1
Electrical Load Forecasting using Artificial
Neural Network ECE 668 -Project
Student Name: Farhana Hossain Priana
Abstract-- Load forecasting is one of the major challenges in the
development of power-supply projects and the demand-supply
balance of a power grid. It acts as the foundation of power market
operation and planning. Improving the accuracy of load
forecasting is critical in improving the utilization ratio of power
equipment and reducing energy consumption. Load-forecasting
methods are divided into two categories based on the forecasting
techniques. One category is the statistical approach such as the
time-series and regression, which is based on the analysis of the
intrinsic attributes of past data. The second approach is
established on correlated factors such as meteorological factors
and modelling those factors require auxiliary data. Knowledge of
future load demand system is the first requirement in optimal
planning and operation, and the load forecasting horizon can be a
month(s) or year(s) and even day(s) or hour(s). Therefore,
accordingly, they are divided into long, medium and short-term
load forecasting. Long and medium-term forecasts are generally
used to determine the capacity of generation and transmission, for
expansion planning and annual maintenance scheduling, etc.
Lastly, a short-term forecast is required for daily control and
scheduling of power system, etc. This project presents a complete
analysis of the performance of a load forecasting model based on
the second approach. In the original paper [1], the authors
introduce a methodology to evaluate a simple Artificial Neural
Network with a backpropagation algorithm and the performance
of the model under different case studies, to emulate real-life
utility requirements. Thus, the main purpose of this document is to
analyse the methodology proposed in [1], reproduce the results,
and evaluate its effectiveness in real distribution systems. The
models used to reproduce the results are developed in
MATLAB/NN TOOL and EXCEL.
Index Terms — Load forecasting, Artificial Neural Networks, Non-
linear load-temperature relation, Simple ANN system,
MATLAB/NN Tool.
1. Introduction
Load forecasting is one of the essential parts of electric power
utilities. Determination of electricity demand for the next hour,
day and year are of great interest to allocate finite resources and
serve the rising demand and population. Distribution power
system planning and operation rely heavily on accurate load
forecasting. With ever-growing demand, it is becoming
increasingly important to accurately forecast load as it is crucial
for several planning decisions. Planning decisions can be
divided into three broad categories: long term medium-term and
short-term decisions. Long term decisions help in laying out
new distribution system infrastructure and expanding old
infrastructures. Medium-term decisions readily facilitate
electricity market decisions such as buying or selling electricity
from neighbouring networks and additionally fuel required
soon. Lastly, short-term decisions help in the day-to-day or
weekly operational decisions like operational planning and unit
commitment.
ID#:20862161
These can be further grouped in terms of the forecasting time
horizon: Long term forecasting has a horizon of 1-20 years,
mid-term spreads over 1 week to about 12 weeks and finally
short-term usually covers an hour ahead to a week. Therefore,
at the distribution level load forecasting is a significant input
for the design and proper operation of the distribution network.
Various techniques have been developed and studies have
been conducted by researchers for different forecasting
horizons. Out of many, some key factors that may affect the
load forecasting models and methods are time horizon,
historical data, load density, population growth and alternative
energy source availability, etc. The empirical process of
forecasting depends on the factors which determine the
precision of the outcome. Thus, careful consideration is
required to choose the factors for the different models.
Researchers have found that time and historical data are the
most important factor. It has been observed that the load curve
has a time of the day property; it follows along with an hour of
the day, day of the week, week of the month and month of the
season. Therefore, current data along with historical data
contribute to the accuracy of the forecast and cannot be inferred
without reliable data.
Additionally, the weather has a noticeable effect on
consumer behaviour which eventually impacts load demand.
When weather deviates from the average temperature it will
increase load demand and sudden weather changes may result
in over/underestimation. Therefore, weather factor which may
include temperature, dew point temperature, humidity, and
wind index etc. to account for load dependability in the
forecasting models.
For short-term forecasting, several approaches have been
proposed. It is necessary to have proper knowledge of the
factors affecting the load as integration between the factors and
the demand is the primary concern as the demand at any time of
the day is different. Traditional approaches which are
computationally economic such as regression and interpolation
have been used for decades. However, these approaches may
not always produce acceptable results. On the other hand,
methods which take advantage of complex algorithms often are
heavy computationally. Some of the techniques widely
proposed by researchers are time series analysis, regression
analysis, fuzzy logic, artificial neural networks, support vector
machine algorithms, genetic algorithms, and hybrid methods,
etc.
Traditional time series analysis has numerical instability and
inaccuracy occurs due to its lack of incorporating weather
information as load demand has a strong correlation with
temperature and other weather variables. Similarly,
conventional regression models assume a linear relationship
between the weather variables and the demand of the load.
However, the functional relationship between them is dynamic
and depends on spatial-temporal variation.
Expert-based systems have been proposed in the past that
uses expert knowledge of operators which is very difficult to
articulate accurately and has the disadvantage of expert

dependency.
The application of artificial intelligence techniques to the
load forecasting problem is very popular among researchers.
Since quantitative forecasting is extracting patterns from past
observed occurrences and extrapolating them into future events,
Artificial Neural Networks have proved to perform well with
good accuracy. Unlike previous techniques like the time series
model, state-space and knowledge-based approach ANNs learn
the patterns from input-output data of the utilities’ system and
produces their non-linear model for future forecasting.
