You are on page 1of 8



A Multiple Objective Approach to Direct Load Control Using an Interactive Evolutionary Algorithm
A. Gomes, Member, IEEE, C. H. Antunes, and A. G. Martins
AbstractThis paper describes the use of an interactive evolutionary algorithm for the identication and selection of direct load control actions in electrical distribution networks. The evolutionary algorithm accommodates a progressive articulation of the decision makers preferences by changing aspiration or reservation levels used in the tness assessment of the individuals in the population (load control strategies). Genetic operators have revealed as an adequate way to supply the evolutionary process with relevant information about the search results. Besides contributing to reduce the scope of the search, and thus the computer effort, this also enables the identication of solutions more in accordance with the decision makers evolving preferences. Index TermsDirect load control, electrical distribution networks, energy, evolutionary algorithms, interactive approach, multi-objective models.

I. INTRODUCTION HE integrated use of demand and supply side resources has been done by electric utilities [1], [2] because of its potential attractiveness, both at operational and economic levels. Costs and emissions reduction, decrease of overseas fuel dependence, increase in power system reliability, and increase in revenues are some of the benets a utility can get from such integration. With the ongoing restructuring and liberalization trends in the energy sector the interest in the economic benets raised enormously, mainly due to the volatility and spikes of wholesale electricity prices [3][5]. In the demand side, the resources can be used by changing the regular working cycle of some individual loads and thus changing the demand shape at more aggregate levels. The activities aimed at changing the demand are generally called load management (LM), and they encompass direct load control (DLC), interruptible power and voluntary load shedding. DLC activities ask for the identication of the on/off patterns to be applied over the loads selected for control during a period of time. Usually, the on/off patterns are applied to some groups of loads (being the same pattern applied to all the loads in the same group) during a time interval that lasts several hours. While the loads belonging to a given group are controlled simultaneously, the on/off periods for all groups under control should not be coincident in order to avoid some undesirable effects, such as the so-called payback effect
Manuscript received February 28, 2006; revised January 10, 2007. This work was supported in part by the Portuguese Foundation for Science and Technology/FEDER under Grants POCI/ENR/57082/2004 and POCTI/ESE/38422/2001. Paper no. TPWRS-00113-2006. The authors are with the Department of Electrical Engineering and Computers, Polo II, University of Coimbra, Coimbra, Portugal, and also with INESC Coimbra, 3030 Coimbra, Portugal (e-mail:;; Digital Object Identier 10.1109/TPWRS.2007.901468

(increase in peak power demand, when compared with the situation without load control actions, when power is re-established) and an eventual strong reduction in revenues. The identication of the control actions means that each off period must be quantied (how long) and located in time (when it occurs). This should be done for all the groups under control. Usually the demand imposed by loads presents a daily behavior and thus the power curtailment actions must last for several hours. By allowing different durations of on/off periods there is an increased exibility in load control leading, in general, to better results according to the multiple perspectives at stake. However, the problem complexity also increases namely due to its combinatorial nature. The identication of the on/off patterns is a hard and complex task due to the number of possible different combinations and the multiple objectives to assess the merits of such actions. In fact, evaluation aspects such as cost and/or prots, reduction in peak power demand, degradation of the quality of energy services provided, loss factor, among others, are at stake. This is, therefore, a multi-objective optimization problem (MOOP) to be faced by an entity interested in DLC activities. Evolutionary algorithms (EAs) while search and optimization tools are well suited for combinatorial MOOP since they work in each generation with a set of solutions to the problem, offering the Decision Maker (DM, usually a power systems engineer) a wider view of the compromises that can be established in different regions of the search space. The aim is then to compute non-dominated solutions, that is feasible solutions for which no improvement in all objective functions is possible simultaneously (in order to improve an objective function it is necessary to accept a degradation of at least another objective function value). Genetic operators (selection, crossover and mutation are the most commonly used) and a suitable tness function are needed for the EA to evolve over generations, allowing new solutions to be computed in the search space. Several approaches and examples of evolutionary algorithms in combinatorial multi-objective problems can be found in the literature [6][8]. In general, in the framework of LM activities, there are two main tasks to be performed: search (for non-dominated solutions) and decision (to select one solution or a set of solutions for further screening). Most of the work done in MO evolutionary optimization (namely EAs based on Pareto optimality as stated by Goldberg [9]) is related only with the search process leading to the identication and/or characterization of a nondominated front. Besides being aimed at supporting the DM in the selection of the solutions by making the most of the preference information provided, the proposed approach also includes the design process, in the sense that DLC strategies are designed taking into consideration the objectives the DM wants to attain with the LM program. Actual LM programs and strategies used

