Table 4 Summary of work done on demand side energy management policies

Piette et al. (2005)

Maximum peak load reduced by 27%

√

I

Ming et al. (2013)

Energy consumption reduced by 6%

√

A

Vivekananthan et al. (2014)

4% annual peak reduction

√

√

R

Møller Andersen et al. (2006)

Peak reduction by 4%

√

A

Al Hasib et al. (2014)

21% cost reduction

√

R

√

Lowell and Yoshimura (2011)

Change in consumers’ load profile

√

√

A

Zhao et al. (2013)

PAR reduced to 2.84%

√

√

R

Wang and Paranjape (2015)

19% cost reduction

√

√

R

Amini et al. (2015)

The total reduction of energy is 10% of the base load

√

√

√

√

R

Sæle and Grande (2011)

Peak reduction by 30% and energy usage by 4%

√

R& I

√

Fanti et al. (2018)

4.8% reduction in the cost of energy

R

√

√

Sala-Cardoso et al. (2018)

10% mean error recorded for load forecasting

R

√

Haider et al. (2016)

73% of the customers received low energy

√

R

Panapakidis et al. (2014)

Improvement in the load profile of the users

C

√

Cappers et al. (2010)

Peak reduction by 3%

√

√

A

√

Anvari-Moghaddam et al. (2014)

25% cost reduction

√

R

√

Lu et al. (2017)

The total energy is reduced by 34.71%

√

√

R

Schwartz (2012)

Reduce peak demand by 4% for RTP, 6% for TOU, and 10% for EDC

√

√

√

A

Yoon et al. (2014a, b)

Peak load reduced to 24.7% and 4.3% annually

√

√

√

R

Chatziioannou et al. (2013)

Lower system cost by 25%

√

√

√

A

√

Martirano et al. (2018)

20% peak load reduction is recorded

R&C

√

√

Paudyal and Ni (2019)

11.3% cost reduction

√

R

√

Samadi et al. (2014)

22% cost reduction

√

√

R

Sehar et al. (2017)

HAVC energy consumption is reduced by 7.47%

C

√

Shafie-Khah and Siano (2017)

42% cost reduction

√

√

R