R
A
N
D
O
M
L
O
A
D
2
-
S
H
I
F
T
L
O
A
D

F
O
L
L
O
W
P
E
A
K
E
R
S
I
N
T
E
R
M
E
D
I
A
T
E
W
I
N
T
E
R
B
A
S
E
L
O
A
D
CYCLE: 5c
CYCLE: 4c CYCLE: 4a CYCLE: 4b
CYCLE: 5a CYCLE: 5b
S
U
M
M
E
R
CYCLE: 0a
CYCLE: 2a CYCLE: 2b
CYCLE: 3a CYCLE: 3b
CYCLE: 1a CYCLE: 1b
CYCLE: 0b
Cycle 0a: Heat Rate Curve
0
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
30,000
35,000
40,000
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Capacity Factor (%)
H
eat Rate (Btu/kW
h)
Cycle 0b: Heat Rate Curve
0
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
30,000
35,000
40,000
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Capacity Factor (%)
H
eat Rate (Btu/kW
h)
0
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
30,000
35,000
40,000
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Capacity Factor (%)
H
eat Rate (B
tu/kW
h)
0
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
30,000
35,000
40,000
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Capacity Factor (%)
H
eat Rate (B
tu/kW
h)
0
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
30,000
35,000
40,000
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Capacity Factor (%)
Heat Rate (B
tu/kW
h)
0
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
30,000
35,000
40,000
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Capacity Factor (%)
Heat Rate (B
tu/kW
h)
Cycle 4c: Heat Rate Curve
0
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
30,000
35,000
40,000
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Capacity Factor (%)
Heat R
ate (Btu/kW
h)
0
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
30,000
35,000
40,000
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Capacity Factor (%)
Heat R
ate (Btu/kW
h)
0
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
30,000
35,000
40,000
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Capacity Factor (%)
Heat R
ate (Btu/kW
h)
0
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
30,000
35,000
40,000
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Capacity Factor (%)
Heat R
ate (Btu/kW
h)
0
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
30,000
35,000
40,000
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Capacity Factor (%)
Heat R
ate (Btu/kW
h)
0
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
30,000
35,000
40,000
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Capacity Factor (%)
Heat R
ate (Btu/kW
h)
0
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
30,000
35,000
40,000
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Capacity Factor (%)
H
eat Rate (B
tu/kW
h)
0
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
30,000
35,000
40,000
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Capacity Factor (%)
H
eat Rate (B
tu/kW
h)

A-19

Appendix
CYCLE: 0a, 0b
0
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
30,000
35,000
40,000
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Capacity Factor (%)
H
e
a
t

R
a
t
e

(
B
t
u
/
k
W
h
)

0
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
30,000
35,000
40,000
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Capacity Factor (%)
H
e
a
t

R
a
t
e

(
B
t
u
/
k
W
h
)

A-20

Appendix
0
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
30,000
35,000
40,000
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Capacity Factor (%)
H
e
a
t

R
a
t
e

(
B
t
u
/
k
W
h
)

CYCLE: 1a, 1b
0
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
30,000
35,000
40,000
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Capacity Factor (%)
H
e
a
t

R
a
t
e

(
B
t
u
/
k
W
h
)

A-21

Appendix
CYCLE: 2a, 2b
0
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
30,000
35,000
40,000
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Capacity Factor (%)
H
e
a
t

R
a
t
e

(
B
t
u
/
k
W
h
)

0
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
30,000
35,000
40,000
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Capacity Factor (%)
H
e
a
t

R
a
t
e

(
B
t
u
/
k
W
h
)

A-22

Appendix
0
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
30,000
35,000
40,000
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Capacity Factor (%)
H
e
a
t

R
a
t
e

(
B
t
u
/
k
W
h
)

CYCLE: 3a, 3b
0
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
30,000
35,000
40,000
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Capacity Factor (%)
H
e
a
t

R
a
t
e

(
B
t
u
/
k
W
h
)

A-23

Appendix
CYCLE: 4a, 4b
0
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
30,000
35,000
40,000
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Capacity Factor (%)
H
e
a
t

