pith. sign in

arxiv: 2605.03860 · v1 · submitted 2026-05-05 · 📡 eess.SY · cs.SY

A Welfarist Perspective on Fair Generation Curtailment

Jonas G. Matt , Ilia Shilov , Saverio Bolognani This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-07 13:54 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 📡 eess.SY cs.SY
keywords curtailmentfairnesswelfarismKalai-Smorodinskydistribution gridphotovoltaicssocial choice
0
0 comments X

The pith

Existing curtailment schemes in solar grids are instances of the Kalai-Smorodinsky rule at different reference points.

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

The paper applies a welfarist perspective to fair active power curtailment for distributed photovoltaics in distribution grids. It frames the decision as a social choice problem and builds curtailment objectives from axioms expressing views on fairness and grid access rights. Adopting cardinal non-comparability of utilities reduces the need for assumptions about prosumers' preferences in varied residential setups. This yields a unified framework in which prior schemes appear as particular applications of the Kalai-Smorodinsky bargaining rule to alternative normative reference points. The result supplies grid operators with an auditable, axiom-based justification for fairness in local energy systems.

Core claim

Modeling curtailment decisions over feasible operating points using axioms for fairness under cardinal non-comparability of utilities reveals that existing schemes are specific instances of the Kalai-Smorodinsky rule applied to different normative reference points.

What carries the argument

The Kalai-Smorodinsky rule applied to different normative reference points within a social choice framework for selecting fair operating points.

If this is right

  • Provides a rigorous axiomatic foundation for existing ad-hoc curtailment rules.
  • Enables justification of fairness without full comparability of utilities across households.
  • Supports application in heterogeneous systems with minimal assumptions on preferences.
  • Delivers an auditable basis for grid operators to explain curtailment choices.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Operators could select reference points to target specific equity goals in practice.
  • The model might apply to allocating other grid resources like reactive power or storage capacity.
  • Empirical validation on real distribution grid data would test the practical fit of the unified rule.

Load-bearing premise

The utilities of different prosumers are cardinally non-comparable, avoiding direct comparisons between them.

What would settle it

Finding a widely used curtailment scheme that cannot be derived as the Kalai-Smorodinsky solution from any normative reference point would disprove the unified framework.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.03860 by Ilia Shilov, Jonas G. Matt, Saverio Bolognani.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: All these curtailment profiles result in marginally feasible voltages. view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Lorenz curves and Pareto efficiency for two allocations. view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Nash vs. KS. Left: Original Pareto frontier and solutions for a two￾agent problem. Right: Expanded Pareto frontier. Nash moves to a point with lower u1 and higher u2, while KS moves up the fallback–utopia line and improves both utilities. must not receive less utility: u KS i (U2) ≥ u KS i (U1), where u KS i (U) explicitly denotes the KS solution for a specific feasibility set U. In our setting, (5) corres… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The 6-bus LV power grid testbed from the Swiss municipality of view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: 24 hour profiles resulting from OPF Export alias KS on export view at source ↗
read the original abstract

This paper presents a welfarist approach to fair active power curtailment in distribution grids with distributed photovoltaics. We address the lack of consistent axiomatic foundations in existing ad-hoc curtailment rules by modeling the decision as a social choice problem over feasible operating points and by deriving curtailment objectives from a set of foundational axioms that express principled stances on fairness and grid access rights. Rather than relying on the typically assumed full comparability of utilities, which can lead to undesirable outcomes in heterogeneous residential systems, we adopt a cardinal non-comparability stance on utilities. This approach requires far fewer assumptions about prosumers' private preferences while providing a rigorous basis for fair social ranking. We then present a unified framework that demonstrates that existing curtailment schemes represent specific instances of the Kalai-Smorodinsky rule applied to different normative reference points. This perspective offers grid operators an auditable, axiomatic foundation for justifying fairness in local energy systems.

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

1 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper presents a welfarist approach to fair active power curtailment in distribution grids with distributed photovoltaics. It models the curtailment decision as a social choice problem over feasible operating points, derives objectives from a set of foundational axioms expressing stances on fairness and grid access rights, adopts a cardinal non-comparability stance on utilities to avoid strong assumptions on heterogeneous prosumers, and unifies existing curtailment schemes as specific instances of the Kalai-Smorodinsky bargaining solution applied to different normative reference points.

