Dispatch-Aware Deep Neural Network for Optimal Transmission Switching: Toward Real-Time and Feasibility Guaranteed Operation

Jip Kim; Minsoo Kim

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 21 references

Dispatch-Aware Deep Neural Network for Optimal Transmission Switching: Toward Real-Time and Feasibility Guaranteed Operation

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read A dispatch-aware neural network with an embedded differentiable DC-OPF layer can solve optimal transmission switching as fast as a single DC-OPF, generating feasible topology–dispatch pairs without presolved labels.

desk verdict The learning-to-switch idea is neat and the speed results are real, but the 'provably feasible' claim collapses at binarization, and the backprop derivation is incomplete. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.17194 v1 pith:QDT57TC5 submitted 2025-07-23 eess.SY cs.AIcs.SY

Minsoo Kim , Jip Kim This is my paper · ORCID

classification eess.SYcs.AIcs.SY

keywords OptimaltransmissionswitchingDCpowerflowUnsuperviseddeeplearningDifferentiableoptimizationlayerFeasibilityguaranteetopologycontrolMachineforsystemsDispatch-awareneuralnetwork

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

The paper sets out to make optimal transmission switching (OTS) fast enough for real-time operation by replacing the mixed-integer search over line statuses with a learned prediction. The proposal is a dispatch-aware deep neural network: a line-switching layer predicts continuous on/off values, an embedded differentiable DC-OPF layer solves the resulting economic dispatch, and the generation cost itself is the loss, so no precomputed optimal-switching labels are needed. Because every forward pass solves a full DC-OPF, the authors argue all physical network constraints are enforced, and a custom initialization keeps training feasible on large grids. If correct, the method delivers a feasible topology and dispatch in the same time as a single DC-OPF, capturing much of the cost saving of OTS where a commercial mixed-integer solver times out.

What carries the argument

The engine is the pair of layers: a line-switching layer $\Phi$ with a sigmoid output $\hat z=\sigma(\eta(W\tilde z+b))$ mapping demand to relaxed line states, followed by a differentiable DC-OPF layer that solves the economic dispatch over the relaxed topology. Backpropagation goes through the argmin by differentiating the KKT system via the implicit function theorem, giving $\partial(\hat p_g^*,\hat\theta^*)/\partial\hat z$. The second load-bearing piece is the weight-bias initialization $W_{\rm init}=0$, $b_{\rm init}=9/\eta$, which makes the first prediction essentially $\hat z_{\rm init}=\sigma(9)=0.9999$, i.e., the all-lines-closed topology, so the embedded optimization is feasible from the very first forward pass and training does not stall.

What would settle it

Run the trained DA-DNN on many demand samples, binarize the predicted line states at 0.5, and attempt to solve the resulting DC-OPF with an exact solver; any single infeasible instance refutes the feasibility guarantee. A second check would compare the reported 300-bus costs against a time-limited MILP incumbent to see how close the learned topology is to the true optimum.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the binary switching problem can be bypassed during learning: relax line states to $[0,1]$, solve the resulting DC-OPF, and train exclusively on the resulting generation cost. At inference the relaxed states are thresholded at 0.5 and one final DC-OPF is solved, so the computation time equals a single DC-OPF. The paper's experiments on the IEEE 73-bus and 300-bus systems show the trained network lowers generation cost relative to DC-OPF by about 60% of the available relief on the 73-bus case and by roughly 1.6--1.7% on the 300-bus case, while the commercial MILP benchmark does not finish within one hour at 300 buses.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that after training, thresholding the relaxed line-status predictions at 0.5 always yields a topology for which the subsequent DC-OPF is feasible; the paper asserts this but supplies no proof or fallback.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Inference time equals that of a single DC-OPF, because only one forward pass and one final optimization are needed.
Training needs no presolved OTS labels; the generation cost from the embedded DC-OPF layer is the unsupervised loss.
Every forward pass solves a full DC-OPF, so dispatch and network limits are enforced during both training and inference.
The manual initialization makes the initial topology the always-feasible all-closed network, allowing training to start without infeasibility.
On the 300-bus case the method obtains a feasible lower-cost topology in milliseconds where the mixed-integer benchmark does not terminate within an hour.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