Recently due to advancement in computing technology,
computation intelligence (CI) methods are widely used in state-
of-the-art works. This method intuitively teaches itself a
particular task by trial and error from the past available data and
forecast accurately in the future based on the learning. CI has
the unique ability of autonomous operation without requiring
any complex mathematical formulation and/or quantitative
correlations between input and output. Another recent approach
is to use Hybrid AI and deep learning algorithms. [1] [2] [3] [4]
Accuracy and reliability of short-term load forecasts have
significant effects on power system operations, due to the
sensitivity of economic operation and the control of the power
systems to forecasting errors. As substantial errors can lead to
either overly conservative or risky scheduling, for example
resulting in the start-up of excessive units and unnecessary
reserves, spinning and operating reserves requirement failure
etc. which eventually ends with heavy economic penalties.
Therefore, this paper simulated and evaluates a short-term load
forecasting model to critically analyze its performance and
forecasting capability.
This document is divided into 6 sections to reproduce the
results obtained in [1]. First, a literature review of the
forecasting models and the state-of-the-art is presented. Then,
the modelling of an artificial neural network (ANN) for short-
term load forecasting is developed using MATLAB. Once the
model is developed, it is used to simulate the same scenarios
described in [1]. Finally, conclusions and suggestions for
improvements are stated.
2. Literature Review
Load forecasting has always been one of the vital parts of an
efficient power system planning and operation. Several electric
power companies have been forecasting load power based on
conventional methods for several years. However, since the
relationship between load demand and factors influencing load
demand is complex and nonlinear, it is challenging to
characterize its nonlinearity by using conventional methods. In
this section, a critical literature review of existing and emerging
forecasting models developed and proposed by researchers to
overcome the limitations of the conventional method is
presented.
A. Time Series
Time series models are based on the assumption that the
load curve can be decomposed into a time series signal with
daily, weekly and seasonal cyclicities. However, these
cyclicities do not produce exact forecast results rather an
average. Therefore, analysis of the difference between the
actual and the forecasted values are critical in the time
series approach to producing more accurate results. Some of
the methods used by researchers to study this stochastic
process are discussed below:
1. Autoregressive Model (AR)
The autoregressive model is one of the most fundamental
2
models, where the present value of the time series is
formulated in terms of past values and random noise in a
linear combination.
2. Moving-Average Model (MA)
In this method, present value is linearly expressed in
terms of both present and past values with noise, where
noise is derived from the forecasted errors when actual
observation is recorded.
3. Autoregressive Moving-Average Model (ARMA)
ARMA is the hybrid of AR and MA. Here, the present
value is composed of its previous values at past periods
along with current and previous noise at past periods.
Unlike MA this model depends on both the past values of
itself and noise.
4. Autoregressive Integrated Moving-Average
(ARIMA)
ARIMA is a generalized version of ARMA. The time
series defined previously as an AR, MA, or ARMA process
is called a stationary process. Previous models: AR, MA,
and ARMA are stationary models meaning the mean of the
series and the covariances among its observations does not
change with time. Transformation of non-stationary series
to a stationary process by differencing time series can be
modelled as AR, MA or ARMA to produce ARIMA time
series. [1][5]
In [6] a modified ARIMA method was presented to
forecast hourly. The model was improved with utility
knowledge on estimation, weather data: temperature, and
load data. The operators’ knowledge acted as an initial
forecast, which was then merged with temperature and load
data in ARIMA which resulted in enhanced forecasting.
Therefore, simulation results compared with conventional
ARIMA highlighted the better performance of the modified
ARIMA. Furthermore, the proposed method was able to
successfully forecast daily peak load with another ARIMA
model. Overall, the processing time of the modified ARIMA
was approximately equal to ARIMA but less than ANN,
moreover simulation for the same data with operator methods,
ARIMA and an error backpropagation ANN models were
carried out which revealed that the modified ARIMA
outperformed both. The modified ARIMA obtained on average
2% error compared to the operators 4 to 4.97% error.
The disadvantage of the time series models such as ARIMA
is that it extrapolates the history of load data using a linear
relationship, therefore, whenever there is a drastic change in the
weather, it cannot model the non-linear behaviour. A possible
solution to the shortcomings is the use of Transfer Function
modelling.
[7] tried to improve the reflection of the load-temperature
relationship by modifying the transfer function of previous
work in [8]. In [7] by subjecting the temperature to a non-linear
transformation before including it in the transfer function model
it aimed to overcome the limitations of previous models lacking
in incorporating load-temperature relationship. At first, a
standard transfer function was developed. Autocorrelation and
partial autocorrelation function were used to identify the time
series model tentatively and once it was identified, model
parameters were approximated using the maximum likelihood
estimation (MLE) method which is a commonly used method in
the estimation of parameters in statistical models based on the
principle that the parameter values would maximize the
possibility of producing the observations. An optimal
differencing scheme was chosen after several tests to produce a

stationary process from the data collected, followed by model
order identification was carried out. Finally, they developed
four ARIMA and four transfer function models to forecast the
load of each season of the year. Results demonstrated that the
average percentage errors for the proposed model perform
better than the ARIMA models. Thus, it can be concluded that
explicit inclusion of temperature influence in the transfer
function model optimizes the forecasting model. Lastly, to
include the non-linear relationship for load temperature, it was
fitted to a third-order polynomial and used as an input to the
transfer function model. It can be inferred from the results that
the modified transfer function showed improvement given a
simple procedure was adopted. However, it did not cause any
significant improvement to the forecast error comparatively
which is evident from the mean absolute error of the models,
i.e., 5.25% for ARIMA, 3.93% for Transfer Function and
4.02% for the Non-linear approach for summer.
B. Regression
In regression key steps are selecting the explanatory
variables and estimating coefficients of the variables. In most
conventional models, the temperature is widely used and other
variables such as humidity, wind velocity, etc. when used
sometimes produce better.
