A cross-dimensional analysis of data-driven short-term load forecasting methods with large-scale smart meter data

• Evaluate load forecasting approaches across spatial levels using AMI data of 40,000+ residential customers. • Compare 3 regression-based and 7 deep learning forecasting algorithms with different features and target strategies • Predictability boundary exists between spatial granularity, prediction horizon, and achievable forecasting accuracy. • Multi-facet performance evaluation covers overall accuracy, peak load prediction, and computational burden. • The framework integrates accuracy and sustainability, providing guidance for model selection across operational scenarios. Electricity load forecasting is essential to utility operation and power grid stability. A wide spectrum of data-driven methods, ranging from linear regression models to more recent deep learning models have been adopted to forecast electric load over the years. However, there still lacks a holistic evaluation of the applicability of conventional statistical and machine learning based algorithms with respect to different temporal and spatial scopes, computational requirements, and sensitivity of model-tuning. Enabled by a large-scale electricity load profile dataset of over 40,000 residential customers in a utility region, we conducted a cross-dimensional analysis of data-driven load forecasting methods. Three regression-based and seven deep learning algorithms with different model configurations were evaluated in terms of their overall and peak load prediction accuracy, and training burdens, across spatial aggregation levels ranging from the transformer, feeder, substation, to neighborhood. We found, first, the load forecasting accuracy is constrained by a predictability boundary, influenced by the forecasting horizon and spatial aggregation level. Specifically, RandomForest, XGBoost, TFT, TSMixer, and TiDE models achieved less than 10 % prediction error for up to 96-h ahead forecasting for district, substation, and feeder levels, while other models struggle at long-horizon predictions; Second, for winter and summer peak load dates, most models were able to predict the peak demand timing within ± 1 h, but the prediction percentage error varied by models, with TFT and TiDE models being the top performers; Third, models with similar prediction accuracy can differ in training burden by an order of magnitude. Therefore, choosing model configurations that balance prediction performance and computational resource is an important practical consideration for large-scale deployment of the machine learning based load forecasting. The outcome of this study can guide researchers and practitioners to choose the proper load forecasting algorithms based on their problem scope, required accuracy, and available resources. The predictability boundary can serve as a benchmark for electricity load forecasting problems with new algorithms and datasets.