An implication left implicit is that the same unsupervised differentiable-solver-as-layer idea should transfer to other combinatorial optimization problems with a convex continuous relaxation, such as unit commitment or gas-network switching, whenever the relaxed problem is differentiable.
A testable extension is to replace the fixed 0.5 threshold with a learned or search-based cutoff; the paper does not compare thresholds or analyze how sensitive feasibility is to that choice.
If the thresholded topology can be infeasible, a practical fallback such as reverting infeasible line openings to closed would preserve the stated runtime while sacrificing part of the savings.
Because the DC-OPF layer is linear in the relaxed line states, the training signal may under-explore topologies where a small number of line openings interact strongly; a stochastic or multi-sample estimate of the loss could expose more of the search space.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

The core idea is worth a look: train a line-switching network by backpropagating through a differentiable DC-OPF layer, using the dispatch cost as an unsupervised loss. That specific combination is new enough to be interesting, and the initialization trick (W=0, b=9/eta) is a practical, well-motivated fix for the warm-start problem. The empirical results on the 73- and 300-bus systems show the method finds cost savings close to DC-OTS in milliseconds, which is a useful engineering result if it holds up.

But the central claim, that DA-DNN produces a 'provably feasible topology and dispatch pair,' is not supported as written. Section III-A.2 says you train with relaxed line statuses and then binarize at 0.5 before solving DC-OPF. Training solves (3) with z-hat in [0,1], so the feasible region F(z-hat) includes fractional lines. Nothing in the loss or architecture prevents the trained z-hat from placing just enough lines below 0.5 that the binarized network has islands or violates flow limits. The initialization only guarantees the all-closed topology is feasible at epoch 0; it does not constrain later iterations. The stress-test note is right, and the paper offers no proof, no fallback, and no count of infeasible binarized cases. That is a load-bearing flaw, not a nitpick.

The backprop derivation in Section III-B is also incomplete as written. Equation (9) drops the complementary slackness conditions and ignores active-set changes; the implicit function theorem argument needs a nonsingular Jacobian and differentiability at the solution, which is not established for an inequality-constrained DC-OPF. In practice CvxpyLayer handles this numerically, but the derivation in the paper is not the actual math. It should be corrected or replaced with a reference to the differentiable-optimization literature.

Two smaller issues. The training loss is the same generation cost that the DC-OPF layer minimizes, and the test set is drawn from the same 100-110% loading distribution as training, so the reported savings are not an independent validation. And there are no error bars or code, which makes it hard to judge robustness. Also, reference [14] (a dynamic line rating paper) is cited for the DC-OTS formulation; that looks like a mistake.

Who is this for? People working on learning-to-optimize for power systems. The paper is a reasonable first cut at a legitimate problem, and the authors are clearly thinking about the right issues. But the feasibility guarantee is the paper's headline, and it is unproven. I'd send this to peer review because the idea deserves scrutiny, but I would expect a reject-and-resubmit: either prove conditions under which binarization preserves feasibility, or add a feasibility filter with fallback to a known-feasible topology and report how often that happens. The backprop derivation also needs to be fixed, and code should be released.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes DA-DNN, a dispatch-aware neural network for DC optimal transmission switching. A line switching MLP outputs relaxed line-status values in [0,1]; a differentiable DC-OPF layer solves the continuous-relaxation DC-OPF with those statuses; the generation cost is used as an unsupervised loss, avoiding presolved OTS labels. A custom weight-bias initialization starts from an all-lines-closed topology so that the first embedded DC-OPF is feasible. The paper claims that after thresholding the relaxed line statuses at 0.5 and solving a final DC-OPF, the method produces a provably feasible topology and dispatch pair in the same time as a single DC-OPF, and it presents experiments on the IEEE 73-bus and 300-bus systems showing lower cost than DC-OPF with millisecond inference times.

