Deep Neural Networks for Short-Term Load
Forecasting in ERCOT System
Mitchell Easley, Luke Haney, Jose Paul, Kim Fowler, IEEE Fellow, Hongyu Wu*, IEEE Senior Member
Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering
Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS, United States
(* corresponding author: hongyuwu@ksu.edu)
Abstract—— Short-term load forecasting plays a major
role in the operation of electric power systems to ensure
instantaneous balance between electricity generation and
demand. The accuracy of the forecast generated by a
neural network (NN) has several factors, including but not
limited to, the algorithm used to train the network, how
much and what kind of data are used in the network’s
training set, how many hidden layers are in the NN, and
the size of the hidden layer(s). We investigate the best
combination of these factors to decrease the mean absolute
percent error (MAPE) and to give the best forecast
possible. Based on system load data from the Electric
Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT), this paper focuses
on a comprehensive understanding of the accuracy of
forecasts generated by NN’s with different algorithms,
while varying the length of the network’s training set,
hidden layer size, number of hidden layers, and the
addition of data sets when training to create a forecast
with the highest accuracy possible.
Index Terms—Load forecast, deep learning, neural
network, Levenberg-Marquardt, Scaled Conjugate
Gradient, Bayesian Regularization
I.INTRODUCTION
Load forecasting has become one of the major research
fields in electrical engineering. With the frequent changes in
weather conditions, electricity prices and demand side
participation, load forecasting is more necessary now than
ever [1]. Forecasting divides into long-term, medium-term and
short-term forecasting. Short-term prediction is based more on
weather conditions, such as dry bulb temperature and dew
point temperature. It is usually from a one-hour to a one-week
period. Medium-term and long-term predictions depend more
on economic factors and political decisions. Medium-term
lasts from a week to a year and long-term is usually more than
a year [1].
There are various methods used for load forecasting these
days [2]. Some common ones used are fuzzy logic, expert
systems, and neural networks [3]. The fuzzy logic method
gathers similarities from large amounts of data. Instead of
saying two values are the same, it determines the degree to
which they are similar. It uses this logic to predict the load.
The biggest advantage of using this logic is the absence of
mathematical models and specific inputs [1]. Expert systems
978-1-5386-1006-0/18/$31.00 ©2018 IEEE
are computer algorithms that have the power to define and
prescribe actions [3]. This is based on different rules and steps
created by experienced engineers; these are converted into
software to forecast load [1].
The most common method, neural network (NN), is a
hybrid method that uses time series and regression [3]. The
NN looks at previous load data and finds trends from those
data. It uses that knowledge to predict the load with weather
forecast data. There are different structures for NN used to
predict load, such as Hopfield, backpropagation, and
Boltzmann machines. The most common NN design used for
load forecasting is backpropagation. Unlike statistical
forecasting techniques, a mathematical model does not need to
be defined a priori for NN; one can easily include any relevant
parameter as a node in the input layer, and the network will
“learn” the relationship. Reference [4] completed an extensive
literature review on NN’s place in Short-Term Load
Forecasting (STLF), and found that, although the individual
conclusions of most papers on the subject are not sufficiently
convincing by themselves, the great number of positive results
on the subject demonstrate it is a superior forecasting method.
Hippert, Pedreira, and Souza suggest that many early
researchers on this topic likely overparameterized their NN,
leading to overfit of the training set and ultimately less
promising results.
The different algorithms used in this paper for training NN
are Bayesian Regularization (BR), Scaled Conjugant Gradient
(SCG), and Levenberg-Marquardt (LM). BR trains the
network by reducing the sum of squared errors. It uses a
Jacobian matrix for its calculations and takes the most time of
the three methods [5]. LM uses sum-of-mean-squares for
training and a Jacobian matrix for calculations; it takes more
memory to produce the results [6]. SCG is different from the
previous two methods; it uses conjugate direction as a basis
for training the data [7].
There are some challenges associated with load forecasting.
First, load forecasting is based on predicted weather
conditions [8]. These predicted values are not always accurate,
creating a skewed forecast [9]. Second, different seasons
affect the forecast. This sometimes requires multiple models
to properly perform the forecast. Based on system load data
from the Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT), this
paper focuses on a comprehensive understanding of the
accuracy of forecasts generated by NN with different
algorithms, while varying the length of the network’s training
set, hidden layer size, and number of hidden layers, and while
including atypical predictor variables. The conclusions are
used to create a forecast with the highest accuracy possible.
