pith. sign in

arxiv: 2604.18411 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-20 · 📡 eess.SY · cs.SY

Grid-Supporting Equipment Supply Chains Constrain the Feasible Pace of Power System Expansion

Boyu Yao , Yury Dvorkin This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-10 03:46 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 📡 eess.SY cs.SY
keywords grid-supporting equipmentsupply chain constraintspower system expansioncritical materialscopperenergy transitionU.S. grid planning
0
0 comments X p. Extension

The pith

Grid-supporting equipment supply chains, proxied by material needs, limit feasible U.S. power system expansion to roughly 71 percent of high-growth targets by 2030.

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

The paper develops a modeling framework that links power system expansion planning directly to the physical production and material requirements of grid-supporting equipment such as transformers, switchgear, and converters. It treats critical material demands as a measurable stand-in for manufacturing capacity limits and applies this to a U.S. high-growth scenario through 2030. The resulting shortages reach 28.5 to 28.6 percent of required equipment, driven primarily by copper and secondarily by steel and nickel. These findings matter because they show that conventional capacity-expansion models can overstate what is actually deliverable on the ground. A sympathetic reader sees the work as a call to treat supply-chain deliverability as a first-order planning constraint rather than an afterthought.

Core claim

In the U.S. case study, GSE shortages reach 269.6--274.1 GVA (28.5%--28.6%) by 2030 under high-growth conditions. Copper becomes fully binding, with steel and nickel forming additional constraints. Trade disruption intensifies shortages, while grid-enhancing technologies provide limited relief. These results show that grid expansion depends on the timely manufacturability, replacement, and material support of GSE.

What carries the argument

Dynamic stock-flow modeling combined with bill-of-materials accounting and multi-regional supply-use analysis, using critical material requirements as a physically grounded proxy for GSE supply constraints.

If this is right

  • Copper demand becomes the dominant binding limit on GSE availability by 2030.
  • Steel and nickel shortages add secondary but measurable constraints under high-growth pathways.
  • Disruptions to international trade amplify the overall GSE shortage beyond baseline projections.
  • Deployment of grid-enhancing technologies yields only modest relief against the material-driven limits.
  • Expansion plans that ignore GSE deliverability overstate achievable system growth.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Long-term grid planning models will need to add explicit supply-chain modules or risk producing infeasible schedules.
  • Policy incentives for domestic manufacturing or material recycling could directly increase the feasible pace of decarbonization.
  • Similar material-binding patterns may appear in other regions pursuing rapid electrification, suggesting a broader need for coordinated supply-chain forecasting.

Load-bearing premise

Manufacturing data are often fragmented or proprietary, so critical material requirements serve as a physically grounded proxy for grid-supporting equipment supply constraints.

