## 7 Simulations and Results
### Scenario 1: HEMS with Grid Only
#### 7.1.1 Cost using the RTP and CPP  
In the unscheduled case, the appliances completed their operations according to consumer preferences by blindly importing electricity from the utility without considering the electricity purchase tariffs. In this case, the peak load occurred from 10:00 to 11:00 when both the RTP and CPP tariffs of energy purchase were at a maximum, as shown in Figure 7. Therefore, the overall cost of the electricity consumption was increased in this case. However, in the scheduled case, when the GWO, GA, and the proposed HGWGA optimally scheduled the consumer loads by considering the RTP scheme, the costs were 474.06 cents, 462.67 cents, and 449.35 cents, respectively. In comparison with the unscheduled case, the optimal scheduling cost using the GWO, GA, and the proposed HGWGA was reduced by 10.25%, 12.41%, and 14.93%, respectively. Similarly, when the CPP signal was used, the respective electricity consumption costs were 541.45 cents, 523.96 cents, and 508.35 cents, which showed that the electricity consumption costs were reduced by 20.28%, 22.85%, and 25.15%, respectively, as shown in Table 7. The total electricity consumption cost for the unscheduled and scheduled cases for scenario 1 using the RTP and CPP signals is presented in Figures 8 and 9, respectively.  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Scenarios** & **Utility** & **Battery** & **PV** & **H2G Export** \\ \hline
1 & Yes & No & No & No \\
2 & Yes & Yes & No & No \\
3 & Yes & Yes & Yes & Yes \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 6: Different Scenarios.  
Figure 8: Total cost using the real-time pricing (RTP).  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Technique Name (Case)**} & **Electricity** & **Electricity Cost** & **Electricity** & **Electricity Cost** & & **PAR** & \\  & **Cost/Day Using** & **Reduction/Day** & **Cost/Day Using** & **Reduction/day** & **PAR** & **Reduction** & **AWT (b)** \\  & **RTP Signal** & **Using RTP** & **CPP Signal** & **Using CPP** & **Using CPP** & **(\%)** & **(\%)** & **AWT (b)** \\  & **(Cents)** & **Signal (\%)** & **(Cents)** & **Signal (\%)** & **Signal (\%)** & & & \\ \hline
**Unscheduled Case** & 528.19 & — & 679.17 & — & 4.440 & — & — \\ GA (Scheduled) & 462.67 & 12.41 & 523.96 & 22.85 & 3.629 & 18.25 & 1.65 \\ GWO (Scheduled) & 474.06 & 10.25 & 541.45 & 20.28 & 3.774 & 15 & 1.54 \\ Proposed HGWGA & 449.35 & 14.93 & 508.35 & 25.15 & 3.108 & 30 & 1.72 \\ (Scheduled) & 410.07 & 22.36 & 435.57 & 35.87 & 3.580 & 19.38 & 1.58 \\ GWO (Scheduled + & 422.42 & 20.03 & 432.30 & 36.35 & 3.413 & 23.13 & 1.47 \\  & **RTP Signal** & 399.34 & 24.39 & 409.36 & 39.73 & 3.052 & 31.25 & 1.64 \\ GA (Scheduled + & **RTP Signal** & 315.61 & 40.25 & 268.79 & 60.42 & 3.588 & 19.18 & 1.55 \\ GWO (Scheduled + & **RTP Signal** & 322.65 & 38.91 & 296.36 & 56.37 & 3.369 & 24.13 & 1.44 \\  & **RTP Signal** & 299.95 & 43.22 & 255.04 & 62.45 & 2.730 & 38.50 & 1.61 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 7: Results comparison table. AWT: appliance waiting time.  
Figure 7: Per-hour load without an energy storage system (ESS) or photovoltaics (PV).