pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 2604.20445 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-22 · 📊 stat.AP

Recognition: unknown

Assessing the Shortfall Risk of GB Electricity Grid using Shifts in Winter Weather Conditions

Amy L. Wilson, Aninda Bhattacharya, Chris J. Dent, Gabriele C. Hegerl

Pith reviewed 2026-05-09 23:00 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 📊 stat.AP
keywords resource adequacyweather shiftingdemand modelingelectricity shortfallGreat Britain gridwinter weatherday-of-week effectsholiday demand
0
0 comments X

The pith

Shifting winter weather data relative to the calendar can make the same year either the most or least severe for Great Britain electricity shortfall risk.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper develops a method for time-shifting weather records within the winter peak season while adjusting the terms of a statistical demand model. This produces counterfactual demand series in which the same weather occurs on weekends or during Christmas, periods when demand is naturally lower. Applied to Great Britain data, the approach shows that winter 2010-11 can rank as the most severe or as insignificant depending on the chosen alignment. The work argues that standard assessments without such shifts give an incomplete picture of resource adequacy risk, especially as electric heating and wind generation increase weather sensitivity. Statistical interpretation is direct for day-of-week shifts under the assumption of equal likelihood but requires care for holiday shifts.

Core claim

By time-shifting weather series within the peak winter period and adjusting the relevant terms in the statistical demand model, the analysis demonstrates that the security-of-supply consequences of a given weather year vary substantially with calendar alignment. In the Great Britain case, winter 2010-11 can appear as the most severe event in the dataset or as negligible, solely according to whether its weather falls on weekdays, weekends, or holiday periods.

What carries the argument

Time-shifting of weather data within the peak season through adjustment of the statistical demand model terms to reflect calendar effects on demand.

If this is right

  • In any electricity system, assessment of a weather year's severity is incomplete without considering day-of-week alignment.
  • The need for longer holiday-related shifts depends on whether a major holiday falls inside the peak demand season.
  • Winter 2010-11's position in risk rankings changes from most severe to insignificant under different alignments.
  • Statistical interpretation of day-of-week shifts is straightforward when all seven alignments are treated as equiprobable.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The same shifting technique could be tested on systems without a Christmas holiday to isolate pure day-of-week effects.
  • Integration with longer climate projections would show whether the sensitivity to alignment grows as weather-dependent demand increases.

Load-bearing premise

All seven day-of-week alignments are equally likely for statistical purposes, and a realistic maximum length exists for shifting weather relative to Christmas without the shift becoming physically unrealistic.

What would settle it

Direct comparison of the model's predicted demand reduction against measured demand on a documented weekend or holiday period with extreme cold would test the adjustment; systematic mismatch would falsify the shift procedure's accuracy.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.20445 by Amy L. Wilson, Aninda Bhattacharya, Chris J. Dent, Gabriele C. Hegerl.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Scatter plot between the model fitted and the daily peak demand values for the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Illustration of (a) plus 3-day shift in [DOW]m,i,t and, minus 3-day shift in weather for Nov-Dec 2010 and (b) minus 14-day shift in weather variables to generate the synthetic demand series. The shifted demand series and the WD (includes the component of temperature and wind alone) series are shown in black and green lines, respectively, along with the dotted lines representing their original sequence befo… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Comparison of LOLE estimates for different winters is shown against different [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Variation in LOLE using different shifts in weather ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Variation in LOLH for each winter is shown using different shifts in Day of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Mean of the LOLE estimate with increasing shift length for each individual [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p024_6.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Extreme weather events during peak winter periods drive resource adequacy risk in Great Britain (GB), with weather sensitivity of the supply-demand balance increasing through additional electric heating and wind generation. This work develops an approach of time-shifting weather within the peak season, through adjustment of the relevant terms in a statistical model for demand. This allows more complete consideration of the security of supply consequences of a weather series, as there will be relevant conditions where demand is suppressed due to weather occurring at a weekend or during the Christmas holiday. Results on a GB example show that consideration of this counterfactual is indeed important, and specifically that winter 2010-11 can either be the most severe in the dataset, or insignificant within the resource adequacy model, depending on the alignment of day-of-week with the weather series. Statistical interpretation of the shift model is discussed, which is straightforward for alignment of day-of-week with weather assuming that all seven alignments are equiprobable; but is more subtle for shifting weather in and out of Christmas, as there is no natural maximum on the realistic length of shift, but too large a shift may be physically unrealistic. It is likely that in all systems, assessment of a weather year's severity is incomplete without such consideration of the day-of-week effect; however, whether longer shifts of weather with respect to date need to be considered will depend on the presence of a major holiday (such as Christmas in GB) in the peak season.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 1 minor

