Brief Assessment of the Hydroelectric Power Generation Potential of the State
of Connecticut using a Matlab Based Model
Miguel A. Camelo Rosas
MANE 6960H01
Mathematical Modeling of Energy and Environmental Systems
Fall 2014
Hydroelectric power is being utilized in Connecticut today as a clean and renewable
source of energy. By harnessing the gravitational force of flowing water to turn a generator,
electrical power can be produced. Many different designs of turbines exist to extract the energy
from the flowing water and readily depends on the flow conditions and geography of the land.
Not only is hydroelectric power being utilized in the United States, but worldwide as well. As
fossil fuels diminish, the need for clean renewable energy will increase, leading nations across
the globe to consider power generation alternatives which have future generations in mind and
were previously thought too expensive.
Connecticut has three major rivers flowing through it, all three of which empty into Long
Island Sound. These three rivers are called the Connecticut River, the Housatonic River, and the
Thames River. Many other smaller rivers and tributaries help form these major rivers in
Connecticut such as the Farmington River, Shepaug River, and Shetucket River. Many rivers
today are already being used to create clean renewable energy through Hydroelectric Plants in
Connecticut. There are 31 active Hydroelectric Power plants in Connecticut designated by blue
circles in Figure 1 below. Only 15 of these plants have name plate capacities over 1 MW and
some date back to as early as 1903 (HydroGIS).
Figure 1: Active Hydroelectric Dams in Connecticut (HydroGIS)
Total name plate capacity of conventional hydroelectric power in Connecticut is 130MW
and 31 MW of pump storage, though hydroelectric power plants rarely operate to the
hypothetical maximum power possible for a number of reasons such as water availability and
electricity demand (Hadjerioua, 9). Actual hydroelectric generation in Connecticut for the month
of July was 26GWh (EIA). At the current rate of production in July, the net generation in the CT
for Conventional Hydroelectric Sector would be 312 GWh. Figure 2 compares the projected net
generation of 2014 to the past 4 years actual hydroelectric generation. The difference between
the actual power generated and the name plate capacity is called the Capacity Factor (𝐶𝑓 ). 𝐶𝑓 is
the ratio of the actual amount of energy produced to the maximum power possible. In a recent
1
DOE study the capacity factor for Connecticut is 42.3%, and 52.2% for the North East as a
whole (Hadjerioua, 9). Figure 2 also displays an estimated GWh based upon the DOEs capacity
factor for Connecticut.
CT Hydroelectric Generation (GWh)
Net Generation - CT Hydropower Sector
600
550
500
450
400
Actual GWh
350
Estimated GWh
300
250
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
Year
Figure 2: Net Hydroelectric Generation in CT from 2010 to 2014 (DOE)
Hydroelectricity is not Connecticut’s only source of electrical power, as the state
produced over 35,500 GWh in 2013 (EIA). Figure 3 shows the Net Electricity Generation
Breakdown for Connecticut.
NET ELECTRICITY GENERATION CT - JULY 2014
Natural GasFired
50.23%
PetroleumFired
0.16%
Hydroelectric
0.81%
Coal-Fired
1.59%
Nuclear
45.37%
Other
Renewables
1.84%
Figure 3: Net Electricity Generation in CT for July 2014 (EIA)
50.23% of the 3,260 GWh of energy in Connecticut during the month of July was
produced by natural gas fired power plants. Petroleum and natural gas are not found naturally
here in Connecticut and those products must be imported. 45.37% of electrical energy was
produced in Connecticut by Millstone Power Plant. This power plant is capable of producing
over 16,385 GWh annually (EIA). Petroleum and Coal-Fired power plants account for 0.16%
and 1.59% respectively. Renewable resources only account for 2.56% of the total electricity
2
produced in July, only 0.81% of that can be attributed to hydroelectric production. The
remaining 1.84% of renewable electricity generated is attributed to Municipal Solid Waste
management and solar generation.