0885-8950/$25.00 2007 IEEE



in the identication of LM actions can be found in [4], [5], [20], [21], [24], [25]. Traditionally, the identication (duration and location) of these on/off periods has been done empirically, based on the analysts knowledge and expertise (generally resulting from past implementations), eld experiments or pilot programs. Moreover, a cycling strategy has been often used with constant on/off patterns. In such strategy, a pre-determined on/off pattern is applied to the loads under control. However when cycling strategies are used with on/off constant patterns, if the different usages of energy services are not taken into consideration then the probability of causing discomfort to the end-users increases. In our approach, the quality of energy service provided is continuously monitored during the design process of load control strategies, taking into account that minimizing the discomfort caused to customers is one of the objectives of the multi-objective model. Other objective that is pursuit by electric utilities when LM is implemented is to reduce the peak power demand. Since the loads usually used in DLC activities are thermostatic ones, it is hard to previously know whether the peak power demand decreases with DLC actions. In fact, due to the payback effect, peak power demand may even increase if DLC actions are not properly designed. Since eld experiments and pilot programs are generally expensive and time consuming, only small-scale experiments should be implemented. This means that possibly only a small number of on/off patterns combinations can be tested. In the proposed approach, the demand of loads under control is reproduced by using physically-based load models [22] that have been experimentally validated, thus avoiding both the need of (large scale) eld experiments and the payback effect. The main objective of this study is to analyze the performance of an EA in the identication of satisfactory DLC actions (in the sense of a well-balanced compromise between the multiple objectives according to the DMs preferences), using guiding mechanisms and the implicit incorporation of the DMs preferences. The DMs preference information is used to reduce the size of the search space and to speed up the identication of satisfactory solutions. The DM is able to assess the results obtained and thus learning about the problem and the trade-offs that can be established between the conicting objective functions, which in turn contributes to adapting his/her preferences accordingly. The evolutionary process can be interactively supplied with the DMs preferences, herein made operational through aspiration or reservation levels in each evaluation dimension. These levels are used in the tness assessment process and to implement guiding mechanisms. Since, in multi-objective models, a prominent solution does not exist the DMs preference structure plays a key role in rationalizing the comparison between the competing non-dominated solutions. Also, the ability to iteratively incorporate the DMs evolving preferences in the search process seems very attractive when compared with traditional approaches. In Section II, some approaches for the incorporation of preference information in multi-objective evolutionary algorithms (MOEA) are briey reviewed. The methodology used in the identication and selection of LM actions, integrating the evolutionary algorithm and the physically-based load

models, is described in Section III. The case study is presented in Section IV, in particular the objective functions and their suitability regarding the ongoing trends in the electricity sector structure. The analysis of the results obtained follows in Section V, and some conclusions are drawn in Section VI. II. USE OF PREFERENCE INFORMATION IN EAS The DMs preference structure plays a crucial role whenever a distinction is to be made among non-dominated solutions. Such need arises, for instance, in the decision process in which a solution must be chosen, or when the performance of different EAs is to be evaluated, or also within an EA when individuals in the population must be compared and distinguished. The DMs preferences may be incorporated into EAs in different ways. One of these ways which does not impose an excessive burden on the DM is the identication of aspiration levels (values the DM would like to attain for each objective function, thus setting a reference point) or reservation levels (values below which the DM is not willing to accept a solution as a satisfactory one) that can be used in the tness assessment of individuals. The cognitive burden imposed on the DM is acceptable because the dialogue is made in the space he/she is more familiar with. For instance, aspiration levels operationalize preference information such as I would like to attain 7500 kEuros for the prot objective function, whereas reservation levels represent preference information such as I am not interested in solutions with a loss factor higher than 0.54. Other forms of preference information such as weights or marginal rates of substitution are more problematic for the DM because of the technicalities involved. In EAs, the tness of each individual may be different from the performance evaluation, this being based on the results obtained by the individual in all axes of evaluation. The tness of each individual is based on its performance in all the objective functions, but it may address other criteria or preferences the DM may want to include in the assessment. The tness represents the quality of each individual in the population and thus the selection of the elements that are going to contribute to the next generation is usually done according to it. Some of the issues that may be addressed by the tness assessment are the tness sharing as a way to promote the diversity in the population, or the degree of attainment of aspiration levels specied by the DM. If the DM is able to identify these aspiration levels he/she would like to attain, then this information may be used to guide and accelerate the search, allowing to reduce its scope which is an advantage in a multiple objective setting by contributing to reduce the number of irrelevant solutions generated. Aspiration levels can be used to reward individuals closer to them. Reservation levels can be used to penalize individuals for which the objective function values lie behind them. In the presence of a hard multidimensional search space, the use of such information has revealed to contribute to a more effective performance of the EA when used together with the nondominance denition [10][12]. Several approaches aimed at improving the algorithm efciency can be found in the literature, namely the use of guiding mechanisms [13], the implicit incorporation of the DMs preferences [11], [14], [15], and the identication of a reduced Pareto