Summary. The manuscript develops a method for time-shifting weather series within the GB winter peak season by adjusting terms in a statistical demand model. This generates counterfactuals that account for day-of-week and Christmas holiday effects on demand. Applied to a GB dataset, the approach shows that winter 2010-11 can rank as the most severe year or as insignificant for resource adequacy depending on the day-of-week alignment of the weather data. The paper discusses statistical interpretation under an equiprobability assumption for the seven alignments and notes subtleties for holiday shifts.

Significance. If the modeling choices and assumptions are validated, the work demonstrates that omitting calendar alignments can materially alter severity rankings in weather-driven resource adequacy assessments. This has potential value for systems with high weather sensitivity in demand and supply, as it provides a way to explore a fuller set of plausible demand outcomes from a given weather series without requiring new data.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract and discussion of statistical interpretation: the headline finding that 2010-11 severity ranking flips from most severe to insignificant rests on treating the seven day-of-week alignments as equiprobable for statistical purposes. No validation against the empirical joint distribution of weather events and calendar dates in the dataset is provided, nor is sensitivity to non-uniform probabilities reported; if alignments are not equiprobable, the reported change in ranking may not be robust.
  2. [Abstract] Abstract: the treatment of Christmas shifts states there is 'no natural maximum on the realistic length of shift' but that 'too large a shift may be physically unrealistic,' yet no explicit bound, justification, or sensitivity analysis for plausible shift lengths is given. This assumption is load-bearing for interpreting holiday-related counterfactuals and for the claim that longer shifts may or may not need consideration.
minor comments (1)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract refers to 'adjustment of the relevant terms in a statistical model for demand' without specifying which terms or providing the model equation; adding this would improve clarity for readers.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their constructive and insightful comments on the manuscript. We address each major comment point by point below, providing honest responses and indicating revisions where the concerns are valid and can be addressed through clarification or additional analysis.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract and discussion of statistical interpretation: the headline finding that 2010-11 severity ranking flips from most severe to insignificant rests on treating the seven day-of-week alignments as equiprobable for statistical purposes. No validation against the empirical joint distribution of weather events and calendar dates in the dataset is provided, nor is sensitivity to non-uniform probabilities reported; if alignments are not equiprobable, the reported change in ranking may not be robust.

    Authors: We acknowledge that the statistical interpretation in the abstract and discussion relies on the equiprobability assumption for the seven day-of-week alignments, which is presented as a reasonable baseline given that weather events are not systematically tied to specific weekdays over multi-year periods. However, the manuscript does not provide validation against the empirical joint distribution of weather and calendar dates in the GB dataset, nor does it include sensitivity to non-uniform probabilities. This is a fair observation. In the revised manuscript, we will expand the statistical interpretation section to include a sensitivity analysis. This will explore results under alternative probability distributions (e.g., uniform perturbations around 1/7 or weights informed by historical alignment frequencies where feasible) to demonstrate the robustness of the 2010-11 ranking change. We believe this addition will strengthen the claim without altering the core method. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: the treatment of Christmas shifts states there is 'no natural maximum on the realistic length of shift' but that 'too large a shift may be physically unrealistic,' yet no explicit bound, justification, or sensitivity analysis for plausible shift lengths is given. This assumption is load-bearing for interpreting holiday-related counterfactuals and for the claim that longer shifts may or may not need consideration.