Significance. The problem is important: OTS is NP-hard, and a fast, label-free, feasibility-aware learning method would be practically valuable. The unsupervised cost-minimization formulation and the initialization trick are sensible ideas, and the reported speed advantage on the 300-bus system is a useful datapoint. However, the central feasibility guarantee is not established: the paper never proves that binarizing the relaxed line-status vector yields a feasible DC-OPF, and it provides no fallback or empirical count of infeasible binarized cases. Moreover, the backpropagation derivation through the DC-OPF layer is mathematically incomplete. Because these are load-bearing for the paper's headline claims, the current results do not support the stated contributions.

major comments (3)

[Section III-A.2 and Contribution 1] The central claim of a 'provably feasible topology and dispatch pair' after inference is not supported. Training solves (3) with continuous z-hat in [0,1], so feasibility of the relaxed problem does not imply feasibility of the binarized topology F(threshold(z-hat)); thresholding at 0.5 can disconnect the network, isolate load, or violate line-flow limits, making the post-binarization DC-OPF infeasible. The initialization in III-A.1 only guarantees that the all-closed topology z-hat ≈ 0.9999 is feasible at epoch 0; nothing prevents the learned z-hat from crossing 0.5 for a set of lines whose simultaneous opening is infeasible. The paper gives no proof, no repair mechanism, and no count of infeasible binarized cases in Tables I and II, so the statement that 'all DA-DNN topologies automatically satisfy the physical constraints' is an unsupported conflation of feasibility of the continuous relaxation with feasibility of the binarized topology.
[Section III-B, Eq. (9)-(12)] The backpropagation derivation is mathematically incomplete. Equation (9) defines the implicit system I with h(x,z)=0 for all inequality constraints, but the KKT conditions for problem (7) require h(x,z) ≤ 0, µ ≥ 0, and complementarity µ_i h_i(x,z) = 0; including all inequalities as equalities is only valid for the active set, which is not identified. The implicit function theorem step in (10)-(11) also requires the Jacobian ∂I/∂x to be nonsingular at the solution, and the formula does not account for the dependence of the multipliers λ and µ on z-hat. I ask the authors to provide a correct derivation, for example using the active-set differentiation of convex optimization layers or the differentiation implemented in cvxpylayers, and to state the regularity conditions under which the gradient exists.
[Section IV-B, Tables I and II] The empirical validation does not test the feasibility guarantee. The tables report average generation cost and average computation time, but they do not report how many of the test instances produced feasible binarized topologies, how many required any repair, or whether any instances were discarded. Without this information, the results cannot distinguish a method that always yields feasible topologies from one that silently fails on a subset of cases; the claim that the method is deployable for real-time operation requires this feasibility audit.

minor comments (5)

[Throughout] The manuscript contains numerous typographical errors, including 'Reconizing', 'tranmission', 'labes', 'suceptances', 'contratst', 'sutiability', 'DA-NDN' in the Figure 4 caption, and 'weight and-bias' in the Section IV-C heading.
[Section III-A.1] The dimension of W is stated as W ∈ R^{Nh×Nl}, but for the mapping from the hidden vector ztilde to Nl line outputs the weight matrix should be in R^{Nl×Nh}; please correct the notation.
[References] Reference [14] appears unrelated to OTS (it concerns dynamic line rating forecasting), and the FERC reference year is given as '205' rather than 2024; the reference list should be checked and reformatted.
[Table II] The header 'Min. Gen. Cost' in Table II appears inconsistent with the reported average generation costs; please correct the header or clarify what is displayed.
[Section IV-B] The phrase 'DC-OPF with every line in service constitutes an upper bound on achievable savings' is imprecise; DC-OPF is an upper bound on cost, not on savings, since the savings from OTS are measured relative to the DC-OPF cost.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the unsupervised cost-minimizing training loop and held-out evaluation are standard objective minimization, and the binarization-feasibility concern is a correctness gap, not a circular derivation.