set [16], [17]. For example, in [11], Fonseca and Fleming reduce the search space by identifying a goal according to the DMs preferences and changing the tness assessment accordingly. The coordinates of the goal can be changed over time (interactively introduced by the DM) and the maximum distance to the goal is minimized, acting as an extra objective to be optimized. In [13] Branke et al. allow the DM to establish some sort of aspiration levels and reservation levels for each objective thus identifying a range instead of asking for a crisp value for each objective function. In [14] and [15], Cvetkovic and Parmee allow the different objectives to be weighted in a way that the importance of each one can change according to the DMs preferences articulated a-priori, since they are established before the search process starts and remain constant during the process. In our problem, the incorporation of the DMs preferences is necessary, not just for improving the efciency by reducing the computer effort but also the efcacy of the algorithm, by providing the DM well balanced compromise solutions regarding the multiple evaluation aspects. Moreover, as it happens in most real-world problems, the Pareto optimal front is not known, as well as the shape and the morphology of the search space, and some other reference must be used in order to evaluate the performance of the individuals. EAs are usually parameter intensive in the sense that they need several parameters, which must be tuned for the problem under study in order to work effectively. Therefore, the identication and the selection of a suitable value or range of values for every parameter become crucial steps when using these algorithms. Two different approaches can be used for the process of identication of the parameter values [18], [19]. One, perhaps the most common, consists in tuning the parameters through experimentation. The second approach for parameter setting is through adaptive control. Instead of being constant over each run, as in the tuning process, the values of different parameters may vary with time. This variation may appear in two forms. In the simplest one the values are a function of time, generally of the number of generations. In the second form, the parameters are given the ability to evolve over generations (self-adaptive control), in which the parameter encoding is made within the chromosomes of the individuals and thus is part of the evolution process. In this work the mutation operator presents an adaptive dynamic behavior changing between a maximum and a minimum value according to the results obtained in the phenotype space by every individual in the population [12], [26]. Thus, the mutation operator is built up with contributions from all the objective functions and its value change within each population from one individual to another and during the simulation period (one day) for each individual. Herein, such behaviour is related with the fact that some of the objective functions vary during the day (the simulation period). The information is collected by analyzing the results obtained by every individual in the population in the phenotype space. The dynamic behavior of this operator, changing from one gene to another, from one individual to another and from one generation to another, allows the search to be effectively guided towards regions of the search space in which more interesting compromise solutions can be found. The way each contribution varies in time is a function of the distance between the current value of the objective func-

tion and a percentage of the maximum value (90% is the current value used in the experiments, but may vary within each simulation according to the DMs preferences) [26]. For instance, the objectives associated with the minimization of peak power demand (objective functions , for the aggregate level A and the less aggregate levels D1 and D2, respectively) present a time varying behaviour (within each simulation and from one run to another). They have a contribution that is also time dependent, in a way closely related to the variation in time of the objective, and limited by a maximum threshold specied by the analyst: pm up. The way each contribution varies in time is a function of the normalized difference between the current value and a percentage of its maxof the objective function . Thus, in time interval the contribution of imum value these objectives to the mutation probability is given by