R
a
t
e

(
B
t
u
/
k
W
h
)

0
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
30,000
35,000
40,000
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Capacity Factor (%)
H
e
a
t

R
a
t
e

(
B
t
u
/
k
W
h
)

A-24

Appendix
0
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
30,000
35,000
40,000
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Capacity Factor (%)
H
e
a
t

R
a
t
e

(
B
t
u
/
k
W
h
)

CYCLE: 4c
A-25

Appendix
CYCLE: 5a, 5b
0
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
30,000
35,000
40,000
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Capacity Factor (%)
H
e
a
t

R
a
t
e

(
B
t
u
/
k
W
h
)

0
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
30,000
35,000
40,000
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Capacity Factor (%)
H
e
a
t

R
a
t
e

(
B
t
u
/
k
W
h
)

A-26

Appendix
0
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
30,000
35,000
40,000
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Capacity Factor (%)
H
e
a
t

R
a
t
e

(
B
t
u
/
k
W
h
)

CYCLE: 5c
A-27

Appendix
Note: Individual lines on charts are one week's hourly electricity demand (in MWs) for weeks in relevant quarter.
Lines with markers indicate weeks in which load pattern is more typical of either previous or following quarter than quarter it is in.
Further analyses will break up year based on seasonal patterns in demand.
Selected TYPICAL REGIONAL HOURLY ELECTRICITY DEMAND PATTERNS: Hourly MW Demand over 1-Week Intervals, by Quarter
Texas (ERCOT), Tennessee (TVA), Mid-Atlantic Pool (PJM), Midwest Utility (ECAR Util), Southeastern U.S. (SERC-Southern)
S
E
R
C
-
S
o
u
1

