## 5 Example Analysis
### Result Analysis
It follows that the fluctuation of cold, heat, electricity, and gas loads has also been effectively suppressed after considering DR, which verifies the optimization effect of demand response on cold, heat, electricity, and gas loads. At the same time, energy storage equipment can also play a role in peak chopping and valley filling according to the real-time demand response of the system. It can be seen that considering the demand response of cooling, heating, and power loads can effectively reduce the fluctuation of the load curve and improve the economy and environmental protection of the RIES system. Figure 9: Load comparison before and after DR: (**a**) electrical load; (**b**) cold load; (**c**) heat load; and (**d**) gas load. The optimization results shown in Table 5 are the daily operating costs of the system. According to Table 5, compared with scenario 1, the total cost of scenario 2 considering the demand response strategy is reduced by 1949.69 yuan, which is a decrease of 6.12%; carbon transaction costs are decreased by 6.28%; and the purchase cost is decreased by 6.80%. At the same time, the carbon emissions are decreased by 1449.65 kg, which indicates that the demand response is achieved through the transfer of load reduction, i.e., the peak load is transferred to the low, reducing the system's electricity transaction costs, and this promotes the economic operation of the system. The total cost of scenario 3 considering the carbon trading mechanism is decreased by 3853.15 yuan, which is a decrease of 12.10%; the carbon transaction cost is reduced by 1231.64 yuan, which is 80.50%; the energy purchase cost is reduced by 12.36%; and the carbon emission is reduced by 2708.80 kg compared to scenario 1. This indicates that the carbon trading mechanism proposed in this paper makes the initial carbon emission quota owned by the system offset part of the carbon transaction cost, so that the carbon transaction cost of the system can be greatly reduced. At the same time, it shows that the carbon trading mechanism promotes the reduction of carbon emissions and has a good effect on the low-carbon operation of the system. In scenario 4, which considers both demand response and carbon trading strategies, the total cost of the system is reduced by 5137.63 yuan, or 16.13%; at the same time, compared with only the demand response strategy and only the carbon trading mechanism, the total cost is 10.66% and 4.59% lower, respectively. In addition, carbon trading costs decreased by  
Figure 10: The load balance under model 4: (**a**) electrical load; (**b**) heat load; (**c**) cold load; and (**d**) gas load. 1271.43 yuan, which is 83.10%. At the same time, they are 81.97% and 13.34% lower than scene 2 and scene 3. The energy purchase cost decreased by 14.48%, and carbon emissions decreased by 5420.58 kg. It can be seen that considering demand response and carbon trading mechanisms can obtain better total cost, lower carbon transaction cost, and lower carbon emissions than a single strategy, so that the system operation can achieve both economy and low carbon. This is because the demand response strategy can transfer the load from the high electricity price period to the low electricity price period to reduce the energy trading volume between the system and the power grid and thus reduce the system purchase cost. The carbon trading mechanism allows the system to have an initial carbon allowance to offset the cost of carbon emissions, thereby reducing carbon emissions and carbon trading costs, resulting in a lower total cost of RIES operations and lower carbon emissions while being both economic and low-carbon.