Near-Term Emission Targets Need Immediate Attention in the USA

Brad Reinholz; Kamran Tehranchi; Malcolm Metcalfe; Taco Niet; Trevor Barnes

arxiv: 2607.01471 · v1 · pith:UO6ECVSKnew · submitted 2026-07-01 · ⚛️ physics.soc-ph

Near-Term Emission Targets Need Immediate Attention in the USA

Trevor Barnes , Kamran Tehranchi , Brad Reinholz , Malcolm Metcalfe , Taco Niet This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-07-03 01:04 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ⚛️ physics.soc-ph

keywords energy system modelingmethane leakageelectrificationfossil fuel pricesemission targetssensitivity analysisUSA energy policymulti-sector analysis

0 comments

The pith

Fossil fuel price volatility drives most US energy costs while methane leakage rates control the system's climate impact.

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

The paper extends an open-source multi-sector energy system model to run global sensitivity analysis across the United States. It identifies fossil fuel price changes as the largest influence on marginal electricity and energy costs in most regions, with uncoordinated state renewable rules creating localized cost spikes from transmission bottlenecks. Emissions prove far more sensitive to fugitive methane leakage rates and global warming potential values than to other factors. Demand-side shifts such as electrifying light-duty vehicles and service-sector heating emerge as practical near-term ways to cut carbon output. The findings indicate that certain repealed federal clean energy measures would have lowered exposure to price swings and future social costs of carbon.

Core claim

Extending the open-source energy system model to multi-sector analysis and applying global sensitivity analysis reveals that fossil fuel price volatility is the dominant driver of marginal electricity and energy costs across most of the nation, system climate impact is overwhelmingly sensitive to fugitive methane leakage rates and global warming potential assumptions, and demand-side electrification of light-duty electric vehicles and service sector heating can act as immediate levers for carbon abatement.

What carries the argument

The extended open-source energy system model combined with global sensitivity analysis, which ranks the influence of input parameters on national costs and emissions.

If this is right

Uncoordinated state renewable mandates can create regional cost spikes from transmission bottlenecks.
Reducing upstream methane leaks will substantially lower the climate damages from the energy system.
Electrifying light-duty vehicles and service sector heating delivers rapid carbon reductions.
Repealed federal clean energy programs would have cut exposure to fossil fuel price volatility and social cost of carbon penalties.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

National coordination of renewable policies could avoid the regional cost spikes identified in the model.
Real-time methane monitoring data could update the leakage assumptions and change priority rankings.
Applying the same sensitivity approach to other countries would highlight their own dominant cost and emission drivers.

Load-bearing premise

The model and its sensitivity setup correctly represent regional transmission limits, actual methane leakage rates, and cross-sector interactions without large unaccounted effects.

What would settle it

Field measurements showing US fugitive methane leakage rates substantially below the values used in the sensitivity runs, or electricity prices that stay flat during large fossil fuel price swings.

read the original abstract

Given recent changes in federal climate policy, the United States is unlikely to meet its original 2030 Paris Agreement emission target of a 50-52% reduction from 2005 levels. However, rapid near-term abatement remains achievable through targeted multi-sector energy transitions. Extending the open-source energy system model, PyPSA-USA, to perform multi-sector analysis, we evaluate the primary drivers of USA energy costs and emissions though applying global sensitivity analysis. Our results suggest that fossil fuel price volatility is the dominant driver of marginal electricity and energy costs across most of the nation, however, uncoordinated state-level renewable mandates can induce localized cost spikes due to regional bottlenecks. We find that system climate impact (CO2e) is overwhelming sensitive to fugitive methane leakage rates and global warming potential assumptions. Addressing upstream methane leaks will play a crucial role in abating climate-related damages. Finally, demand-side electrification, specifically light-duty electric vehicles and service sector heating, can act as immediate levers for carbon abatement. The results of this work suggest that many of the Inflation Reduction Act's clean energy initiatives, that have since been repealed, are effective near-term solutions to reduce exposure to fossil fuel price and mitigate future financial penalties associated with the rising social cost of carbon.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Desk Editor's Note private letter to a colleague

The fossil fuel price dominance result looks like it could be an artifact of unnormalized ranges in the sensitivity analysis, while the methane leakage point is more plausible but still thin on evidence.

read the letter

The headline result on fossil fuel prices driving marginal costs across most of the US rests on global sensitivity analysis whose input ranges are never described. Without knowing whether price volatility was given a wider band than methane leakage rates or demand elasticities, the ranking cannot be trusted as a model outcome rather than a setup choice.