To the best of our knowledge, this paper is the first of its kind
to study the short-term load forecasting by using deep NN in
the ERCOT system and to comprehensively investigate the
impact of various factors on forecasting accuracy and
computational efficiency.
II.LOAD FORECASTING METHOD
We developed the load forecasting code in MATLAB to
analyze impacts of different factors on load forecasts by using
NN. For predicting the future load on a system, we used a time
series NN with nonlinear auto regression with external input
(NARX). NARX requires large amounts of data, which
contain past values of the system load along with weather data
within the area of the transmission system. This typically
consists of, but is not limited to, dry bulb temperature and dew
point. The data within this second series can be anything that
one may think could affect the load of a system. We collected
data in hourly increments. Along with system load and
weather data, the code accounts for holidays, which the NN
treats like weekdays. Once the data are gathered in Microsoft
Excel, we exported them into the MATLAB environment. We
concatenated the load data of the system with the weather
information and stored the aggregated data in a large data
structure. For a short-term forecast, these data inputs comprise
the following: weather data, hour of day, day of the week, a
flag for the holidays, previous day’s average load, load from
the same hour the previous day, and the load from the same
hour and same day from the previous week. The data are then
spilt into two separate datasets. One dataset will be designated
to training the NN while the other will be saved for testing
purposes later to evaluate the accuracy of the forecast. The
training dataset configures the NN.
Once the NN has been trained, we ran a simulation to
predict the load. This is done by using the created network and
the dataset that was created for testing. Within the testing
dataset, there is the series information consisting of system
load and weather conditions. The series data is used with the
NN to run the simulation. The NN looks at the series data and
forms a load prediction. Once the simulation is completed, the
remaining testing data, which consists of the system load, tests
the accuracy of the simulated load forecast. Plots of the
weekly load can also be seen. These plots show the actual
load, the forecasted load, and a separate graph of residuals
between the two.
III.TRAINING METHODS
A. Levenberg Marquardt
The LM algorithm is used to find the minimum of a
function using sum of squares of a nonlinear function. It is a
mix of Gauss-Newton method (GN) and gradient descent
algorithm (GD). The GN method uses the quadratic
convergence technique to find the minimum, which is fast.
This convergence technique mainly depends on the weight of
the initial values. However, finding these initial values is
sometimes impossible, due to the complexity of the
application. In the case of the GD algorithm, it is less
dependent on the weight of the initial values. It uses a first
order approach to converge to the minimum value. Due to this,
it takes a longer time to converge compared to the GN
algorithm, but can be used for other applications that the GN
method doesn’t support [10].
The LM algorithm is a hybrid method that combines
positive characteristics of the GN and GD algorithms. The LM
uses GN method when it is near, but not too close to a
minimum. The LM uses GD to make good initial guesses and
changes to GN when it is near the minimum. Once it is close
to the minimum, it changes back to GD to improve accuracy.
This hybrid method gives it an efficient convergence
performance [10].
B. Bayseian Regularization
The BR technique converts nonlinear systems into well-
constructed problems. It reduces the sum of the squares of the
output [11]. This method starts by calculating the weights of
the NN and predicting an initial distribution of weights for
them. An exponential model is used for the initial distribution
and the exponent is minimized to find the best weight vector
by using BR. A later distribution is then made using Bayes
theorem [3].
C. Scaled Conjugate Gradient
The scaled conjugate gradient method is one of the
conjugate gradient algorithms. The conjugate gradient
algorithm modifies the weights so that it converges in the
downward direction, which is the negative of the gradient.
This search is usually done on conjugate directions, which has
faster convergence compared to the negative of the gradient
[6]. The conjugate gradient method increases calculation
difficulty by performing line search to find the correct step
size. This line search has several calculations for the global
error function or its derivative, which increases its difficulty.
This is where scaled conjugate method comes into play. It
skips the line search process and instead uses the Levenberg
Marquardt method to scale the step size [7]. Due to the
complexity and the length of the algorithm, the equations
won’t be discussed in the paper.
IV. NUMERICAL RESULTS
We acquired new data to run simulations and perform our
testing. These data contained new hourly transmission system
load and weather data. The system load data was accessed
from the Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT)
which governs South and Central-Texas power flow. ERCOT
has a large system, with more than 46,500 miles of
transmission lines which are broken up into different regions.
The specific region chosen for testing was the North Central
Region.
Several years of hourly weather data were used to train an
accurate NN. The hourly weather information for the North
Central Region of ERCOT’s system was obtained from the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).
The data was received from a land weather radar at Dallas
Fort Worth airport.