[9] demonstrated a linear regression-based model for short-
term load forecasting. Their work was an improvement of an
existing algorithm that forecasted peak load hourly load for the
present day and the following day. A multiple-regression (MR)
model and an ARIMA model was used in the process of
forecasting the peak load. Finally, a weighted average model
was used which used the results from the MR and ARIMA
model to determine the weighted peak load. An hourly load
model was used to forecast the 24-hourly loads which took a
forecasted peak and historical hourly load as inputs. Lastly, a
final peak load was forecasted from the hourly forecasts.
Notable improvement was performed for holidays as the
previous algorithm had a high relative error for holidays as the
SLF model did not use any special model for holidays. It was
also observed by [9] that the SLF model was affected when the
weather changes especially during seasons such as spring and
fall, as the weather model used for summer did not take the
effects of heating loads due to cold fronts, likewise, the weather
model for winter did not model the cooling effects on loads due
to warm fronts. Therefore, [9] modelled the cold effects on
heating loads by heating degree functions and cooling degree
functions for warm effects on cooling loads. A binary holiday
model was also implemented to account for the effect holidays
have on the load demand. The ARIMA model used was omitted
from the algorithm as it was observed that both the regression
and ARIMA models produced similar results. However, the
weighted average of their results gave a better accuracy than
their single models, but the increase in accuracy was relatively
less significant than the complexity of the model thus, the
ARIMA model was eliminated. Therefore, the final model was
formulated to be an initial daily peak forecast using a regression
model which then was used to produce initial hourly forecasts
using another regression model. To capture autocorrelation of
random effects the initial daily peak forecast, the maximum of
the initial hourly forecasts and the most recent initial peak
forecast error along with an exponential smooth of errors were
used in yet another regression model to finally yield an adjusted
peak forecast. The resulting model proved to be accurate and
robust, most importantly it was adaptive to changing
3
conditions.
C. Knowledge-based expert system
A knowledge-based expert system is a computer program
that has a knowledge base and an inference engine and can act
as an expert. Researchers have introduced this method in load
forecasting using knowledge from experts in the field. The
knowledge is used to articulate facts and rules in the knowledge
base and via the inference engine reasoning is performed.
[3] presented two expert based algorithms for 1 to 6 hours
ahead and 24-hour ahead forecasts. The analogical approach
had the advantage of reduced online database requirement and
the expertise of system operators. Intuitive relationships were
developed between load and weather parameters- dry bulb and
wet bulb temperatures, wind direction, wind speed and relative
humidity. Four different sets of rules were required for different
seasons (spring, summer, autumn and winter). To report the
weather change from one season to another, two forecasts were
run, one for the present season and one for the coming season.
Expert systems must find variables that are strongly and weakly
correlated with the load to help in forming the rules. Another
important factor is the study of the load curves to intuitively
account for the seasonal influence. Furthermore, a day-of-the-
week impact was also considered to fine-tune the seasonality.
Although the absolute average for the one to six hours ahead
was in the range of 0.869to 1.218% and the range from 2.429 to
3.3% for the 24-hour ahead forecast algorithm, the expert
system based may have yielded acceptable results but can be
concluded that it is not superior to the regression-based and
time-series approach.
In a later work in [10], a generalized knowledge-based load
forecasting technique was presented. A pairwise comparison
technique to prioritize categorical variables was used which
made it generalized and applicable for different areas. A
pairwise comparison lets choose the judgement with maximum
likelihood. A site-specific feature also ensured adaptability with
less effort. A generalized model gave the advantage of having a
set of weighing parameters that can be updated if necessary and
more robust than [3] as it did not only depend on the exact
weather forecast and naturally updatable as it did not depend on
any present model for load-temperature relationship due to the
fact that site-specific weather-load relationship parameter was
ignored, and only site-independent features included. The
model was tested for four different sites and results
demonstrated that average errors were higher when there was a
weather transition especially for fall and spring and for
weekends. Overall average error varied between 1.22% to
3.36%.
Both the methods proposed in [3] and [10] were able to
produce acceptable forecast results. However, the knowledge-
based system has limitations in emulating the acquired
knowledge in arriving at clear quantitative solutions concerning
a problem. This is rather difficult and cumbersome and often
leads to inconsistent rules.
D. Artificial Neural Networks
Forecasting using artificial intelligence has been proven to
provide promising results. Artificial Neural Networks (ANN)
are the foundation of artificial intelligence. An ANN is
described as a computing system that is composed of highly
interconnected processing elements known as neurons that
process information by their dynamic state response to external
inputs. ANN design consists of 3 layers: an input layer, hidden

layer(s), and output layer. Neurons within the layers are
interrelated by weights and, the output from every neuron is
multiplied by its corresponding weight before reaching the
inputs of the neurons within the next layer. Every neuron has an
activation function that is employed to work out the output of
the neuron from its input. All inputs to every hidden layer
neuron are totalled to form an activation function for the
neuron. Similarly, the total of all inputs to every output neuron
makes the neuron activation function. Net inputs are computed
for every neurone within the hidden layer and the output layer.
The output of a neuron within the hidden layer and also the
output layer is computed generally by the sigmoid activation
function. At the start of the learning progression, interconnected
weights are initialized to some random values according to the
defined initialization technique. And are later adjusted
according to a group of input-output pairs till the error is
negligible [2]. A Feedforward network is the most common
ANN model where information travels in the forward direction
in the neural network where it goes through input nodes
followed by hidden layers to output nodes.[11].
