arxiv: 2604.27669 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-30 · 💻 cs.AI · cs.SY· eess.SY

Fairness for distribution network operations and planning

Pedro F. C. de Carvalho , Zijie Liu , Md Umar Hashmi , Dirk Van Hertem This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-07 05:26 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.AI cs.SYeess.SY

keywords fairnessdistribution networkprice of fairnessresource allocationoptimizationplanningequity metricsstakeholders

0 comments

The pith

Distribution network planning must weigh multiple fairness notions, each with its own efficiency cost and optimization complexity.

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

The paper compiles fairness notions and metrics applied to distribution network operations and planning, spanning egalitarian criteria that treat all consumers equally to merit-based approaches that reward specific contributions. It defines the price of fairness as the efficiency loss incurred when these metrics replace pure cost-minimizing solutions in resource allocation problems. The review traces how locational disparities drive the need for such schemes and shows that metric choice determines whether the underlying optimization remains linear or becomes non-linear. A reader cares because consistent selection of these metrics can make planning decisions more transparent and equitable for affected stakeholders.

Core claim

Fairness in distribution networks encompasses a range of notions from egalitarian to merit-based criteria, each implemented through metrics that impose different mathematical complexities on resource allocation optimization; compiling these notions and quantifying the resulting price of fairness supports consistent, transparent planning and decision-making by clarifying stakeholder impacts and efficiency trade-offs.

What carries the argument

The price of fairness (PoF), which quantifies the efficiency renounced to achieve equitable utility distribution, together with the family of fairness metrics (egalitarian through merit-based) that are inserted as constraints or objectives in the underlying optimization models.

If this is right

Locational disparity among consumers is addressed by fairness schemes that explicitly level the playing field in resource allocation.
Optimization problems shift from linear to non-linear programming depending on which fairness metric is enforced.
Stakeholder impacts vary systematically with the chosen notion, affecting who bears the efficiency cost.
Transparent and consistent planning decisions become possible once the range of metrics and their PoF values are mapped.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

The compiled metrics could be adapted for dynamic, real-time fairness adjustments during network operation rather than only static planning.
Similar fairness trade-offs likely appear in other networked resource systems such as water distribution or transportation, allowing cross-domain transfer of the PoF concept.
Standardizing a small set of these metrics might enable regulatory benchmarks for equity in future energy infrastructure.

Load-bearing premise

The selected fairness notions and metrics from the literature represent the relevant range for distribution network problems and that their mathematical complexities accurately predict real-world applicability.

What would settle it

A concrete simulation or field measurement in an operating distribution network where applying one of the reviewed fairness metrics produces efficiency losses or stakeholder outcomes that deviate substantially from the price-of-fairness values predicted by the compiled framework.

read the original abstract

The incorporation of fairness into the distribution network (DN) planning and operation has become a key goal of recent studies. The cost of implementing fairness, denominated the price of fairness (PoF), covers the efficiency that is renounced for attaining social cohesion through fair outcomes. Locational disparity makes fairness schemes emerge to level the consumers playing field. However, fairness encompasses a range of notions. From egalitarian to merit-based criteria, various metrics are implemented as a tool for measuring equitable utility distribution. These have different mathematical complexities, from linear to non-linear programming cases, which affect their overall applicability. Hence, this study compiles the overarching fairness notions and metrics, reviewing how these affect stakeholders and the inherent mathematical optimisation in resource allocation problems. The aim is to support consistent and transparent planning and decision-making within DN operations.

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.

Desk Editor's Note private letter to a colleague

This review gathers existing fairness notions for distribution network planning but provides no documented search protocol, so its claim to cover the relevant range stays unverified.