full rationale

The claimed derivation chain is: (1) a line-switching network predicts relaxed line states z_hat; (2) a differentiable DC-OPF layer solves (3) with these states and returns the optimal dispatch; (3) the loss is the resulting generation cost C(p_g) (Section III-A.2); (4) at inference z_hat is binarized and a fresh DC-OPF produces the final dispatch. No step makes the output equivalent to its input by construction. The training loss is the same quantity reported in the tables, but this is direct minimization of the objective on a training split, with a held-out test split; it is not a fitted parameter renamed as a prediction. The initialization W=0, b=9/eta merely starts from the all-closed, feasible topology; it does not determine the trained policy by itself. The paper's statement that the inference-time pair is 'provably feasible' is stronger than what is demonstrated: binarizing a continuous z_hat may produce a topology for which the subsequent DC-OPF is infeasible, and the paper offers no proof or fallback. That is an omitted correctness justification, not a circular reduction, because the feasibility assertion is based on solving the DC-OPF rather than being equivalent to the model's own definition. All cited tools (CvxpyLayer, Gurobi, PGLib) are external, and there are no load-bearing self-citations. Hence the circularity score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the DC power flow model, the feasibility of the all-closed initial topology, and the validity of differentiating through the KKT system. The main structural weakness is the unproven assumption that binarized topologies yield feasible DC-OPF instances. There are no invented physical entities.

free parameters (2)

binarization threshold = 0.5
Chosen by hand for all experiments to convert relaxed line statuses to on/off decisions. No sensitivity analysis is provided.
sigmoid scaling factor eta = not specified (>=1)
Introduced in Eq. (2) to reduce binarization error. The specific value is not reported, only used in the initialization b_init = 9/eta.

assumptions (4)

domain assumption DC power flow approximation is an adequate model for OTS
The entire framework is built on the linearized DC-OPF model; results do not automatically extend to the more accurate AC formulation.
standard math The implicit function theorem applies to the KKT system of the DC-OPF layer
Invoked in Eq. (10) to compute derivatives through the solution of the optimization problem. The paper does not verify the invertibility of the relevant Jacobian and ignores complementarity conditions.
domain assumption All-closed topology is feasible for all training samples
The training data exclude samples that are infeasible for DC-OPF, ensuring the initial all-closed forward pass is feasible. This is described in Section IV.A.
domain assumption Test samples are drawn from the same distribution as training samples
Both training and test data come from the same 100-110% loading range, so out-of-distribution generalization is unverified.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Dispatch-Aware Deep Neural Network for Optimal Transmission Switching: Toward Real-Time and Feasibility Guaranteed Operation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/QDT57TC5

@misc{pith2026250717194,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Dispatch-Aware Deep Neural Network for Optimal Transmission Switching: Toward Real-Time and Feasibility Guaranteed Operation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/QDT57TC5}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.17194}
}

read the original abstract

Optimal transmission switching (OTS) improves optimal power flow (OPF) by selectively opening transmission lines, but its mixed-integer formulation increases computational complexity, especially on large grids. To deal with this, we propose a dispatch-aware deep neural network (DA-DNN) that accelerates DC-OTS without relying on pre-solved labels. DA-DNN predicts line states and passes them through a differentiable DC-OPF layer, using the resulting generation cost as the loss function so that all physical network constraints are enforced throughout training and inference. In addition, we adopt a customized weight-bias initialization that keeps every forward pass feasible from the first iteration, which allows stable learning on large grids. Once trained, the proposed DA-DNN produces a provably feasible topology and dispatch pair in the same time as solving the DCOPF, whereas conventional mixed-integer solvers become intractable. As a result, the proposed method successfully captures the economic advantages of OTS while maintaining scalability.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.17194 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** Histogram of the predicted relaxed line status values [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Training loss curve in IEEE 73 bus system. 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 Epoch 524 526 528 530 532 Generation cost ($1k) (a) θ = 0.5. 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 Epoch 518 520 522 524 526 Generation cost ($1k) DA-NDN (Proposed) DCOPF (b) θ = 0.6 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (1 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Training loss curve in IEEE 300 bus system. the manual initializations guarantees that the very first forward pass can be trained through the embedded DC-OPF, whereas the random approach leads to infeasible OPF and blocks the learning process [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