where . On the other hand, due to this extensive (several parameters are used) and intensive (most parameters are used in all generations) need for parameters, genetic operators may become an effective way to incorporate the DMs preferences in the search. III. METHODOLOGY The complexity of the problem arises from its multi-objective combinatorial characteristics and due to the size of the search space. The minimization of maximum power demand is often an important goal when DLC actions are implemented. Also, in order to maintain a high rate of acceptance of such activities, the discomfort caused to the customers must be minimized. Besides these objectives, the maximization of prots and the minimization of the loss factor must also be taken into account in the framework of DLC programs [3], [20], [21]. In scenarios of total unbundling of integrated utilities, several entities (generators, retailers, costumers) can appear in each branch of activity. In order to be able to deal with the distinct goals of different entities, the impacts of the implementation of load control strategies must be evaluated at different demand aggregation levels. For instance, a retailer may be interested in evaluating the effects on demand of a group of commercial customers and, at the same time, he/she may be interested in assessing the impacts on the total revenues or on the global demand (of all the customers of this retailer). In order to be able to deal with all the aspects under evaluation and to be usable in the different power systems structure scenarios, the MO model for supporting the identication and selection of LM actions considers seven objective functions [10] (for more details about the mathematical model, see the Appendix). Minimize maximum power demand. Three load aggregation levels are considered: A (power at the more aggregate level), D1, and D2 (power at less aggregate levels). Different groups of loads under control contribute for the demand at different aggregation levels. Maximize prots, g. Minimize loss factor, l.



Minimize causing discomfort to the customers. Two indicators are used: total time a state variable (temperature) controlled by loads is under or over a specied threshold (t), and the maximum interval in which that situation is veried (m). The demand of controlled loads with and without control actions is computed from the results obtained with Monte Carlo simulations based on individual load models. These physicallybased models reproduce in detail the behaviour of the loads with a minute time resolution, during one day, capturing the effects of control actions on the demand of the controlled loads [22]. This simulation is a very effective process with respect to the evaluation of changes in demand provoked by the DLC actions. In the identication of DLC actions, an iterative process encompassing the EA and the load models has been implemented. In each generation , the EA identies a population of potential , each individual encoding a solutions control strategy (each control strategy encompasses all control actions applied over all the groups under control). Each control strategy is then used by the load models to compute the demand of each group according to the on/off patterns it represents. The results obtained are then used by the EA to assess each individual, , and to identify the next generation . The process is repeated until a stop condition is reached. Throughout the evolutionary process the DM may analyze the results obtained both in the genotype (load control actions) and in the phenotype spaces (values in each evaluation dimension). This iterative process is described in Fig. 1 and develops as follows: BEGIN

Fig. 1. Iterative process used in the identication of the control strategies.

For Repeat For

to SizeOfPopulation do Initialize

to SizeOfPopulation do Evaluate

Selection Crossover Mutation

New Generation Simulate Load Demand (by using the physicallybased load models) Until StopCondition END In the EA, the performance of each individual is based on the non-dominance concept and an elitist behaviour is implemented in the following way. Among the non-dominated solutions a few are selected according to their Euclidean distance to a reference point and passed to the next generation. The reference point coordinates may be computed by the program as the best values attainable in each dimension (a meta optimum point) or they may

be established by the DM, playing the role of aspiration levels the DM would like to attain in each objective. This reference point is used to distinguish among all nondominated solutions and thus identifying a set of elitist solutions. Also, the aspiration (or reservation) levels specied by the DM are used by the tness function to reward (or penalize) the solutions that reach the aspiration (or fall behind the reservation) levels. The penalties are applied for violations in each dimension. The solutions that violate the reservation levels are not discarded because it is almost impossible to replace them with a feasible solution once the mapping of the search space into the objective function space is done through the individual physically-based load models (Fig. 1). Throughout the evolutionary process, the DM may analyze the results obtained and change the aspiration/reservation levels, guiding the search towards regions with good compromise solutions more in accordance with his/her preferences. Besides, by establishing aspiration and reservation levels, the scope of the search can be substantially reduced and thus both the efcacy and the efciency of the EA may be increased by reducing the number of irrelevant solutions generated and the computer effort. This is an important issue since the search space is very large and the demand and prots forecasts used in the model are usually established on a daily basis, asking for an identication of solutions in a compatible time frame. The ability to analyze the results and change the aspiration/reservation levels enables the DM to make a progressive and selective learning about the trade-offs that are at stake in each region of the search space and his/her preference structure can evolve accordingly. In general, when the process of identication of the load control actions starts the DM knows nothing about the attainable values in each dimension or the solutions to the problem (the Pareto optimal