What the work actually does is extend the open-source PyPSA-USA model to multi-sector coverage and run GSA on it. That extension itself is straightforward but useful for anyone already working with the framework. The paper correctly flags that system-wide CO2e is highly sensitive to fugitive methane assumptions and that light-duty EV adoption plus service-sector heat pumps offer near-term abatement levers. Those conclusions line up with existing literature on methane and electrification.

The soft spot is the complete absence of detail on how the sensitivity analysis was implemented: which parameters were varied, what ranges were chosen and why, whether historical validation was performed, and how regional transmission bottlenecks were handled. The abstract's claim about uncoordinated state mandates causing localized spikes is stated but not shown. Because the full methods are missing, it is impossible to judge whether the model captures the interactions it claims to.

This is a paper for US-focused energy system modelers who already use PyPSA and want to see one more GSA application. It does not introduce new methods or falsifiable predictions. A serious editor could send it to review if the authors supply the missing implementation details and range justifications; without those, it stays at the level of an extended abstract.

Referee Report

1 major / 0 minor

Summary. The manuscript extends the open-source PyPSA-USA energy system model to multi-sector analysis and applies global sensitivity analysis to identify primary drivers of USA energy costs and emissions. It claims that fossil fuel price volatility is the dominant driver of marginal electricity and energy costs across most of the nation (with uncoordinated state renewable mandates causing localized spikes), that system CO2e impacts are overwhelmingly sensitive to fugitive methane leakage rates and GWP assumptions, and that demand-side electrification (light-duty EVs and service-sector heating) provides immediate carbon abatement levers. The work concludes that many repealed Inflation Reduction Act initiatives remain effective near-term solutions for reducing fossil fuel price exposure and social cost of carbon penalties.

Significance. If the global sensitivity analysis is robustly implemented with justified parameter ranges and validated dynamics, the results would offer timely, policy-relevant guidance on near-term US decarbonization priorities, particularly the leverage of methane mitigation and targeted electrification amid shifting federal policy.

major comments (1)

[Abstract and sensitivity analysis description] Abstract and sensitivity analysis description: the headline claims that fossil fuel price volatility is the dominant driver of marginal costs, and that CO2e is overwhelmingly sensitive to methane leakage/GWP, rest on global sensitivity analysis outputs, yet the abstract (and implied methods) provides no details on parameter ranges, normalization across inputs, validation against historical data, or treatment of regional interactions. Without this, it is impossible to determine whether the reported dominance rankings reflect model dynamics or are artifacts of unequal uncertainty ranges, as noted in the skeptic concern.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their constructive feedback on our manuscript. We address the major comment point by point below and agree that revisions are needed to improve transparency in the abstract.

read point-by-point responses

Referee: [Abstract and sensitivity analysis description] Abstract and sensitivity analysis description: the headline claims that fossil fuel price volatility is the dominant driver of marginal costs, and that CO2e is overwhelmingly sensitive to methane leakage/GWP, rest on global sensitivity analysis outputs, yet the abstract (and implied methods) provides no details on parameter ranges, normalization across inputs, validation against historical data, or treatment of regional interactions. Without this, it is impossible to determine whether the reported dominance rankings reflect model dynamics or are artifacts of unequal uncertainty ranges, as noted in the skeptic concern.