read the letter

The paper is a literature review that pulls together fairness concepts already in the distribution network literature, from egalitarian to merit-based criteria, and maps how each one shapes stakeholder outcomes and the underlying optimization (linear versus nonlinear programs). It frames the price of fairness as the efficiency loss traded for equity and aims to help planners make more consistent choices. That synthesis is the main contribution; nothing in the abstract or described scope introduces a new metric, proof, or empirical test. The organization itself can still be useful if it gives readers a single place to compare how different notions translate into solvable problems. The soft spot is the missing selection method. The abstract presents the compilation as covering overarching notions, yet the stress-test concern holds: no mention of databases, keywords, time bounds, or inclusion rules appears. Without that, we cannot judge whether the chosen set is representative or simply the authors' convenient sample, and omitted ideas like certain envy-freeness variants could change the reported complexity-to-applicability picture. The paper therefore functions more as a convenient pointer than as a verified reference. It is aimed at power-systems researchers and planners who need a quick entry point into fairness work rather than at specialists already deep in the citations. A reader new to the subfield could extract value from the framing, but anyone expecting a systematic or exhaustive treatment will be disappointed. The work deserves peer review because the topic is timely for equitable grid policy and a revised version with an explicit methods section could serve as a usable background document, even if it never becomes a definitive source.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript is a literature review that compiles fairness notions and metrics for distribution network (DN) operations and planning. It covers concepts ranging from egalitarian to merit-based criteria, introduces the price of fairness (PoF) as the efficiency loss for achieving equitable outcomes, discusses locational disparities among consumers, and examines how these metrics influence stakeholders and lead to linear or non-linear optimization formulations in resource allocation problems. The stated aim is to enable more consistent and transparent planning and decision-making in DN contexts.

Significance. A well-executed compilation that accurately maps fairness notions to their mathematical complexities and stakeholder impacts could provide a useful organizing reference for researchers working on equity-aware optimization in energy systems. It would help practitioners understand trade-offs between efficiency and fairness without requiring them to survey disparate sources. However, the significance is limited by the absence of a verifiable selection methodology, which prevents confirmation that the reviewed notions represent the relevant literature range and thus weakens the claim of supporting 'consistent and transparent' DN planning.

major comments (2)

[Abstract and Introduction] Abstract and Introduction: The central claim that the study 'compiles the overarching fairness notions and metrics' and reviews their effects on 'inherent mathematical optimisation in resource allocation problems' is load-bearing for the paper's contribution. No literature review protocol is described (e.g., databases searched, keywords, inclusion/exclusion criteria, time bounds, or number of papers screened). Without this, it is impossible to assess whether the selected notions (egalitarian through merit-based) and their complexity mapping are representative or whether omitted concepts (such as envy-freeness variants or recent group-fairness metrics from energy literature) would alter the reported applicability conclusions.
[Mathematical Optimization Implications] Review of Mathematical Implications: The discussion of how fairness metrics translate into linear versus non-linear programming cases is presented as a key output for assessing applicability in DN problems. However, the manuscript does not provide concrete DN-specific resource allocation formulations (e.g., power flow or capacity planning models) that illustrate the claimed complexity differences or quantify PoF for the reviewed metrics. This gap makes the optimization-related claims difficult to evaluate or apply directly.

minor comments (2)

[Abstract] The abstract introduces 'price of fairness (PoF)' without an immediate definition or reference; a brief inline definition or pointer to the relevant section would improve readability for readers unfamiliar with the term.
[Throughout] Notation for fairness metrics and optimization variables is introduced inconsistently across sections; a consolidated notation table would aid clarity.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive and detailed feedback on our manuscript. We address each major comment point by point below, indicating the specific revisions we will implement to strengthen the paper's transparency and applicability.

read point-by-point responses

Referee: [Abstract and Introduction] Abstract and Introduction: The central claim that the study 'compiles the overarching fairness notions and metrics' and reviews their effects on 'inherent mathematical optimisation in resource allocation problems' is load-bearing for the paper's contribution. No literature review protocol is described (e.g., databases searched, keywords, inclusion/exclusion criteria, time bounds, or number of papers screened). Without this, it is impossible to assess whether the selected notions (egalitarian through merit-based) and their complexity mapping are representative or whether omitted concepts (such as envy-freeness variants or recent group-fairness metrics from energy literature) would alter the reported applicability conclusions.