front is unknown). This is a typical situation in real-world problems in which there is not enough information that allows the DM to clearly identify a priori his/her preferences regarding the objective functions values. Therefore, a progressive articulation of preferences enables a learning not just about the problem and the tradeoffs to be made to select satisfactory compromise solutions, but also a clarication of his/her own preference structure by strengthening or weakening his/her own convictions. IV. CASE STUDY In the study reported in this paper based on real-world data, there are 1860 loads under control, grouped in 20 groups. Each group contains one type of load only. The capability of computing demand changes at different aggregation levels is very important, once it allows to make this approach usable in different power system distribution structures. In this work, the demand changes are evaluated at three different demand aggregation levels (A, D1 and D2). In this case study, four groups of loads contribute for the demand aggregation at level 1 (D1), six groups contribute for the demand at level 2 (D2), and all the 20 groups of loads contribute for the more aggregate demand level (A). The controllable load is 6.9% of the peak demand at A level, 19.8% at D1 level and 29.8% at D2 level. Without any control action the situation is described in Table I. Some technical characteristics of the EA are (see also [10]): Population: 100 individuals. Selection: binary tournament. Crossover probability (one point crossover): 0.7. Mutation probability: adaptive control, as described in Section II. Fitness assessment: based on Pareto optimality. Penalty of tness when violation occurs: 0.85. Elitist behavior: the distinction among nondominated solutions is based on the distance between each individual and the meta optimum point. Aspiration and reservation levels can be progressively articulated by the DM in each generation. The chromosome structure is a 1440 20 matrix in which each column codies the on/off patterns to be applied to one group of loads during one day (1440 minutes). More details about the genetic algorithm can be found in [23]. V. RESULTS AND ANALYSIS The maximum demand under control is 2182 kW, 119 kW, and 211 kW at the levels A, D1, and D2, respectively. Let us suppose that, based on his/her technical knowledge about the


demands and the loads under control, the DM is able to specify the aspiration and reservation levels in Table II. Note that these levels reect the intention to search for solutions that improve power (at different aggregation levels) and prots objective functions, and accepting to degrade consumer discomfort and loss factor objective functions, regarding the initial situation without power curtailment actions. The best and worst values for each objective function found in the population (after 340 generations) are given in Table III, enabling to have an overview of their range of variation over the nondominated region. A ltering procedure was used to select a subset of most distinct solutions from the set of nondominated solutions in the nal population to be presented to the DM, the corresponding objective function values being displayed in Table IV. The aim is to offer the DM a sample of well-dispersed solutions that are representative of different tradeoffs between the conicting objective functions. This iterative process enables the DM to analyze the results found so far and eventually change his/her preferences accordingly, attempting to focus the scope of the search in regions where solutions more close to his/her preferences are located. Let us now suppose that, from the analysis of these solutions, the DM wants to search for solutions which further reduce peak power at the three aggregation levels (A, D1 and D2) and, at the same time, increase prots. That is, the DM is satised with the results obtained for objectives t, m and l (Table IV), but he/she wants to know whether it is possible to nd solutions that improve peak demand and prot objective functions while not degrading too much the functions which already attain satisfactory values. This preference information may be operationalized by changing, according to the DMs preferences, the aspiration and reservation levels as displayed in Table V. The search for new compromise solutions proceeds, now focused on






regions satisfying the preferences expressed by the DM as a result of his/her progressive learning of the non-dominated solution set [12], [13]. The best and the worst objective function values found in the nal population are displayed in Table VI. Let us suppose that the DM now wants to focus her/his attention on a more reduced set of most distinct solutions (3) generated by the ltering procedure working on the 80 non-dominated solutions in the nal population. The objective function values of these solutions are displayed in Table VII. These results show that is was possible to nd solutions satisfying the DMs preferences, that is reducing peak power demand and slightly improving prots at the expense of t, m, and l. Solution 1 presents the best values in objectives A, D2, t, m, and prots, while solutions 2 and 3 present the best value in objective D1. Also, solutions 2 and 3 are better than solution 1 regarding loss factor. The lowest values in objective D1 are only attainable if the performances in objectives t and m can be degraded. This information must be carefully analyzed by the DM to select a nal solution to be implemented, using the knowledge gathered throughout the interactive process namely concerning the tradeoffs at stake. The images of these solutions in the genotype space (load curtailment patterns) are shown in Figs. 24, where each rectangle represents an off period for each group of loads (20 groups are considered). VI. CONCLUSION The use of guiding mechanisms through aspiration and reservation levels for each objective function greatly contributed to improve the behavior of the EA in the identication and selection of good compromise load control actions. The improvement is more relevant whenever changes in aggregate load demand or prots forecasts and changes in the DMs preferences occur. The results obtained are not just more in accordance with the DMs (evolving) preferences, but also the computer effort to compute interesting solutions is reduced by using the DMs preference information.