A backpropagation algorithm which is most commonly used to
train networks was proposed in [11] as a load forecasting
method and a nonlinear load model where the parameters of the
nonlinear load model were estimated using the backpropagation
algorithm. Loads were separated into weekday and weekend
patterns with further classification of weekend patterns. The
weekends were grouped into Saturdays, 1 st and 3rd Sundays, 2nd,
4th and 5th Sundays, 1st and 3rd Mondays and lastly 2nd, 4th and 5th
Mondays. These classifications were based on their historical
data and therefore it may not produce accurate results for other
datasets. Two methods were developed and implemented for
one-day ahead load forecasting, test results showed satisfactory
outcome with 2% forecasting error. The first method was a
static approach where the 24-hour load was forecasted
simultaneously. The present load was formulated such that it is
affected by the past loads and the pattern in which the current
load is included incorporated in a nonlinear function with a
weight vector that represents the load model. For weekdays
load forecasting three latest weekdays were used to adjust the
weight vector and the next two latest weekdays as inputs. For
the weekend forecasting, it was formulated using the five
grouped weekend load patterns to adjust the weights. The
second method proposed was a dynamic approach where it was
forecasted sequentially using the previous time forecasts. It was
based on the strong correlation they found for the peaks at the
same hours independent of the day of the week. Same models
as method 1 were used to adjust and estimate the weights.
Another difference between the two methods was that method
one has 42 forecasts and, in this case, only one. Computational
studies showed that for comparable accuracy method 2 needed
less input. The backpropagation algorithm demonstrated robust
performance in estimating the weights of the nonlinear load
model.
However, [11] did not take into account any weather
variables which could have significantly improved the model
performance.
In [12] an ANN forecasting method was proposed which
considers a correction approach. It attempted to overcome the
cons of the methods which forecast 24-hour-ahead or next day
peak load by using forecasted weather information such as
temperature. The problem arises when the temperature
fluctuates rapidly on the forecast day and hence, the load
4
changes significantly increasing forecast error as forecasting
was based on similarity. In the proposed method similar days
were selected based on Euclidean norm with weighted factors
as the Euclidean norm decreases, the better the evaluation of
similar days can be achieved. Load power was used as a
variable of Euclidean norm to overcome the uncertainties that
come with using a maximum and minimum temperature of
forecast day as usually used. This provided an approach that is
unrelated to rapid temperature changes yet successful similarity
selection. A three-layer with feedforward connection was used
which has 9 inputs and 20 hidden units resulting in 1 output,
hourly forecasted load. The correction came from the neural
network itself where the NN utilized deviation data of load and
temperature for its learning. The load curve was also forecasted
using a neural network that adopted online learning and
feedback data and forecasted errors for its learning. Simulation
results with different case studies such as forecast load curve
using a simple regression model using past temperature and
load data, forecast load curve using only similar day data,
forecast load curve using the neural network with off-line
learning and only similar day data used as learning data for
learning and lastly, the proposed method was compared.
Forecasting ability was the best for the proposed method
compared to the other case study methods in terms of mean
absolute error percentage. Furthermore, it outperformed others
remarkably in months when there were seasonal changes. In
conclusion, if the forecast day were changed, to obtain the
relationship between load and temperature around that forecast
day, the neural network would need to re-trained to be able to
output the correction corresponding to the rapid temperature
changes.
In another study [2], a multi-layered feedforward ANN and a
fuzzy set-based classification algorithm were analyzed. Fuzzy
sets were employed to classify the hour wise data into various
class of weather conditions. ANN created non-linear models for
each class of data. Dry-bulb temperature and relative humidity
were subdivided into categories such as cold, warm, hot and
dry, normal and humid respectively, which gave combinations
like cold-dry, cold-normal, cold-humid, etc. In total 48
combinations were formulated from classes of temperature and
6 classes of humidity. Like [11] a multi-layered feedforward
network using a backpropagation learning algorithm was
employed. The ANN was assigned to each combination class to
learn and perform hourly forecasting. This let ANN learn from
data that are corresponding to its corresponding class and few
data that are less related but has some degree of fitting in that
class. For forecasting, only one class of weather condition was
identified by calculating the membership value to be able to
select the proper ANN. The ANN had 14 input variables and a
single output. This method of using forecasted weather
information at each hour and classifying it into one of the 48
classes by the fuzzy-based classifier and then automatically
selecting the corresponding ANN of that class to forecast the
load proved to be capable. Results validated the method as its
mean absolute error percentage was below 2%.
E. State-of-the-art forecasting approaches
Recent developments in load forecasting and state-of-the-art
solutions and their results are discussed in this part.
Load forecasting techniques have progressed with time and
demand. Not it is not only constrained to weather factors but
load diversity as well which can also be caused by weather
diversity for an area. With increasing load demand for power

system covering a large geographical area, conventional
approaches and a single model may not provide satisfactory
results all the time. In a power system with a large geographical
area as demand diversity and weather plays a key role in
forecasting accuracy, a state-of-the-art approach is utilizing
multi-region load forecasting. The biggest challenge of this
method is to optimally identify areas into regions. A short-term
multi-region load forecasting system based on support vector
regression (SVR) was proposed in [13]. First weather and load
diversity within the selected test system were studied and then
the forecasting model was developed. Among many weather
indexes temperature was found to be a dominant factor and an
approximate piecewise linear relationship of correlation
between load and temperature for cold and hot days were
computed. This work took into consideration of load diversity
as a reference to the level that different demand patterns affect
the overall system demand. A coincidence factor was
formulated to define the level of diversity for a group of loads
which revealed that there was a presence of load diversity
among different zones. The optimal region partition was
performed such that the aggregated load forecasting error was
minimized and merging of areas occur only when the
aggregated error can be lowered based on the partition model. If
emergence was not possible then a new area was to be created
and a similar searching scheme was appointed again until all
areas were grouped. Load forecasting models for each new
region was also established using an SVR model which
supported a more general and flexible regression. Good
forecasting was also achieved as different models were used for
regular days and special days which included weekends,
holidays, and anomalous days. Test results showed overall
forecasting error increases when partitioning goes beyond the
optimal solution.