Authors: We acknowledge that explicitly documenting the selection process would improve transparency and allow readers to better judge the scope of the compilation. Although the review focuses on fairness notions most directly applicable to distribution network resource allocation, we will add a dedicated subsection (likely in the Introduction) describing the literature compilation approach. This will include the primary databases and sources consulted (e.g., IEEE Xplore, Elsevier, and key energy systems conferences), search keywords (such as 'fairness in distribution networks', 'price of fairness', 'equity-aware optimization DN'), inclusion criteria (notions applied to planning or operational resource allocation problems), and approximate time bounds. We will also note the rationale for emphasizing the egalitarian-to-merit-based spectrum and briefly address why certain variants (e.g., specific envy-freeness or group-fairness extensions) were not expanded upon, either because they have limited DN-specific implementations or as potential future extensions. These additions will clarify the boundaries without changing the manuscript's core mapping of notions to stakeholder impacts and optimization complexity. revision: yes
Referee: [Mathematical Optimization Implications] Review of Mathematical Implications: The discussion of how fairness metrics translate into linear versus non-linear programming cases is presented as a key output for assessing applicability in DN problems. However, the manuscript does not provide concrete DN-specific resource allocation formulations (e.g., power flow or capacity planning models) that illustrate the claimed complexity differences or quantify PoF for the reviewed metrics. This gap makes the optimization-related claims difficult to evaluate or apply directly.

Authors: We agree that the lack of concrete examples makes the optimization implications harder to evaluate directly. While the manuscript maps fairness metrics to their general mathematical properties (linear vs. non-linear programs) and discusses PoF conceptually, we did not include full DN-specific models to maintain focus on the compilation. In the revised manuscript, we will add a new subsection with simplified illustrative formulations drawn from standard distribution network problems, such as a capacity expansion or DER allocation model under power flow constraints. For selected metrics, we will show the resulting program type (e.g., linear program for egalitarian allocation versus potentially non-linear for certain merit-based or proportional fairness cases) and outline how PoF can be quantified as the relative efficiency loss compared to an unconstrained optimum. These examples will reference existing DN literature for scalability and will be kept concise to avoid expanding the review into a methods paper. This change will make the complexity and applicability claims more tangible and directly usable. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

Literature review compilation exhibits no circularity

full rationale

This paper is a literature review that compiles existing fairness notions and metrics from prior work without introducing new mathematical derivations, predictions, or fitted parameters. The central claims are descriptive summaries of the literature, and no load-bearing steps reduce to self-referential inputs or self-citations that form a closed loop. The absence of an explicit search protocol affects methodological transparency but does not constitute circular reasoning in the derivation sense.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim is a compilation of prior work on fairness in distribution networks. No new free parameters, axioms, or invented entities are introduced by the paper itself.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5442 in / 1149 out tokens · 61390 ms · 2026-05-07T05:26:32.161361+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

29 extracted references

[1]

DER hosting capacity for distribution networks: definitions, attributes, use-cases and challenges,

M. U. Hashmi, “DER hosting capacity for distribution networks: definitions, attributes, use-cases and challenges,” in IET Conference Proceedings CP922, vol. 2025, no. 14. IET, 2025, pp. 541–546

2025
[2]

On the Fairness of PV Curtailment Schemes in Residential Distribution Networks,

M. Liu, A. Procopiou, K. Petrou, L. Ochoa, T. Langstaff, J. Harding, and J. Theunissen, “On the Fairness of PV Curtailment Schemes in Residential Distribution Networks,” IEEE Transactions on Smart Grid, vol. 11, pp. 4502–4512, Sep. 2020

2020
[3]

Framework for enhancing fairness and security in active distribution networks via transactive control signals,

H. Abdolahinia, M. Aryani, M. Moeini-Aghtaie, M. Heidarizadeh, and I. Kamwa, “Framework for enhancing fairness and security in active distribution networks via transactive control signals,” Sustainable Energy, Grids and Networks, vol. 44, p. 101968, Dec. 2025

2025
[4]

Fair Congestion Management in Distribution Systems using Virtual Power Lines,

R. D. Hernandez, J. S. Giraldo, G. Tsaousoglou, M. J. Rider, and N. G. Paterakis, “Fair Congestion Management in Distribution Systems using Virtual Power Lines,” in 2021 International Conference on Smart Energy Systems and Technologies (SEST). Vaasa, Finland: IEEE, Sep. 2021, pp. 1–6

2021
[5]

Fairness-Incorporated Online Feedback Optimization for Real-Time Distribution Grid Management,

