pith. sign in

arxiv: 2408.15774 · v4 · submitted 2024-08-28 · 📡 eess.SY · cs.SY

Risk-Averse Resilient Operation of Electricity Grid Under the Risk of Wildfire

Muhammad Waseem , Arash F. Soofi , Saeed D. Manshadi This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-23 22:20 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 📡 eess.SY cs.SY
keywords wildfire riskresilient operationrobust optimizationpower systemsrenewable energyde-energizationcolumn-and-constraint generationpublic safety power shutoffs
0
0 comments X

The pith

Two-stage robust optimization improves balance between wildfire risk mitigation and customer service in renewable power grids.

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

The paper establishes a resilient operation framework for electricity grids threatened by wildfires, incorporating quantified ignition risks for power lines. It models the problem as a two-stage robust optimization that handles uncertainty in renewable generation to decide line energization while maximizing served load. Solved via column-and-constraint generation, the approach demonstrates better trade-offs and assesses impacts of varying renewable penetration levels on test cases. Sympathetic readers care because it provides a systematic way to reduce unnecessary power shutoffs during extreme weather without compromising safety.

Core claim

With quantified wildfire ignition risk for each line, the resilient operation of power systems with high renewable penetration is formulated as a two-stage robust optimization problem. This is solved using the column-and-constraint generation algorithm to achieve an improved balance between de-energizing lines to avoid wildfire ignition and serving customer demand. The model evaluates different levels of renewable generation to mitigate the effects of extreme fire hazards.

What carries the argument

Two-stage robust optimization problem with column-and-constraint generation algorithm that incorporates line-specific wildfire ignition risks and renewable uncertainty.

Load-bearing premise

The wildfire ignition risk for each power line can be quantified accurately and used as a reliable input to the optimization.

What would settle it

Comparing the model's recommended line de-energizations and resulting customer service levels against actual outcomes in a historical wildfire event on a real power network.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2408.15774 by Arash F. Soofi, Muhammad Waseem, Saeed D. Manshadi.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Different wind speeds leading to different fire ignition scores in a [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Flowchart of Column-and-Constraint Generation Algorithm [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Impact of risk tolerance on the operation cost under different budget [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Impact of different levels of solar penetration on the operation cost [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Change in operation cost based on budget of uncertainty when [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Effect of centralized and distributed solar generations under uncer [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Impact of budget of uncertainty on the operation cost when [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_7.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Wildfires and other extreme weather conditions due to climate change are stressing the aging electrical infrastructure. Power utilities have implemented public safety power shutoffs as a method to mitigate the risk of wildfire by proactively de-energizing some power lines, which leaves customers without power. System operators have to make a compromise between de-energizing of power lines to avoid the wildfire risk and energizing those lines to serve the demand. In this work, with a quantified wildfire ignition risk of each line, a resilient operation problem is presented in power systems with a high penetration level of renewable generation resources. A two-stage robust optimization problem is formulated and solved using column-and-constraint generation algorithm to find improved balance between the de-energization of power lines and the customers served. Different penetration levels of renewable generation to mitigate the impact of extreme fire hazard situations on the energization of customers is assessed. The validity of the presented robust optimization algorithm is demonstrated on various test cases.

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

0 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper formulates a two-stage robust optimization problem for power system operation under wildfire ignition risk. First-stage decisions select which lines to de-energize; the second stage optimizes generation dispatch and load shedding under renewable uncertainty within a budgeted uncertainty set. The model is solved via column-and-constraint generation and evaluated on standard test systems at varying renewable penetration levels to quantify the resulting risk-versus-load trade-off.