    Authors: The abstract notes the inherent subtlety for holiday shifts, where no fixed maximum exists but physical realism constrains large shifts due to seasonal weather stationarity. We agree that the current wording lacks an explicit bound, justification, or sensitivity analysis, which limits interpretability of the holiday counterfactuals. In the revision, we will specify a plausible maximum shift length (e.g., 14-21 days, justified by the typical autocorrelation length of winter temperature series in GB) and add a sensitivity analysis varying this bound to assess effects on demand suppression and shortfall risk rankings. This will provide clearer guidance on when longer shifts warrant consideration, depending on the presence of major holidays in the peak season. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity

full rationale

The paper applies time shifts to external observed weather series as counterfactual inputs to a pre-existing statistical demand model; the resulting severity rankings (e.g., 2010-11 most severe or insignificant) are computed outputs from those shifted series rather than quantities defined or fitted by the paper's own equations. The equiprobability assumption for the seven day-of-week alignments is invoked only for post-hoc statistical interpretation of the shifts and does not enter the demand-model equations or force the severity result by construction. No self-citations are load-bearing for the central claim, no ansatz is smuggled, and the derivation remains self-contained against the independent weather data.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on a fitted statistical model for demand whose parameters are not detailed here, plus domain assumptions about equiprobable alignments and realistic shift lengths for holidays.

free parameters (1)
  • statistical demand model coefficients
    The demand model is statistical and thus has parameters fitted to historical data, though specifics not provided in abstract.
axioms (2)
  • domain assumption All seven day-of-week alignments are equiprobable
    Used for straightforward statistical interpretation of the shift model as stated in the abstract.
  • domain assumption Shifts of weather with respect to date have a realistic maximum length
    Noted as subtle for Christmas shifts, with no natural maximum but concern over physical realism.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5569 in / 1396 out tokens · 29337 ms · 2026-05-09T23:00:47.611999+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

39 extracted references · 25 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Published 17 December 2025

    Department for Energy Security and Net Zero and Ofgem, Statutory security of supply report: 2025, Statutory Report HC1464, presented to Parliament pursuant to Section172 of the Energy Act 2004 (as amended). Published 17 December 2025. (2025)

    2025

  2. [2]

    Stephen, S

    G. Stephen, S. H. Tindemans, J. Fazio, C. Dent, A. F. Acevedo, B. Bagen, A. Crawford, A. Klaube, D. Logan, D. Burke, Clarifying the Interpretation and Use of the LOLE Resource Adequacy Metric, in: 2022 17th International Conference on Probabilistic Methods Applied to Power Systems (PMAPS), 2022, pp. 1–4

    2022

  3. [3]

    Keane, Andrew and Milligan, Michael and Dent, Chris J. and Hasche, Bernhard and D’Annunzio, Claudine and Dragoon, Ken and Holttinen, Hannele and Samaan, Nader and Soder, Lennart and O’Malley, Mark, Capacity Value of Wind Power, IEEE Transactions on Power Systems 26 (2) (2011) 564–572.doi:10.1109/TPWRS.2010.2062543

    work page doi:10.1109/tpwrs.2010.2062543 2011

  4. [4]

    Stenclik, A

    D. Stenclik, A. Bloom, W. Cole, G. Stephen, A. F. Acevedo, R. Gram- lich, C. Dent, N. Schlag, M. Milligan, Quantifying Risk in an Uncertain Future: The Evolution of Resource Adequacy, IEEE Power and Energy Magazine 19 (6) (2021) 29–36.doi:10.1109/MPE.2021.3104076

    work page doi:10.1109/mpe.2021.3104076 2021

  5. [5]