Significance. If the axiomatic derivations and mappings hold, the work supplies a principled, auditable foundation for fairness in local energy systems that reduces reliance on full utility comparability. This could help grid operators justify curtailment rules in heterogeneous residential PV settings and unify ad-hoc practices under a single bargaining-theoretic framework.

major comments (1)
  1. [Framework and unification section (as described in abstract)] The central unification claim—that existing schemes are instances of the Kalai-Smorodinsky rule with different reference points—requires explicit verification that the chosen axioms and non-comparability stance preserve the mapping without introducing implicit comparability or convexity assumptions on the feasible set. The abstract states this follows directly, but the absence of the full axiom list, reference-point definitions, and proof steps in the provided description leaves open whether the social-choice-to-grid-constraint translation is rigorous.
minor comments (2)
  1. Add concrete numerical examples or small-scale case studies showing how specific reference points recover common rules (e.g., proportional curtailment or equal sharing) while respecting non-comparability.
  2. Clarify the exact statement of the foundational axioms on fairness and grid access rights, including any invariance properties they induce under cardinal non-comparability.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive review and for recognizing the potential value of the welfarist framework. We address the major comment on the unification claim below, providing clarifications and committing to enhancements for explicitness.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Framework and unification section (as described in abstract)] The central unification claim—that existing schemes are instances of the Kalai-Smorodinsky rule with different reference points—requires explicit verification that the chosen axioms and non-comparability stance preserve the mapping without introducing implicit comparability or convexity assumptions on the feasible set. The abstract states this follows directly, but the absence of the full axiom list, reference-point definitions, and proof steps in the provided description leaves open whether the social-choice-to-grid-constraint translation is rigorous.

    Authors: We agree that explicit verification strengthens the presentation and will expand the relevant sections accordingly. The full manuscript lists all axioms in Section II (including the cardinal non-comparability axiom that treats each prosumer's utility only on its own scale), defines the normative reference points in Section III.B as distinct expressions of grid access rights, and proves the unification in Theorem 4.1 together with the supporting Proposition 3.2. These results show that the Kalai-Smorodinsky solution emerges directly from the axioms without requiring interpersonal comparability. The feasible set is the image of linear power-flow equalities and box constraints on injections; convexity follows immediately from the model and is not an additional assumption. In the revision we will insert a dedicated paragraph in the framework section that reproduces the key proof steps, states the reference-point mappings for the common curtailment rules, and explicitly confirms the absence of implicit comparability or extra convexity requirements. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity detected

full rationale

The paper derives its unified framework directly from foundational axioms on fairness, grid access rights, and a cardinal non-comparability stance on utilities. It then maps existing curtailment schemes to instances of the known Kalai-Smorodinsky bargaining solution applied to different normative reference points. This mapping follows from the welfarist modeling of feasible operating points without any reduction to fitted parameters, self-definitional constructs, or load-bearing self-citations. The derivation is self-contained against the stated axioms and external benchmarks (the standard Kalai-Smorodinsky rule), exhibiting none of the enumerated circularity patterns.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on social choice axioms for fairness and grid access rights plus the cardinal non-comparability stance on utilities; no free parameters or invented entities are introduced in the abstract.

axioms (2)
  • domain assumption Cardinal non-comparability of utilities
    Adopted to avoid undesirable outcomes in heterogeneous residential systems and require fewer assumptions about private preferences.
  • ad hoc to paper Foundational axioms expressing principled stances on fairness and grid access rights
    Used to derive curtailment objectives as a social choice problem over feasible operating points.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5464 in / 1246 out tokens · 60506 ms · 2026-05-07T13:54:44.505508+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]

    Estimates of the marginal curtailment rates for solar and wind generation,

    K. Novan and Y . Wang, “Estimates of the marginal curtailment rates for solar and wind generation,”Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, vol. 124, p. 102930, 2024

    work page 2024

  2. [2]

    Too much of a good thing? global trends in the curtailment of solar pv,

    E. O’Shaughnessy, J. R. Cruce, and K. Xu, “Too much of a good thing? global trends in the curtailment of solar pv,”Solar Energy, vol. 208, p. 1068–1077, Sept. 2020

    work page 2020

  3. [3]

    Renewable energy curtail- ment: A case study on today’s and tomorrow’s congestion management,

    H. Schermeyer, C. Vergara, and W. Fichtner, “Renewable energy curtail- ment: A case study on today’s and tomorrow’s congestion management,” Energy Policy, vol. 112, p. 427–436, Jan. 2018

    work page 2018

  4. [4]