A. Effect of Malfitting on Forecasting Accuracy
The test done in this section is different from what is
known as overfitting. Overfitting is the result of a network that
produces low error with its training set, but develops a larger
error when tested with independent data (either test data or
validation data). Such a network fails to generalize patterns in
the training data, and picks up spurious correlations [12].
Overfitting can occur from overtraining or
overparameterization. When overparameterization occurs, the
network is too complex (too many nodes or synapses) for the
amount of data used to train it. In overtraining, the network is
not necessarily too complex, but through extensive testingfails
to generalize from the data.
The stopping criterion used here was cap of 1000
iterations. When concerned with overfitting, using a validation
set is preferable to this. However, a network with one output
node for the entire forecast (as opposed to Multi-Model
Forecasting) is less sensitive to overparameterization [4]. In
this section, we looked at how large of a training set is useful,
using thirteen years of ERCOT load data and nearby weather
data from NOAA. Load data from several years ago would not
produce an appropriate model; as older load data continues to
conglomerate into the training set, the network will be fit with
less relevant data, which should increase the forecast’s error.
To distinguish this from causes of overfitting, we refer to this
problem as malfitting.
We used ERCOT’s load data from 2015 as our testing
data. We trained first with 2014, then 2013-2014, then 2012-
2014, and so on. The largest training set had load data from
2003-2014. The three NARX algorithms in MATLAB’s ANN
toolbox were tested. The default hidden layer size of twenty
neurons was used.
Fig. 1 shows the MAPE for all three algorithms for the
different sizes of training sets. The LM and BR algorithms
both produced a less accurate forecast for training set sizes
beyond three years. The error continued to increase as the
training set increased in size. The scaled conjugate gradient
algorithm was less sensitive to the training interval, but
consistently produces a less accurate forecast.
Fig. 1. The MAPE of each training set size for the three available NARX
algorithms
The increased error is due to unfit load data from previous
years. From 2003 to 2015, the average load on the system
increased by 18.41%. If the magnitude of the average load on
the system remained relatively close during this interval, the
model would likely have more success in generalizing trends,
and would have continued to improve in accuracy. This
finding is likely to change for a different system [13], but it is
important to look at how the overall magnitude of load in a
transmission system changes over the years before selecting
an appropriate training interval.
B. Effect of Hidden Layer Size on Forecasting Accuracy
With added neurons in the hidden layer of a single hidden-
layer network (SLN), one can generally expect a more
accurate forecast. However, a more complex NN will take
longer to train. To study the impact of hidden layer size on
load forecasting accuracy, three years of system load and
weather data were used to train all three algorithms (2012-
2014). We also used ERCOT’s load data from 2015 as the
testing data.
Fig. 2 shows a boxplot of the MAPE of the forecast for
different hidden layer sizes. The MAPE is shown to
consistently decrease as the hidden layer size increases.
However, the plot suggests that the decrease in MAPE quickly
drops. Fig. 3 shows the time taken for training one epoch with
the LM algorithm, where a scaled line of the average MAPE
for each hidden layer size overlays a bar graph showing how
the training time increases. As seen in Fig. 3, increasing the
size of the network’s hidden layer from 20 to 40 neurons will
result in a relative decrease in MAPE by 4.84%, but the
training time would be expected to increase by 195%. These
two relationships with hidden layer size present a tradeoff
between the forecasting accuracy and computational
efficiency.
The other two NARX algorithms, BR and SCG, were
tested the same way. BR had a similar training time for each
epoch to the LM algorithm, but often ran many more epochs
than the latter. The average number of epochs to train a NN
for the LM algorithm was just under 314, while the average
for BR was just under 738 epochs, meaning the overall
training time for a NN trained with the BR algorithm will
likely be over twice as long as that trained from the LM
algorithm. The scaled conjugate gradient algorithm, while
much quicker than the other two, did not show the exponential
decaying trend beyond about 15 neurons. Fig. 4 compares the
three algorithms in terms of MAPE.
Although significantly faster to train, the SCG fitting
method is much less accurate than the other two. Its forecast,
on average, produced an MAPE 1.535% larger than that of the
LM algorithm and 1.625% larger than BR. The LM and BR
algorithms produce similar forecasts; the Bayesian
Regularization algorithm, on average, will produce an MAPE
0.086% lower than that produced by the LM algorithm.

Fig. 2. Boxplot of MAPE vs. Hidden Layer size when trained with the
Levenberg Marquardt algorithm.
