Probabilistic electrical power demand forecasting with uncertainty quantification

Large-scale renewable energy deployment introduces pronounced volatility into the electricity system, turning grid operation into a complex stochastic optimization problem. Accurate electricity price forecasting (EPF) is essential not only to support operational decisions, such as optimal bidding strategies and balancing power preparation, but also to reduce economic risk and improve market efficiency. Probabilistic forecasts are particularly valuable because they quantify uncertainty stemming from renewable intermittency, market coupling, and regulatory changes, enabling market participants to make informed decisions that minimize losses and optimize expected revenues. However, it remains an open question which models to employ to produce accurate forecasts. Should these be task-specific machine learning (ML) models or Time Series Foundation Models (TSFMs)? In this work, we compare four models for day-ahead probabilistic EPF (PEPF) in European bidding zones: a deterministic NHITS backbone with Quantile-Regression Averaging (NHITS+QRA) and a conditional Normalizing-Flow forecaster (NF) are compared with two TSFMs, namely Moirai and ChronosX. On the one hand, we find that TSFMs outperform task-specific deep learning models trained from scratch in terms of CRPS, Energy Score, and predictive interval calibration across market conditions. On the other hand, we find that well-configured task-specific models, particularly NHITS combined with QRA, achieve performance very close to TSFMs, and in some scenarios, such as when supplied with additional informative feature groups or adapted via few-shot learning from other European markets, they can even surpass TSFMs. Overall, our findings show that while TSFMs offer expressive modeling capabilities, conventional models remain highly competitive, emphasizing the need to weigh computational expense against marginal performance improvements in PEPF.

As renewable energy integration increases market volatility, probabilistic electricity price forecasting has become essential for effective risk management. However, current-proper-scoring rules often prioritize forecast sharpness at the expense of calibration, leading to overconfident and statistically unreliable uncertainty estimates. This work highlights the critical gap between theoretical scoring and practical calibration, demonstrating that models can become mere proxies for deterministic forecasts when reliability is neglected. We conclude that future research must shift toward calibration-aware objectives and architectures to ensure the distributional integrity of energy market forecasts.

Energy consumption prediction is essential for efficient grid management, demand-side optimization, and sustainable energy planning. Although advanced machine learning methods have been employed for better prediction performance, existing works have two key limitations: (1) they usually formulate this task as a purely time-series prediction problem without explicitly modeling the spatial dependencies among different regions, and (2) they fail to provide reliable predictions with uncertainty estimates under abnormal situations such as extreme weather events. To advance existing research, we propose EnergyMamba, an uncertainty-aware spatiotemporal learning framework for accurate and reliable energy consumption prediction, which comprises two key components: (i) a novel Graph-Enhanced Selective State Space Model (GE-Mamba) that injects spatial context learned from the grid topology into the temporal dynamics, enabling coupled spatiotemporal modeling, and (ii) an Adaptive Sequential Conformalized Quantile Regression (AS-CQR) module, which includes locally adaptive normalization and an online feedback mechanism to dynamically calibrate prediction intervals under potential distribution shifts. We evaluate EnergyMamba on four large-scale real-world datasets from Florida, New York, and California. Results show EnergyMamba achieves around 5% improvement in prediction accuracy and 6% improvement in uncertainty quantification over 15 state-of-the-art baselines.