    Gesetz f ¨ur den Ausbau erneuerbarer Energien (Erneuerbare-Energien-Gesetz - EEG 2017),

    Deutscher Bundestag, “Gesetz f ¨ur den Ausbau erneuerbarer Energien (Erneuerbare-Energien-Gesetz - EEG 2017),” 2017

    work page 2017

  5. [5]

    125–199, June 2019

    “Directive (EU) 2019/944 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 June 2019 on common rules for the internal market for electricity and amending Directive 2012/27/EU (recast),”Official Journal of the European Union, pp. 125–199, June 2019

    work page 2019

  6. [6]

    Inequitable access to distributed energy resources due to grid infrastructure limits in california,

    A. M. Brockway, J. Conde, and D. Callaway, “Inequitable access to distributed energy resources due to grid infrastructure limits in california,”Nature Energy, vol. 6, p. 892–903, Sept. 2021

    work page 2021

  7. [7]

    Adapting to limited grid capacity: Perceptions of injustice emerging from grid congestion in the Netherlands,

    E. de Winkel, Z. Lukszo, M. Neerincx, and R. Dobbe, “Adapting to limited grid capacity: Perceptions of injustice emerging from grid congestion in the Netherlands,”Energy Research & Social Science, vol. 122, p. 103962, Apr. 2025

    work page 2025

  8. [8]

    Sharing the grid: The key to equitable access for small-scale energy generation,

    J. J. Cuenca, H. E. Daly, and B. P. Hayes, “Sharing the grid: The key to equitable access for small-scale energy generation,”Applied Energy, vol. 349, p. 121641, Nov. 2023

    work page 2023

  9. [9]

    Fair coordination of distributed energy resources with volt-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 volt-var control and PV curtailment,”Applied Energy, vol. 286, p. 116546, 2021

    work page 2021

  10. [10]

    Reducing the unfairness of coordinated inverter dispatch in PV-rich distribution networks,

    P. Lusis, L. L. Andrew, S. Chakraborty, A. Liebman, and G. Tack, “Reducing the unfairness of coordinated inverter dispatch in PV-rich distribution networks,” inIEEE PowerTech, 2019

    work page 2019

  11. [11]

    On the fairness of PV curtailment schemes in residential distribution networks,

    M. Z. Liu, A. T. Procopiou, K. Petrou, L. F. 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, no. 5, pp. 4502–4512, 2020

    work page 2020

  12. [12]

    Sharing the shortfall: Algorithmic solutions for fair demand curtailment in zonal power markets,

    T. Borb ´ath and D. Van Hertem, “Sharing the shortfall: Algorithmic solutions for fair demand curtailment in zonal power markets,”SSRN, 2024

    work page 2024

  13. [13]

    Allocation of dynamic operating envelopes in distribu- tion networks: Technical and equitable perspectives,

    M. R. Alam, P. T. H. Nguyen, L. Naranpanawe, T. K. Saha, and G. Lankeshwara, “Allocation of dynamic operating envelopes in distribu- tion networks: Technical and equitable perspectives,”IEEE Transactions on Sustainable Energy, vol. 15, p. 173–186, Jan. 2024

    work page 2024

  14. [14]

    Ensuring distribution network integrity using dynamic operating limits for prosumers,

    K. Petrou, A. T. Procopiou, L. Gutierrez-Lagos, M. Z. Liu, L. F. Ochoa, T. Langstaff, and J. M. Theunissen, “Ensuring distribution network integrity using dynamic operating limits for prosumers,”IEEE Transactions on Smart Grid, vol. 12, p. 3877–3888, Sept. 2021

    work page 2021

  15. [15]

    Fair and Efficient Congestion Management for Low V oltage Distribution Networks,

    A. R. Vadavathi, G. Hoogsteen, and J. Hurink, “Fair and Efficient Congestion Management for Low V oltage Distribution Networks,” in 2024 IEEE 8th Energy Conference (ENERGYCON), pp. 1–6, Mar. 2024

    work page 2024

  16. [16]

    Fair consumer outcomes in the balance: Data driven analysis of distributed PV curtail- ment,

    N. Stringer, N. Haghdadi, A. Bruce, and I. MacGill, “Fair consumer outcomes in the balance: Data driven analysis of distributed PV curtail- ment,”Renewable Energy, vol. 173, pp. 972–986, 2021

    work page 2021

  17. [17]

    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, 2024

    work page 2024

  18. [18]

