MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4403123449 · doi:10.1109/access.2024.3474569

Peak Shaving Impact on Load Forecasting: A Strategy for Mitigation

2024· article· en· W4403123449 on OpenAlexafffund
Zeinab Hojjatinia, Ahmad Mohamad Mezher, Eduardo Castillo-Guerra, Julián Cárdenas-Barrera

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Access · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicEnergy Load and Power Forecasting
Canadian institutionsUniversity of New Brunswick
FundersNational Council for Forest Research and DevelopmentNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsPeaking power plantComputer scienceLoad managementEngineeringRenewable energyElectrical engineeringDistributed generation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper introduces a novel approach for improving load forecasting accuracy in smart grids when integrating peak shaving strategies. Our research proposes a practical framework that demonstrates the negative impact of peak shaving on load forecasting accuracy and identifies the necessary algorithmic transformations to accommodate load demand fluctuations arising from such actions. We integrate a binary descriptor carrying information about the timing of the peak shaving events into the input vector used to train the forecasting model. We conducted two investigations based on two different billing strategies: “daily peak shaving” to address variable power rates and “peak shaving on a subset of days within a monthly billing cycle” to address power rates based on energy/peak demand. Our approach was validated using two public datasets from different climates collected in Australia and Greece. It evaluated two different forecasting techniques, the Feedforward Neural Network and the Long Short-Term Memory Network, with different levels and frequencies of peak shaving. The results demonstrate that our solution effectively mitigates the negative impact of peak shaving, leading to significant forecasting accuracy enhancements across both forecasting techniques, billing strategies, and peak shaving frequency and levels. The solution remarkably reduced the forecasting error metrics in all cases studied when comparing forecasts generated with and without the peak shaving descriptor. This study also provides practical insights into how our approach can be applied in real-world power systems to not only improve load forecasting accuracy but also assess the impact of demand response actions and improve grid reliability and efficiency.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.097
Threshold uncertainty score0.640

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.058
GPT teacher head0.324
Teacher spread0.266 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations13
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE AccessSame topicEnergy Load and Power ForecastingFrench-language works237,207