S. Zhan, J. Morren, W. van den Akker, A. van der Molen, N. G. Paterakis, and J. G. Slootweg, “Fairness-Incorporated Online Feedback Optimization for Real-Time Distribution Grid Management,” IEEE Transactions on Smart Grid, vol. 15, no. 2, pp. 1792–1806, Mar. 2024

2024
[6]

Fairness considered aggregation mechanism for consumers and prosumers in electricity distribution networks,

B. Liang, J. Yang, F. Wen, L. Wang, and Z. Y . Dong, “Fairness considered aggregation mechanism for consumers and prosumers in electricity distribution networks,” Electric Power Systems Research, vol. 240, p. 111285, Mar. 2025

2025
[7]

Fairness for distribution network hosting capacity,

O. Rubbers, S. Kerckhove, M. U. Hashmi, and D. V . Hertem, “Fairness for distribution network hosting capacity,” Aug. 2025

2025
[8]

DER Hosting Capacity Envelope in Unbalanced Distribution Systems,

M. Mahmoodi and L. Blackhall, “DER Hosting Capacity Envelope in Unbalanced Distribution Systems,” in 2021 IEEE PES Innovative Smart Grid Technologies Europe (ISGT Europe), Oct. 2021, pp. 1–6

2021
[9]

Marginal Distribution Capacity Pricing Mechanism for Efficient Investment and Cost Allocation,

B. Eldridge and L. He, “Marginal Distribution Capacity Pricing Mechanism for Efficient Investment and Cost Allocation,” Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, no. PNNL-35204, Oct. 2023

2023
[10]

Fairness-aware dynamic hosting capacity and the impacts of strategic solar PV curtailment,

B. Aydin, R. Holt, and M. R. Almassalkhi, “Fairness-aware dynamic hosting capacity and the impacts of strategic solar PV curtailment,” Sustainable Energy, Grids and Networks, vol. 43, p. 101869, Sep. 2025

2025
[11]

Sequential linear optimization method with fairness considerations for PV hosting capacity quantification in low-voltage grids,

R. Lliuyacc-Blas, K. Rheinberger, M. L. Kolhe, and P. Kepplinger, “Sequential linear optimization method with fairness considerations for PV hosting capacity quantification in low-voltage grids,” Electric Power Systems Research, vol. 248, p. 111843, Nov. 2025

2025
[12]

Review on fairness in local energy systems,

J. Soares, F. Lezama, R. Faia, S. Limmer, M. Dietrich, T. Rodemann, S. Ramos, and Z. Vale, “Review on fairness in local energy systems,” Applied Energy, vol. 374, p. 123933, Nov. 2024

2024
[13]

From investment optimization to fair benefit distribution in renewable energy community modelling,

V . Casalicchio, G. Manzolini, M. G. Prina, and D. Moser, “From investment optimization to fair benefit distribution in renewable energy community modelling,” Applied Energy, vol. 310, p. 118447, Mar. 2022

2022
[14]

A game theoretic approach for peer to peer energy trading,

C. Long, Y . Zhou, and J. Wu, “A game theoretic approach for peer to peer energy trading,” Energy Procedia, vol. 159, pp. 454–459, Feb. 2019

2019
[15]

Fairness in energy communities: Centralized and decentralized frameworks,

M.-V . Gasca, R. Rigo-Mariani, V . Debusschere, and Y . Sidqi, “Fairness in energy communities: Centralized and decentralized frameworks,” Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, vol. 208, p. 115054, Feb. 2025

2025
[16]

Fairness of Energy Distribution Mechanisms in Collective Self-Consumption Schemes,

B. Couraud, V . Robu, S. Norbu, M. Andoni, Y . Rozier, S. Chen, E. Franquet, P.-J. Barre, S. P. Kanugrahan, B. Berthou, and D. Flynn, “Fairness of Energy Distribution Mechanisms in Collective Self-Consumption Schemes,” Aug. 2025

2025
[17]

Fair coordination of distributed energy resources with V olt-Var control and PV curtailment,

D. Gebbran, S. Mhanna, Y . Ma, A. C. Chapman, and G. Verbi ˇc, “Fair coordination of distributed energy resources with V olt-Var control and PV curtailment,” Applied Energy, vol. 286, p. 116546, Mar. 2021

