## 4 Results and Discussion
### PEMD Scenarios Analysis
The main objective of the DR program is to reduce energy consumption from costly peak power suppliers. Figure 22 shows the amount of saving in electricity usage from IPP3, which is the most expensive power plant, where both cases C8 and C7 achieved the highest savings, especially at 250% peak pricing. It is also notable that, the worst-case scenario (C6) at 300% peak pricing also achieved savings, which is mainly because the new high peak formed at 9 PM has a smaller width (time horizon) than the original peak and drops more sharply, whereas, for the peak formed at 3 PM, PV power was available. This shows the importance of shifting demands towards periods where renewable energy is available, where in this case, even if the peak demand increased, the overall demand from IPP3 can still be reduced. Cases [C3, C4, C7, C8] achieved better savings in both self-elasticity scenarios, since 25% of the demand reduced at each hour in the peak period is removed from the grid. Figure 21: Load factor analysis. Figure 22: Savings in electricity purchased from supplier IPP3. Figure 23 shows the energy cost savings in all scenarios. Energy cost-saving does not follow the same pattern as energy saving because the decrease in electricity purchased from IPP3 causes an increase in IPP4 power usage in hours, where the demand rises from 2 PM to 4 PM and 9 PM to 11 PM. The best- and worst-case scenarios in cost-saving are C7 at 300% peak and C2 at 250%, with the detailed results of the peak reduction, load factor, and cost-saving for each case scenario are reported in Tables 14 and 15 and the best results based on peak prices for each case are highlighted in green. The results revealed that, in the case scenarios with base self-elasticity, the best improvement on all indicators could be achieved by increasing the prices, especially in C3 and C4, where due to the low-price elasticity in the peak time, newer high peaks after and before the peak period were not formed, as less energy was removed from the peak period. In these cases, peak demand reduction ranged from 4.582% to 5.458%, load factor rose to (0.780-0.802), and cost savings ranged from 53,856 to 105,859 dollars per day. The higher peak period price elasticity, the higher demand shifts from the peak period caused newer peaks to form at high energy prices. The highest energy cost reductions do not align with the other indicators, ranging from 66,149 to 154,505 dollars. This indicates that the prices should be set based on the priority of the GO, whether direct profit in terms of cost-saving has higher priority or indirect profits by peak reduction and load factor improvement that increase operational \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multicolumn{1}{c}{**Case**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**C1**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**C2**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**C3**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**C4**} \\ \hline
**Peak Price** & **200\%** & **250\%** & **300\%** & **200\%** & **250\%** & **300\%** & **200\%** & **250\%** & **300\%** & **200\%** & **250\%** & **300\%** \\ \hline
**Peak Reduction (\%)** & 2.729 & 4.093 & 5.458 & 2.729 & 4.093 & 4.582 & 2.729 & 4.093 & 5.458 & 2.729 & 4.093 & 5.458 \\ \hline
**Load Factor** & 0.780 & 0.791 & 0.802 & 0.780 & 0.791 & 0.795 & 0.779 & 0.789 & 0.799 & 0.779 & 0.789 & 0.799 \\ \hline
**Cost Saving (5/day)** & 44,323 & 63,726 & 63,586 & 38,517 & 53,856 & 52,213 & 63,264 & 90,487 & 105,859 & 56,801 & 87,448 & 95,989 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 14: Cases [C1–C4] results. Figure 23: Cost saving.