Significance. If the numerical results hold under the stated assumptions, the work supplies a concrete, implementable decision-support tool that integrates exogenous line-risk data into an established robust-optimization framework. The explicit assessment across renewable penetration levels is a useful addition for utilities facing both decarbonization and extreme-weather mandates.

minor comments (4)
  1. [Abstract, §5] The abstract and introduction state that the approach yields an 'improved balance' but do not report the quantitative metric (e.g., expected load served at fixed risk threshold) used to substantiate this claim; add a concise comparison table in §5.
  2. [§2, §3.1] The wildfire ignition risk values are treated as fixed exogenous inputs; the manuscript should state explicitly whether these values are assumed known with certainty or whether a sensitivity study on risk-estimate error is performed.
  3. [§3] Notation for the uncertainty set (budget parameter Γ) and the risk-weighting factor α appears only in the text; introduce a nomenclature table or clearly label all symbols in the first equation block where they appear.
  4. [§5, Figures 4-6] Figure captions for the case-study results do not indicate the number of C&CG iterations required or the final optimality gap; add this information to the figure legends or a supplementary table.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

0 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive review and the recommendation of minor revision. The provided summary accurately captures the formulation, solution method, and numerical evaluation of our two-stage robust optimization model for wildfire-resilient power system operation.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity detected

full rationale

The paper treats quantified wildfire ignition risks as exogenous inputs and formulates a standard two-stage robust optimization model (first-stage de-energization decisions, second-stage dispatch under renewable uncertainty) solved via column-and-constraint generation. No equations reduce predictions or results to fitted parameters defined by the model itself, no self-citation chains justify core premises, and no ansatz or uniqueness claims are smuggled in. The derivation chain is self-contained against external benchmarks and does not exhibit any of the enumerated circularity patterns.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

Abstract-only review limits visibility into parameters and assumptions; main inputs are line risks treated as given.

free parameters (1)
  • wildfire ignition risk per line
    Treated as quantified inputs whose derivation is not described.
axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Renewable generation uncertainty admits a bounded representation suitable for robust optimization
    Required for the two-stage robust formulation to be well-defined.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5705 in / 1167 out tokens · 42656 ms · 2026-05-23T22:20:28.170857+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

32 extracted references · 32 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Economic benefits of increasing electric grid resilience to weather outages,

    White House, “Economic benefits of increasing electric grid resilience to weather outages,” Washington, DC: Executive Office of the President, 2013

    work page 2013

  2. [2]

    2019 wildfire risk report,

    J. Tom, Y . Shelly, M. Denise, C. Frances, and T. Rhea, “2019 wildfire risk report,” Available Online: https://bit.ly/3dUwmsO , 2019

    work page 2019

  3. [3]

    PG&E files for reorganization under chapter 11,

    Pacific Gas and Electric Company, “PG&E files for reorganization under chapter 11,” Available Online: https://bit.ly/2JSizDy , 2019

    work page 2019

  4. [4]

    PG&E reaches plea agreement on state charges related to 2018 Camp Fire,

    Pacific Gas and Electric Company, “PG&E reaches plea agreement on state charges related to 2018 Camp Fire,” Available Online: https://bit.ly/2URsEqJ, 2018. 9

    work page 2018

  5. [5]

    Review of wildfire management techniques—part I: Causes, prevention, detection, suppression, and data analytics,

    S. Jazebi, F. De Leon, and A. Nelson, “Review of wildfire management techniques—part I: Causes, prevention, detection, suppression, and data analytics,” IEEE Transactions on Power Delivery , vol. 35, no. 1, pp. 430–439, 2019

    work page 2019

  6. [6]

    Review of wildfire management techniques—part II: Urgent call for investment in research and develop- ment of preventative solutions,

    S. Jazebi, F. De Leon, and A. Nelson, “Review of wildfire management techniques—part II: Urgent call for investment in research and develop- ment of preventative solutions,” IEEE Transactions on Power Delivery , vol. 35, no. 1, pp. 440–450, 2019

    work page 2019

  7. [7]

    Public safety power shutoff (PSPS) / de-energization,

    California Public Utilities Commission, “Public safety power shutoff (PSPS) / de-energization,” Available Online: https://bit.ly/3AAhQ3e , 2020

    work page 2020

  8. [8]

    Preventing wildfires with power outages: the growing impacts of California’s public safety power shutoffs,