In the earlier sections, we found that the nonstationary
characteristics of the load play a critical role in the accuracy of
forecasting. In another recent work, Wavelet Decomposition
(WD) was investigated to improve load forecast accuracy in
combination with a gray neural network. WD has been widely
used due to its capability of reducing the nonstationary
characteristics of a series and thus improve the accuracy [14].
However, the use of WD to process the time series has issues in
the sense that there is no theoretical basis available for the
determination of the WD level, and it cannot predict high-
frequency components. Therefore, a method of selecting the
WD series based on an augmented Dickey-Fuller (ADF) test
was proposed in [14] and a second-order gray forecasting
model was implemented where a neural network mapping was
used to build it. The ADF test is an improved technique of the
unit root test. The gray forecast model offered a simple model
that required less historical data but high forecast accuracy, and
can be conveniently calculated, and does not need to consider
the distribution. Simulation results proved the claim that WD
can improve forecast accuracy. The model was compared with
two other models, WD-Elman which had five layers of WD
combined with the Elman neural network and a gray neural
network model, GNNM (2,1) that had two eigenvalues
representing the static and dynamic changes. The model
performed better than the two with a mean absolute percentage
error of 2.4 compared to that of 3.94 and 3.23, respectively.
Short-term load forecasting systems with ANN has long been
one of the recognized solutions, different types and variants of
neural networks have been proposed and applied to [1] [2] [11]
[12][15][16][17][18][19]. However, some researchers and
5
reviewers assessed it to be over-parameterized sometimes and
additionally along with the fact that the size of neural networks
increases quickly with the increase in the numbers of inputs,
hidden nodes and/or hidden layers, the main critic is the
overfitting issue of neural networks. Current advancements in
neural networks and artificial intelligence have shown terrific
impacts in fields like computer vision and speech recognition.
One of the advancements in the use of deep neural networks,
rather than implementing fixed shallow structures of NNs with
hand-crafted characteristics as inputs, is now possible to
incorporate one’s understanding of various tasks. Deep neural
networks are highly adaptable and efficient due to the different
building blocks including long short-term memory and
convolutional neural networks (CNN). The application of deep
neural networks to short-term load forecasting is relatively a
new research area [20].
In [20] state-of-the-art deep neural network structures was
implemented. A basic neural network structure was used for
forecasting for one hour. It did not include external feature
extraction and/or selection algorithms, rather only raw data of
historical loads, and weather information, temperature are used
as input variables. Inputs were processed in a low-level basic
structure by many fully connected layers to generate
preliminary forecasts, which were then passed through a deep
residual network. To capture periodic and unusual temporal
characteristics of the load curve, one-hot codes for season,
weekday/weekend distinction, and holiday/non-holidays
distinction were added. By stacking residual blocks, a deep
residual network (ResNet) was constructed and added to the
neural network for improving the 24 hours forecast. To further
enhance the learning capability some modifications were
performed. A modified deep residual network (ResNetPlus)
was implemented by adding a series of side residual blocks,
where the input of the side residual blocks is the output of the
first residual block on the main path. Evaluation of the
performance of the modified model was performed with
existing models which had a high dependency on external
feature extraction and selection, and/or hyper-parameter
optimization. Results showed excellent performance of the
proposed method with a mean absolute percentage error of
1.665 compared to other models having in the range of 1.8 to
2.6%. As complicated feature extraction and selection
techniques and additional weather information such as
humidity, wind speed etc. were not used, this work has the
capability of being a good benchmark for comparison.
More works have been proposed such as a novel hybrid
model with a new signal decomposition in [21] where load
series was decomposed into regular low-frequency components
using improved empirical mode decomposition (IEMD) which
mitigates the limitations of the conventional empirical mode
decomposition (EMD). Correlation analysis using T-Copula
was carried out for exogenous variables to incorporate them to
compensate for the information loss during signal
decomposition.
After going through IEMD and T-Copula correlation analysis,
data was applied to a deep belief network (DBN) for
forecasting the future load. A DBN is believed to overcome the
shortcomings of traditional neural network-based models.
The DBN teaches itself to probabilistically reconstruct the input
data and then detect feature patterns. Simulation results
provided higher load forecasting accuracy, MAPE value of the
proposed model was lower than the other comparative models.
The MAPE value of the proposed model reduced by 21:19%.
 6
In a similar work in [22], an EMD-DNN was executed to
perform short-term load forecasting. The EMD was applied to Peak load at day d is defined as maximum {L (1, d):
decompose the load curve into components, a comparable L(42,d)} and Total load at day d is defined as the
24
approach to what was performed in [21]. These components
were then passed through a convolutional neural network summation of L over 24 hours for each day: ( ∑ L( h , d),
(CNN). The output from CNN and raw data was then fed into h =1
the long short-term memory layer (LSTM). This whole process where L(h, d) is the load at hour h on day d.
was the extraction model for multimodal spatial-temporal The neural network structures modelling is shown below
features. Features from this layer along with multimodal in Figure 1. The size of the hidden layers and the number of
spatial-temporal features extracted from electricity price along hidden layers were chosen from among several structures
with a day and hour information and loads of similar days were that gave the best network performance in terms of
used as supplementary features for the forecasting layer. The accuracy.
forecasting layer had a multilayer fully connected neural
network consisting of two fully connected (FC) layers.