Fig. 2. Solution 1 in the genotype space (load curtailments).

Fig. 3. Solution 2 in the genotype space (load curtailments).

This EA accommodates the progressive articulation of the DMs preferences as an adequate way to feed the evolutionary search with relevant information about the search results. Also, changes imposed by external conditions, such as in aggregate demand load or prots forecasts are relevant in this context. For example, the prots forecast (generally established on a 24 hour basis) can change inducing changes in the DMs expectations about the revenues, or the aggregate demand forecasts change



Minimizing peak power at the more aggregate level corre. sponds to minimizing the maximum of By introducing the auxiliary variable , the min-max problem can be transformed into (1) In a similar way, for each power demand objective at less and ), one obtains aggregate level (

(2) and (3) Prots are related with power and the amount of energy sold. and Variations related with energy are given by variations related with power are given by . These values are used on a daily basis and are evaluated according to variations on prots caused when strategy k is applied . Thus the to group prot objective function is (4) APPENDIX The mathematical formulation of the model (see also [10]) is as follows. Notation: windex for demand type at the less aggregate level; iindex for time period under consideration; jindex for group of loads; kindex for load curtailment strategies; Nnumber of intervals in which the load diagram is discretized; power demand increase/decrease at aggregate level in time interval i, when strategy k is applied to group j; power demand increase/decrease at less aggregate level, type w, at interval i, when strategy k is applied to group j; binary decision variable denoting whether load shedding strategy k is applied to group j; power at less aggregate level of type w at time interval i, without load curtailment; power at aggregate level at time interval i, without load curtailment; prot when strategy k is applied to group j; loss factor when strategy k is applied to group j; total time in which temperature is beyond the discomfort when strategy k is applied to group j; maximum interval of time, number of minutes, in which temperature is beyond the discomfort threshold when strategy k is applied to group j; prot per unit of energy at interval i; prot per unit of power at interval i. The loss factor, , is given by , where is the loss function, is the maximum losses value within the time interval considered. The objective function is (5) The minimization of discomfort is given by (6) (7) The mathematical model is thus (8.1) (8.2) (8.3) (8.4) (8.5) (8.6) (8.7)

Fig. 4. Solution 3 in the genotype space (load curtailments).

(for instance, due to changes in weather conditions) leading to revised expectations about peak demand.



(8.8) (8.9) (8.10) (8.11) Other constraints can be incorporated into the model. For example, the DM may impose further constraints on the acceptable values for the objective functions (reservation levels). REFERENCES
[1] L. Yao, W.-C. Chang, and R.-L. Yen, An iterative deepening genetic algorithm for scheduling of direct load control, IEEE Trans. Power Syst., vol. 20, no. 3, pp. 14141421, Aug. 2005. [2] J. Bzura, Radio control of air conditioning in Rhode Island, IEEE Trans. Power Syst., vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 448451, May 1990. [3] M. Fotuhi-Firuzabad and R. Billinton, Impact of load management on composite system reliability evaluation short-term operating benets, IEEE Trans. Power Syst., vol. 15, no. 2, pp. 858864, May 2000. [4] G. Heffner and C. Goldman, Demand responsive programsAn emerging resource for competitive electricity markets?, in Proc. Int. Energy Program Evaluation Conf., Aug. 2001. [5] E. Hirst and B. Kirby, Retail-load participation in competitive wholesale electricity markets, Edison Electric Inst., Jan. 2001. [6] K. Deb, A. Pratap, S. Agarwal, and T. Meyarivan, A fast and elitist multiobjective genetic algorithm: NSGAII, IEEE Trans. Evolut. Comput., vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 547560, Apr. 2002. [7] J. Knowles and D. Corne, Approximating the nondominated front using the pareto archived evolution strategy, Evolut. Comput. J., vol. 8, no. 2, pp. 149172, 2000. [8] E. Zitzler and L. Thiele, Multiobjective evolutionary algorithms: A comparative case study and the strength pareto approach, IEEE Trans. Evolut. Comput., vol. 3, no. 4, pp. 257271, 1999. [9] D. Goldberg, Genetic Algorithms in Search, Optimisation and Machine Learning. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, 1989. [10] A. Gomes, C. H. Antunes, and A. G. Martins, A multiple objective evolutionary approach for the design and selection of load control strategies, IEEE Trans. Power Syst., vol. 19, no. 2, pp. 11731180, May 2004. [11] C. M. Fonseca and P. J. Fleming, Genetic algorithms for multiobjective optimization: Formulation, discussion and generalization, in Genetic Algorithms: Proc. 5th Int. Conf., 1993, pp. 416423. [12] A. Gomes, C. H. Antunes, and A. Martins, Implementation of guiding mechanisms for incorporation of preferences in an EA for electric load management, in Proc. 3rd IASTED Int. Conf. Power and Energy Systems, Sep. 35, 2003. [13] J. Branke, T. Kaubler, and H. Schmeck, Guidance in evolutionary multi-objective optimization, Adv. Eng. Softw., vol. 32, pp. 499507, 2001. [14] D. Cvetkovic and I. C. Parmee, Genetic algorithm-based multi-objective optimisation and conceptual engineering design, CECCongr. Evolut. Comput., Jul. 1999.