Authors: We agree that the abstract lacks sufficient methodological detail to support the headline claims and that this could raise questions about whether dominance rankings arise from model dynamics or from the chosen uncertainty ranges. The full methods section describes the global sensitivity analysis (including parameter sampling, ranges for fossil fuel prices and methane leakage rates, Sobol indices for normalization, and the multi-region PyPSA-USA structure that captures state-level interactions), but we acknowledge these elements are not summarized in the abstract. In the revised manuscript we will expand the abstract to concisely report the key parameter ranges, normalization approach, validation steps against historical data, and treatment of regional bottlenecks. This revision will allow readers to assess robustness directly from the abstract. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: claims derive from external model sensitivity outputs, not self-referential definitions or fits

full rationale

The paper extends the open-source PyPSA-USA model and applies global sensitivity analysis to rank drivers of costs and emissions. All central claims (fossil fuel price volatility as dominant cost driver, methane leakage sensitivity for CO2e, electrification as abatement lever) are presented as outputs of this analysis rather than quantities defined in terms of themselves or predictions that reduce by construction to fitted parameters. No equations, self-citations, or ansatzes are quoted that would trigger self-definitional, fitted-input-called-prediction, or self-citation load-bearing patterns. The derivation chain remains independent of the target results and is benchmarked against the external PyPSA framework.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

Abstract-only review prevents enumeration of specific free parameters or axioms; the central claims rest on the unstated internal structure and data assumptions of the PyPSA-USA model plus external methane leakage and GWP values.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5757 in / 1156 out tokens · 28236 ms · 2026-07-03T01:04:46.496748+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

49 extracted references · 26 canonical work pages

[1]

PyPSA: Python for Power System Analysis,

T. Brown, J. Hörsch, and D. Schlachtberger, “PyPSA: Python for Power System Analysis, ” J. Open Res. Softw., vol. 6, no. 1, Art. no. 1, Jan. 2018, doi: 10.5334/jors.188

work page doi:10.5334/jors.188 2018
[2]

Brown, Tom et al., PyPSA: Python for Power System Analysis. (Oct. 15, 2021). Zenodo. doi: 10.5281/ZENODO.3946412

work page doi:10.5281/zenodo.3946412 2021
[3]

Tehranchi, T

K. Tehranchi, T. Barnes, M. Frysztacki, F . Hofmann, and I. L. Azevedo, PyPSA-USA: An Open- Source Energy System Optimization Model for the United States. (Aug. 25, 2024). Python. doi: 10.5281/zenodo.10815964

work page doi:10.5281/zenodo.10815964 2024
[4]

Realistic roles for hydrogen in the future energy transition,

N. Johnson, M. Liebreich, D. M. Kammen, P . Ekins, R. McKenna, and I. Staffell, “Realistic roles for hydrogen in the future energy transition, ” Nat. Rev. Clean Technol., pp. 1–21, Apr. 2025, doi: 10.1038/s44359-025-00050-4

work page doi:10.1038/s44359-025-00050-4 2025
[5]

Pathways to Commercial Liftoff: Clean Hydrogen,

Department of Energy, “Pathways to Commercial Liftoff: Clean Hydrogen, ” 2024. Accessed: Mar. 23, 2023. [Online]. Available: https://climateprogramportal.org/wp- content/uploads/2025/02/Pathways-to-Commercial-Liftoff_Clean-Hydrogen_December- 2024-Update.pdf

2024
[6]

Regional Energy Deployment System (ReEDS) Model Documentation: Version 2018,

S. Cohen et al., “Regional Energy Deployment System (ReEDS) Model Documentation: Version 2018, ” Renew. Energy, 2019

2018
[7]

Brown et al., Regional Energy Deployment System Model 2.0 (ReEDS 2.0)

P . Brown et al., Regional Energy Deployment System Model 2.0 (ReEDS 2.0). (Dec. 02, 2025). Python. [Online]. Available: https://www.nrel.gov/analysis/reeds/index.html

2025
[8]

PyPSA Documentation,

pypsa, “PyPSA Documentation, ” PyPSA: Python for Power System Analysis. Accessed: Apr. 25,
[9]

Available: https://docs.pypsa.org/latest/

[Online]. Available: https://docs.pypsa.org/latest/
[10]

U.S. State Electricity Resource Standards,

G. Barbose, “U.S. State Electricity Resource Standards, ” 2026

2026
[11]

Energy Attribute Tracking Systems

US EPA, “Energy Attribute Tracking Systems. ” Accessed: Apr. 25, 2026. [Online]. Available: https://www.epa.gov/green-power-markets/energy-attribute-tracking-systems