9

9

8
3
rd
QUARTER
E
C
A
R

U
t
i
l
1

9

9

9
4
th
QUARTER
-
E
R
C
O
T
-
1

9

9

9
-
T
V
A
-
1

9

9

8
-

P
J
M

-
1

9

9

9
1
st
QUARTER 2
nd
QUARTER
Hourly Electricity Demand (MW)
ERCOT: 1st Quarter 1999 (January - March)
0
10,000
20,000
30,000
40,000
50,000
60,000
S un 12 AM 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1112 P M 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1011Mon 12 AM
1 2 34567
8910
11 12 PM 12
3
45
67
8 9
10
11 Tues 12 AM
1 2 3 4
5 6 7
8 9 10 11
12 PM 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Wed12 AM 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 PM 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 T hurs 12 AM 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 P M
1 2 3 4
5 6 7
8 9 10 11
F ri 12 AM1
2
3 4
56
78
9
10 11 12 PM1
234
56 78 91011
S at 12 AM1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 910 11 12 P M 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
1/3/99
1/10/99
1/17/99
1/24/99
1/31/99
2/7/99
2/14/99
2/21/99
2/28/99
3/7/99
3/14/99
3/21/99
3/28/99
ERCOT: 2nd Quarter 1999 (April - June)
0
10,000
20,000
30,000
40,000
50,000
60,000
S un 12 AM 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1112 PM 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1011Mon 12 AM
1 2 34
567
8910 11 12 PM 1
2
3
45
67
8 9
10
11 T ues 12 AM 1 2 3 4
5 6 7 8 9 10 11
12 P M 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Wed12 AM 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 P M 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 T hurs 12 AM 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 PM
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8 9 10 11 Fri 12 AM1
2
3 4
56
78
9
10
11 12 PM1234
567
891011
S at 12 AM 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 910 11 12 P M 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
4/4/99
4/11/99
4/18/99
4/25/99
5/2/99
5/9/99
5/16/99
5/23/99
5/30/99
6/6/99
6/13/99
6/20/99
6/27/99
ERCOT: 3rd Quarter 1999 (July - September)
0
10,000
20,000
30,000
40,000
50,000
60,000
S un 12 AM 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 P M 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1011Mon 12 AM
1 2 3 4567
8910
11 12 PM 1
2
34
56
7
8 9
10
11 T ues 12 AM
1 2 3 4
5 6 7 8 9 10 11
12 P M 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Wed 12 AM 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 PM 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 T hurs 12 AM 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 P M
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8 9 10 11
F ri 12 AM1
2
3 4
5
67
89
10
11 12 PM1
23 4
5678 91011
S at 12 AM1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 910 11 12 P M 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
7/4/99
7/11/99
7/18/99
7/25/99
8/1/99
8/8/99
8/15/99
8/22/99
8/29/99
9/5/99
9/12/99
9/19/99
9/26/99
TVA: 1st Quarter 1998 (January - March)
0
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
30,000
S un 12 AM 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1112 P M 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1011Mon 12 AM
1 2 3 4567
8910
11 12 P M
1
2
34
5
67
8
9
10
11 T ues 12 AM
1 2
3 4
5 6 7
8 9 10 11
12 PM 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Wed 12 AM 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 PM 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 T hur s 12 AM 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 PM
1 2 3 4
5 6 7
8 9
10 11
F ri 12 AM 1
2
3
4
56
7
89
10
11
12 P M1
234
567 8 91011
S at 12 AM 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 910 11 12 PM 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
1/4/98
1/11/98
1/18/98
1/25/98
2/1/98
2/8/98
2/15/98
2/22/98
3/1/98
3/8/98
3/15/98
3/22/98
3/29/98
TVA: 3rd Quarter 1998 (July - September)
0
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
30,000
S un 12 AM 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1112 PM 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1011Mon 12 AM
1 2 3 4567
8910
11 12 P M
1
2
3
4
56
7
8 9
10
11 T ues 12 AM 1
2 3 4
5 6 7
8 9 10 11
12 PM 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Wed12 AM 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 P M 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 T hur s 12 AM 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 P M
1 2 3 4
5 6 7
8 9 10
11 F ri 12 AM1
2
3 4
5
67
8
9
10
11
12 PM1
234
5 678 91011
S at 12 AM 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 910 11 12 P M 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
7/5/98
7/12/98
7/19/98
7/26/98
8/2/98
8/9/98
8/16/98
8/23/98
8/30/98
9/6/98
9/13/98
9/20/98
9/27/98
