Optimal Residential Load Scheduling Under

Utility and Rooftop Photovoltaic Units

Ghulam Hafeez1 , Rabiya Khalid1 , Abdul Wahab Khan1 , Malik Ali Judge1 ,
Zafar Iqbal2 , Rasool Bukhsh1 , Asif Khan1 , and Nadeem Javaid1(B)
1
COMSATS Institute of Information Technology, Islamabad 44000, Pakistan
[email protected]
2
PMAS Agriculture University, Rawalpindi 46000, Pakistan
http://www.njavaid.com

Abstract. In the smart grid (SG) users in residential sector adopt var-
ious load scheduling methods to manage their consumption behavior
with specific objectives. In this paper, we focus on the problem of load
scheduling under utility and rooftop photovoltaic (PV) units. We adopt
genetic algorithm (GA), binary particle swarm optimization (BPSO),
wind driven optimization (WDO), and proposed genetic wind driven
optimization (GWDO) algorithm to schedule the operation of interrupt-
ible appliances (IA) and non interruptible appliances (Non-IA) in order
to reduce electricity cost and peak to average ratio (PAR). For energy
pricing combined real time pricing (RTP) and inclined block rate (IBR)
is used because in case of only RTP their is possibility of building peaks
during off peak hours that may damage the entire power system. The pro-
posed algorithm shift load from peak consumption hours to off peak hours
and to hours with high generation from rooftop PV units. For practical
consideration, we also take into consideration pricing scheme, rooftop
PV units, and ESS in our system model, and analyze their impacts
on electricity cost and PAR. Simulation results show that our proposed
scheduling algorithm can affectively reflect and affect users consumption
behavior and achieve the optimal electricity cost and PAR.

1 Introduction
The energy demand in the world drastically increases day by day and fossil
fuels are limited and being exhausted. So smart grid (SG) emerged as a smart
solution, that accommodate fossil fuels generation, renewable energy (RE) gen-
eration, and hybrid generation. Therefore it is important to increase utilization
of RE sources (RESs) because of environmental issues and need to reduce car-
bon emission. Regulatory body passed renewable portfolio standard to increase
production from RESs. Under renewable portfolio standard the utility company
and energy providers in the U.S. and the U.K. to serve some the consumers load
with RESs [1,2].
Demand side management is the utility program to balance the users sto-
chastic demand with utility generation in order to avoid capital investment on
c Springer International Publishing AG 2018
F. Xhafa et al. (eds.), Advances on P2P, Parallel, Grid, Cloud and Internet Computing,
Lecture Notes on Data Engineering and Communications Technologies 13,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-69835-9_13
 Optimal Residential Load Scheduling Under Utility 143

more energy generation. In demand side management, various pricing mecha-

nisms and demand response (DR) programs are employed by utility company
to efficiently manage consumption behaviour and reshape demand of users. The
time of use (ToU) pricing tariff have three pricing tariffs in a day to motivate
consumers to shift their load from on peak demand hours to off peak hours.
Critical peak pricing (CPP) designated to critical peak hours having high price.
Real time pricing (RTP) designated to hourly varying pricing scheme [3].
Residential load scheduling has attracted significant attention, however, an
important challenge for residential load scheduling is that users are unable to
respond to the price incentives. To handle this problem authors in literature
proposed many solution. References [8–16] schedule residential load using opti-
mization techniques in order to reduce the electricity bill. In addition, to load
scheduling of consumers in response to fluctuating pricing schemes, the con-
sumers installed rooftop photovoltaic (PV) units and energy storage systems
(ESS) in order to efficiently balance load with the generation, reduce carbon
emission, and reduce electricity cost.
In this paper, we present energy management of a home that produce and
consume electrical energy. The house is equipped with PV units, ESS, and a
set of electrical appliances that consume electrical energy from PV units and
utility according to user preference. The household optimizes their energy con-
sumption behavior in order to reduce its electricity bill. Moreover, we develop
genetic wind driven optimization (GWDO) algorithm for load scheduling under
combined RTP and inclined block rate (IBR) environment to reduce electricity
cost and peak to average (PAR). Our proposed scheduling algorithm can effec-
tively improve economical efficiency of residential consumption under utility and
rooftop PV units and help consumers to save expenditure and reduce PAR.
The rest of the paper is organized as follows. Related work and motivation
is presented in Sect. 2. In Sect. 3, system model is introduced. Section 4 includes
simulation and discussion, and Sect. 5 concludes the paper.

