The approach taken in this study is to adopt system design and capital cost estimates from three independent CAES studies (eight total designs) and, by supplying a common set of fuel/energy costs and economic assumptions in conjunction with a common methodology, to arrive at a series of levelized energy costs over the system's lifetime. In addition, some analyses are provided to gauge the sensitivity of these levelized energy costs to fuel and compression energy costs and to system capacity factors. The systems chosen for comparison are of four generic types: conventional CAES, hybrid CAES, adiabatic CAES, and an advanced-design gas turbine (GT). In conventional CAES systems the heat of compression generated during the storage operation is rejected to the environment, and later, during the energy-generation phase, turbine fuel must be burned to reheat the compressed air. In the hybrid systems some of the heat of compression is stored and reapplied later during the generation phase, thereby reducing turbine fuel requirements. The adiabatic systems store adequate thermal energy to eliminate the need for turbine fuel entirely. The gas turbine is included within the report for comparison purposes; it is an advanced-design turbine, one that is expected to be available by 1985.