2026
[12]

Homepage - U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)

EIA, “Homepage - U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA). ” Accessed: Dec. 28, 2021. [Online]. Available: https://www.eia.gov/index.php

2021
[13]

Public Utility Data Liberation Project (PUDL) Data Release

Z. A. Selvans et al., “Public Utility Data Liberation Project (PUDL) Data Release. ” Zenodo, Sep. 06, 2025. doi: 10.5281/ZENODO.3653158

work page doi:10.5281/zenodo.3653158 2025
[14]

2022 Annual Technology Baseline (ATB) Cost and Performance Data for Electricity Generation Technologies

L. Vimmerstedt et al., “2022 Annual Technology Baseline (ATB) Cost and Performance Data for Electricity Generation Technologies. ” DOE Open Energy Data Initiative (OEDI); National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL), p. 8 files, 2022. doi: 10.25984/1871952

work page doi:10.25984/1871952 2022
[15]

atlite: A Lightweight Python Package for Calculating Renewable Power Potentials and Time Series,

F . Hofmann, J. Hampp, F . Neumann, T. Brown, and J. Hörsch, “atlite: A Lightweight Python Package for Calculating Renewable Power Potentials and Time Series, ” J. Open Source Softw., vol. 6, no. 62, p. 3294, Jun. 2021, doi: 10.21105/joss.03294

work page doi:10.21105/joss.03294 2021
[16]

ERA-5 hourly data on single levels from 1940 to present[Dataset]

H. Hersbach et al., “ERA5 hourly data on single levels from 1959 to present. ” Copernicus Climate Change Service (C3S) Climate Data Store (CDS), 2018. [Online]. Available: 10.24381/cds.adbb2d47

work page doi:10.24381/cds.adbb2d47 1959
[17]

A general method for estimating zonal transmission interface limits from nodal network data,

P . R. Brown et al., “A general method for estimating zonal transmission interface limits from nodal network data, ” Aug. 2023. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2308.03612

work page arXiv 2023
[18]

Multi-sector demand response for cost optimal energy transitions,

T. Barnes, K. Tehranchi, B. Reinholz, M. Metcalfe, and T. Niet, “Multi-sector demand response for cost optimal energy transitions, ” PLOS Clim., vol. 5, no. 5, p. e0000918, May 2026, doi: 10.1371/journal.pclm.0000918

work page doi:10.1371/journal.pclm.0000918 2026
[19]

Homeland Infrastructure Foundation-Level Data (HIFLD) | Homeland Security

HIFLD, “Homeland Infrastructure Foundation-Level Data (HIFLD) | Homeland Security. ” Accessed: Apr. 25, 2026. [Online]. Available: https://www.dhs.gov/gmo/hifld

2026
[20]

PyPSA-USA Cutouts & Datasets

K. Tehranchi, T. Barnes, and C. Chen, “PyPSA-USA Cutouts & Datasets. ” Zenodo, Jan. 07, 2025. doi: 10.5281/zenodo.14611937. 33

work page doi:10.5281/zenodo.14611937 2025
[21]

Natural Gas Supply Costs,

Alberta Energy Regulator, “Natural Gas Supply Costs, ” Data and Performance Reports. Accessed: Apr. 25, 2026. [Online]. Available: https://www.aer.ca/data-and-performance- reports/statistical-reports/alberta-energy-outlook-st98/natural-gas/natural-gas-supply-costs

2026
[22]

Natural Gas Pipeline Technology Overview,

S. M. Folga, “Natural Gas Pipeline Technology Overview, ” Argonne National Labratory, 2007. Accessed: Apr. 25, 2026. [Online]. Available: https://publications.anl.gov/anlpubs/2008/02/61034.pdf

2007
[23]

End-Use Load Profiles for the U.S. Building Stock: Methodology and Results of Model Calibration, Validation, and Uncertainty Quantification,