Fig. 3. The time taken for one training epoch of a SLN for the LM algorithm
vs. the hidden layer size (the red single line shows average MAPE over
iterations)
Fig. 4. The MAPE of the three NARX algorithms
C. Effects of Deep NN on Forecast Accuracy
To study the impact of the number of hidden layers on load
forecasting accuracy, we conducted testing on deep NN. Figs.
5, 6, and 7 summarize the accuracy found with the three
NARX algorithms. The hidden layers we tested were set to the
default size of 20 neurons.
We notice that, for the LM and BR algorithms in the first
year, the error increases with the NN’s complexity (number of
layers). This is caused by overparameterization, mentioned in
Section V.A. The error increases beyond three years for these
two algorithms, for each NN size. However, multi-hidden-
layer networks gave us the best results as the training
interval’s size increased. The MAPE found with a 2 hidden-
layer NN trained with BR forecasted a load with the smallest
MAPE of 2.61%. Eventually, as the quantity of data increases,
the multi-hidden-layer NN’s outperform the SLN. Results in
Figs. 5-7 suggest that when deciding on the size of the NN
used to forecast, one must consider how much useful data is
available.
Fig. 5. MAPE vs. Number of Hidden Layers for the BR algorithm.
Fig. 6. MAPE vs. Number of Hidden Layers for the scaled conjugate
gradient algortithm.

Fig. 7. MAPE vs. Number of Hidden Layers for the LM algorithm.
D. Effects of Deep NN on Training Time
For a fixed hidden layer size, we see that the number of
synapse weights that adjust for each epoch increases by n2
each time a hidden layer is added, where n is the number of
neurons in the hidden layer. This is only the case for an NN
without feedback synapses. As a result, we can expect a
significant increase in training time as hidden layers are added
to the NN. Fig. 8 outlines the results of training time versus
number of training years for LM. For the other two
algorithms, similar test results can be obtained.
Fig. 8. Training time versus number of training years for different number of
hidden layers using the Levenberg Marquardt algorithm.
E. Effects of Additional Predictor Variables
The original predictor variables used for training the NN
were hourly readings of 1) dry bulb temperature, 2) dew point,
3) hour of day, 4) day of the week, 5) holiday/weekend
indicator, 6) previous day's average load, 7) load from the
same hour the previous day, and 8) load from the same hour
and same day from the previous week. As mentioned earlier in
the paper, extra predictor variables in term of the time series
used to train the NN can help reduce the MAPE, depending on
their relevance. To test the effect of adding more predictor
variables to train the neural network, we looked at the data
obtained from NOAA to get additional variables. We acquired
hourly data for relative humidity, visibility, and wind speed as
additional predictor variables.
To test how each extra variable affected the MAPE, a NN
had to be created for each scenario. This included a new NN
for the original variables, addition of relative humidity,
addition of visibility, addition of wind speed, and the addition
of all three. For each new NN, a forecasting simulation ran
eleven times. Within each iteration, the simulation ran for
different years of training data, ranging from one year to
twelve. These iterations were then averaged together to form a
single resulting MAPE for each year of training data for each
combination of fields. Without loss of generality, only the LM
algorithm was tested.
Fig. 9 compares the accuracy results of added fields, where
a bar graph along with several stem plots are used to show the
MAPE for different combinations of fields for different
amounts of training data when using the LM algorithm.
Fig. 9. Change in MAPE as different combinations of additional fields are
used to train the NN.
The bar graph in Fig. 9 represents the original data used,
which consisted of 8 predictor variables mentioned above. The
remaining stem plots consist of the resulting MAPE when the
original data and the specified extra data was used. The black
stem plot consists of MAPE due to using the original data
along with all the extra variables which consisted of humidity,
visibility, and wind speed.
When performing a forecast with both the original and extra
variables, the MAPE is reduced to a value just under 2.75%.
As seen within Fig. 9, some variables alone play a larger role
in reducing the MAPE than others. For example, the addition
of relative humidity alone had a small, if not negative, effect
on the overall MAPE, while the wind speed continually lowers
it. The results in Fig. 9 suggest that when using additional
variables, one must be aware of the effects. Some additional
fields may affect the MAPE in a positive way, reducing the
MAPE while others may take a negative toll due to its
irrelevance. This consistently lower error with an increasing
training set interval suggests that the overfitting of old load
data is mitigated by additional data fields.
V.OBSERVATIONS
The following observations are made based on our
numerical testing results:
1. The most useful training set was 2012-2014 (three
years). Beyond this, the ERCOT system’s load was not
accurate enough for forecasting load in 2015.
