Static side: authors select FE via Hausman then re-estimate with panel-corrected standard errors after heteroskedasticity/Wooldridge tests (Table 3 col. 4, -0.094, the "10% ... by 1%" statement) - row 900289. Dynamic side: one-step sys-GMM fails the Sargan test and is discarded; the two-step system GMM is declared robust/unbiased and more appropriate (conclusions), so its SR (-0.074, row 900291) and derived LR twin (-0.305, row 900293) are preferred. || "Thus, this study concludes that the one-step system GMM estimation model may not be appropriate for estimating residential electricity demand. Therefore, this study uses a two-step dynamic GMM model to estimate residential electricity demand at the state level." (p. 645, printed journal page; for the static choice: "this study re-estimates the FE estimation model by using the panel corrected standard error estimator in column 4", p. 644)
Salari, M., & Javid, R. J. (2016): 'Residential energy demand in the United States: Analysis using static and dynamic approaches.' Energy Policy, 98, 637-649.