    C. J. Dent, N. Sanchez, A. Shevni, J. Q. Smith, A. L. Wilson, X. Yu, Resource adequacy and capacity Procurement: Metrics and decision supportanalysis, ProceedingsoftheInstitutionofMechanicalEngineers, Part A 239 (1) (2025) 199–209.doi:10.1177/09576509241292100

    work page doi:10.1177/09576509241292100 2025

  6. [6]

    rep., Energy Systems Integration Group, Reston, VA, a Report of the Redefining Resource Adequacy Task Force (2021)

    Energy Systems Integration Group, Redefining Resource Adequacy for Modern Power Systems, Tech. rep., Energy Systems Integration Group, Reston, VA, a Report of the Redefining Resource Adequacy Task Force (2021). URLhttps://www.esig.energy/reports-briefs

    2021

  7. [7]

    rep., UK Government, London, UK, accessed: 16 March 2026 (2025)

    Department for Energy Security and Net Zero, Clean power 2030 action plan: A new era of clean electricity: Main report, Tech. rep., UK Government, London, UK, accessed: 16 March 2026 (2025). URLhttps://www.gov.uk/government/ publications/clean-power-2030-action-plan/ clean-power-2030-action-plan-a-new-era-of-clean-electricity-main-report 26

    2030

  8. [8]

    Quiggin, R

    D. Quiggin, R. Buswell, The implications of heat electrification on na- tional electrical supply-demand balance under published 2050 energy scenarios, Energy 98 (2016) 253–270.doi:10.1016/j.energy.2015. 11.060

    work page doi:10.1016/j.energy.2015 2050

  9. [9]

    McGarry, J

    C. McGarry, J. Dixon, J. Flower, W. Bukhsh, C. Brand, K. Bell, S. Gal- loway, Electrified heat and transport: Energy demand futures, their impacts on power networks and what it means for system flexibility, Applied Energy 360 (2024) 122836.doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.apenergy.2024.122836

    work page arXiv 2024

  10. [10]

    Peacock, A

    M. Peacock, A. Fragaki, B. J. Matuszewski, The impact of heat elec- trification on the seasonal and interannual electricity demand of Great Britain, Applied Energy 337 (2023) 120885.doi:https://doi.org/10. 1016/j.apenergy.2023.120885

    work page arXiv 2023

  11. [11]

    Eggimann, W

    S. Eggimann, W. Usher, N. Eyre, J. Hall, How weather affects energy demand variability in the transition towards sustainable heating, Energy (2020).doi:10.1016/j.energy.2020.116947

    work page doi:10.1016/j.energy.2020.116947 2020

  12. [12]

    L. J. Lücke, C. J. Dent, G. C. Hegerl, A. L. Wilson, A. P. Schurer, Severe compound events of low wind and cold temperature for the British power system, Meteorological Applications 31 (4) (2024) e2219.doi:10.1002/ met.2219

    2024

  13. [13]

    Clements, A

    A. Clements, A. Hurn, Z. Li, Forecasting day-ahead electricity load us- ing a multiple equation time series approach, European Journal of Op- erational Research 251 (2) (2016) 522–530.doi:https://doi.org/10. 1016/j.ejor.2015.12.030

    2016

  14. [14]

    S. Fan, R. J. Hyndman, Short-term load forecasting based on a semi- parametric additive model, IEEE Transactions on Power Systems 27 (1) (2012) 134–141.doi:10.1109/TPWRS.2011.2162082

    work page doi:10.1109/tpwrs.2011.2162082 2012

  15. [15]

    P. G. Gould, A. B. Koehler, J. K. Ord, R. D. Snyder, R. J. Hyndman, F.Vahid-Araghi, Forecastingtimeserieswithmultipleseasonalpatterns, European Journal of Operational Research 191 (1) (2008) 207–222.doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2007.08.024

    work page doi:10.1016/j.ejor.2007.08.024 2008

  16. [16]

    K. G. Boroojeni, M. H. Amini, S. Bahrami, S. S. Iyengar, A. I. Sarwat, O. Karabasoglu, A novel multi-time-scale modeling for electric power 27 demand forecasting: From short-term to medium-term horizon, Electric PowerSystemsResearch142(2017)58–73.doi:10.1016/j.epsr.2016. 08.031

    work page doi:10.1016/j.epsr.2016 2017

  17. [17]