    P. Murphy, “Preventing wildfires with power outages: the growing impacts of California’s public safety power shutoffs,” in Energy and Environment Program , 2021. [Online]. Available: https://bit.ly/ 3hD26DX

    work page 2021

  9. [9]

    PG&E power outage could cost the California economy more than $2 billion

    P. Stevens, “PG&E power outage could cost the California economy more than $2 billion.” CNBC, 2021. [Online]. Available: https: //cnb.cx/36e21kR

    work page 2021

  10. [10]

    Oxygen-dependent California man dies 12 minutes after PG&E cuts power to his home

    M. Philips, “Oxygen-dependent California man dies 12 minutes after PG&E cuts power to his home.” Fox News, 2021. [Online]. Available: https://fxn.ws/3hlKcGK

    work page 2021

  11. [11]

    Resilient operational planning of electricity grids with renewable resources under the risk of wildfire,

    M. Waseem, “Resilient operational planning of electricity grids with renewable resources under the risk of wildfire,” Master’s thesis, San Diego State University, 2021

    work page 2021

  12. [12]

    Quantifying the risk of wildfire ignition by power lines under extreme weather conditions,

    R. Bayani, M. Waseem, S. D. Manshadi, and H. Tavakol-Davani, “Quantifying the risk of wildfire ignition by power lines under extreme weather conditions,” IEEE Systems Journal , vol. 17, no. 1, pp. 1024– 1034, 2023

    work page 2023

  13. [13]

    Electricity grid resilience amid various natural disasters: Challenges and solutions,

    M. Waseem and S. D. Manshadi, “Electricity grid resilience amid various natural disasters: Challenges and solutions,” The Electricity Journal , vol. 33, no. 10, p. 106864, 2020

    work page 2020

  14. [14]

    Southern California Edison files 2019 wildfire mitigation plan,

    Southern California Edison Company, “Southern California Edison files 2019 wildfire mitigation plan,” Available: https://on.edison.com/3r7sSIW, 2019

    work page 2019

  15. [15]

    Pacific Gas and Electric Company 2021 wildfire mitigation plan report,

    Pacific Gas and Electric Company, “Pacific Gas and Electric Company 2021 wildfire mitigation plan report,” Available: https://bit.ly/3xGg2DX, 2021

    work page 2021

  16. [16]

    Resilience enhancement of distribution grids against extreme weather events,

    S. Ma, L. Su, Z. Wang, F. Qiu, and G. Guo, “Resilience enhancement of distribution grids against extreme weather events,” IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, vol. 33, no. 5, pp. 4842–4853, 2018

    work page 2018

  17. [17]

    Distribution systems hardening against natural disasters,

    Y . Tan, A. K. Das, P. Arabshahi, and D. S. Kirschen, “Distribution systems hardening against natural disasters,” IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, vol. 33, no. 6, pp. 6849–6860, 2018

    work page 2018

  18. [18]

    Resilience enhancement strategy for distribution systems under extreme weather events,

    S. Ma, B. Chen, and Z. Wang, “Resilience enhancement strategy for distribution systems under extreme weather events,” IEEE Transactions on Smart Grid , vol. 9, no. 2, pp. 1442–1451, 2016

    work page 2016

  19. [19]

    Boosting the power grid resilience to extreme weather events using defensive islanding,

    M. Panteli, D. N. Trakas, P. Mancarella, and N. D. Hatziargyriou, “Boosting the power grid resilience to extreme weather events using defensive islanding,” IEEE Transactions on Smart Grid , vol. 7, no. 6, pp. 2913–2922, 2016

    work page 2016

  20. [20]

    Robust optimization-based resilient distribution network planning against nat- ural disasters,

    W. Yuan, J. Wang, F. Qiu, C. Chen, C. Kang, and B. Zeng, “Robust optimization-based resilient distribution network planning against nat- ural disasters,” IEEE Transactions on Smart Grid , vol. 7, no. 6, pp. 2817–2826, 2016

    work page 2016

  21. [21]

    Integration of preven- tive and emergency responses for power grid resilience enhancement,

