"... In PAGE 6: ...Table 12 shows the total number of EOP occurrences (days) expected for June, July and August for each scenario for (a) the 1995 Load Shape - Expected Load Forecast, and (b) the 1995 Load Shape - Extreme Load assumption. Table12 (a). EOP Summary (days) 1995 Load Shape - Expected Load Forecast for the year 2000 Case EOP NE NY ON* BC 30 Min .... In PAGE 7: ... Proceedings of the 34th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences - 2001 Table12 (b). EOP Summary (days) 1995 Load Shape - Extreme Load Assumption for the year 2000 Case EOP NE NY ON* BC 30 Min 2.... ..."

"... In PAGE 5: ...II.A.5. Scenario Development Table2 lists the parameters used by the authors who provided the number of nodes, the size of the simula- tion area, and the transmission range of nodes used in the simulations. Only 48 of the 109 MANET protocol simulation papers in our survey of published Mobi- Hoc papers provided all three of these input parame- ters, detailing 61 simulation scenarios.... In PAGE 5: ... Only 48 of the 109 MANET protocol simulation papers in our survey of published Mobi- Hoc papers provided all three of these input parame- ters, detailing 61 simulation scenarios. Table2 shows the wide range of values in these 61 scenarios. We note that scenario #36 and scenario #37 are the only two scenarios that match; the other scenarios are all unique.... In PAGE 5: ... Ta- ble 2 also shows the variety of width and height val- ues, illustrating the different shapes used in MANET simulation scenarios. Additionally, Table2 reflects that the parameter values are often very specific, e.g.... In PAGE 6: ... The MANET commu- nity needs a way to characterize simulation scenarios in order to evaluate and compare protocols and per- formance and ensure protocols are rigorously tested. For example, from Table2 , scenario #8, the simu- lation area is 3000 m x 3000 m, but the transmission range of 1061 m lowers the average hop count to only 1.67 hops.... ..."

"... In PAGE 5: ...II.A.5. Scenario Development Table2 lists the parameters used by the authors who provided the number of nodes, the size of the simula- tion area, and the transmission range of nodes used in the simulations. Only 48 of the 109 MANET protocol simulation papers in our survey of published Mobi- Hoc papers provided all three of these input parame- ters, detailing 61 simulation scenarios.... In PAGE 5: ... Only 48 of the 109 MANET protocol simulation papers in our survey of published Mobi- Hoc papers provided all three of these input parame- ters, detailing 61 simulation scenarios. Table2 shows the wide range of values in these 61 scenarios. We note that scenario #36 and scenario #37 are the only two scenarios that match; the other scenarios are all unique.... In PAGE 5: ... Ta- ble 2 also shows the variety of width and height val- ues, illustrating the different shapes used in MANET simulation scenarios. Additionally, Table2 reflects that the parameter values are often very specific, e.g.... In PAGE 6: ... The MANET commu- nity needs a way to characterize simulation scenarios in order to evaluate and compare protocols and per- formance and ensure protocols are rigorously tested. For example, from Table2 , scenario #8, the simu- lation area is 3000 m x 3000 m, but the transmission range of 1061 m lowers the average hop count to only 1.67 hops.... ..."

"... In PAGE 14: ....1.3 Content statements For this part of the questionnaire, students were asked to indicate whether they agreed, disagreed or were neutral with respect to a list of statements. The results are shown in Table5 . The first three columns of figures indicate... In PAGE 15: ...025 (Sheskin, 2000). As can be seen from Table5 , significant differences were only found for two statements. For both statements, a significant portion of students moved to- wards agreeing with the statements, one which stated that working with com- puters is boring, and one which stated that Computer Science is not interesting because it is about machines rather than people.... In PAGE 19: ... (1998) and Herbert (2000) where respondents appeared to have little understanding of the nature of Computer Science or the types of careers that are available. Questions relating to the availability of good jobs which appear in Table 2 and Table5 show that students are positive about their prospects even if they do not know what they are. This agrees with the results of Herbert (2000).... In PAGE 21: ...athematics. This requires further research. 5.3 Working with computers In Table5 , the only two statements with significant differences in changed proportions deal with working with computers, and whether Computer Sci- ence is interesting. In both cases, around 20% of the sample became more in agreement that working with computers is boring or not interesting.... ..."