TVA: 4th Quarter 1998 (October - December)
0
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
30,000
S un 12 AM 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1112 P M 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1011Mon 12 AM
1 2 3 4
567
8910
11 12 PM
1
2
34
5
67
8 9
10
11
T ues 12 AM 1 2
3 4
5 6 7
8 9 10 11
12 PM 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Wed 12 AM 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 P M 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 T hur s 12 AM 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 P M
1 2 3 4
5 6 7
8 9
10 11 F ri 12 AM
1
2
3 4
56
7
89
10
11
12 P M1
234
567
8 91011
S at 12 AM 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 910 11 12 PM 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
10/4/98
10/11/98
10/18/98
10/25/98
11/1/98
11/8/98
11/15/98
11/22/98
11/29/98
12/6/98
12/13/98
12/20/98
12/27/98
Hourly Electricity Demand (MWLoad)
1st Quarter, 1999 (Jan - Mar)
0
2,000
4,000
6,000
8,000
10,000
S un12 AM1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1112 PM 1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9 1011Mon12 AM
12 34
567
8
910 11
12 PM
12
3
45
67 8
9
10 11
T ues 12 AM
1 2 3
4
5 6 7
8 9 10 11
12 PM 1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 Wed12 AM 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12PM 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 T hur s12 AM 1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9 10 11 12 PM
1 2 3 4
5 6 7
8
9 10 11
Fr i 12AM
1 2
3
4 56
78
9
10 11
12PM
123
4
567
891011
S at 12 AM1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 910 11 12 PM 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1011
1/3/99
1/10/99
1/17/99
1/24/99
1/31/99
2/7/99
2/14/99
2/21/99
2/28/99
3/7/99
3/14/99
3/21/99
3/28/99
3rd Quarter, 1999 (Jul - Sep)
0
2,000
4,000
6,000
8,000
10,000
S un12 AM 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1112 PM 1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9 1011Mon12 AM
1 2 34 567
8
910 11 12PM 12
3
4567
8
9
10 11
T ues 12AM 1 2 3
4
5 6 7 8 9 10 11
12PM 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Wed12 AM 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 PM 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 T hur s 12 AM 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 PM
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8
9 10 11 Fr i 12 AM
1 2
3
4
5678
9
10 11 12 PM123
4
5678 91011
Sat 12AM 1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 910 11 12 PM 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
7/4/99
7/11/99
7/18/99
7/25/99
8/1/99
8/8/99
8/15/99
8/22/99
8/29/99
9/5/99
9/12/99
9/19/99
9/26/99
4th Quarter, 1999 (Oct - Dec)
0
2,000
4,000
6,000
8,000
10,000
S un12 AM 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1112 PM 1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9 1011Mon12 AM
1 2 3 4
567
8910 11 12 PM
12
3
4
567
89
10 11
T ues 12 AM 1 2 3 4
5 6 7
8 9 10 11
12 PM 1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 Wed12 AM 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 PM 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 T hur s 12 AM 1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9 10 11 12 PM
1 2 3 4
5 6 7
8 9 10 11 Fr i 12 AM
1 2
34
567
8
9
10 11
12 PM1234
567
891011
S at 12 AM 1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 910 11 12 PM 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
10/3/99
10/10/99
10/17/99
10/24/99
10/31/99
11/7/99
11/14/99
11/21/99
11/28/99
12/5/99
12/12/99
12/19/99
12/26/99
2nd Quarter, 1999 (April - June)
0
2,000
4,000
6,000
8,000
10,000
S un12 AM 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 PM 1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9 1011Mon12 AM
1 2 34
567
8
910 11
12 PM
12
3
456
7 8
9
10 11
T ues 12 AM
1 2 3
4
5 6 7
8 9 10 11
12PM 1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 Wed12 AM 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 PM 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 T hur s 12 AM 1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9 10 11 12 PM
1 2 3 4
5 6 7
8
9 10 11
Fri 12 AM
1 2
3
4 5
678
9
10 11
12 PM
123
4
567
891011
S at 12 AM1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 910 11 12 PM 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
4/4/99
4/11/99
4/18/99
4/25/99
5/2/99
5/9/99
5/16/99
5/23/99
5/30/99
6/6/99
6/13/99
6/20/99
6/27/99
Hourly Electricity Demand (MW Load)
Southern Co: 4th Quarter, 1998 (Oct - Dec)
0
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
30,000
35,000
S un12AM1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12PM 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1011Mon12AM