2 Related Work and Motivation

In order to optimally cope the gape between demand and supply numerus tech-
niques and RESs integration are addressed in literature by authors. Authors in
[7], presented demand side energy consumption scheduling in presence of PAR
constraint and users preference in order to reduce the cost. Moreover, they intro-
duce multi objective optimization techniques which minimize cost and inconve-
nience posed to users. They use distributed algorithm for solving initial and multi
objective optimization problem. However, RESs integration are not addressed by
the authors.
The authors implemented electricity storage and appliances scheduling
schemes in [8] for residential sector in order to reduce electricity cost. The stor-
age system allows consumers to purchase electricity at off peak times and satisfy
its demand through storage during on peak times. However, the uncoordinated
charging and discharging of batteries results discomfort to users. The authors
144 G. Hafeez et al.

proposed smart home energy management system for joint scheduling of electri-
cal and thermal appliances [9]. The controller receive price information and envi-
ronment data in order to optimally schedule appliances to reduce cost. However,
the authors achieved economical solution at cost of users comfort. The authors
used intelligent decision support systems under generic and flexible cost model
for load scheduling in [10] to reduce the peaks and enhance the power system
efficiency. However, the authors reduced the peaks and cost while user comfort
is comprised. The authors in [11], proposed joint access and load scheduling
under DR schemes in order to reduce cost. However, PAR is increased while
reducing the cost. Authors proposed in [12], residential load control algorithm
for demand side management under combined RTP and IBR pricing scheme in
order to reduce the electricity bill and PAR. However, the authors reduced peaks
in demand while user comfort is minimized. The authors presented prosumers
demand side management in order to encourage consumers not only to take
part in generation but also in efficient load scheduling [13]. The smart sched-
uler schedules house hold appliances under utility and distributed generation
to reduce electricity cost. However, peaks in consumption are emerged while
reducing electricity cost this may damage the entire power system.
The authors proposed optimal scheduling method in [14] for distributed gen-
erations, battery ESS, tap transformer, and controllable loads for SG application.
They use BPSO technique to solve optimization problem and proved by simu-
lation that total system losses are minimized battery ESS size are considerably
reduced. However, the system objectives are achieved at cost system complex-
ity. The authors in [15], proposed two market models in order to cope the gape
between demand and supply. In [16], authors proposed novel appliances commit-
ment algorithm to optimally schedules appliances under operational constraints
and economical consideration in order to maximize comfort and reduce cost.
However, peaks may emerge while reducing cost because most users start oper-
ation during off peak timeslots.

3 System Model
We consider a smart power system with a single utility company and serval users.
Each user is equipped with RESs, such as rooftop PV units. The energy demand
of users are fulfilled by their local RE generation and power imported from utility
company. Furthermore, the home energy management control system (HEMCS)
comprises of EMCU, appliances, smart meter, and inverter. We assume that
each home is equipped with smart meter which is connected to EMCU for load
scheduling and adjusting energy consumption. We divided the scheduling time
horizon into Th timeslots, where Th = {1, 2, 3, ........, 120}.
We classify the appliances on basis of their operation and demand require-
ments as, interruptible appliances (IA), non-interruptible appliances (Non-IA),
and must run appliances (MR-A). The operation of IA can be delayed or inter-
rupted by EMCU if required. In addition, IA completes its operation in disjoint
time interval and the interruption of operation does not impact completion of
 Optimal Residential Load Scheduling Under Utility 145

the task. For Non-IA, cannot be interrupted, shifted, and shutdown during oper-
ation until to completion, it is only possible to delay its operation. On the other
hand, MR-A are refrigerator, air conditioner, and dispenser, these appliances
are price inelastic because refrigerator and dispenser need to be on at all times
during the day.
We consider RTP method combined with IBR for electricity pricing because
in case of only RTP there is a possibility of building peaks during off peak
timeslots.
To take the benefit from solar energy, we integrate rooftop PV units with
households to optimally schedule household appliances in order to reduce elec-
tricity cost, PAR, and carbon emission. The output power of PV units is calcu-
lated as [5]