What would settle it

A comprehensive survey or audit of actual GSE manufacturing capacity and material flows through 2030 that shows no binding copper or steel shortages while still meeting high-growth deployment targets would falsify the modeled constraint.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.18411 by Boyu Yao, Yury Dvorkin.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Conceptual framework of the study. Grid-expansion drivers determine demand for GSE, whose new deployment and replacement needs are linked to bill-of-materials accounting and upstream material availability through MRSUT-based supply chain tracing. These compo￾nents jointly inform the top-down expansion model. 3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Weibull-distributed lifetime characterization of GSE with optimistic and pes￾simistic lifetimes. (a) Cumulative failure probability distributions for GSE with optimistic and pessimistic operation. (b) Interquartile lifespan windows (T25 → T75) and median lifetimes (T50) for each equipment type. 5 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Historical and projected capacity additions and age structure of GSE under (a) optimistic and (b) pessimistic lifetime assumptions. (a1,b1) Transformer capacity additions from 2000 to 2030, separated into new deployment and replacement demand. (a2,b2) Capacity additions for other GSE classes. (a3,b3) Age distribution of in-service GSE in 2025, shown by the 25th percentile, mean, and 75th percentile. 6 [PI… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: BOM for major grid-supporting equipment. (a) Total material weight per unit of ca￾pacity for each equipment type, reported in kg/MVA. (b) Material composition of each technology, with cell values showing material intensity by equipment type on a logarithmic scale. net synchronous generator (PMSG) converters contain 1102 kg/MVA of steel and 519.1 kg/MVA 213 of copper, making them the most copper-intensive a… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Historical and projected material consumption and regional supply shares for major materials used in GSE manufacturing. (a) Material consumption associated with GSE manufacturing, shown as solid bars for historical values and hatched bars for projected values. (b) Regional supply shares for the same materials, shown as solid lines for historical values and dashed lines for projected values. Colors denote m… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Baseline and high-growth scenario comparisons of GSE production, unmet de￾mand gaps, and material usage with optimistic lifetimes. (a) Aggregate GSE production, unmet demand, and gap ratios. (b1) Supply-side GSE results for transformers. (b2) Supply-side GSE results for other equipment categories. (c) Load-side GSE results. (e) Annual usage ratios of selected critical materials, together with the 50% bottl… view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Baseline and high scenario comparisons of GSE production, unmet demand gaps, and material usage with pessimistic lifetimes. (a) Aggregate GSE production, unmet demand, and gap ratios. (b1) Supply-side GSE results for transformers. (b2) Supply-side GSE results for other equipment categories. (c) Load-side GSE results. (e) Annual usage ratios of selected critical materials, together with the 50% bottleneck t… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Power system expansion depends on the equipment required to connect, convert, regulate, and condition electricity, yet grid-supporting equipment (GSE) is rarely modeled as an explicit constraint. We develop a framework integrating dynamic stock-flow modeling, bill-of-materials accounting, multi-regional supply-use analysis, and expansion optimization to quantify GSE deployment requirements and upstream material dependence. Because manufacturing data are often fragmented or proprietary, we use critical material requirements as a physically grounded proxy for GSE supply constraints. In a U.S. case study, GSE shortages reach 269.6--274.1 GVA (28.5%--28.6%) by 2030 under high-growth conditions. Copper becomes fully binding, with steel and nickel forming additional constraints. Trade disruption intensifies shortages, while grid-enhancing technologies provide limited relief. These results show that grid expansion depends on the timely manufacturability, replacement, and material support of GSE, motivating planning frameworks that explicitly incorporate deliverability, supply chain exposure, and resilience strategies.

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

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper claims that grid-supporting equipment (GSE) supply chains constrain power system expansion. It develops an integrated framework combining dynamic stock-flow modeling, bill-of-materials accounting, multi-regional supply-use analysis, and expansion optimization. Because manufacturing data are fragmented, critical material requirements are used as a physically grounded proxy for GSE supply constraints. In a U.S. case study under high-growth conditions, GSE shortages reach 269.6-274.1 GVA (28.5-28.6%) by 2030, with copper fully binding and steel and nickel as additional constraints. Trade disruptions intensify shortages while grid-enhancing technologies provide limited relief.

Significance. If the proxy and model hold, the results would be significant for energy systems research by showing that equipment manufacturability and material availability must be treated as explicit constraints in expansion planning, with implications for decarbonization timelines and resilience strategies. The multi-method integration is a strength that could serve as a template for other regions.

major comments (2)
  1. Abstract and Methods: The central modeling choice to proxy GSE supply constraints via critical material requirements (due to proprietary data) is load-bearing for the headline shortage figures. No validation is provided against historical GSE deployment rates versus material consumption, leaving open the possibility that non-material bottlenecks (factory throughput, labor, permitting) dominate and that shortages are mis-attributed to copper, steel, and nickel.
  2. Results: The specific claims of 269.6-274.1 GVA shortages (28.5-28.6%) and copper being 'fully binding' by 2030 require explicit stock-flow equations, material intensity values, and sensitivity tests on the proxy assumptions and growth scenarios. Without these, it is impossible to assess whether the percentages are robust or sensitive to the proxy.
minor comments (2)
  1. Abstract: Define 'GVA' (gigavolt-amperes) on first use for accessibility to readers outside power systems.
  2. Throughout: Provide full citations and, if possible, a data availability statement for all material intensity and supply-use tables to support reproducibility.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive comments. We address each major point below, providing clarifications on our proxy approach and data presentation while indicating targeted revisions to improve transparency.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: Abstract and Methods: The central modeling choice to proxy GSE supply constraints via critical material requirements (due to proprietary data) is load-bearing for the headline shortage figures. No validation is provided against historical GSE deployment rates versus material consumption, leaving open the possibility that non-material bottlenecks (factory throughput, labor, permitting) dominate and that shortages are mis-attributed to copper, steel, and nickel.