2. Neuron accuracy increased with hidden layer size for a
SLN. However, for certain training intervals, bigger is
not always better for deep NN.
3. Iterative overtraining is a larger concern for NN’s with
multiple hidden layers.
4. With the additional data we retrieved from NOAA,
wind speed and visibility were the two that had a
positive effect on forecast accuracy.
5. While BR and LM produced similar error, the BR was
consistently superior. The SCG algorithm, while much
quicker in training the NN, produced less accurate
results.
Fig. 10. The forecast developed from a NN with five hidden layers, eight
neurons each, and trained with the BR algorithm. The load is compared to the
forecast during the weeks of maximum (a) and minimum (b) load of 2015.
We used our findings to determine what would produce the
most accurate short-term load forecast for the ERCOT system.
The most accurate forecast was found with a NN with five
hidden layers, each containing eight neurons. The synapse
weights were determined with the BR algorithm. This network
forecasted a load with a MAPE of 2.468%. Wind speed and
visibility were additional predictor variables that were
included in the forecast, and relative humidity was left out. Fig
10 shows the forecast for the weeks of highest and lowest load
in 2015 in the ERCOT system.
VI.CONCLUSION
In conclusion, this paper studied how different factors
affect the accuracy of a short-term load forecast. Specifically,
we tested how accuracy is affected by hidden layer size for a
SLN, how network training time and accuracy are affected by
the addition of hidden layers, how some additional weather
data affects forecast accuracy, and how the length of the
training interval affects forecast accuracy. We also made a
comparison of the three NARX algorithms available for NN.
Accurate forecasts are valuable for independent system
operators, as they are a necessity both for efficient operation
of generation, and for consistently meeting customer
electricity demand.
REFERENCES
[1] E. A. Feinberg, “Load forecasting.” [Online]. Available:
http://www.almozg.narod.ru/bible/lf.pdf.
[2] A.K. Srivastava, A.S. Pandey, and D. Singh, “Short-Term Load
Forecasting Methods: A Review,” presented at ICETEESES, Sultanpur,
India, March 11-12, 2016.
[3] H. K. Alfares and M. Nazeeruddin, “Electric load forecasting: Literature
survey and classification of methods,” International Journal of Systems
Science, vol. 33, no. 1, pp. 23–34, 2002.
[4] H.S. Hippert, C.E. Pedreira, and R.C Souza, “Neural Networks for Short
Term Load Forecasting: A Review and Evaluation,” IEEE Trans. on
Power Syst., vol. 16, no. 1, pp. 44-55, Feb. 2001.
[5] Mathworks.com. (2017). Bayesian regularization backpropagation -
MATLAB trainbr - MathWorks United Kingdom. [online] Available at:
https://www.mathworks.com/help/nnet/ref/trainbr.html
[6] Mathworks.com. (2017). Levenberg-Marquardt backpropagation -
MATLAB trainlm - MathWorks United Kingdom. [online] Available at:
https://www.mathworks.com/help/nnet/ref/trainlm.html
[7] Mathworks.com. (2017). Scaled conjugate gradient backpropagation -
MATLAB trainscg - MathWorks United Kingdom. [online] Available at:
https://www.mathworks.com/help/nnet/ref/trainscg.html
[8] M. Khodayar and H. Wu, "Demand Forecasting in the Smart Grid
Paradigm: Features and Challenges", The Electricity Journal, vol. 28,
no. 6, pp. 51-62, July 2015.
[9] R.P. Schulte, K.D. Le, R.H, Vierra, G.D. Nagel, and R.T. Jenkins
“Problems associated with Unit Commitment in Uncertainty,” IEEE
Trans. on Power App. Syst., vol. PAS-104, no. 8, Aug. 1985.
[10] B. Kermani, S. Schiffman, and H. Nagle, “Performance of the
Levenberg–Marquardt neural network training method in electronic nose
applications,” Sensors and Actuators B: Chemical, vol. 110, no. 1,
pp.13-22, Sep. 2005.
[11] J. Ticknor, “A Bayesian regularized artificial neural network for stock
market forecasting,” Expert Systems with Applications, vol. 40, no. 14,
pp.5501-5506, Oct. 2013.
[12] R. Reed, “Pruning Algorithms – A Survey,” IEEE Trans. Neural Netw.,
vol. 4, no. 5, pp. 740-747, Sep. 1993.
[13] C.N. Lu, H.T. Wu, and S. Vemuri, “Neural Network Based Short Term
Load Forecasting,” IEEE Trans. Power Syst., vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 336-342,
Feb. 1993.