1 2 3 4 56
7
8
9
10
11 12 P M
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Tues 12 AM 1
2
3
4
5
6 7 8 9
10 11
12PM 1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 Wed12AM 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12PM 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Thur s12AM 1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9 10 11 12P M
1 2
3 4 5 6
7
8
9
10
11 F ri 12 AM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12 PM1
2
3
4
5
6 78 91011
S at 12AM1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 910 11 12PM 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
10/4/98
10/11/98
10/18/98
10/25/98
11/1/98
11/8/98
11/15/98
11/22/98
11/29/98
12/6/98
12/13/98
12/20/98
12/27/98
Southern Co: 3rd Quarter, 1998 (Jul - Sep)
0
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
30,000
35,000
S un 12 AM1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 PM 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1011Mon12AM
1 2 3 4
56
7
8
9
10
11
12 PM 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11 T ues 12 AM 1
2
3 4
5
6 7 8 9 10 11
12 PM 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Wed12 AM 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 PM 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 T hurs 12AM 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 P M
1 2 3 4 5 6
7
8 9
10
11 F r i 12 AM1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11 12 PM
1
2
3
4
5
67
891011
Sat 12 AM1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12P M 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
7/5/98
7/12/98
7/19/98
7/26/98
8/2/98
8/9/98
8/16/98
8/23/98
8/30/98
9/6/98
9/13/98
9/20/98
9/27/98
Hourly Electricity Demand (MW Load)
Southern Co: 2nd Quarter, 1998 (Apr - Jun)
0
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
30,000
35,000
Sun 12 AM1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12P M 1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9 1011Mon 12AM
1
2 3 4
5 6
7
8
9
10
11 12P M
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
T ues 12 AM 1
2
3
4
5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 PM 1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 Wed12 AM 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12P M 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 T hur s 12 AM 1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9 10 11 12P M
1 2
3 4
5 6
7
8
9
10
11 F r i 12 AM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12 P M1
2
3
4
5
6 7
8 910
11
S at 12AM 1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 910 11 12 PM 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
4/5/98
4/12/98
4/19/98
4/26/98
5/3/98
5/10/98
5/17/98
5/24/98
5/31/98
6/7/98
6/14/98
6/21/98
6/28/98
Southern Co: 1st Quarter, 1998 (Jan - Mar)
0
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
30,000
35,000
Sun12AM1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12P M 1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9 1011Mon12AM
1
2 3 45
6
7
89
10
11
12 PM 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11 T ues 12 AM
1 2
3
4
5
6
7 8 9 10 11
12 PM 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Wed12 AM 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12P M 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Thur s 12 AM 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12P M
1 2 3 4 5
6
7
8
9
10 11
F r i 12 AM1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11 12 PM
1
2
34
5
6
78 910
11
S at 12AM 1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 910 11 12 PM 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
1/4/98
1/11/98
1/18/98
1/25/98
2/1/98
2/8/98
2/15/98
2/22/98
3/1/98
3/8/98
3/15/98
3/22/98
3/29/98
ERCOT: 4th Quarter 1999 (October - December)
0
10,000
20,000
30,000
40,000
50,000
60,000
Sun12AM 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1112 PM 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1011Mon12AM
1 234
567
8
91011 12 PM 1
2
3
4567 8
9
10
11 T ues 12 AM 1 2 3
4
5 6 7
8 9 10 11
12 PM 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Wed12 AM 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 PM 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 T hur s 12 AM 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 PM
1 2 3 4
5 6 7
8
9 10 11 Fr i 12AM1
2
3
4 5678
9
10
11 12PM123
4
567
891011
S at 12 AM1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 910 11 12 PM 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
10/3/99
10/10/99
10/17/99
10/24/99
10/31/99
11/7/99
11/14/99
11/21/99
11/28/99
12/5/99
12/12/99
12/19/99
12/26/99
PJM: 1st Quarter 1999 (January - March)