    T. Hong, J. Wilson, J. Xie, Long term probabilistic load forecasting and normalization with hourly information, IEEE Transactions on Smart Grid 5 (1) (2014) 456–462.doi:10.1109/TSG.2013.2274373

    work page doi:10.1109/tsg.2013.2274373 2014

  18. [18]

    C.-L. Hor, S. Watson, S. Majithia, Analyzing the impact of weather variables on monthly electricity demand, IEEE Transactions on Power Systems 20 (4) (2005) 2078–2085.doi:10.1109/TPWRS.2005.857397

    work page doi:10.1109/tpwrs.2005.857397 2005

  19. [19]

    Mirasgedis, Y

    S. Mirasgedis, Y. Sarafidis, E. Georgopoulou, D. Lalas, M. Moschovits, F. Karagiannis, D. Papakonstantinou, Models for mid-term electric- ity demand forecasting incorporating weather influences, Energy 31 (2) (2006) 208–227.doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2005.02. 016

    work page doi:10.1016/j.energy.2005.02 2006

  20. [20]

    A. Groß, A. Lenders, F. Schwenker, D. A. Braun, D. Fischer, Com- parison of short-term electrical load forecasting methods for different building types, Energy Informatics 4 (3) (2021) 13.doi:10.1186/ s42162-021-00172-6

    2021

  21. [21]

    M. A. Alduailij, I. Petri, O. Rana, M. A. Alduailij, A. S. Alda- wood, Forecasting peak energy demand for smart buildings, The Journal of Supercomputing 77 (6) (2021) 6356–6380.doi:10.1007/ s11227-020-03540-3

    2021

  22. [22]

    doi:10.1109/TPWRS.2009.2036017

    R.J.Hyndman, S.Fan, Densityforecastingforlong-termpeakelectricity demand, IEEE Transactions on Power Systems 25 (2) (2010) 1142–1153. doi:10.1109/TPWRS.2009.2036017

    work page doi:10.1109/tpwrs.2009.2036017 2010

  23. [23]

    L. B. S. Morais, G. Aquila, V. A. D. de Faria, L. M. M. Lima, J. W. M. Lima, A. R. de Queiroz, Short-term load forecasting us- ing neural networks and global climate models: An application to a large-scale electrical power system, Applied Energy 348 (2023) 121439. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2023.121439

    work page doi:10.1016/j.apenergy.2023.121439 2023

  24. [24]

    J. Bedi, D. Toshniwal, Deep learning framework to forecast electricity demand, Applied Energy 238 (2019) 1312–1326.doi:https://doi. org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2019.01.113. 28

    work page doi:10.1016/j.apenergy.2019.01.113 2019

  25. [25]

    A. O. Aderibigbe, E. C. Ani, P. E. Ohenhen, N. C. Ohalete, D. O. Daraojimba, Enhancing energy efficiency with AI: a review of machine learning models in electricity demand forecasting, Engineering Science & Technology Journal 4 (6) (2023) 341–356

    2023

  26. [26]

    Y. Liu, J. Li, Annual Electricity and Energy Consumption Forecasting for the UK Based on Back Propagation Neural Network, Multiple Linear Regression, and Least Square Support Vector Machine, Processes 11 (1) (2023).doi:10.3390/pr11010044

    work page doi:10.3390/pr11010044 2023

  27. [27]

    S. N. De Silva, B. K. Mishra, W. Sayers, Z. Loukil, Predicting Long- Term Electricity Consumption Using Time Series Data: Use Case of the UK Electricity Data, in: K. Dahal, R. J. V. R., S. K. G. A. E. (Eds.), Intelligent Systems with Applications in Communications, Computing and IoT, Springer Nature Switzerland, Cham, 2026, pp. 37–58

    2026

  28. [28]