    Authors: We agree the proxy is central and that historical validation would strengthen the analysis. Manufacturing data for GSE are fragmented and proprietary, as stated in the manuscript, which is why critical material requirements serve as a physically grounded proxy. We will add a new subsection in Methods justifying the proxy with supporting literature on material-to-equipment linkages (e.g., copper in transformers and cables). We will also add a Limitations paragraph explicitly discussing non-material bottlenecks such as factory throughput, labor, and permitting, noting that our figures represent material-constrained lower bounds. Sensitivity tests on material intensities will be included to probe attribution. revision: partial

  2. Referee: Results: The specific claims of 269.6-274.1 GVA shortages (28.5-28.6%) and copper being 'fully binding' by 2030 require explicit stock-flow equations, material intensity values, and sensitivity tests on the proxy assumptions and growth scenarios. Without these, it is impossible to assess whether the percentages are robust or sensitive to the proxy.

    Authors: The stock-flow equations, bill-of-materials accounting, and material intensity values are already detailed in Methods Section 3 and the Supplementary Information. To address accessibility, we will move the core stock-flow equations and a summary table of material intensities into the main text. We will add a new Results subsection with sensitivity tests varying proxy assumptions (material intensities ±15% from literature ranges) and growth scenarios, confirming the robustness of the 269.6-274.1 GVA shortage range and copper's binding status under high-growth conditions. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; model outputs are independent of fitted inputs

full rationale

The paper constructs a multi-component framework (dynamic stock-flow modeling + bill-of-materials accounting + multi-regional supply-use analysis + expansion optimization) whose GSE supply limits are set by an explicit modeling choice: critical-material intensities used as a proxy because manufacturing data are fragmented. The headline shortage figures (269.6–274.1 GVA) are computed outputs of this forward simulation under stated growth scenarios, not parameters fitted to those same shortage values or renamed predictions. No equation, section, or self-citation chain in the provided text reduces the central claim to a tautology or to a self-referential fit. The derivation therefore remains self-contained against external benchmarks and data sources.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the proxy assumption for data scarcity and on externally defined growth scenarios; no other free parameters or invented entities are identifiable from the abstract.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Critical material requirements serve as a physically grounded proxy for GSE supply constraints
    Invoked explicitly because manufacturing data are fragmented or proprietary.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5477 in / 1367 out tokens · 52397 ms · 2026-05-10T03:46:25.538501+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

61 extracted references · 5 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    geopolitically less predictable partner regions

    These differences indicate that shortening equipment lifetimes primarily advances and352 enlarges unmet demand and does not change the overall shortage trajectory.353 This amplification is concentrated in replacement-sensitive non-transformer GSE. with pes-354 simistic lifetimes, shortages increase most clearly for PMSG converters and SPV inverters, with3...

    work page doi:10.5281/zenodo.19597635 2025

  2. [2]

    Department of Energy

    U.S. Department of Energy. Evaluating the reliability and security of the united states electric850 grid. Tech. Rep. U.S. Department of Energy (2025). URL:https://www.energy.gov/sites/851 default/files/2025-07/DOE%20Final%20EO%20Report%20%28FINAL%20JULY%207%29.pdf.852

    2025

  3. [3]

    Burke, P .J., Stern, D.I., and Bruns, S.B. (2018). The impact of electricity on economic de-853 velopment: A macroeconomic perspective. International Review of Environmental and Re-854 source Economics12, 85–127. 855

    2018

  4. [4]

    Powering intelligence 2026: Updated scenarios of u.s

    EPRI. Powering intelligence 2026: Updated scenarios of u.s. data center electricity use and856 power strategies. Tech. Rep. 3002034697 EPRI Palo Alto, CA (2026).857

    2026

  5. [5]

    (2024).858 Exploding ai power use: an opportunity to rethink grid planning and management

    Lin, L., Wijayawardana, R., Rao, V., Nguyen, H., GNIBGA, E.W., and Chien, A.A. (2024).858 Exploding ai power use: an opportunity to rethink grid planning and management. In Pro-859 ceedings of the 15th ACM International Conference on Future and Sustainable Energy Sys-860 tems. pp. 434–441. 861

    2024

  6. [6]