E P V (t) = η P V .AP V .Ir (t).(1 − 0.005(T a (t) − 25)) ∀ t (1)

where η P V is the percentage energy efficiency of PV unit, AP V is the area of

PV units in (m2 ), Ir(t) is the solar irradiance (kW/m2 ) at time t, 0.005 is
temperature correction factor [6], the outdoor temperature (◦ C) at time t and
25 is standard room temperature (◦ C).
To cope the gap between the demand and supply, we assume that each user
is equipped with PV units and ESS. If the harvested energy is surplus or off peak
hours the energy is stored in ESS. If the harvested energy is deficient then all
harvested energy is used to serve the load. The energy stored in ESS is calculated
by the following formula [5]

κ . EP Dch (t)
E ESS (t) = E ESS (t − 1) + κ . η ESS . EP Ch (t) − (2)
η ESS

where E ESS (t) is the stored energy at timeslot t while taking into account energy
charged, discharged, and self discharging rate. And η ESS is the efficiency of ESS,
energy taken from rooftop PV units to charge ESS is EP Ch (t), and EP Dch (t)
is the energy discharged from ESS to serve the load at timeslot t.

EP Ch (t) ≤ EPUCh
B (3)

EP Dch (t) ≤ EPLB

Dch
(4)

Ch
E ESS (t) ≤ E ESS UB (5)
where EPUCh
B is the upper limit of charging ESS, Dch
EPLB
is the lower limit of
ESS Ch
discharge and E U B is the upper limit of the stored energy.

4 Simulation Results and Discussion

In this section, simulations results and discussions are presented in order to
evaluate the performance of demand side management under the RESs such as
146 G. Hafeez et al.

Table 1. Description of appliances

Category SA OTS Power rating (KW)

Must run appliances Air conditioner 75 1.5
Water cooler 70 1
Refrigerator 60 0.5
Interruptible appliances Washing machine 40 0.7
Clothes dryer 40 2
Water motor 36 0.8
Non-interruptible appliances Electric kettle 20 1.5
Electric iron 30 1.8
Oven 25 2

rooftop PV units. In our simulation settings the scheduling time horizon 24 h

is divided into 120 timeslots. We compare our proposed algorithm GWDO with
other heuristic algorithms such as, GA, BPSO, WDO to validate the effectiveness
of our proposed algorithm. We consider a single home in residential sector under
utility and rooftop PV units having IA, Non-IA, and MR-A. The description
of the appliances are listed in Table 1. For electricity pricing, we adopt RTP
method combined IBR. The RTP signal is MISO daily electricity pricing tariff
taken from FERC is shown in Fig. 1 and the normalized form of solar irradiance
and temperature data obtain from METEONORM 6.1 for Islamabad region of
Pakistan is presented in Figs. 2 and 3. The PV units generate electricity, depends
on solar irradiance, ambient temperature, efficiency of PV units, and effective
area of PV units. When ESS is fully charged, then it is utilized later during on
peak hours in order to reduce the electricity cost and PAR.

30
RTP pricing

25

20
Cost (cents)

15

10

0
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120
Timeslots

Fig. 1. RTP profile

 Optimal Residential Load Scheduling Under Utility 147

30
Forecasted ambient temprature
28

26

Temprature (C)
24

22

20

18

16
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120
Timeslots

Fig. 2. Forecasted temperature profile

1200
Solar radiance

1000
Solar radiance (W/m2)

800

600

400

200

0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120
Timeslots

Fig. 3. Solar irradiance profile

4.1 Energy Consumption Behavior of Appliances

The load scheduled based on (GA, BPSO, WDO, GWDO) and unscheduled
without RESs and ESS is shown in Fig. 4. The unscheduled load of users without
RESs and ESS have consumption peaks of 9.1 KWh at timeslot 90, 8.90 KWh
during timeslots 91 to 93, 8 KWh during timeslots 81 to 83, 7.8 KWh during
timeslots 94 to 106, and 6 KWh during timeslots 107 to 111. The scheduled load
based on GA of users have peak energy consumption of 6.1 KWh at timeslot
1 to 2, 6 KWh at timeslots 11 and 25. The percent decrement of peak power
consumption in case of GA as compared to unscheduled is 32.96%. The BPSO
based scheduling of users have peak energy consumption of 6.2 KWh at timeslot
42 and 59 and 6.1 KWh at timeslot 40 to 41. The peak energy consumption of
BPSO is 31.86% less than as compared to unscheduled case. In case of WDO
based scheduling the peak energy consumption of 6.05 KWh at timeslot 59 and
5.8 KWh at timeslot 51 and 85. WDO based scheduling have moderate energy
148 G. Hafeez et al.