21 extracted references · 16 canonical work pages

[14]

Decomposition-Based Stacked Bagging Boosting Ensemble for Dynamic Line Rating Forecasting,

A. Ahmadi, S. Taheri, R. Ghorbani, V . Vahidinasab, and B. Mohammadi- ivatloo, “Decomposition-Based Stacked Bagging Boosting Ensemble for Dynamic Line Rating Forecasting,” IEEE Transactions on Power Delivery, vol. 38, no. 5, pp. 2987–2997, 2023

work page 2023
[1]

Optimal transmission switching,

E. B. Fisher et al., “Optimal transmission switching,” IEEE transactions on power systems , vol. 23, no. 3, pp. 1346–1355, 2008

work page 2008
[2]

Understanding Braess’ paradox in power grids,

B. Sch ¨afer, T. Pesch, D. Manik, J. Gollenstede, G. Lin, H.-P. Beck, D. Witthaut, and M. Timme, “Understanding Braess’ paradox in power grids,” Nature Communications, vol. 13, no. 1, p. 5396, 2022

work page 2022
[3]

P. A. Ruiz. (2014) Topology control algorithms (tca) project experience. ARPA-E. [Online]. Available: https://arpa-e.energy.gov/sites/default/ files/migrated/4 Ruiz%20 TCA presentation.pdf

work page 2014
[4]

(205) Explainer on transmission planning and cost allocation final rule

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. (205) Explainer on transmission planning and cost allocation final rule. Federal Register. [Online]. Available: https://www.ferc.gov/ explainer-transmission-planning-and-cost-allocation-final-rule

work page
[5]

(2016) Entso-e roadmap 2017-2026

ENTSO-E. (2016) Entso-e roadmap 2017-2026. ENTSO-E. [Online]. Available: https://riroadmap.entsoe.eu/wp-content/uploads/ 2016/06/entsoe ri roadmap 2017-2026.pdf

work page 2016
[6]

[Online]

PJM, PJM Manual 37: Reliability Coordination , PJM Interconnection, 2021, online. [Online]. Available: https://www.pjm.com/-/media/ documents/manuals/m37.ashx

work page 2021
[7]

I. N. England, ISO New England Operating Procedure No. 19: Transmission Operations , ISO New England, 2021, online. [Online]. Available: https://www.iso-ne.com/rules proceds/operating/isone/op19/ op19 rto final.pdf

work page 2021

Show all 21 references

[8]

A cycle-based formulation and valid inequalities for DC power transmission problems with switching,

B. Kocuk, H. Jeon, S. S. Dey, J. Linderoth, J. Luedtke, and X. A. Sun, “A cycle-based formulation and valid inequalities for DC power transmission problems with switching,” Operations Research , vol. 64, no. 4, pp. 922–938, 2016

2016
[9]

Opti- mal transmission switching—sensitivity analysis and extensions,

K. W. Hedman, R. P. O’Neill, E. B. Fisher, and S. S. Oren, “Opti- mal transmission switching—sensitivity analysis and extensions,” IEEE Transactions on Power Systems , vol. 23, no. 3, pp. 1469–1479, 2008

2008
[10]

Line selection and algorithm selection for transmission switching by machine learning methods,

Z. Yang and S. Oren, “Line selection and algorithm selection for transmission switching by machine learning methods,” in 2019 IEEE Milan PowerTech. IEEE, 2019, pp. 1–6

2019
[11]

Learning-assisted optimization for transmission switch- ing,

S. Pineda et al., “Learning-assisted optimization for transmission switch- ing,” Top, vol. 32, no. 3, pp. 489–516, 2024

2024
[12]

Real-time transmission switching with neural networks,

A.-A. B. Bugaje, J. L. Cremer, and G. Strbac, “Real-time transmission switching with neural networks,” IET Generation, Transmission & Distribution, vol. 17, no. 3, pp. 696–705, 2023

2023
[13]