    Shehabi, A., Newkirk, A., Smith, S.J., Hubbard, A., Lei, N., Siddik, M.A.B., Holecek, B.,862 Koomey, J., Masanet, E., and Sartor, D. (2024). 2024 united states data center energy863 usage report. 864

    2024

  7. [7]

    Electric grid supply chain review: large power transformers and866 high voltage direct current systems

    Nguyen, R., Severson, M., Zhang, B., Vaagensmith, B., Rahman, M.M., Toba, A.L., Price, P .,865 Davis, R., and Williams, S. Electric grid supply chain review: large power transformers and866 high voltage direct current systems. Tech. Rep. USDOE Office of Policy (OP), Washington,867 DC (United States) (2022). 868

    2022

  8. [8]

    Major drivers of long-term distribution trans-869 former demand

    McKenna, K., Abraham, S.A., and Wang, W. Major drivers of long-term distribution trans-869 former demand. Tech. Rep. National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL), Golden, CO870 (United States) (2024). 871

    2024

  9. [9]

    Blaabjerg, F ., Chen, Z., and Kjaer, S.B. (2004). Power electronics as efficient interface in872 dispersed power generation systems. IEEE transactions on power electronics19, 1184–873

    2004

  10. [10]

    Eltawil, M.A., and Zhao, Z. (2010). Grid-connected photovoltaic power systems: Technical875 and potential problems—a review. Renewable and sustainable energy reviews14, 112–129.876

    2010

  11. [11]

    Blaabjerg, F ., Liserre, M., and Ma, K. (2011). Power electronics converters for wind turbine877 systems. IEEE Transactions on industry applications48, 708–719.878

    2011

  12. [12]

    Wang, G., Konstantinou, G., Townsend, C.D., Pou, J., Vazquez, S., Demetriades, G.D.,879 and Agelidis, V.G. (2016). A review of power electronics for grid connection of utility-scale880 battery energy storage systems. IEEE Transactions on Sustainable Energy7, 1778–1790.881

    2016

  13. [13]

    Karpati, A., Zsigmond, G., V ¨or¨os, M., and Lendvay, M. (2012). Uninterruptible power sup-882 plies (ups) for data center. In 2012 IEEE 10th Jubilee International Symposium on Intelligent883 Systems and Informatics. IEEE pp. 351–355. 884

    2012

  14. [14]

    Safayatullah, M., Elrais, M.T., Ghosh, S., Rezaii, R., and Batarseh, I. (2022). A compre-885 hensive review of power converter topologies and control methods for electric vehicle fast886 charging applications. IEEe Access10, 40753–40793. 887 28

    2022

  15. [15]

    Pineda, S., and Morales, J.M. (2018). Chronological time-period clustering for optimal ca-888 pacity expansion planning with storage. IEEE Transactions on Power Systems33, 7162–889

    2018

  16. [16]

    Guerra, K., Haro, P ., Guti ´errez, R., and G ´omez-Barea, A. (2022). Facing the high share891 of variable renewable energy in the power system: Flexibility and stability requirements.892 Applied Energy310, 118561. 893

    2022

  17. [17]

    Zhang, X., Chau, T.K., Chow, Y .H., Fernando, T., and Iu, H.H.C. (2023). A novel sequence894 to sequence data modelling based cnn-lstm algorithm for three years ahead monthly peak895 load forecasting. IEEE Transactions on Power Systems39, 1932–1947.896

    2023

  18. [18]

    Brown, M., Hotchkiss, E., Collins, G., Seyedrezaei, M., and Bazilian, M. (2025). No minerals,897 no megawatts: how material costs and availability shape the future of the us power sector.898 Resources Policy106, 105607. 899

    2025

  19. [19]

    Wang, S., Hausfather, Z., Davis, S., Lloyd, J., Olson, E.B., Liebermann, L., N ´u˜nez-Mujica,900 G.D., and McBride, J. (2023). Future demand for electricity generation materials under dif-901 ferent climate mitigation scenarios. Joule7, 309–332. 902

    2023

  20. [20]

    Y ao, B., Bernstein, A., and Dvorkin, Y . (2026). Generation expansion planning with upstream903 supply chain constraints on materials, manufacturing, and deployment. IEEE Transactions904 on Energy Markets, Policy and Regulation. 905

    2026

  21. [21]

    Liang, Y ., Kleijn, R., and Van der Voet, E. (2023). Increase in demand for critical materials906 under iea net-zero emission by 2050 scenario. Applied Energy346, 121400.907