2021
[18]

Fairness-Aware Distributed Energy Coordination for V oltage Regulation in Power Distribution Systems,

S. Poudel, M. Mukherjee, R. Sadnan, and A. P. Reiman, “Fairness-Aware Distributed Energy Coordination for V oltage Regulation in Power Distribution Systems,” IEEE Transactions on Sustainable Energy, vol. 14, no. 3, pp. 1866–1880, Jul. 2023

2023
[19]

Decentralized Control Strategy to Improve Fairness in Active Power Curtailment 16 of PV Inverters in Low-V oltage Distribution Networks,

Y . Z. Gerdroodbari, R. Razzaghi, and F. Shahnia, “Decentralized Control Strategy to Improve Fairness in Active Power Curtailment 16 of PV Inverters in Low-V oltage Distribution Networks,” IEEE Transactions on Sustainable Energy, vol. 12, no. 4, pp. 2282–2292, Oct. 2021

2021
[20]

Coordinated Real-Time V oltage Control in Active Distribution Networks: An Incentive- Based Fairness Approach,

X. Sun, J. Qiu, Y . Tao, Y . Ma, and J. Zhao, “Coordinated Real-Time V oltage Control in Active Distribution Networks: An Incentive- Based Fairness Approach,” IEEE Transactions on Smart Grid, vol. 13, no. 4, pp. 2650–2663, Jul. 2022

2022
[21]

Can Locational Disparity of Prosumer Energy Optimization Due to Inverter Rules Be Limited?

M. U. Hashmi, D. Deka, A. Buši ´c, and D. Van Hertem, “Can Locational Disparity of Prosumer Energy Optimization Due to Inverter Rules Be Limited?” IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, vol. 38, no. 6, pp. 5726–5739, Nov. 2023

2023
[22]

Improving fairness in photovoltaic curtailment via feedback-driven daily topology reconfiguration in power distribution networks,

R. K. Gupta and D. K. Molzahn, “Improving fairness in photovoltaic curtailment via feedback-driven daily topology reconfiguration in power distribution networks,” Applied Energy, vol. 400, p. 126543, Dec. 2025

2025
[23]

Analysis of Fairness-promoting Optimization Schemes of Photovoltaic Curtailments for V oltage Regulation in Power Distribution Networks,

——, “Analysis of Fairness-promoting Optimization Schemes of Photovoltaic Curtailments for V oltage Regulation in Power Distribution Networks,” in 2025 IEEE Kiel PowerTech, Jun. 2025, pp. 1–7

2025
[24]

Fairness considerations in network flow problems,

E. Wei and C. Bandi, “Fairness considerations in network flow problems,” in 2015 54th IEEE Conference on Decision and Control (CDC). Osaka: IEEE, Dec. 2015, pp. 6909–6914

2015
[25]

A guide to formulating fairness in an optimization model,

V . X. Chen and J. N. Hooker, “A guide to formulating fairness in an optimization model,” Annals of Operations Research, vol. 326, no. 1, pp. 581–619, Jul. 2023

2023
[26]

A Parametric, Second-Order Cone Representable Model of Fairness for Decision-Making Problems,

K. Sundar, D. Deka, and R. Bent, “A Parametric, Second-Order Cone Representable Model of Fairness for Decision-Making Problems,” 2025

2025
[27]

Distribution network tariff design for behind-the-meter: Balancing efficiency and fairness,

T. Schittekatte, “Distribution network tariff design for behind-the-meter: Balancing efficiency and fairness,” in Behind and Beyond the Meter. Elsevier, 2020, pp. 341–359

2020
[28]

Mechanism Design for Fair and Efficient DSO Flexibility Markets,

G. Tsaousoglou, J. S. Giraldo, P. Pinson, and N. G. Paterakis, “Mechanism Design for Fair and Efficient DSO Flexibility Markets,” IEEE Transactions on Smart Grid, vol. 12, no. 3, pp. 2249–2260, May 2021

2021
[29]

The Price of Fairness,

D. Bertsimas, V . F. Farias, and N. Trichakis, “The Price of Fairness,” Operations Research, vol. 59, no. 1, pp. 17–31