It was observed that the proposed method could demonstrate
effective and accurate results. However, it was targeted for
weekdays as the electricity consumption is the largest during
weekdays.
For many decades load forecasting has been studied using
various methods such as time series, regression, machine
learning, etc. Recently, the trend is to develop an ensemble Figure 1: Neural Network Structure
model or hybrid model to improve the accuracy of load
forecasting. Moreover, in recent years the field of Artificial Throughout the simulation, a
Intelligence and Machine Learning has experienced a rise in single hidden layer was used with
popularity due to the advancements of computing technologies. various numbers of hidden
Various advanced AI and ML techniques such as deep learning, neurons. From several
reinforcement learning, extreme learning machine and transfer simulations runs the optimal
learning have been adopted. All these methods have their hidden neuron size was selected.
advantages and disadvantages, a model is evaluated based on its The number of inputs depended
forecasting accuracy, generalization ability, anomaly adaptation on the cases, but the output was
and computational complexity. An extensive literature review always one. Figure 2 shows the
of different defect detection methods highlighted that ensemble training information from the
or hybrid approaches tend to perform better. MATLAB NN tool, where the
training algorithm used is
3. Modelling and Simulation Gradient Descent with
In [1] an ANN is presented where a backpropagation Momentum and training stopped
algorithm is used to train. The backpropagation algorithm is when it reached minimum
also called the generalized Delta rule where the activation Figure 2: NN training gradient. Modelling starts by
function is a sigmoid function. The networks weights are defining the inputs and outputs
adapted using the gradient descent algorithm. A momentum followed by diving them into training and test sets. Then the
was introduced to improve the convergence characteristics. network and the topology along with transfer function is
To model a similar ANN as proposed in the work [1], a defined, where the input, output and hidden layers, activation
feedforward neural network was modelled using the Neural function and learning are specified and configured. Lastly, the
Network (NN) toolbox in MATLAB. The built-in training training algorithm is specified, and training begins, and the
function “traingdm” was used, which employs a gradient model is tested out. At this point based on the simulation
descent algorithm with momentum backpropagation to results, training parameters such as learning rate and
update the weight and bias values. momentum for the gradient descent algorithm was varied to
Since the exact dataset used in [1] was not available, a find the optimal settings.
North American dataset was used for simulation from Table 1 summarizes the network architecture for the three
another paper [20], where it had load and temperature data case studies. Gradient descent with momentum algorithm was
from 2003 to 2014. Hourly temperature and load data from chosen as the initial algorithm for all the case studies, however,
[20] in the interval of Nov.1, 2013 – Jan.31, 2014, were it failed to produce accurate results for hourly load forecasts.
used to train the ANN and test its performance. The optimal training parameters for the gradient descent with
Table 1 shows the five sets used to test the neural momentum was observed to be as learning rate = 0.01 and
network. Each set contains at least 6 normal days, the focus momentum = 0.5. Therefore, a Levenberg-Marquardt
was on normal weekdays according to [1]; no holiday or backpropagation algorithm, “trainlm” was used, which updates
weekends. Test data were not used to train the neural the weights and bias values according to the Levenberg-
network. Marquardt optimization. To evaluate the resulting ANN’s
Three case studies were performed to analyse the performance, the following percentage error measure is
performance of the proposed ANN: used:
 Case 1: Peak Load of the Day
 Case 2: Total Load of the Day error =¿ actual load−forecasted load∨ ¿ × 100¿
 Case 3: Hourly Load actual load
 7
Table 5 shows the error (%) of the hourly forecast of each day
in the test sets. The average error for all 5 sets is found to be
1.60 %. Note that each day’s result is averaged over a 24-hour
Case Inputs Output Training period.
Study function and
Hidden days Set 1 Set 2 Set 3 Set 4 Set 5
neurons Day 1 2.64 1.33 1.50 1.50 1.24
1  Average Peak Load Gradient Day 2 1.24 1.57 1.43 1.60 0.98
temperature at day k descent with
 Peak momentum Day 3 2.18 1.50 1.59 1.93 0.84
temperature Day 4 2.66 1.35 1.76 1.87 1.00
 Lowest 5 Day 5 2.25 1.58 1.62 1.79 1.31
temperature
Day 6 2.04 1.40 1.87 1.50 0.89
Avg. 2.17 1.45 1.63 1.70 1.04
2  Average Total Load Gradient Table 5: Error (%) of Hourly Load Forecasting with One Hour Lead
temperature at day k descent with
Time
 Peak momentum
temperature
 Lowest 5 To find the effect of the lead time on the ANN load forecasting
temperature model, set 3 was used whose performance in Table 5 was the
nearest to the average following the method proposed in [1].
3  Hour of Load at Levenberg The lead time was varied from 1 to 24 hours with a 3-hour
predicted hour k Marquardt interval. The topology of the ANN was as follows:
load Inputs:
 Load at hour
k-2 & k-1 10  k, hour of predicted load
 Temperature  Load at lead time 24 for hour k {L(24,k)}
at hour k-2 &  Temperature at lead time 24 for hour k {T(24,k)}
k-1 Output:
Table 1: Summary of Network Architecture
 Predicted load at hour k {L(k)}
Hidden Neurons:
4. Results & Discussion
 10 neurons
Table 2 shows five sets used to test the neural network.
Training Function:
Each set contains at least 6 weekdays. The test sets were not
 Levenberg Marquardt
used in the training stage.