    2023

  22. [22]

    (2024).908 The impacts of material supply availability on a transitioning electric power sector

    Qiu, Y ., Iyer, G., Graham, N., Binsted, M., Wise, M., Patel, P ., and Y arlagadda, B. (2024).908 The impacts of material supply availability on a transitioning electric power sector. Cell909 Reports Sustainability1. 910

    2024

  23. [23]

    Hotchkiss, E., Urdaneta, M.P ., and Bazilian, M.D. (2024). Comparing methods for criticality911 and security in minerals for clean energy. The Extractive Industries and Society17, 101402.912

    2024

  24. [24]

    Analysis of supply chain challenges in the us913 solar industry: Focus on build america, buy america act and inverter supply issues

    Barlow, I., Stewart, E.M., and Culler, M.J. Analysis of supply chain challenges in the us913 solar industry: Focus on build america, buy america act and inverter supply issues. Tech.914 Rep. Idaho National Laboratory (INL), Idaho Falls, ID (United States) (2024).915

    2024

  25. [25]

    Wind energy: Supply chain deep916 dive assessment

    Baranowski, R., Cooperman, A., Gilman, P ., and Lantz, E. Wind energy: Supply chain deep916 dive assessment. Tech. Rep. USDOE Office of Policy (PO), Washington DC (United States)917 (2022). 918

    2022

  26. [26]

    Material requirements for electric-919 ity grids

    Nohl, L., Finck, R., Magnani, N., and Volkanovski, A. Material requirements for electric-919 ity grids. Science for Policy JRC143190 European Commission, Joint Research Centre920 (2025). URL:https://publications.jrc.ec.europa.eu/repository/handle/JRC143190921 jRC Publications Repository. 922

    2025

  27. [27]

    Comments of undersigned organizations regarding section 232 tariffs925 on electrical transformers and components (docket no

    National Electrical Manufacturers Association, National Electrical Contractors Association,923 National Association of Electrical Distributors, Leading Builders of America, and GridWise924 Alliance (2025). Comments of undersigned organizations regarding section 232 tariffs925 on electrical transformers and components (docket no. bis-2025-0023). Public Com...

    2025

  28. [28]

    Electric grid supply chain review: Large power transformers and931 high voltage direct current systems

    Nguyen, R., Severson, M., Zhang, B., Vaagensmith, B., Rahman, M.M., Toba, A.L., Price, P .,930 Davis, R., and Williams, S. Electric grid supply chain review: Large power transformers and931 high voltage direct current systems. Tech. Rep. USDOE Office of Policy (OP), Washington,932 DC (United States) (2022). URL:https://www.osti.gov/biblio/1871501. doi:10....

    work page doi:10.2172/933 2022

  29. [29]

    Large power transformer resilience

    United States Department of Energy. Large power transformer resilience. Tech.935 Rep. United States Department of Energy Washington, DC (2024). URL:https:936 //www.energy.gov/sites/default/files/2024-10/EXEC-2022-001242%20-%20Large%937 20Power%20Transformer%20Resilience%20Report%20signed%20by%20Secretary%938 20Granholm%20on%207-10-24.pdf. 939

    2024

  30. [30]

    Ieee standard for information coding for distribution transformers and step-voltage940 regulators - redline

    (2024). Ieee standard for information coding for distribution transformers and step-voltage940 regulators - redline. IEEE Std C57.12.35-2024 (Revision of IEEE Std C57.12.35-2013) -941 Redline pp. 1–39. 942

    2024

  31. [31]

    Y ang, Z., Zhang, J., Wang, S., Wang, J., and Huang, X. (2016). Building ontology-based bill943 of material design and knowledge management in power gird. In 2016 12th International944 Conference on Natural Computation, Fuzzy Systems and Knowledge Discovery (ICNC-945 FSKD). IEEE pp. 1664–1669. 946

    2016

  32. [32]

    Olivetti, E.A., Ceder, G., Gaustad, G.G., and Fu, X. (2017). Lithium-ion battery supply chain947 considerations: analysis of potential bottlenecks in critical metals. Joule1, 229–243.948

    2017

  33. [33]