consumption in the remaining timeslots. The percent decrement in peak power

consumption in case of WDO is 33.51% as compared to unscheduled.
Our proposed GWDO technique based scheduling peak energy consumption
of 5.9 KWh at timeslots 1, 2 and 106. The percent decrement of GWDO is 35.16%
as compared to unscheduled. The load scheduled based on (GA, BPSO, WDO)
and unscheduled with RESs is shown in Fig. 5. The peak energy consumption
of scheduled load based on GA, BPSO, WDO, GWDO, and unscheduled are
6.1 KWh at timeslot 1 to 2, 5.6 KWh at timeslot 28 to 29, 5.5 KWh at timeslots
6 to 7, 5.8 KWh at timeslots 1 and 103, and 8.1 KWh at timeslots 91 to 95,
respectively. The percent decrement of heuristic techinques (GA, BPSO, WDO,
GWDO,) as compared to unscheduled are 24.69%, 30.86%, 32%, 28.39%, are
respectively. Our proposed scheme GWDO over all profile load with RES is
better as compared to other heuristic techniques (GA, BPSO, WDO).
The unscheduled load and scheduled load based on (GA, BPSO, WDO,
GWDO) with RESs and ESS is shown in Fig. 6. Our proposed scheme GWDO
over all load profile with RESs and ESS is best among the other heuristic tech-
niques (GA, BPSO, WDO) and unscheduled as clear from Fig. 6.

4.2 Electricity Cost per Timeslot Analysis

The electricity cost of scheduled load based on (GA, BPSO, WDO, GWDO)
and unscheduled load without RESs and ESS is shown in Fig. 7. The maxi-
mum electricity cost per timeslot of scheduled load based on GA, BPSO, WDO,
GWDO, and unscheduled load are, 0.9 cents/KWh at timeslot 31, 0.6 cents/KWh
at timeslot 43 and 58, 0.55 cents/KWh at timeslot 57, .49 cents/KWh at timeslot
1 and 103 and 2.1 cents/KWh at timeslots 88 and 89. As clear from Fig. 7 that
our proposed scheme GWDO has most stable and optimal electricity cost profile
as compared to other heuristic algorithm and unscheduled.
The electricity cost of scheduled load and unscheduled load with RESs is
shown in Fig. 8. The maximum electricity cost of unscheduled load with RESs

10 10
Unscheduled Unscheduled
9 GA 9 GA
BPSO BPSO
8 WDO 8 WDO
7 GWDO 7 GWDO
Load (KWh)

Load (KWh)

6 6

5 5

4 4

3 3

2 2

1 1

0 0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120
Timeslots Timeslots

Fig. 4. Energy consumption without Fig. 5. Energy consumption with RESs

RESs and ESS
 Optimal Residential Load Scheduling Under Utility 149

25
Unscheduled
Unscheduled 2
GA GA
BPSO BPSO
20 WDO
WDO

Cost per timeslot (cents)

GWDO GWDO
1.5
Load (KWh)

15

1
10

0.5
5

0 0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120
Timeslots Timeslots

Fig. 6. Energy consumption with RESs Fig. 7. Electricity cost without RESs
and ESS and ESS

2 2
Unscheduled Unscheduled
1.8 GA 1.8 GA
BPSO BPSO
1.6 WDO 1.6
WDO
Cost per timeslot (cents)

Cost per timeslot (cents)