Sets Test data from Figure 3 and 4 show examples of the hourly actual and
Set 1 11/9/2003 - 11/18/2003 forecasted loads with one-hour and 24-hour lead times. Figure 5
Set 2 11/18/2003 - 11/25/2003 shows the average errors (%) of the forecasted loads with
Set 3 12/08/2003 - 12/15/2003 different lead hours for test set 3.
Set 4 12/27/2003 - 01/04/2004
Set 5 01/23/2004 - 01/30/2004
Table 2: Test Data Sets

Table 3 shows the error (%) of the peak load of each day in the
test sets. The average error for all 5 sets is 3.83%.
days Set 1 Set 2 Set 3 Set 4 Set 5
Day 1 2.27 3.85 4.78 2.77 2.96
Day 2 4.50 3.82 5.11 1.67 3.66
Day 3 3.20 3.92 1.12 6.51 1.43
Day 4 2.65 8.74 6.50 3.17 1.34
Day 5 1.50 3.14 2.14 8.60 4.94
Day 6 3.85 1.87 2.24 9.88 3.29
Avg. 2.92 4.22 3.65 5.43 2.94
Table 3: Error (%) of Peak Load Forecasting Figure 3:Hourly Load Forecasting and Actual Load

Table 4 shows the error (%) of total load of each day in test
sets. The average error for all 5 sets is 5.74%.
days Set 1 Set 2 Set 3 Set 4 Set 5
Day 1 4.67 8.03 3.03 6.79 3.80
Day 2 5.86 8.18 1.33 6.31 4.57
Day 3 8.48 9.20 1.60 9.57 1.29
Day 4 5.20 10.03 1.47 6.70 1.83
Day 5 6.09 7.78 3.75 14.08 6.47
Day 6 8.03 7.17 4.63 1.02 5.34
Avg. 6.39 8.40 2.63 7.41 3.88
Table 4: Error (%) of Total Load Forecasting
 8

Figure 4: Hourly Load Forecasting and Actual Load

Figure 7: Hourly Load Forecast for set 1 with actual Load

Figure 5: Average errors (%) of the forecasted loads with different

lead hours for test set 3

Figure 8: Hourly Load Forecast for set 2 with actual Load

Figure 6: Hourly Load Forecast for set 3 with actual Load

Figure 9:Hourly Load Forecast for set 4 with actual Load


Figure 10: Hourly Load Forecast for set 5 with actual Load
In the training stage, the historical temperature was used and in
the test, stage predicted temperature was used in [1]. However,
since the predicted temperature was not available due to access
constraints, in the test stage temperature from the dataset was
applied.
From Figure 5, the error gradually increases as the lead hour
grows which is true up to 18 hours of lead time, like what has
been observed in [1]. One of the causes for this error pattern
can be the periodicity of load and temperature pattern as can be
seen in Figure 6-10 and, also assumed in [1]. Even though they
are not exactly as similar as those of the previous day, the
temperature and system load are very analogous to those of the
previous day.
However, compared to [1] the average error is much higher and
varies in between 2% to 13%, as compared to 1% to 3% in [1].
An exact comparison cannot be deduced as the datasets and
year of forecasts are not the same. One-hour lead error results
compare quite favourably with the one obtained in [1].
Now to compare our case study simulation results to [1], it
can be concluded that the NN modelled in this paper shows
satisfactory results in terms of peak, total and hourly load
forecasting. The average errors are 3.83%, 5.74% and 1.60%
compared to 2.04%, 1.68% and 1.40%. As we can see peak and
hourly forecast errors are nearly identical to the simulations by
[1]. In addition, it was also noticed that forecasts for weekends
in the selected 5 datasets demonstrated high inaccuracy when
simulated with Gradient Descent with Momentum. Though in
the paper [1] it was explicitly stated that focus was on weekday
forecasts, it was discovered that when trained with Levenberg-
Marquardt weekend forecast errors significantly dropped.
Figure 5-10 graphs the hourly load forecasts including
weekends and holidays and from the graphs it can be seen that
an accurate forecast was produced.
The load forecasting technique replicated is using only
temperature data and from simulation results on a different
dataset extrapolated acceptable results however did not deliver
the same accuracy in certain cases. To improve the accuracy
and extrapolation of the NN model and avoid overfitting data
pre-processing can be a key player. In [1] there was no mention
of any data-preprocessing, data pre-processing techniques such
as scaling, and normalizing can lead to improvement. These can
often provide faster training and less chance of getting trapped
in a local optimum. Moreover, incorporating further weather
variables such as humidity, cloud cover and dew level etc. and
more data spread over various years, seasons and taking
consideration of different activities as human activities
9
significantly participate in load demand can further improve the
performance, which has been seen to be effective in approaches
discussed in the literature review.
5. Conclusion
In this paper, an electric load forecasting methodology using
an artificial neural network has been presented and was
accurately implemented in MATLAB/ NN TOOL. This was
based on the topology used in [1] and the performance of this
method was comparable.
The results reinforced that the ANN is suitable to incorporate
historical load and temperature pattern into future load pattern.
In order to reproduce all the results shown in [1], there were
developed two different NN models, according to the study
cases presented in [1].
In order to forecast the future loads from the trained ANN,
recent load and temperature data in addition to the predicted
future temperature was suggested in [1], a similar ANN was
used without the predicted temperature due to unavailability
and performance for each study case replicated the expected
results from the simulation analysis.
MATLAB and EXCEL were used to study the simulation
and generate the required results and compute performance and
evaluate them.
In general, neural networks require training data well spread
in the feature space to provide exceptionally accurate results
[1].