When evaluating Connecticut for additional hydroelectric power generation, one must not
only consider the hydropower producing facilities but also the dams surrounding them or
upstream used to control flooding or to create storage capacity. Connecticut has over 700 dams
registered with the National Inventory of Dams (NID) ranging from small ponds for farming
irrigation to the Saville Dam, which holds the Barkhamsted Reservoir (NID). Of those 700 dams,
47 are either associated with or house hydroelectric generation equipment and are available in
Appendix Figure A1 (NHAAP). A recent study was conducted in 2013 by the U.S. Department
of Energy (DOE) Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) to better characterize potential new
locations for hydroelectric generation, specifically looking at non powered dams (NPD). NPDs
have theoretically already incurred many of the costs and environmental impacts of constructing
a dam and are prime candidates to be developed for energy purposes. Excluding the 47 dams
already associated with generating hydroelectric power, the ORNL narrowed down the list of
NPDs looking for potential hydroelectric candidates capable of producing over 1 MW of power.
By making a series of assumptions based on available stream flow data, dam location and
geometry, National Hydropower Asset Assessment Program (NHAAP) Baseline Database,
National Hydrography Dataset, and many others, ORNL was able to narrow the search down to
the top five potential NPDs shown below circled in red in Figure 4.
Figure 4: Non Powered Dams Hydroelectric Potential Greater than 1 MW (HydroGIS)
The potential capacity of these dams can be estimated by the following equation (1)
(Hadjerioua, 10).
(1)
𝑃𝑜𝑡𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑖𝑎𝑙 𝐻𝑦𝑑𝑟𝑜𝑝𝑜𝑤𝑒𝑟 𝐺𝑒𝑛𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 (𝑀𝑊ℎ) = 𝑄 ∗ Δ𝐻 ∗ η ∗ T /11800
ΔH (ft) is the gross head available for power generation, Q (cfs) is average flow during
the generation period, 𝜂 is efficiency assumed to be 0.85, and T is time (hours) (Hadjerioua, 9).
With the provided data from the sources above one can calculate the potential annual generation.
Potential Name Plate Capacity can be estimated using equation (2) below.
3
(2)
𝑃𝑜𝑡𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑖𝑎𝑙 𝐶𝑎𝑝𝑎𝑐𝑖𝑡𝑦 (𝑀𝑊)
= 𝑃𝑜𝑡𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑖𝑎𝑙 𝑃𝑜𝑤𝑒𝑟 𝐺𝑒𝑛𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 (𝑀𝑊ℎ)/(𝐶𝑓 ∗ 𝐷𝑎𝑦𝑠 ∗ 𝐻𝑜𝑢𝑟𝑠)
Using the value found in equation (1) and plugging into equation (2) using the previously
mentioned 𝐶𝑓 factor one can compute the potential name plate capacity of a desired location.
Applying the above two equations to estimate the potential capacity of the 5 NPDs results in
Table 1. A Matlab program was used to retrieve the data from an excel file and model these two
hydroelectric power generation equations for each month of the year. The data was obtained
from the government study and the only modification was the removal of the NPDs that were not
in Connecticut. The results were then output by the Matlab program and both the raw data plus
these results were used to build this table. It should be noted that the difference in the results
from the study and the Matlab program was very small. The code for the Matlab Program and its
output can be seen on Appendix C.
Dam Name
ENFIELD
DAM
PHELPS DAM
- NEPAUG
RESERVOIR
THOMASTON
DAM
WEST
THOMPSON
DAM
SAVILLE
DAM
Potential
Annual
Generation
(MWh)
NHAAP
Regional
Capacity
Factor
(%)
Potential
Capacity
(MW)
Potential
Turbine
Design
City
Water Source
Year
Built
Estimated
Head (ft)
Avg
Annual
Flow
(cfs)
ENFIELD
CONNECTICUT
RIVER
1825
12
16879
128320
52.2%
28.1
Kaplan
UNIONVILLE
FARMINGTON
RIVER
1916
46
723
20986
52.2%
4.