"... In PAGE 5: ... 5.1 NPCC Isolated Scenario Table9 shows the estimated average annual Loss of Load Expectation (LOLE) calculated from the results of the 1995 load shape and 1999 load shape simulations for the expected load forecast for this scenario. The NPCC Isolated Scenario assumptions are summarized below: ! As-Is System for the year 2000 ! No Transfers through PJM to New York ! No Imports from ECAR ! 1995 Load Shape adjusted to year 2000 load forecast, expected and extreme assumptions ! 1999 Load Shape adjusted to year 2000 load forecast, expected and extreme assumptions 5.... In PAGE 5: ... The NPCC Isolated Scenario assumptions are summarized below: ! As-Is System for the year 2000 ! No Transfers through PJM to New York ! No Imports from ECAR ! 1995 Load Shape adjusted to year 2000 load forecast, expected and extreme assumptions ! 1999 Load Shape adjusted to year 2000 load forecast, expected and extreme assumptions 5.2 Reduced Capacity Scenario Table9 shows the estimated average annual Loss of Load Expectation (LOLE) calculated from the results of the 1995 load shape and 1999 load shape simulations for the expected load forecast for this scenario. The NPCC Reduced Capacity Scenario assumptions are summarized below: ! As-Is System for the year 2000 Reduced as Follows ! Four NE Summer Unit Additions Delayed 3 Months (849 MW) ! Transfers Allowed Between Areas ! ECAR Imports Limited to 700 MW ! 1995 Load Shape adjusted to year 2000 forecast, expected and extreme assumptions ! 1999 Revised Load Shape Adjusted to year 2000 forecast, expected and extreme assumptions 5.... In PAGE 5: ... The NPCC Reduced Capacity Scenario assumptions are summarized below: ! As-Is System for the year 2000 Reduced as Follows ! Four NE Summer Unit Additions Delayed 3 Months (849 MW) ! Transfers Allowed Between Areas ! ECAR Imports Limited to 700 MW ! 1995 Load Shape adjusted to year 2000 forecast, expected and extreme assumptions ! 1999 Revised Load Shape Adjusted to year 2000 forecast, expected and extreme assumptions 5.3 Maintenance Overrun Scenario Table9 shows the estimated average annual Loss of Load Expectation (LOLE) calculated from the results of the 1995 load shape and 1999 load shape simulations for the expected load forecast for this scenario. The Maintenance Overrun Scenario assumptions are summarized below: ! As-Is System for the year 2000 ! Transfers Allowed Between Areas ! ECAR - 1,550 MW of fully available capacity ! Additional Summer Maintenance (NE - 560 MW, NY - 400 MW) ! 1995 Load Shape adjusted to year 2000 forecast, expected and extreme assumptions ! 1999 Revised Load Shape Adjusted to year 2000 forecast, expected and extreme assumptions 0-7695-0981-9/01 $10.... In PAGE 5: ...00 (c) 2001 IEEE 5.4 quot;Worst Case quot; Scenario Table9 shows the estimated average annual Loss of Load Expectation (LOLE) calculated from the results of the 1995 load shape and 1999 load shape simulations for the expected load forecast for this scenario. This is a sensitivity case that assumes all of the previous scenario assumptions would occur at the same time.... In PAGE 5: ... The scenario assumptions are summarized as follows: ! As-Is System for the year 2000 Reduced as Follows ! Four NE Summer Additions Delayed 3 Months (849 MW) ! MAAC and ECAR Modeled w/ Load Uncertainty ! No Transfers through PJM to New York ! ECAR to ON Transfer Limits Set to 0 MW ! ECAR to MAAC Transfer Limits Reduced to 50% (1,075/1,275 MW) ! Additional Summer Maintenance (NE - 560 MW, NY - 400 MW) ! 1995 Load Shape adjusted to year 2000 forecast, expected and extreme assumptions 6. Average Annual LOLE Summary Table9 summarizes the average annual Loss of Load Expectation (LOLE) calculated from the results of 5 ... In PAGE 6: ... Proceedings of the 34th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences - 2001 the 1995 load shape and 1999 load shape simulations, assuming the expected year 2000 load forecast. The Table9 shows the relative impacts that the assumptions of each case has on the LOLE reliability index for each Area. Case abbreviations are defined following Table 9.... ..."