1.4 GWDO 1.4 GWDO

1.2 1.2

1 1

0.8 0.8

0.6 0.6

0.4 0.4

0.2 0.2

0 0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120
Timeslots Timeslots

Fig. 8. Electricity cost with RESs Fig. 9. Electricity cost with RESs and
ESS

is 1.8 cents/KWh at timeslot 91 to 93, 1.7 cents/KWh at timeslot 89 to 91,

1.65 cents/KWh at timeslots 97 and 98, and 1.4 cents/KWh at timeslots 99 to
102 because the users do more activities in these timeslots, so therefore, energy
consumption in these timeslots is high which results high electricity cost. GA
based scheduled load has maximum electricity cost 0.8 cents/KWh at timeslot
91, 0.7 cents/KWh at timeslots 16 to 21 and 29 to 31 because the energy con-
sumption at these timeslots is maximum. The BPSO based scheduled load has
maximum electricity cost of 0.9 cents/KWh at timeslot 43, 0.85 cents/KWh at
timeslots 41, and 0.7 cents/KWh at timeslots 35 and 36 due to high energy
consumption at these timeslots. The WDO based scheduled load has maximum
electricity cost of 0.9 cents/KWh at timeslot 93 and 0.75 cents/KWh at timeslots
31, 32, 89, and 90 because in this scenario energy consumption is high in these
timeslots. Our proposed scheme GWDO is better than other heuristic techniques
(GA, BPSO, WDO) in terms of electricity cost as shown in Fig. 8.
The comparative analysis of scheduled load based on (GA, BPSO, WDO,
GWDO) and unscheduled load with RESs and ESS in terms of electricity cost
150 G. Hafeez et al.

is shown in Fig. 9. The simulation results show that GWDO has most suitable,
stable, and optimal profile as compared to unscheduled load and other heuristic
techniques (GA, BPSO, WDO) in terms of electricity cost (Figs. 10, 11 and 12).

2.5 2.5
Unscheduled
Unscheduled
Scheduled
Scheduled
2 2

1.5 1.5

PAR
PAR

1 1

0.5 0.5

0 0
GA BPSO WDO GWDO Unscheduled GA BPSO WDO GWDO

Fig. 10. PAR without RESs and ESS Fig. 11. PAR with RESs

2.5 80
Unscheduled
Unscheduled
Scheduled 70 Scheduled
2
60
Total cost (cents)

50
1.5
PAR

40

1
30

20
0.5
10

0 0
Unscheduled GA BPSO WDO GWDO GA BPSO WDO GWDO

Fig. 12. PAR with RESs and ESS Fig. 13. Total cost without RESs and
ESS

4.3 PAR Analysis

The PAR of scheduled load using (GA, BPSO, WDO, GWDO) and unscheduled
without RESs and ESS is shown in Fig. 13. The EMCU based on all these algo-
rithms are designed to avoid the peaks which results reduction in the PAR. The
GA, BPSO, WDO, and GWDO reduce the PAR as compared to unscheduled
case by 8.3%, 16.5%, 20.8%, and 29.1%, respectively. The percent decrement of
GWDO is more as compared to the other heuristic techniques which ensures that
our proposed scheme outperform than other heuristic techniques. This reduction
in PAR provide benefits to utility and consumers interms of power system sta-
bility and electricity bill savings, respectively.
 Optimal Residential Load Scheduling Under Utility 151

The PAR of scheduled load using (GA, BPSO, WDO, GWDO) and unsched-
uled with RESs is shown in Fig. 14. The simulation results show that with incor-
poration of RESs our proposed algorithm GWDO reduces the PAR by 30% as
compared to unscheduled load case. Moreover, our proposed algorithm tackle the
problem of peak formation and optimally shifts the load from on peak timeslots
to off peak timeslots.
The PAR of scheduled load based on (GA, BPSO, WDO, GWDO) and
unscheduled with RESs is shown in Fig. 15. Results show that the integration
of RESs reduces the PAR by 30% and after incorporating the ESS as well, the
PAR is reduced by 35.4%. This reduction in PAR not only enhances the stabil-
ity and reliability of the power system but also reduces the electricity bill of the
consumers.

80 80
Unscheduled Unscheduled
Scheduled Scheduled
70 70

60 60
Total cost (cents)

Total cost (cents)

50 50

40 40

30 30

20 20

10 10

0 0
Unscheduled GA BPSO WDO GWDO Unscheduled GA BPSO WDO GWDO

Fig. 14. Total cost PAR with RESs Fig. 15. Total cost with RESs and ESS

4.4 Total Cost Analysis

The aggregated cost analysis of scheduled load without RESs is shown in Fig. 13.
The heuristic techniques GA, BPSO, WDO, and our proposed GWDO reduces
the electricity cost by 4.2%, 15.49%, 18.3%, and 22.5%, respectively. The percent
decrement in case of our proposed GWDO is more as compared to unscheduled
and scheduled load using heuristic techniques (GA, BPSO, WDO).
The aggregated cost analysis of scheduled load with RESs is shown in Fig. 14.
The percent decrement of our proposed GWDO technique is 47.7% as compared
to unscheduled because it employees the crossover and mutation steps of GA
on best values rather than on random values. So our scheme outperform as
compared to other heuristic techniques such as GA, BPSO, and WDO.
The aggregated cost with RESs and ESS of scheduled load and unscheduled
load is shown in Fig. 15. The percent decrement of our proposed scheme with
incorporation of RESs and ESS are more as compared to without RESs and with
RESs. So our scheme is beneficial for consumers in order to reduce their cost.
152 G. Hafeez et al.