Kaplan
THOMASTON
NAUGATUCK
RIVER
1960
132
185
15430
52.2%
3.4
Francis
PUTNAM
QUINEBAUG
RIVER
1965
65
317
13005
52.2%
2.8
Kaplan
NEW
HARTFORD
FARMINGTON
RIVER
1940
94
109
64677
52.2%
1.4
Kaplan
Table 1: Non-Powered Dam Locations in CT suitable for Potential Hydroelectric Development(Hadjerioua, Data in Appendix B)
Out of these 5 locations, the Enfield Dam on the Connecticut River holds the most
potential for power generation at 28.1 MW. This can also be seen on the figure 5 below, where a
plot for the hydropower energy [MWh] per Month was calculated for each of the 5 NPD dams
and output by the Matlab Program. With high average annual flow rates, nearly doubling in the
spring (HydoGIS), this NPD is ideal for a hydroelectric installation. The highest hydropower
generation was in the month of April for all of them. With its high average annual flows and low
estimated head the turbine selected for the Enfield Dam would be of a Kaplan Design, with
variable pitch blades to accommodate for the seasonal change in flow. Potential turbine design
was selected using Figure A2 in the appendix (HydroNI). A Kaplan turbine was also selected for
the Phelps Dam, West Thompson Dam, and Saville Dam based on Appendix Figure A2.
Thomaston Dam would most likely be fitted with a Francis turbine due to the large estimated
head available and would be on the extreme of a Kaplan design.
4
Figure 5: Hydroelectric Power Energy vs Month for each of the 5 NPDs in CT as calculated by the Matlab Program
If all five of these NPDs were developed they potentially would add 40.3 MW to the CT
total name plate capacity and could theoretically generate an additional 184.14 GWh of clean
renewable energy with a relatively low risk, low impact to the environment, shorter time frame
than new construction. Additional fish ladders may be added to aid migratory fish a safe passage
around the newly developed hydro dams if they do not already exist.
Another study was conducted in 2014 by DOE and ORLN to characterize the nation’s
undeveloped streams hydropower potential (Kao). This study was called the New Stream Reach
Development Project (NSD) and focused on identifying streams with high energy density,
topographical analysis to estimate effected surface area and potential storage, and both natural
and social environmental effects. With the use of sophisticated computer software, 18 different
data base systems, and high resolution topographical maps, ORLN identified 10 individual
stream reaches with the potential capacity greater than 1 MW (Kao/HydroGIS). Additionally
each one of these sites was considered for environmental effects such as, endangered species,
critical habitats, land ownership, water quality, transmission line installation, and recreational
use. Using complex computer software, layers of data were created, combining environmental
data and locations with topographical and hydrological data maps. 8000m to 800m buffer zones
were created around these locations as to minimize the environmental impact (Kao, 12). Many
different layers of data were used to select these locations and a sample can be seen in Table 2.2
in Appendix B. Some stream reaches even had multiple potential development locations as seen
5
in Table 2 Below. Sites, like in the NPD evaluation above, capable of producing less than 1MW
were excluded from this evaluation. The results from the NPD evaluation are summarized below.
Watershed Name
West Branch
Farmington River
Headwaters
Farmington River
Outlet Farmington
River
Middle Quinebaug
River
Lower Quinebaug
River
Konkapot RiverHousatonic River
Macedonia BrookHousatonic River
Candlewood LakeHousatonic River
Shepaug River
Eightmile BrookHousatonic River
Number of
>1MW NSD
Reaches
Hydraulic
Head (ft)
Avg Annual
Flows cfs
Estimated
Surface
Inundation
(ac)
Potential
Capacity
(MW)
Potential
Annual
Generation
(MWh)
2
36.368111
504.313587
302.9216
2.637929
16013.92
3
33.650482
776.395476
216.7822
5.694875
34571.54
2
36.204069
1287.867337
20.97879
6.704463
40700.39
1
16.4042
1045.64
100.5949
1.233224
6713.988
3
15.44182
1538.167596
4.93163
5.103321
27783.78
6
17.56343
1494.947379
106.3214
11.33465
65255.58
6
18.307087
1655.775381
158.12
13.06785
75233.95
3
15.124672
2245.995967
151.476
7.330333
42202.03
2
58.677823
312.250019
144.9813
2.628221
15131.14
1
19.06168
3404.2388
45.2528
4.665369
26859.36
Potential
Turbine
Design
Kaplan
Table 2: New Stream Development Locations, Statistics, and Potential Generation (Kao, Appendix B2)
Some stream reaches contain multiple NSD potential dam locations and during the
selection process tail water and inundated surface area were considered before adding additional
hydroelectric locations. Developing all 29 potential plants on the 10 new stream reaches has a
total annual potential of 350.5 GWh of clean renewable energy and adds 60.4 MW to the total
hydroelectric name plate capacity of Connecticut. Potential capacity and generation were
generated from the above head and flow data while utilizing the above equations (1) and (2). An
updated 𝐶𝑓 value ranging from 69-65% was used to calculate NSD potential energy generation;
assuming new and efficient technology would be installed at those locations. The results from
this study that were relevant to Connecticut are show here in table 2. It is not surprising that all
potential turbine designs selected for these potential hydroelectric locations are all of the Kaplan
design. Due to the nature of the evaluation, the streams were quantified in an “as is” condition to
create the least environmental impact and inundated surface area resulting in relatively low
hydraulic heads and moderate flow rates best suited for Kaplan turbines.