E. Wilson et al., “End-Use Load Profiles for the U.S. Building Stock: Methodology and Results of Model Calibration, Validation, and Uncertainty Quantification, ” NREL/TP-5500-80889, 1854582, MainId:78667, Mar. 2022. doi: 10.2172/1854582

work page doi:10.2172/1854582 2022
[24]

U.S. Census Bureau,

United States Census Bureau, “U.S. Census Bureau, ” Census.gov. [Online]. Available: https://www.census.gov/en.html
[25]

Annual Energy Outlook 2023,

EIA, “Annual Energy Outlook 2023, ” U.S. Energy Information Administration, 2023, 2023. Accessed: Oct. 29, 2023. [Online]. Available: https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/

2023
[26]

Updated Buildings Sector Appliance and Equipment Costs and Efficiency,

Energy Information Agency, “Updated Buildings Sector Appliance and Equipment Costs and Efficiency, ” U.S. Energy Information Agency. Accessed: Oct. 29, 2025. [Online]. Available: https://www.eia.gov/analysis/studies/buildings/equipcosts/

2025
[27]

A review of domestic heat pumps,

I. Staffell, D. Brett, N. Brandon, and A. Hawkes, “A review of domestic heat pumps, ” Energy Environ. Sci., vol. 5, no. 11, pp. 9291–9306, Oct. 2012, doi: 10.1039/C2EE22653G

work page doi:10.1039/c2ee22653g 2012
[28]

Residential Energy Consumption Survey (RECS),

Energy Information Agency, “Residential Energy Consumption Survey (RECS), ” U.S. Energy Information Agency. Accessed: Oct. 18, 2025. [Online]. Available: https://www.eia.gov/consumption/residential/

2025
[29]

Commercial Buildings Energy Consumption Survey (CBECS),

Energy Information Agency, “Commercial Buildings Energy Consumption Survey (CBECS), ” U.S. Energy Information Agency. Accessed: Oct. 18, 2025. [Online]. Available: https://www.eia.gov/consumption/commercial/

2025
[30]

The Demand-Side Grid (dsgrid) Model Documentation,

E. Hale et al., “The Demand-Side Grid (dsgrid) Model Documentation, ” NREL/TP-6A20-71492, 1465659, MainId:16928, Aug. 2018. doi: 10.2172/1465659

work page doi:10.2172/1465659 2018
[31]

Load Shape Library

Electric Power Research Institute, “Load Shape Library. ” 2024. Accessed: Jan. 08, 2025. [Online]. Available: https://loadshape.epri.com/

2024
[32]

United States County-Level Industrial Energy Use

C. McMillan and V . Narwade, “United States County-Level Industrial Energy Use. ” National Renewable Energy Laboratory - Data (NREL-DATA), Golden, CO (United States); National Renewable Energy Laboratory, p. 7 files, 2018. doi: 10.7799/1481899

work page doi:10.7799/1481899 2018
[33]

Manufacturing Energy Consumption Survey

U.S. Energy Information Agency, “Manufacturing Energy Consumption Survey. ” Accessed: Apr. 25, 2026. [Online]. Available: https://www.eia.gov/consumption/manufacturing/

2026
[34]

National Labratory of the Rockies, NatLabRockies/Industry-Energy-Tool. (Feb. 24, 2025). Python. National Laboratory of the Rockies. Accessed: Apr. 25, 2026. [Online]. Available: https://github.com/NatLabRockies/Industry-Energy-Tool

2025
[35]

Energy sources | Energistyrelsen

Danish Energy Agency, “Energy sources | Energistyrelsen. ” Accessed: Apr. 25, 2026. [Online]. Available: https://ens.dk/en/energy-sources

2026
[36]

Electrification Futures Study: End-Use Electric Technology Cost and Performance Projections through 2050

P . Jadun, C. McMillan, D. Steinberg, M. Muratori, L. Vimmerstedt, and T. Mai, “Electrification Futures Study: End-Use Electric Technology Cost and Performance Projections through 2050”

2050
[37]

Electrification Futures Study: Methodological Approaches for Assessing Long- Term Power System Impacts of End-Use Electrification,