5 Conclusion
In this paper, we adopt GA, BPSO, WDO, and proposed GWDO algorithm
for residential load scheduling under utility and rooftop PV units. The main
idea is to encourage consumers to take part in RE generation and efficient load
scheduling in order to reduce electricity cost. We used combined RTP and IBR
to avoid building of peaks during off peak hours because that damage the entire
power system. The proposed algorithm aimed to reduce the electricity cost and
PAR. Simulation results evidenced that our proposed system model for home
energy management significantly reduce electricity cost and PAR.

References
1. Hurlbut, D.: State clean energy practices: renewable portfolio standards. Nat.
Renew. Energy Lab., Golden, CO, USA, Technical report NREL/TP-670-43512
(2008)
2. Roselund, C., Bernhardt, J.: Lessons Learned Along Europe’s Road to Renewables.
IEEE Spectrum (2015)
3. Ma, J., Chen, H.H., Song, L., Li, Y.: Residential load scheduling in smart grid: a
cost efficiency perspective. IEEE Trans. Smart Grid 7(2), 771–784 (2016)
4. Solar Energy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar energy. Accessed 9 Mar 2017
5. Shirazi, E., Jadid, S.: Optimal residential appliance scheduling under dynamic
pricing scheme via HEMDAS. Energy Build. 93, 40–49 (2015)
6. Häberlin, H.: Analysis of loss mechanisms in crystalline silicon modules in out-
door operation. In: Photovoltaics System Design and Practice, pp. 538–542. Wiley,
West Sussex (2012)
7. Liu, Y., Yuen, C., Huang, S., Hassan, N.U., Wang, X., Xie, S.: Peak-to-average ratio
constrained demand-side management with consumer’s preference in residential
smart grid. IEEE J. Sel. Top. Sig. Process. 8(6), 1084–1097 (2014)
8. Adika, C.O., Wang, L.: Smart charging and appliance scheduling approaches to
demand side management. Int. J. Electr. Power Energy Syst. 57, 232–240 (2014)
9. Shirazi, E., Zakariazadeh, A., Jadid, S.: Optimal joint scheduling of electrical and
thermal appliances in a smart home environment. Energy Conv. Manage. 106,
181–193 (2015)
10. Ogwumike, C., Short, M., Abugchem, F.: Heuristic optimization of consumer elec-
tricity costs using a generic cost model. Energies 9(1), 6 (2015)
11. Chen, C., Nagananda, K.G., Xiong, G., Kishore, S., Snyder, L.V.: A
communication-based appliance scheduling scheme for consumer-premise energy
management systems. IEEE Trans. Smart Grid 4(1), 56–65 (2013)
12. Samadi, P., Mohsenian-Rad, H., Wong, V.W., Schober, R.: Tackling the load uncer-
tainty challenges for energy consumption scheduling in smart grid. IEEE Trans.
Smart Grid 4(2), 1007–1016 (2013)
13. Adika, C.O., Wang, L.: Autonomous appliance scheduling for household energy
management. IEEE Trans. Smart Grid 5(2), 673–682 (2014)
14. Ziadi, Z., Taira, S., Oshiro, M., Funabashi, T.: Optimal power scheduling for smart
grids considering controllable loads and high penetration of photovoltaic genera-
tion. IEEE Trans. Smart Grid 5(5), 2350–2359 (2014)
 Optimal Residential Load Scheduling Under Utility 153

15. Chen, L., Li, N., Low, S., Doyle, J.: Two market models for demand response in
power networks. In: Proceedings of 1st IEEE International Conference on Smart
Grid Communications, pp. 397–402, October 2010
16. Ye, F., Qian, Y., Hu, R.Q.: A real-time information based demand-side manage-
ment system in smart grid. IEEE Trans. Parall. Distrib. Syst. 27(2), 329–339
(2016)