    Hache, E., Seck, G.S., Simoen, M., Bonnet, C., and Carcanague, S. (2019). Critical raw949 materials and transportation sector electrification: A detailed bottom-up analysis in world950 transport. Applied Energy240, 6–25. 951

    2019

  34. [34]

    Ku, A.Y ., Alonso, E., Eggert, R., Graedel, T., Habib, K., Hool, A., Muta, T., Schrijvers, D.,952 Tercero, L., Vakhitova, T. et al. (2024). Grand challenges in anticipating and responding to953 critical materials supply risks. Joule8, 1208–1223. 954

    2024

  35. [35]

    Stadler, K., Wood, R., Bulavskaya, T., S ¨odersten, C.J., Simas, M., Schmidt, S., Usubi-955 aga, A., Acosta-Fern ´andez, J., Kuenen, J., Bruckner, M., Giljum, S., Lutter, S., Merciai, S.,956 Schmidt, J.H., Theurl, M.C., Plutzar, C., Kastner, T., Eisenmenger, N., Erb, K.H., Koning,957 A., Deck, C.E.C.A.E., Rasul, K., Hertwich, E., and Tukker, A. (2025). Ex...

    work page doi:10.5281/zenodo.15689391 2025

  36. [36]

    Energy Information Administration (2025)

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (2025). Form EIA-860 detailed data with previ-960 ous form data (EIA-860A/860B). U.S. Department of Energy. URL:https://www.eia.gov/961 electricity/data/eia860/. 962

    2025

  37. [37]

    Gagnon, P ., Pham, A., Cole, W., Hamilton, A., Awara, S., Barlas, A., Brown, M., Brown, P .,963 Carag, V., Cohen, S. et al. 2024 standard scenarios report: A u.s. electricity sector outlook.964 Tech. Rep. National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL), Golden, CO (United States)965 (2024). URL:https://www.osti.gov/biblio/2496240. doi:10.2172/2496240.966

    work page doi:10.2172/2496240.966 2024

  38. [38]

    The 2030967 national charging network: Estimating us light-duty demand for electric vehicle charging968 infrastructure

    Wood, E., Borlaug, B., Moniot, M., Lee, D.Y .D., Ge, Y ., Y ang, F ., and Liu, Z. The 2030967 national charging network: Estimating us light-duty demand for electric vehicle charging968 infrastructure. Tech. Rep. National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL), Golden, CO969 (United States) (2023). 970 30

    2023

  39. [39]

    Stadler, K., Wood, R., Bulavskaya, T., S ¨odersten, C.J., Simas, M., Schmidt, S., Usubiaga,971 A., Acosta-Fern´andez, J., Kuenen, J., Bruckner, M. et al. (2018). Exiobase 3: Developing a972 time series of detailed environmentally extended multi-regional input-output tables. Journal973 of Industrial Ecology22, 502–515. 974

    2018

  40. [40]

    Stadler, K., Wood, R., Bulavskaya, T., S ¨odersten, C.J., Simas, M., Schmidt, S., Usubiaga,975 A., Acosta-Fern ´andez, J., Kuenen, J., Bruckner, M. et al. (2021). Exiobase 3. Zenodo.976 Retrieved March22, 2023. 977

    2021

  41. [41]

    Bolhuis, M.A., Chen, M.J., and Kett, B.R. (2023). Fragmentation in global trade: Accounting978 for commodities. International Monetary Fund. 979

    2023

  42. [42]

    Daminov, I., Prokhorov, A., Caire, R., and Alvarez-Herault, M.C. (2021). Assessment of980 dynamic transformer rating, considering current and temperature limitations. International981 Journal of Electrical Power & Energy Systems129, 106886.982

    2021

  43. [43]

    Byles, D., and Mohagheghi, S. (2023). Sustainable power grid expansion: Life cycle as-983 sessment, modeling approaches, challenges, and opportunities. Sustainability15, 8788.984

    2023

  44. [44]

    Salomez, F ., Helbling, H., Almanza, M., Soupremanien, U., Vine, G., Voldoire, A., Allard, B.,985 Ben-Ahmed, H., Chatroux, D., Cizeron, A. et al. (2024). State of the art of research towards986 sustainable power electronics. Sustainability16, 2221. 987

    2024

  45. [45]

    Pinto, L., Riondet, L., Rio, M., Lembeye, Y ., and Crebier, J.C. (2025). Addressing modularity988 in ecodesigned power electronics. Procedia CIRP135, 918–923.989