Y . Sun et al., “Electrification Futures Study: Methodological Approaches for Assessing Long- Term Power System Impacts of End-Use Electrification, ” NREL/TP-6A20-73336, 1660122, MainId:6124, Jul. 2020. doi: 10.2172/1660122

work page doi:10.2172/1660122 2020
[38]

Characterization of input uncertainties in strategic energy planning models,

S. Moret, V . Codina Gironès, M. Bierlaire, and F . Maréchal, “Characterization of input uncertainties in strategic energy planning models, ” Appl. Energy, vol. 202, pp. 597–617, Sep. 2017, doi: 10.1016/j.apenergy.2017.05.106. 34

work page doi:10.1016/j.apenergy.2017.05.106 2017
[39]

Long-term patterns of European PV output using 30 years of validated hourly reanalysis and satellite data,

S. Pfenninger and I. Staffell, “Long-term patterns of European PV output using 30 years of validated hourly reanalysis and satellite data, ” Energy, vol. 114, pp. 1251–1265, Nov. 2016, doi: 10.1016/j.energy.2016.08.060

work page doi:10.1016/j.energy.2016.08.060 2016
[40]

Barnes, DeltaE/pypsa-gsa

T. Barnes, DeltaE/pypsa-gsa. (2026). Jupyter Notebook. ΔE+. Accessed: Apr. 25, 2026. [Online]. Available: https://github.com/DeltaE/pypsa-gsa

2026
[41]

Global sensitivity analysis to enhance the transparency and rigour of energy system optimisation modelling [version 1; peer review: 1 approved, 2 approved with reservations],

W. Usher, T. Barnes, N. Moksnes, and T. Niet, “Global sensitivity analysis to enhance the transparency and rigour of energy system optimisation modelling [version 1; peer review: 1 approved, 2 approved with reservations], ” Open Res. Eur., vol. 3, p. 30, Feb. 2023, doi: 10.12688/openreseurope.15461.1

work page doi:10.12688/openreseurope.15461.1 2023
[42]

Factorial Sampling Plans for Preliminary Computational Experiments,

M. D. Morris, “Factorial Sampling Plans for Preliminary Computational Experiments, ” Technometrics, vol. 33, no. 2, pp. 161–174, 1991, doi: 10.2307/1269043

work page doi:10.2307/1269043 1991
[43]

An effective screening design for sensitivity analysis of large models,

F . Campolongo, J. Cariboni, and A. Saltelli, “An effective screening design for sensitivity analysis of large models, ” Environ. Model. Softw., vol. 22, no. 10, pp. 1509–1518, Oct. 2007, doi: 10.1016/j.envsoft.2006.10.004

work page doi:10.1016/j.envsoft.2006.10.004 2007
[44]

Saltelli, Ed., Global sensitivity analysis: the primer

A. Saltelli, Ed., Global sensitivity analysis: the primer. Chichester, England ; Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley, 2008

2008
[45]

SALib: An open-source Python library for Sensitivity Analysis,

J. Herman and W. Usher, “SALib: An open-source Python library for Sensitivity Analysis, ” J. Open Source Softw., vol. 2, no. 9, p. 97, Jan. 2017, doi: 10.21105/joss.00097

work page doi:10.21105/joss.00097 2017
[46]

Toward SALib 2.0: Advancing the accessibility and interpretability of global sensitivity analyses,

T. Iwanaga, W. Usher, and J. Herman, “Toward SALib 2.0: Advancing the accessibility and interpretability of global sensitivity analyses, ” Socio-Environ. Syst. Model., vol. 4, pp. 18155– 18155, May 2022, doi: 10.18174/sesmo.18155

work page doi:10.18174/sesmo.18155 2022
[47]

Improving the Morris method for sensitivity analysis by scaling the elementary effects,

G. Sin and K. V . Gernaey, “Improving the Morris method for sensitivity analysis by scaling the elementary effects, ” in Computer Aided Chemical Engineering, J. Jeżowski and J. Thullie, Eds., in 19 European Symposium on Computer Aided Process Engineering, vol. 26. Elsevier, Jan. 2009, pp. 925–930. doi: 10.1016/S1570-7946(09)70154-3

work page doi:10.1016/s1570-7946(09)70154-3 2009
[48]