Optimal transmission switching for short-circuit current limitation based on deep reinforcement learning,

S. Tang, T. Li, Y . Liu, Y . Su, Y . Wang, F. Liu, and S. Gao, “Optimal transmission switching for short-circuit current limitation based on deep reinforcement learning,” Energies, vol. 15, no. 23, p. 9200, 2022

2022
[15]

S. G. Krantz and H. R. Parks, The implicit function theorem: history, theory, and applications . Springer Science & Business Media, 2002

2002
[16]

The power grid library for benchmarking ac optimal power flow algorithms,

S. Babaeinejadsarookolaee et al. , “The power grid library for benchmarking ac optimal power flow algorithms,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1908.02788, 2019

1908 arXiv
[17]

Fast and accurate deep network learning by exponential linear units (elus),

D.-A. Clevert, T. Unterthiner, and S. Hochreiter, “Fast and accurate deep network learning by exponential linear units (elus),” arXiv preprint arXiv:1511.07289, vol. 4, no. 5, p. 11, 2015

2015 arXiv
[18]

Decoupled weight decay regularization,

I. Loshchilov and F. Hutter, “Decoupled weight decay regularization,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1711.05101 , 2017

2017 arXiv
[19]

Differentiable convex optimization layers,

A. Agrawal et al., “Differentiable convex optimization layers,” Advances in neural information processing systems , vol. 32, 2019

2019
[20]

Gurobi Optimizer Reference Manual,

Gurobi Optimization, LLC, “Gurobi Optimizer Reference Manual,”
[2024]

Available: https://www.gurobi.com

[Online]. Available: https://www.gurobi.com

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [14]

Decomposition-Based Stacked Bagging Boosting Ensemble for Dynamic Line Rating Forecasting,

A. Ahmadi, S. Taheri, R. Ghorbani, V . Vahidinasab, and B. Mohammadi- ivatloo, “Decomposition-Based Stacked Bagging Boosting Ensemble for Dynamic Line Rating Forecasting,” IEEE Transactions on Power Delivery, vol. 38, no. 5, pp. 2987–2997, 2023

work page 2023

[2] [1]

Optimal transmission switching,

E. B. Fisher et al., “Optimal transmission switching,” IEEE transactions on power systems , vol. 23, no. 3, pp. 1346–1355, 2008

work page 2008

[3] [2]

Understanding Braess’ paradox in power grids,

B. Sch ¨afer, T. Pesch, D. Manik, J. Gollenstede, G. Lin, H.-P. Beck, D. Witthaut, and M. Timme, “Understanding Braess’ paradox in power grids,” Nature Communications, vol. 13, no. 1, p. 5396, 2022

work page 2022

[4] [3]

P. A. Ruiz. (2014) Topology control algorithms (tca) project experience. ARPA-E. [Online]. Available: https://arpa-e.energy.gov/sites/default/ files/migrated/4 Ruiz%20 TCA presentation.pdf

work page 2014

[5] [4]

(205) Explainer on transmission planning and cost allocation final rule

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. (205) Explainer on transmission planning and cost allocation final rule. Federal Register. [Online]. Available: https://www.ferc.gov/ explainer-transmission-planning-and-cost-allocation-final-rule

work page

[6] [5]

(2016) Entso-e roadmap 2017-2026

ENTSO-E. (2016) Entso-e roadmap 2017-2026. ENTSO-E. [Online]. Available: https://riroadmap.entsoe.eu/wp-content/uploads/ 2016/06/entsoe ri roadmap 2017-2026.pdf

work page 2016

[7] [6]

[Online]

PJM, PJM Manual 37: Reliability Coordination , PJM Interconnection, 2021, online. [Online]. Available: https://www.pjm.com/-/media/ documents/manuals/m37.ashx

work page 2021

[8] [7]

I. N. England, ISO New England Operating Procedure No. 19: Transmission Operations , ISO New England, 2021, online. [Online]. Available: https://www.iso-ne.com/rules proceds/operating/isone/op19/ op19 rto final.pdf

work page 2021