    G. Huang, J. Wang, C. Chen, J. Qi, and C. Guo, “Integration of preven- tive and emergency responses for power grid resilience enhancement,” IEEE Transactions on Power Systems , vol. 32, no. 6, pp. 4451–4463, 2017

    work page 2017

  22. [22]

    Probabilistic risk-based security assessment of power systems consid- ering incumbent threats and uncertainties,

    E. Ciapessoni, D. Cirio, G. Kjølle, S. Massucco, A. Pitto, and M. Sforna, “Probabilistic risk-based security assessment of power systems consid- ering incumbent threats and uncertainties,” IEEE Transactions on Smart Grid, vol. 7, no. 6, pp. 2890–2903, 2016

    work page 2016

  23. [23]

    Stochastic pre-hurricane restoration planning for electric power systems infrastructure,

    A. Arab, A. Khodaei, S. K. Khator, K. Ding, V . A. Emesih, and Z. Han, “Stochastic pre-hurricane restoration planning for electric power systems infrastructure,” IEEE Transactions on Smart Grid , vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 1046–1054, 2015

    work page 2015

  24. [24]

    Self-healing resilient distribution systems based on sectionalization into microgrids,

    Z. Wang and J. Wang, “Self-healing resilient distribution systems based on sectionalization into microgrids,” IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, vol. 30, no. 6, pp. 3139–3149, 2015

    work page 2015

  25. [25]

    Optimal distribution system operation for enhancing resilience against wildfires,

    D. N. Trakas and N. D. Hatziargyriou, “Optimal distribution system operation for enhancing resilience against wildfires,” IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, vol. 33, no. 2, pp. 2260–2271, 2017

    work page 2017

  26. [26]

    Resilience constrained day-ahead unit commitment under extreme weather events,

    D. N. Trakas and N. D. Hatziargyriou, “Resilience constrained day-ahead unit commitment under extreme weather events,” IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, vol. 35, no. 2, pp. 1242–1253, 2019

    work page 2019

  27. [27]

    Proba- bilistic security-constrained unit commitment with generation and trans- mission contingencies,

    R. Fern ´andez-Blanco, Y . Dvorkin, and M. A. Ortega-Vazquez, “Proba- bilistic security-constrained unit commitment with generation and trans- mission contingencies,” IEEE Transactions on Power Systems , vol. 32, no. 1, pp. 228–239, 2016

    work page 2016

  28. [28]

    Resilience-constrained hourly unit commitment in electricity grids,

    Y . Wang, L. Huang, M. Shahidehpour, L. L. Lai, H. Yuan, and F. Y . Xu, “Resilience-constrained hourly unit commitment in electricity grids,” IEEE Transactions on Power Systems , vol. 33, no. 5, pp. 5604–5614, 2018

    work page 2018

  29. [29]

    Modeling and evaluating the resilience of critical electrical power infrastructure to extreme weather events,

    M. Panteli and P. Mancarella, “Modeling and evaluating the resilience of critical electrical power infrastructure to extreme weather events,” IEEE Systems Journal, vol. 11, no. 3, pp. 1733–1742, 2015

    work page 2015

  30. [30]

    Resilience enhancement with sequentially proactive operation strategies,

    C. Wang, Y . Hou, F. Qiu, S. Lei, and K. Liu, “Resilience enhancement with sequentially proactive operation strategies,” IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, vol. 32, no. 4, pp. 2847–2857, 2016

    work page 2016

  31. [31]

    Metrics and quantification of operational and infrastruc- ture resilience in power systems,

    M. Panteli, P. Mancarella, D. N. Trakas, E. Kyriakides, and N. D. Hatziargyriou, “Metrics and quantification of operational and infrastruc- ture resilience in power systems,” IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, vol. 32, no. 6, pp. 4732–4742, 2017

    work page 2017

  32. [32]

    Optimal resilient power grid opera- tion during the course of a progressing wildfire,

    S. Mohagheghi and S. Rebennack, “Optimal resilient power grid opera- tion during the course of a progressing wildfire,” International Journal of Electrical Power & Energy Systems , vol. 73, pp. 843–852, 2015

    work page 2015