    Huang, G

    J. Huang, G. Iglesias, Socioeconomic and climatic impacts on long- term electricity demand: A high-resolution approach through machine learning, Energy 333 (2025) 137205.doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.energy.2025.137205

    work page arXiv 2025

  29. [29]

    J. V. Ringwood, D. Bofelli, F. T. Murray, Forecasting electricity demand on short, medium and long time scales using neural networks, Journal of Intelligent and Robotic Systems 31 (2001) 129–147.doi:10.1023/A: 1012046824237

    work page doi:10.1023/a: 2001

  30. [30]

    H. C. Bloomfield, D. J. Brayshaw, L. C. Shaffrey, P. J. Coker, H. E. Thornton, Quantifying the increasing sensitivity of power systems to cli- mate variability, Environmental Research Letters 11 (12) (2016) 124025. doi:10.1088/1748-9326/11/12/124025

    work page doi:10.1088/1748-9326/11/12/124025 2016

  31. [31]

    Deakin, H

    M. Deakin, H. Bloomfield, D. Greenwood, S. Sheehy, S. Walker, P. C. Taylor, Impacts of heat decarbonization on system adequacy considering increased meteorological sensitivity, Applied Energy 298 (2021) 117261. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2021.117261

    work page doi:10.1016/j.apenergy.2021.117261 2021

  32. [32]

    Wheatcroft, C

    E. Wheatcroft, C. Dent, A. L. Wilson, Rescaling of Historic Electricity Demand Series for Forward-Looking Risk Calculations, in: 2022 17th International Conference on Probabilistic Methods Applied to Power Systems (PMAPS), 2022, pp. 1–6. 29

    2022

  33. [33]

    A. L. Wilson, S. Zachary, C. J. Dent, Use of meteorological data for improved estimation of risk in capacity adequacy studies, in: 2018 IEEE International Conference on Probabilistic Methods Applied to Power Systems (PMAPS), 2018, pp. 1–6

    2018

  34. [34]

    H. C. Bloomfield, D. J. Brayshaw, M. Deakin, D. Greenwood, Hourly historical and near-future weather and climate variables for energy sys- tem modelling, Earth System Science Data 14 (6) (2022) 2749–2766. doi:10.5194/essd-14-2749-2022

    work page doi:10.5194/essd-14-2749-2022 2022

  35. [35]

    Doxsey-Whitfield, K

    E. Doxsey-Whitfield, K. MacManus, S. B. Adamo, L. Pistolesi, J. Squires, O. Borkovska, S. R. B. and, Taking Advantage of the Im- proved Availability of Census Data: A First Look at the Gridded Popu- lation of the World, Version 4, Papers in Applied Geography 1 (3) (2015) 226–234.doi:10.1080/23754931.2015.1014272

    work page doi:10.1080/23754931.2015.1014272 2015

  36. [36]

    TheWindPower.net, Wind energy database — TheWindPower.net, https://www.thewindpower.net/, accessed: 2025-10-20 (2025)

    2025

  37. [37]

    National Grid, Home - Connected Data Portal | National Grid, https://connecteddata.nationalgrid.co.uk/, accessed: 2025-10-20 (2025)

    2025

  38. [38]

    Sanchez, C

    N. Sanchez, C. J. Dent, A. L. Wilson, Statistical modelling of depen- dence between net demands and deficits in two area power systems, Sustainable Energy, Grids and Networks 36 (2023) 101151.doi:https: //doi.org/10.1016/j.segan.2023.101151

    work page doi:10.1016/j.segan.2023.101151 2023

  39. [39]

    doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy

    M. Pullinger, E. Zapata-Webborn, J. Kilgour, S. Elam, J. Few, N. God- dard, C. Hanmer, E. McKenna, T. Oreszczyn, L. Webb, Capturing variation in daily energy demand profiles over time with cluster anal- ysis in British homes (September 2019 – August 2022), Applied En- ergy 360 (2024) 122683.doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy. 2024.122683. 30

    work page doi:10.1016/j.apenergy 2019