## 6 Example Analysis
### Two-Level Fuzzy Comprehensive Evaluation  
The fuzzy relation matrices \(R\) of the two-level indicators are constructed based on \(B_{1}\), \(B_{2}\), \(B_{3}\), \(B_{4}\), \(B_{5}\) that are determined in the single-level evaluation. Then set {100, 80, 60, 40, 0} as the evaluation scores corresponding to \(V=\) {Excellent, Good, Moderate, Poor, Extremely poor}. Table 10 shows the final scores of the overall energy saving and emission reduction effects of electricity retailers, which are obtained through the quantization of evaluation levels. It can be seen form the above, the final fuzzy evaluation levels of the ten electricity retailers' energy saving and emission reduction effects that are determined by the principle of maximum membership degree are followed by Moderate, Poor, Extremely poor, Good, Moderate, Poor, Moderate, Good, and Good. The comprehensive evaluation scores of the ten electricity retailers are obtained by quantifying evaluation levels. As shown in Figures 5 and 6, among them, the comprehensive evaluation score of electricity retailers D is 72.41, which has the best energy saving and emission reduction effects. Combined with the results of single-level fuzzy evaluation, the company D needs to continue to \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Electricity** & **Fuzzy Comprehensive Evaluation** & \begin{tabular}{c} **Maximum** \\ **Membership** \\ **Degree** \\ \end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}{c} **Fuzzy** \\ **Evaluation** \\ **Levels** \\ \end{tabular} & \
\begin{tabular}{c} **Comprehensive** \\ **Evaluation** \\ **Scores** \\ \end{tabular} &
\begin{tabular}{c} **Sorted** \\ **Results** \\ \end{tabular} \\ \hline A & (0.0140, 0.2094, 0.5643, 0.1751, 0.0325) & 0.5643 & Moderate & 59.014 & 4 \\ \hline B & (0.0113, 0.0590, 0.3626, 0.4548, 0.1077) & 0.4548 & Poor & 45.798 & 8 \\ \hline C & (0.0515, 0.0447, 0.1387, 0.3745, 0.3852) & 0.3852 & Extremely poor & 32.028 & 10 \\ \hline D & (0.1571, 0.4058, 0.3548, 0.0737, 0.0039) & 0.4058 & Good & 72.41 & 1 \\ \hline E & (0.1722, 0.2357, 0.3593, 0.1530, 0.0750) & 0.3593 & Moderate & 46.534 & 7 \\ \hline F & (0, 0.4880, 0.2326, 0.4809, 0.2329) & 0.4809 & Poor & 37.096 & 9 \\ \hline G & (0.0527, 0.2696, 0.2795, 0.2549, 0.1386) & 0.2795 & Moderate & 53.804 & 6 \\ \hline H & (0.0140, 0.1834, 0.4958, 0.3020,0) & 0.4958 & Moderate & 57.9 & 5 \\ \hline I & (0.1263, 0.3401, 0.2308, 0.2542, 0.0439) & 0.3401 & Good & 63.854 & 3 \\ \hline J & (0.0800, 0.4134, 0.3241, 0.1463, 0.0314) & 0.4134 & Good & 66.37 & 2 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 10: Two-level fuzzy comprehensive evaluation results. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Electricity** & \(U_{1}\) & \(U_{2}\) & \(U_{3}\) & \(U_{4}\) & \(U_{5}\) \\ \hline A & Poor & Moderate & Moderate & Moderate & Moderate \\ B & Moderate & Poor & Poor & Moderate & Good \\ C & Moderate & Extremely poor & Poor & Good & Excellent \\ D & Good & Moderate & Good & Moderate & Excellent \\ E & Good & Moderate & Moderate & Good \\ F & Extremely poor & Poor & Moderate & Poor \\ G & Good & Moderate & Poor & Good & Poor \\ H & Good & Moderate & Moderate & Good \\ I & Good & Poor & Good & Moderate & Excellent \\ J & Good & Good & Moderate & Moderate & Excellent \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 9: Level of energy saving and emission reduction effects for electricity retailers from a single dimension. strengthen actions in market transactions and integrated energy services to improve its energy saving and emission reduction effects. Electricity retailers C has the worst energy saving and emission reduction effects with the scores of 32.028. The company C has fulfilled social responsibilities better to promote the energy saving and emission reduction.