Hydroelectric power is being utilized in Connecticut today as a clean and renewable
source of energy but not every potential hydro location is being utilized. With sophisticated
computer software and logged data, the DOE with the help of ORNL was able to compile a list
of untapped hydroelectric potential in untapped streams and existing dams. Environmental
effects were taken into consideration by the DOE during their research for both NPD and NSD
projects. Favorable locations to begin with NPDs, as most of the cost and environmental impact
as already were associated with these existing dams. By retrofitting them with hydroelectric
turbines, we would be able to boost our capacity to create clean and renewable energy with the
least amount of environmental impact. NSD plants utilize untapped stream potential in
Connecticut yielding much more power but are more intrusive but efforts were made when
selecting these locations to minimize environmental effects. By utilizing the few NPD and NSD
6
locations above, Connecticut could add 101 MW to the name plate capacity of the state
increasing it to 231MW. Additionally these locations could produce an estimated 535GWh
annually increasing the hydroelectric generation total to 847GWh. This increase would allow
Connecticut to increase its renewable energy produced, reduce its dependency on fossil fuels,
and help reach its goal of being a net exporter of energy by 2020 (EIA).
As can be seen by the numbers presented, Connecticut does not currently have a large
component of its electricity generation coming from hydroelectric energy and the undeveloped
potential examined in this paper of around 100 MW would not greatly affect the big picture. The
state's Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) calls for 27% of electricity sold in the state to come
from renewable energy sources by 2020. Most of that electricity is expected to come from
sources such as onshore or offshore wind, solar power, sustainable biomass, and fuel cells.
Furthermore, the RPS requires that 4% must come from commercial and industrial waste heat
recovery or conservation. Connecticut electricity providers are meeting their RPS obligations in
large part by purchasing Renewable Energy Credits from other New England states. In the
future, more renewable power may need to be imported from New York and Canada
(Connecticut State Energy Profile). In order to meet the aggressive targets set by these
aggressive renewable energy targets, the most feasible option for expanding the component that
hydroelectric plays in the overall generation of electricity is to import them from nearby Quebec,
or even neighboring states with more potential. As this brief study showed, there is not very large
undeveloped potential, and even if the few sites that show some feasibility were developed, they
would not contribute a large amount of electricity. The challenges that come with importing
renewable energy from elsewhere are not to be dismissed. Transportation is an area where a lot
of losses occur and there are other factors, like dependence and political issues. Hopefully,
Connecticut will find the right mix and meet the aggressive goals it has set for itself.
7
Works Cited
DOE. "U.S. Energy Information Administration - EIA - Independent Statistics and Analysis."
Electricity Data Browser. Department of Energy, Dec. 2013. Web. 24 Oct. 2014.
EIA. "Connecticut State Energy Profile." Connecticut Profile. US Department of Energy, July
2014. Web. 24 Oct. 2014.
Hadjerioua, Boualem. "An Assessment of Energy Potential at Non-Powered Damns in the
United States." Wind & Water Power Program (2012): n. pag. Apr. 2012. Web. 24
Oct. 2014.
HydroGIS. "HydroGIS Viewer." NHAAP. NHAAP/DOE/ORNL, Feb.-Mar. 2012. Web. 24 Oct.
2014.
HydroNI. "Turbine Application Chart - Pre Feasibility." Hydro NI. N.p., 2008. Web. 24 Oct.
2014.
KAO, Shih-Chieh. "New Stream-reach Development: A Comprehensive Assessment of
Hydropower Energy Potential in the United States." Wind & Water Power
Technologies Office (2014): n. pag. Apr. 2014. Web. 24 Oct. 2014.