The relative importance of uncertain parameters and structural formulation for electricity systems planning in Kenya and Benin,

N. Moksnes and W. Usher, “The relative importance of uncertain parameters and structural formulation for electricity systems planning in Kenya and Benin, ” iScience, vol. 28, no. 2, p. 111792, Feb. 2025, doi: 10.1016/j.isci.2025.111792

work page doi:10.1016/j.isci.2025.111792 2025
[49]

A Comparison of Three Methods for Selecting Values of Input Variables in the Analysis of Output from a Computer Code,

M. D. McKay, R. J. Beckman, and W. J. Conover, “A Comparison of Three Methods for Selecting Values of Input Variables in the Analysis of Output from a Computer Code, ” Technometrics, vol. 21, no. 2, pp. 239–245, 1979, doi: 10.2307/1268522. Additional Results: Figure 1: Average marginal costs of electricity sensitivity. The sensitivity to average marginal ...

work page doi:10.2307/1268522 1979

[1] [1]

PyPSA: Python for Power System Analysis,

T. Brown, J. Hörsch, and D. Schlachtberger, “PyPSA: Python for Power System Analysis, ” J. Open Res. Softw., vol. 6, no. 1, Art. no. 1, Jan. 2018, doi: 10.5334/jors.188

work page doi:10.5334/jors.188 2018

[2] [2]

Brown, Tom et al., PyPSA: Python for Power System Analysis. (Oct. 15, 2021). Zenodo. doi: 10.5281/ZENODO.3946412

work page doi:10.5281/zenodo.3946412 2021

[3] [3]

Tehranchi, T

K. Tehranchi, T. Barnes, M. Frysztacki, F . Hofmann, and I. L. Azevedo, PyPSA-USA: An Open- Source Energy System Optimization Model for the United States. (Aug. 25, 2024). Python. doi: 10.5281/zenodo.10815964

work page doi:10.5281/zenodo.10815964 2024

[4] [4]

Realistic roles for hydrogen in the future energy transition,

N. Johnson, M. Liebreich, D. M. Kammen, P . Ekins, R. McKenna, and I. Staffell, “Realistic roles for hydrogen in the future energy transition, ” Nat. Rev. Clean Technol., pp. 1–21, Apr. 2025, doi: 10.1038/s44359-025-00050-4

work page doi:10.1038/s44359-025-00050-4 2025

[5] [5]

Pathways to Commercial Liftoff: Clean Hydrogen,

Department of Energy, “Pathways to Commercial Liftoff: Clean Hydrogen, ” 2024. Accessed: Mar. 23, 2023. [Online]. Available: https://climateprogramportal.org/wp- content/uploads/2025/02/Pathways-to-Commercial-Liftoff_Clean-Hydrogen_December- 2024-Update.pdf

2024

[6] [6]

Regional Energy Deployment System (ReEDS) Model Documentation: Version 2018,

S. Cohen et al., “Regional Energy Deployment System (ReEDS) Model Documentation: Version 2018, ” Renew. Energy, 2019

2018

[7] [7]

Brown et al., Regional Energy Deployment System Model 2.0 (ReEDS 2.0)

P . Brown et al., Regional Energy Deployment System Model 2.0 (ReEDS 2.0). (Dec. 02, 2025). Python. [Online]. Available: https://www.nrel.gov/analysis/reeds/index.html

2025

[8] [8]

PyPSA Documentation,

pypsa, “PyPSA Documentation, ” PyPSA: Python for Power System Analysis. Accessed: Apr. 25,

[9] [9]

Available: https://docs.pypsa.org/latest/

[Online]. Available: https://docs.pypsa.org/latest/

[10] [10]

U.S. State Electricity Resource Standards,

G. Barbose, “U.S. State Electricity Resource Standards, ” 2026

2026

[11] [11]

Energy Attribute Tracking Systems

US EPA, “Energy Attribute Tracking Systems. ” Accessed: Apr. 25, 2026. [Online]. Available: https://www.epa.gov/green-power-markets/energy-attribute-tracking-systems

2026

[12] [12]

Homepage - U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)