    2025

  46. [46]

    America’s strategy to secure the supply chain for a robust clean energy transition.990 Tech

    Igogo, T. America’s strategy to secure the supply chain for a robust clean energy transition.990 Tech. Rep. USDOE Office of Policy, Washington DC (United States) (2022).991

    2022

  47. [47]

    Kulasek, K., Lindgren, E., Johansson, E., Jul, M., Flood, J., and Oliva, M. (2020). Towards992 net zero emissions-the role of circularity in transformers. Transform. Mag4, 51–58.993

    2020

  48. [48]

    Elgamli, E., and Anayi, F . (2023). Advancements in electrical steels: A comprehensive re-994 view of microstructure, loss analysis, magnetic properties, alloying elements, and the influ-995 ence of coatings. applied sciences13, 10283. 996

    2023

  49. [49]

    Rao, U.M., Fofana, I., and N’cho, J.S. (2020). On some imperative ieee standards for usage997 of natural ester liquids in transformers. IEEE Access8, 145446–145456.998

    2020

  50. [50]

    Li, W. (2002). Incorporating aging failures in power system reliability evaluation. IEEE Trans-999 actions on Power systems17, 918–923. 1000

    2002

  51. [51]

    Aubertin, S. (2016). Power and distribution transformer markets. Transformers Magazine3,1001 38–45. 1002

    2016

  52. [52]

    Us solar photovoltaic system and energy storage1004 cost benchmarks, with minimum sustainable price analysis: Q1 2023

    Ramasamy, V., Zuboy, J., Woodhouse, M., O’Shaughnessy, E., Feldman, D., Desai, J.,1003 Walker, A., Margolis, R., and Basore, P . Us solar photovoltaic system and energy storage1004 cost benchmarks, with minimum sustainable price analysis: Q1 2023. Tech. Rep. National1005 Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL), Golden, CO (United States) (2023).1006

    2023

  53. [53]

    Paananen, J. (2023). Grid-interactive data centers enabling energy transition: Data cen-1007 ter’s hidden potential to provide essential grid services of a future power system. IEEE1008 electrification magazine11, 26–34. 1009 31

    2023

  54. [54]

    Geological Survey

    U.S. Geological Survey. Mineral commodity summaries 2025. Tech. Rep. U.S. Geological1010 Survey (2025). doi:10.3133/mcs2025version 1.2, March 2025, 212 p., ISSN 0076-89521011 (print). 1012

    work page doi:10.3133/mcs2025version 2025

  55. [55]

    Applegate, J.D. (2023). Final list of critical minerals. US Geological Survey, Department of1013 the Interior. 1014

    2023

  56. [56]

    Wood, R., Stadler, K., Bulavskaya, T., Lutter, S., Giljum, S., De Koning, A., Kuenen, J.,1015 Sch¨utz, H., Acosta-Fern´andez, J., Usubiaga, A. et al. (2014). Global sustainability account-1016 ing—developing exiobase for multi-regional footprint analysis. Sustainability7, 138–163.1017

    2014

  57. [57]

    Census Bureau (2025)

    U.S. Census Bureau (2025). Annual economic surveys: Annual sur-1018 vey of manufactures benchmark: 2018 - 2021. Data.gov Catalog. U.S.1019 Department of Commerce. URL:https://catalog.data.gov/dataset/1020 annual-economic-surveys-annual-survey-of-manufactures-benchmark-2018-20211021 accessed: April 21, 2026. 1022

    2025

  58. [58]

    Miller, R.E., and Blair, P .D. (2009). Input-output analysis: foundations and extensions. Cam-1023 bridge university press. 1024

    2009

  59. [59]

    Wieland, H., Giljum, S., Bruckner, M., Owen, A., and Wood, R. (2018). Structural production1025 layer decomposition: a new method to measure differences between mrio databases for1026 footprint assessments. Economic Systems Research30, 61–84.1027

    2018

  60. [60]

    Ten Raa, T. (2005). The economics of input-output analysis. Cambridge University Press.1028

    2005

  61. [61]

    UN Comtrade Database.https://comtrade.un.1029 org/

    United Nations Statistics Division (2026). UN Comtrade Database.https://comtrade.un.1029 org/. . Accessed: 2026-03-22. 1030 32

    2026