0
10,000
20,000
30,000
40,000
50,000
Sun 12 AM1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12P M 1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9 1011Mon 12 AM
1 2 34 5
6
7
89
10
11 12P M
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
T ues 12 AM 1 2
3 4
5
6
7 8 9 10 11
12P M 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Wed12 AM 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 PM 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 T hur s 12 AM 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 P M
1 2 3 4 5
6
7
8 9
10 11 Fr i 12 AM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12 PM1
2
34
5
6
78 91011
S at 12 AM 1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12 PM 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
1/3/99
1/10/99
1/17/99
1/24/99
1/31/99
2/7/99
2/14/99
2/21/99
2/28/99
3/7/99
3/14/99
3/21/99
3/28/99
PJM: 2nd Quarter 1999 (April - June)
0
10,000
20,000
30,000
40,000
50,000
Sun12 AM1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 P M 1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9 1011Mon12 AM
1 2 34 56
7
89
10
11 12P M
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11 Tues12 AM 1
2
3
4
5
6 7
8 9 10
11
12 P M 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Wed12 AM 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12P M 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 T hurs 12AM 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12P M
1
2 3 4
5 6
7
8
9
10
11 F ri 12AM1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12P M1
2
34
5
67 8 910 11
S at 12AM 1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12P M 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
4/4/99
4/11/99
4/18/99
4/25/99
5/2/99
5/9/99
5/16/99
5/23/99
5/30/99
6/6/99
6/13/99
6/20/99
6/27/99
PJM: 3rd Quarter 1999 (July - September)
0
10,000
20,000
30,000
40,000
50,000
Sun12 AM1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12P M 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1011Mon12 AM
1
2 3 4 5
6 7
8
9
10 11
12P M 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11 T ues12 AM
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8 9 10 11
12 P M 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Wed12 AM 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12P M 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Thurs 12AM 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12P M
1 2 3 4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
Fr i 12AM1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11 12P M
12
3
4
56
78 910
11
S at 12AM 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12P M 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
7/4/99
7/11/99
7/18/99
7/25/99
8/1/99
8/8/99
8/15/99
8/22/99
8/29/99
9/5/99
9/12/99
9/19/99
9/26/99
PJM: 4th Quarter 1999 (October - December)
0
10,000
20,000
30,000
40,000
50,000
Sun 12 AM1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 P M 1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9 1011Mon12AM
1 2 3 4
5 6
7
8
9
1011
12 PM 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
T ues 12AM
1 2
3 4
5
6 7 8 9 10
11
12 PM 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Wed12 AM 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 PM 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Thurs 12AM 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12P M
1
2 3 4 5 6
7
8 9
10 11
F r i 12 AM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11 12 PM
12
3
4
5
6 7
8 910 11
S at 12AM 1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12P M 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
10/3/99
10/10/99
10/17/99
10/24/99
10/31/99
11/7/99
11/14/99
11/21/99
11/28/99
12/5/99
12/12/99
12/19/99
12/26/99
TVA: 2nd Quarter 1998 (April - June)
0
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
30,000
S un 12 AM 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 P M 1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9 1011Mon 12 AM
12 34567
89
1011 12 P M
1
2
3
45
6
7 8
9
10
11
Tues 12 AM 1 2
3
4
5 6 7 8 9 10 11
12 P M 1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 Wed12 AM 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 PM 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Thur s 12 AM 1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9 10 11 12 P M
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8
9
10 11 Fr i 12 AM
1
2
3
4 5
6
78
9
10
11
12 PM12
34
567891011
S at 12 AM12 3 4 5 6
7 8 910 11 12 PM 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
4/5/98
4/12/98
4/19/98
4/26/98
5/3/98
5/10/98
5/17/98
5/24/98
5/31/98
6/7/98
6/14/98
6/21/98
6/28/98
1 week