NHAAP. "NHAAP | National Hydropower Asset Assessment Program." NHAAP | National
Hydropower Asset Assessment Program. Department of Energy/Oak Ridge National
Laboratory, Jan. 2014. Web. 24 Oct. 2014.
NID. "CorpsMap: The National Inventory of Dams (NID)." CorpsMap: The National Inventory
of Dams (NID). Army Corps of Engineers, May 2013. Web. 24 Oct. 2014.
Connecticut State Energy Profile. (2014, March 27). Web. December 1, 2014, from US
Energy Information Administration: http://www.eia.gov/state/print.cfm?sid=CT
8
Appendix A
Figure A1: Essential Dams in CT Associated with Hydroelectric Generation (HydroGIS)
Figure A2: Turbine Application Chart (HydroNI)
9
Appendix B
KAO, Shih-Chieh. "New Stream-reach Development: A Comprehensive Assessment of
Hydropower Energy Potential in the United States.",pg 10.
Raw Data – Non powered Dams (NPDs)
See Data on Files NHAAP_NPD_FY11_1MW.xls and NHAAP_NPD_FY11_1MW_MIGUEL_EDIT.xls
Raw Data – New Stream Reach Development (NSD)
See Data on Files NHAAP_NSD_SR_01_v1.xls and NHAAP_NSD_SR_01_v1_MIGUEL_EDIT.xls
10
Appendix C
Matlab Code
%Power Generation Simple Model for Non-Powered Dams (greated than 1MW) in CT
%Uses data in an Excel File to calculate Potential Annual Hydropower Energy
%and Potential Annual Capacity
clear all
clc
%Input data from Excel File containing information on Potential Power
Generating Dams
%Flow [cfs]
%Defined as the flow rate leaving a hydraulic structure
Enfield_Q = xlsread('NHAAP_NPD_FY11_1MW_MIGUEL_EDIT.xls', 'NPD', 'R4:AC4');
Phelps_Q = xlsread('NHAAP_NPD_FY11_1MW_MIGUEL_EDIT.xls', 'NPD', 'R5:AC5');
Thomaston_Q = xlsread('NHAAP_NPD_FY11_1MW_MIGUEL_EDIT.xls', 'NPD', 'R6:AC6');
WestThompson_Q = xlsread('NHAAP_NPD_FY11_1MW_MIGUEL_EDIT.xls', 'NPD',
'R7:AC7');
Saville_Q = xlsread('NHAAP_NPD_FY11_1MW_MIGUEL_EDIT.xls', 'NPD', 'R8:AC8');
%Avg Mean Yearly Flow[cfs]
Q_yr = xlsread('NHAAP_NPD_FY11_1MW_MIGUEL_EDIT.xls', 'NPD', 'Q4:Q8');
%Hydraulic head [ft]
%Defined as the height difference between headwater and tailwater elevations
H = xlsread('NHAAP_NPD_FY11_1MW_MIGUEL_EDIT.xls', 'NPD', 'N4:N8');
%Efficiency [no units]
%Defined as hydropower generating equipment efficiency
%Comprised of two components: turbine efficiency and generator efficiency
%Assumed to be 85% as in DOE Study (Hadjerouia, pg 9)
eff = .85;
%Time in one month [hours]
T = 365*24/12;
%Conversion factor into SI units
Conv = 11800;
%Enfield Potential Hydropower Energy[MWh]
for i=1:12
Enfield_PHE(i) = Enfield_Q(i)*H(1)*T*eff/Conv;
end
Enfield_PHE;
%Phelps Potential Hydropower Energy[MWh]
for i=1:12
Phelps_PHE(i) = Phelps_Q(i)*H(2)*T*eff/Conv;
end
Phelps_PHE;
%Thomaston Potential Hydropower Energy[MWh]
for i=1:12
11
Thomaston_PHE(i) = Thomaston_Q(i)*H(3)*T*eff/Conv;
end
Thomaston_PHE;
%WestThompson Potential Hydropower Energy[MWh]
for i=1:12
WestThompson_PHE(i) = WestThompson_Q(i)*H(4)*T*eff/Conv;
end
WestThompson_PHE;
