## 3 Results and Discussions
+++ ==ERROR: No output for this page==
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline  & **January** & **February** & **March** & **April** & **May** & **June** & **July** & **August** & **September** & **October** & **November** & **December** \\ \hline  & Solar panel (W) & 1113.14 & 1019.97 & 1162.99 & 1157.18 & 1280.20 & 1220.05 & 1207.60 & 1225.76 & 1221.16 & 1263.62 & 1187.48 & 1218.08 \\  & Wind power (W) & 3054.36 & 2219.46 & 3075.58 & 3524.64 & 5334.62 & 2666.39 & 1831.65 & 2455.06 & 1452.63 & 2888.39 & 3808.04 & 3553.93 \\ Puerto & PEM cell (W) & 1244.27 & 2469.25 & 1933.61 & 1548.55 & 1715.58 & 2154.97 & 2691.96 & 1294.94 & 4163.16 & 2220.30 & 1810.89 & 2684.61 \\ Bolivar & Toll generated (W) & 5117.6 & 5886.69 & 6712.72 & 6923.07 & 3825.04 & 6031.22 & 2674.62 & 4972.67 & 6836.93 & 6272.85 & 606.40 & 7636.62 \\  & Total demand (W) & 5188.68 & 5516.11 & 5994.54 & 5973.29 & 7700.00 & 6000.00 & 5486.00 & 4855.37 & 6836.93 & 6286.42 & 66364.49 & 7636.61 \\  & Difference (W) & 2230.83 & 372.85 & 177.63 & 257.08 & 625.40 & 312.22 & 1924.20 & 1209.0 & 0.2 & 2039.00 & 441.92 & 0.02 \\  & Solar panel (W) & 471.6 & 492.92 & 614.75 & 755.15 & 810.20 & 2722.133 & 3037.71 & 1866.47 & 727.88 & 602.22 & 6451.85 \\  & Wind power (W) & 3054.36 & 2219.46 & 3075.85 & 3542.84 & 5324.62 & 2666.39 & 1818.45 & 2450.56 & 1452.63 & 2887.87 & 3807.78 & 3553.83 \\  & PEM cell (W) & 1659.44 & 3098.64 & 2313.87 & 1914.40 & 2058.10 & 2406.39 & 2278.40 & 1525.41 & 4517.83 & 2798.72 & 2194.90 & 3434.95 \\  & Total generated (W) & 5190.96 & 5777.32 & 6004.20 & 615.41 & 8192.92 & 6000.00 & 5662.36 & 4960.96 & 6836.95 & 6141.47 & 6599.39 & 7636.59 \\  & Total demand (W) & 5188.68 & 5516.11 & 5994.54 & 5973.29 & 7700.00 & 6000.00 & 5486.00 & 4855.37 & 6836.93 & 6268.42 & 6364.49 & 7636.61 \\  & & & & & & & & & & & & & & \\  & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & \\  & & & & & & & & & & & & & & \\For the evaluation of the performance of the controllers, the four indices selected for this evaluation are presented in Figure 6:0 For each of these indexes, the stabilization times were calculated, and the sum of all these times during the simulation year was plotted, obtaining two indicator values for each location studied. Figure 14a shows the IAE values for load profile 1 in black and for load profile 2 in gray; it can be seen that the stabilization time for load profile 2 is approximately 21% less on average, with the smallest time difference in Puerto Bolivar, presenting 17% less time for the second load profile. Figure 14b shows that the trend presented in the IAE is maintained in the ISE. In this indication, the stabilization time is more significant for load profile 1, and on average, the time for load profile 2 is approximately 31% less, reaching the most considerable difference in Texas where the stabilization time for the second load profile is 45% less. This significant difference in stabilization time occurs for two main reasons. The first is the difference in the load profiles; the changes in the load are smoother than in the second load profile than they are in the first. The second reason for this shorter stabilization time is that the power generated by the system in Texas for the second load profile almost never exceeds the demanded load, which allows reaching the setpoint more easily. On the other hand, in Figure 14c the ITAE indicator is shown, in which it can be observed that, as in the two previous cases, the second load profile generates a time of stabilization less than the first, due to the smooth variation in the load demanded from the system. In this indicator, the load profile is 27% less on average for the four locations, pointing to Puerto Bolivar as the location that presented a smaller difference than the others, reaching a 19% difference between the profiles.