A-28

2002 Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI), Inc. All rights
reserved. Electric Power Research Institute and EPRI are registered
service marks of the Electric Power Research Institute, Inc.
EPRI. ELECTRIFY THE WORLD is a service mark of the Electric
Power Research Institute, Inc.
Printed on recycled paper in the United States of America
1004412
Target:
Understanding Power and Fuel Markets and
Generation Response
EPRI 3412 Hillview Avenue, Palo Alto, California 94304 PO Box 10412, Palo Alto, California 94303 USA
800.313.3774 650.855.2121 askepri@epri.com www.epri.com
About EPRI
EPRI creates science and technology solutions for
the global energy and energy services industry. U.S.
electric utilities established the Electric Power
Research Institute in 1973 as a nonprofit research
consortium for the benefit of utility members, their
customers, and society. Now known simply as EPRI,
the company provides a wide range of innovative
products and services to more than 1000 energy-
related organizations in 40 countries. EPRIs
multidisciplinary team of scientists and engineers
draws on a worldwide network of technical and
business expertise to help solve todays toughest
energy and environmental problems.
EPRI. Electrify the World
SINGLE USER LICENSE AGREEMENT
THIS IS A LEGALLY BINDING AGREEMENT BETWEEN YOU AND THE ELECTRIC POWER RESEARCH
INSTITUTE, INC. (EPRI). PLEASE READ IT CAREFULLY BEFORE REMOVING THE WRAPPING MATERIAL.
BY OPENING THIS SEALED PACKAGE YOU ARE AGREEING TO THE TERMS OF THIS AGREEMENT. IF YOU DO NOT AGREE TO
THE TERMS OF THIS AGREEMENT, PROMPTLY RETURN THE UNOPENED PACKAGE TO EPRI AND THE PURCHASE PRICE WILL
BE REFUNDED.
1. GRANT OF LICENSE
EPRI grants you the nonexclusive and nontransferable right during the term of this agreement to use this package only for your own
benefit and the benefit of your organization.This means that the following may use this package: (I) your company (at any site owned
or operated by your company); (II) its subsidiaries or other related entities; and (III) a consultant to your company or related entities,
if the consultant has entered into a contract agreeing not to disclose the package outside of its organization or to use the package for
its own benefit or the benefit of any party other than your company.
This shrink-wrap license agreement is subordinate to the terms of the Master Utility License Agreement between most U.S. EPRI
member utilities and EPRI.Any EPRI member utility that does not have a Master Utility License Agreement may get one on request.
2. COPYRIGHT
This package, including the information contained in it, is either licensed to EPRI or owned by EPRI and is protected by United States
and international copyright laws. You may not, without the prior written permission of EPRI, reproduce, translate or modify this
package, in any form, in whole or in part, or prepare any derivative work based on this package.
3. RESTRICTIONS
You may not rent, lease, license, disclose or give this package to any person or organization, or use the information contained in this
package, for the benefit of any third party or for any purpose other than as specified above unless such use is with the prior written
permission of EPRI.You agree to take all reasonable steps to prevent unauthorized disclosure or use of this package. Except as specified
above, this agreement does not grant you any right to patents, copyrights, trade secrets, trade names, trademarks or any other
intellectual property, rights or licenses in respect of this package.
4.TERM AND TERMINATION
This license and this agreement are effective until terminated.You may terminate them at any time by destroying this package. EPRI has
the right to terminate the license and this agreement immediately if you fail to comply with any term or condition of this agreement.
Upon any termination you may destroy this package, but all obligations of nondisclosure will remain in effect.
5. DISCLAIMER OF WARRANTIES AND LIMITATION OF LIABILITIES
NEITHER EPRI, ANY MEMBER OF EPRI, ANY COSPONSOR, NOR ANY PERSON OR ORGANIZATION ACTING ON BEHALF
OF ANY OF THEM:
(A) MAKES ANY WARRANTY OR REPRESENTATION WHATSOEVER, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, (I) WITH RESPECT TO THE USE
OF ANY INFORMATION, APPARATUS, METHOD, PROCESS OR SIMILAR ITEM DISCLOSED IN THIS PACKAGE, INCLUDING
MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, OR (II) THAT SUCH USE DOES NOT INFRINGE ON OR
INTERFERE WITH PRIVATELY OWNED RIGHTS, INCLUDING ANY PARTYS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY, OR (III) THAT THIS
PACKAGE IS SUITABLE TO ANY PARTICULAR USERS CIRCUMSTANCE; OR
(B) ASSUMES RESPONSIBILITY FOR ANY DAMAGES OR OTHER LIABILITY WHATSOEVER (INCLUDING ANY
CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES, EVEN IF EPRI OR ANY EPRI REPRESENTATIVE HAS BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF
SUCH DAMAGES) RESULTING FROM YOUR SELECTION OR USE OF THIS PACKAGE OR ANY INFORMATION,APPARATUS,
METHOD, PROCESS OR SIMILAR ITEM DISCLOSED IN THIS PACKAGE.
6. EXPORT
The laws and regulations of the United States restrict the export and re-export of any portion of this package, and you agree not to
export or re-export this package or any related technical data in any form without the appropriate United States and foreign
government approvals.
7. CHOICE OF LAW
This agreement will be governed by the laws of the State of California as applied to transactions taking place entirely in California
between California residents.
8. INTEGRATION
You have read and understand this agreement, and acknowledge that it is the final, complete and exclusive agreement between you
and EPRI concerning its subject matter, superseding any prior related understanding or agreement. No waiver, variation or different
terms of this agreement will be enforceable against EPRI unless EPRI gives its prior written consent, signed by an officer of EPRI.

Determining The Cost of Cycling and

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Исходное описание:

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Determining The Cost of Cycling and

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Determining the Cost of Cycling and

Varied Load Operations: Methodology

Summary Chart of 14 Prototypical Load Cycles

Continuously Varying Load: Cycle 0a

Load Following, Winter Peak: Cycle 2a

Load Following, Summer Peak: Cycle 3a

Summary of 14 Prototypical Load Cycles

Continuously Varying Load: Cycle 0a

Load Following, Winter Peak: Cycle 2a

Load Following, Summer Peak: Cycle 3a

Вам также может понравиться