%Saville Potential Hydropower Energy[MWh]
for i=1:12
Saville_PHE(i) = Saville_Q(i)*H(5)*T*eff/Conv;
end
Saville_PHE;
%Enfield Total Potential Yearly Hydropower Energy[MWh]
YR_Enfield_PHE=0;
for i=1:12
YR_Enfield_PHE=YR_Enfield_PHE+Enfield_PHE(i);
end
YR_Enfield_PHE
%Phelps Total Potential Yearly Hydropower Energy[MWh]
YR_Phelps_PHE=0;
for i=1:12
YR_Phelps_PHE=YR_Phelps_PHE+Phelps_PHE(i);
end
YR_Phelps_PHE
%Thomaston Total Potential Yearly Hydropower Energy[MWh]
YR_Thomaston_PHE=0;
for i=1:12
YR_Thomaston_PHE=YR_Thomaston_PHE+Thomaston_PHE(i);
end
YR_Thomaston_PHE
%WestThompson Total Potential Yearly Hydropower Energy[MWh]
YR_WestThompson_PHE=0;
for i=1:12
YR_WestThompson_PHE=YR_WestThompson_PHE+WestThompson_PHE(i);
end
YR_WestThompson_PHE
%Saville Total Potential Yearly Hydropower Energy[MWh]
YR_Saville_PHE=0;
for i=1:12
YR_Saville_PHE=YR_Saville_PHE+Saville_PHE(i);
end
YR_Saville_PHE
%Total Potential Yearly Hydropower Energy (all of the sites added up) [MWh]
Total_PHE =
YR_Enfield_PHE+YR_Phelps_PHE+YR_Thomaston_PHE+YR_WestThompson_PHE+YR_Saville_
PHE
12
Months = (1:1:12);
plot(Months,Enfield_PHE,Months,Phelps_PHE,Months,Thomaston_PHE,Months,WestTho
mpson_PHE,Months,Saville_PHE)
title('Hydroelectric Power Energy vs Month')
xlabel('Months')
ylabel('Power Energy [MWh]')
legend('Enfield Dam','Phelps Dam','Thomaston Dam','West Thompson
Dam','Saville Dam')
%Capacity Factor [no units]
%Defined as the ratio of the actual amount of energy produced to the maximum
power possible
%Defined to be 52.2 % in DOE Study (Hadjerouia, pg 9)
Cf = 0.522;
%Enfield Potential Annual Capacity [MW]
Enfield_PAC = YR_Enfield_PHE/(Cf*24*365);
Enfield_PAC
%Enfield Potential Annual Capacity [MW]
Phelps_PAC = YR_Phelps_PHE/(Cf*24*365);
Phelps_PAC
%Enfield Potential Annual Capacity [MW]
Thomaston_PAC = YR_Thomaston_PHE/(Cf*24*365);
Thomaston_PAC
%Enfield Potential Annual Capacity [MW]
WestThompson_PAC = YR_WestThompson_PHE/(Cf*24*365);
WestThompson_PAC
%Enfield Potential Annual Capacity [MW]
Saville_PAC = YR_Saville_PHE/(Cf*24*365);
Saville_PAC
%Total Potential Annual Capacity (all of the sites added up) [MW]
Total_PAC = Enfield_PAC+Phelps_PAC+Thomaston_PAC+WestThompson_PAC+Saville_PAC
%Convert the hydraulic head from [ft] to [m]
H_ft=H*0.3048
%Convert the yearly mean flow from [cfs] to [cms]
Q_yr_cms=Q_yr*0.02831685
13
Matlab Outputs
YR_Enfield_PHE =
1.2832e+005
YR_Phelps_PHE =
2.0986e+004
YR_Thomaston_PHE =
1.5430e+004
YR_WestThompson_PHE =
1.3005e+004
YR_Saville_PHE =
6.4677e+003
Total_PHE =
1.8421e+005
Enfield_PAC =
28.0615
Phelps_PAC =
4.5894
Thomaston_PAC =
3.3744
WestThompson_PAC =
2.8440
Saville_PAC =
1.4144
Total_PAC =
40.2837
H_ft =
3.6576
14.0208
40.2336
19.8120
28.6512
Q_yr_cms =
14
479.6909
20.4657
5.2430
8.9735
3.0866
Matlab Plot Outputs
Figure C1: Hydroelectric Power Energy vs Month for each of the 5 NPDs in CT as calculated by the Matlab Program
15