[15] D. Cvetkovic and I. C. Parmee, Use of preferences for GA-based Multi-objective optimisation, in Proc. GECCOGenetic and Evolutionary Computation Conf., Orlando, FL, 1999. [16] M. Laummans, G. Rudolph, and H.-P. Schwefel, Approximating the Pareto set: Concepts, diversity issues, and performance assessment Dortmund: Dept. Comput. Sci./LS11, Univ. Dortmund, Dortmund, Germany, Tech. Rep. CI-72/99, Mar. 1999. [17] J. D. Knowles and D. W. Corne, Approximating the nondominated front using the pareto archived evolution strategy, Evolut. Comput. J., vol. 8, no. 2, 2000. [18] Z. Michalewicz and D. Fogel, How to Solve it: Modern Heuristics. Berlin: Springer, 2000. [19] A. E. Eiben, R. Hinterding, and Z. Michalewicz, Parameter control in evolutionary algorithms, IEEE Trans. Evolut. Comput., vol. 3, no. 2, pp. 124141, 1999. [20] M. Kushler, E. Vine, and D. York, Energy Efciency and Electric System Reliability: A Look at Reliability-Focused Energy Efciency Programs Used to Help Address the Electricity Crisis of 2001 ACEEEAmerican Council for an Energy-Efcient Economy, Rep. No. U021, Apr. 2002. [21] S. Nadel and H. Geller, Utility DSM, What have we learned? Where are we going?, Energy Policy, vol. 24, no. 4, pp. 289302, 1996. [22] A. Gomes, A. G. Martins, and R. Figueiredo, Simulation-based assessment of electric load management programs, Int. J. Energy Res., vol. 23, pp. 169181, 1999. [23] A. Gomes, C. H. Antunes, and A. Martins, Dealing with solution diversity in an EA for multiple objective decision supportA case study, in Gottlieb and Raidl (Eds) Evolutionary Computation in Combinatorial Optimization, Proc. 4th European Conf. (EVOCOP 2004), Berlin, Germany, 2004, pp. 100113, Springer. [24] IEA, The Power to ChooseDemand Response in Liberalised Electricity Markets 2003. [25] B. Rautenbach and I. Lane, The multi-objective controller: A novel approach to domestic hot water load control, IEEE Trans. Power Syst., vol. 11, no. 4, pp. 18321837, Nov. 1996. [26] A. Gomes, C. H. Antunes, and A. G. Martins, Adaptive Mutation Probability as a Tool to Incorporate Knowledge in an Evolutionary Algorithm for Multiobjective Electricity Planning Res. Rep. INESC Coimbra 7/2002 [Online]. Available: A. Gomes (M92) is an auxiliary Professor with the Department of Electrical Engineering and Computers, University of Coimbra, Coimbra, Portugal, and a Researcher at INESC Coimbra. His research interests include demand-side management, load modeling, and evolutionary algorithms.

C. H. Antunes is a full Professor with the Department of Electrical Engineering and Computers, University of Coimbra, Coimbra, Portugal, and a Researcher at INESC Coimbra. His research interests include multiple objective programming, decision support systems, and energy planning.

A. G. Martins is a full Professor with the Department of Electrical Engineering and Computers, University of Coimbra, Coimbra, Portugal, where he is responsible for an R&D group on efcient use of energy resources. He is also a Researcher at INESC Coimbra. His current research interests are energy planning, load modeling, and demand-side management.