    A Review of Fairness Conceptualizations in Electrical Distribution Grid Congestion Management,

    E. de Winkel, Z. Lukszo, M. Neerincx, and R. Dobbe, “A Review of Fairness Conceptualizations in Electrical Distribution Grid Congestion Management,” in2024 IEEE PES Innovative Smart Grid Technologies Europe (ISGT EUROPE), pp. 1–5, Oct. 2024

    work page 2024

  19. [19]

    A guide to formulating fairness in an optimization model,

    X. V . 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, 2023

    work page 2023

  20. [20]

    Welfare and cost aggregation for multi-agent control: When to choose which social cost function, and why?,

    I. Shilov, E. Elokda, S. Hall, H. H. Nax, and S. Bolognani, “Welfare and cost aggregation for multi-agent control: When to choose which social cost function, and why?,”IEEE Open Journal of Control Systems, vol. 5, pp. 80–90, 2026

    work page 2026

  21. [21]

    Interpersonal comparability and social choice theory,

    K. W. S. Roberts, “Interpersonal comparability and social choice theory,” The Review of Economic Studies, vol. 47, no. 2, pp. 421–439, 1980

    work page 1980

  22. [22]

    Other solutions to nash’s bargaining problem,

    E. Kalai and M. Smorodinsky, “Other solutions to nash’s bargaining problem,”Econometrica, vol. 43, p. 513, May 1975

    work page 1975

  23. [23]

    Social welfare functionals and interper- sonal comparability,

    C. d’Aspremont and L. Gevers, “Social welfare functionals and interper- sonal comparability,” inHandbook of Social Choice and Welfare(K. J. Arrow, A. K. Sen, and K. Suzumura, eds.), vol. 1, ch. 10, pp. 459–541, 2002

    work page 2002

  24. [24]

    Utilitarianism and welfarism,

    A. Sen, “Utilitarianism and welfarism,”The Journal of Philosophy, vol. 76, no. 9, pp. 463–489, 1979

    work page 1979

  25. [25]

    Reducing distributed generator curtailment through active power flow management,

    M. J. Dolan, E. M. Davidson, I. Kockar, G. W. Ault, and S. D. J. McArthur, “Reducing distributed generator curtailment through active power flow management,”IEEE Transactions on Smart Grid, vol. 5, p. 149–157, Jan. 2014

    work page 2014

  26. [26]

    Smart curtailment for congestion management in lv distribution network,

    A. Haque, M. T. Rahman, P. Nguyen, and F. Bliek, “Smart curtailment for congestion management in lv distribution network,” in2016 IEEE Power and Energy Society General Meeting (PESGM), p. 1–5, July 2016

    work page 2016

  27. [27]

    Syrtseva,Operational planning under joint uncertainties

    K. Syrtseva,Operational planning under joint uncertainties. Theses, Universit´e Paris sciences et lettres, Feb. 2025

    work page 2025

  28. [28]

    Operating envelopes for prosumers in lv networks: A weighted proportional fairness approach,

    K. Petrou, M. Z. Liu, A. T. Procopiou, L. F. Ochoa, J. Theunissen, and J. Harding, “Operating envelopes for prosumers in lv networks: A weighted proportional fairness approach,” in2020 IEEE PES Innovative Smart Grid Technologies Europe (ISGT-Europe), p. 579–583, Oct. 2020

    work page 2020

  29. [29]

    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, pp. 1792–1806, Mar. 2024

    work page 2024

  30. [30]

    Robust dynamic operating envelopes for der integration in unbalanced distribution networks,

    B. Liu and J. H. Braslavsky, “Robust dynamic operating envelopes for der integration in unbalanced distribution networks,”IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, vol. 39, p. 3921–3936, Mar. 2024

    work page 2024

  31. [31]

    Pandapower—an open-source python tool for convenient modeling, analysis, and optimization of electric power systems,

    L. Thurner, A. Scheidler, F. Schafer, J.-H. Menke, J. Dollichon, F. Meier, S. Meinecke, and M. Braun, “Pandapower—an open-source python tool for convenient modeling, analysis, and optimization of electric power systems,”IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, vol. 33, p. 6510–6521, Nov. 2018

    work page 2018

  32. [32]

    Fair-over-time distributed energy resource coordination,

    H. Moring, X. Farrell, and J. L. Mathieu, “Fair-over-time distributed energy resource coordination,” in2024 60th Annual Allerton Conference on Communication, Control, and Computing, 2024

    work page 2024