In conclusion, as discussed earlier, it is of paramount
importance that a short-term load forecasting model delivers
accurate forecasts for the decision-making of power system
operators. Uniform performance during all seasons and
especially during times of unusual and unexpected weather
conditions is expected of a robust forecasting model.
6. References
[1] S. S. Madani, “Electric load forecasting using an
artificial neural network,” Middle East J. Sci. Res.,
vol. 18, no. 3, pp. 396–400, 2013, doi:
10.5829/idosi.mejsr.2013.18.3.11682.
[2] M. Daneshdoost, “Neural network with fuzzy set-
based classification for short-term load
forecasting,” IEEE Trans. Power Syst., vol. 13, no.
4, pp. 1386–1391, 1998, doi: 10.1109/59.736281.
[3] S. Rahman and R. Bhatnagar, “An expert system
based algorithm for short term load forecast,”
IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, vol. 3, no.
2. pp. 392–399, 1988, doi: 10.1109/59.192889.
[4] S. H. Sunny and D. R. O. Y. Dipta, “A
Comprehensive Review of the Load Forecasting
Techniques Using Single and Hybrid Predictive
Models,” pp. 134911–134939, 2020, doi:
10.1109/ACCESS.2020.3010702.
[5] I. Moghram and S. Rahman, “Analysis and
Evaluation of Five Short-Term Load Forecasting
Techniques,” IEEE Power Eng. Rev., vol. 9, no.
11, pp. 42–43, 1989, doi:
10.1109/MPER.1989.4310383.
[6] N. Amjady, “Short-term hourly load forecasting
using time-series modeling with peak load
estimation capability,” IEEE Trans. Power Syst.,
 1
vol. 16, no. 4, pp. 798–805, 2001, doi: He, “Short-Term Load Forecasting With Deep
10.1109/59.962429. Residual Networks,” IEEE Trans. Smart Grid, vol.
[7] M. T. Hagan and S. M. Behr, “The Time Series 10, no. 4, pp. 3943–3952, 2019, doi:
Approach to Short Term Load Forecasting,” 10.1109/TSG.2018.2844307.
Power, vol. 0, no. 3, pp. 785–791, 1987. [21] R. Haq and Z. Ni, “A New Hybrid Model for
[8] M. Hagan and R. Klein, “On-Line Maximum Short-Term Electricity Load Forecasting,” IEEE
Likelihood Estimation for Load Forecasting,” no. Access, vol. 7, pp. 125413–125423, 2019, doi:
5, pp. 711–715, 1978. 10.1109/ACCESS.2019.2937222.
[9] A. D. Papalexopoulos and T. C. Hesterberg, “A [22] F. Xiong and Z. Fu, “Multimodal Feature
regression-based approach to short-term system Extraction and Fusion Deep Neural Networks for
load forecasting,” Forecast, pp. 1535–1550, 1990. Short-Term Load Forecasting,” pp. 185373–
[10] S. Member, S. Member, and E. Systems, “A 185383, 2020, doi:
Generalized Knowledge-Based Short-Term Load- 10.1109/ACCESS.2020.3029828.
Forecasting Technique,” vol. 8, no. 2, pp. 508–
514, 1993.
[11] Y. Shimakura et al., “Short-term load forecasting
using an artificial neural network,” Proc. 2nd Int.
Forum Appl. Neural Networks to Power Syst.
ANNPS 1993, vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 233–238, 1993,
doi: 10.1109/ANN.1993.264285.
[12] T. Senjyu, H. Takara, K. Uezato, and T.
Funabashi, “One-Hour-Ahead Load Forecasting,”
vol. 17, no. 1, pp. 113–118, 2002.
[13] S. Fan, K. Methaprayoon, and W. Lee,
“Multiregion Load Forecasting for System With
Large Geographical Area,” vol. 45, no. 4, pp.
1452–1459, 2009.
[14] B. Li, J. Zhang, Y. U. He, and Y. Wang, “Short-
Term Load-Forecasting Method Based on Wavelet
Decomposition With Second-Order Gray Neural
Network Model Combined With ADF Test,” vol.
5, 2017.
[15] S. A. Villalba and C. Á. Bel, “Hybrid demand
model for load estimation and short term load
forecasting in distribution electric systems,” IEEE
Trans. Power Deliv., vol. 15, no. 2, pp. 764–769,
2000, doi: 10.1109/61.853017.
[16] H. S. Hippert, C. E. Pedreira, and R. C. Souza,
“Neural networks for short-term load forecasting:
A review and evaluation,” IEEE Trans. Power
Syst., vol. 16, no. 1, pp. 44–55, 2001, doi:
10.1109/59.910780.
[17] H. Quan, D. Srinivasan, and A. Khosravi, “Short-
term load and wind power forecasting using neural
network-based prediction intervals,” IEEE Trans.
Neural Networks Learn. Syst., vol. 25, no. 2, pp.
303–315, 2014, doi:
10.1109/TNNLS.2013.2276053.
[18] N. Mahdavi, M. B. Menhaj, and S. Barghinia,
“Short-term load forecasting for special days using
Bayesian neural networks,” 2006 IEEE PES
Power Syst. Conf. Expo. PSCE 2006 - Proc., vol.
15, no. 2, pp. 1518–1522, 2006, doi:
10.1109/PSCE.2006.296525.
[19] G. Gross, S. Francisco, D. Galiana, and L.
Number, “Short-Term Load Forecasting,” vol. 75,
no. 12, 1987.
[20] K. Chen, K. Chen, Q. Wang, Z. He, J. Hu, and J.