EIA, “Homepage - U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA). ” Accessed: Dec. 28, 2021. [Online]. Available: https://www.eia.gov/index.php

2021

[13] [13]

Public Utility Data Liberation Project (PUDL) Data Release

Z. A. Selvans et al., “Public Utility Data Liberation Project (PUDL) Data Release. ” Zenodo, Sep. 06, 2025. doi: 10.5281/ZENODO.3653158

work page doi:10.5281/zenodo.3653158 2025

[14] [14]

2022 Annual Technology Baseline (ATB) Cost and Performance Data for Electricity Generation Technologies

L. Vimmerstedt et al., “2022 Annual Technology Baseline (ATB) Cost and Performance Data for Electricity Generation Technologies. ” DOE Open Energy Data Initiative (OEDI); National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL), p. 8 files, 2022. doi: 10.25984/1871952

work page doi:10.25984/1871952 2022

[15] [15]

atlite: A Lightweight Python Package for Calculating Renewable Power Potentials and Time Series,

F . Hofmann, J. Hampp, F . Neumann, T. Brown, and J. Hörsch, “atlite: A Lightweight Python Package for Calculating Renewable Power Potentials and Time Series, ” J. Open Source Softw., vol. 6, no. 62, p. 3294, Jun. 2021, doi: 10.21105/joss.03294

work page doi:10.21105/joss.03294 2021

[16] [16]

ERA-5 hourly data on single levels from 1940 to present[Dataset]

H. Hersbach et al., “ERA5 hourly data on single levels from 1959 to present. ” Copernicus Climate Change Service (C3S) Climate Data Store (CDS), 2018. [Online]. Available: 10.24381/cds.adbb2d47

work page doi:10.24381/cds.adbb2d47 1959

[17] [17]

A general method for estimating zonal transmission interface limits from nodal network data,

P . R. Brown et al., “A general method for estimating zonal transmission interface limits from nodal network data, ” Aug. 2023. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2308.03612

work page arXiv 2023

[18] [18]

Multi-sector demand response for cost optimal energy transitions,

T. Barnes, K. Tehranchi, B. Reinholz, M. Metcalfe, and T. Niet, “Multi-sector demand response for cost optimal energy transitions, ” PLOS Clim., vol. 5, no. 5, p. e0000918, May 2026, doi: 10.1371/journal.pclm.0000918

work page doi:10.1371/journal.pclm.0000918 2026

[19] [19]

Homeland Infrastructure Foundation-Level Data (HIFLD) | Homeland Security

HIFLD, “Homeland Infrastructure Foundation-Level Data (HIFLD) | Homeland Security. ” Accessed: Apr. 25, 2026. [Online]. Available: https://www.dhs.gov/gmo/hifld

2026

[20] [20]

PyPSA-USA Cutouts & Datasets

K. Tehranchi, T. Barnes, and C. Chen, “PyPSA-USA Cutouts & Datasets. ” Zenodo, Jan. 07, 2025. doi: 10.5281/zenodo.14611937. 33

work page doi:10.5281/zenodo.14611937 2025

[21] [21]

Natural Gas Supply Costs,

Alberta Energy Regulator, “Natural Gas Supply Costs, ” Data and Performance Reports. Accessed: Apr. 25, 2026. [Online]. Available: https://www.aer.ca/data-and-performance- reports/statistical-reports/alberta-energy-outlook-st98/natural-gas/natural-gas-supply-costs

2026

[22] [22]

Natural Gas Pipeline Technology Overview,

S. M. Folga, “Natural Gas Pipeline Technology Overview, ” Argonne National Labratory, 2007. Accessed: Apr. 25, 2026. [Online]. Available: https://publications.anl.gov/anlpubs/2008/02/61034.pdf

2007

[23] [23]

End-Use Load Profiles for the U.S. Building Stock: Methodology and Results of Model Calibration, Validation, and Uncertainty Quantification,

E. Wilson et al., “End-Use Load Profiles for the U.S. Building Stock: Methodology and Results of Model Calibration, Validation, and Uncertainty Quantification, ” NREL/TP-5500-80889, 1854582, MainId:78667, Mar. 2022. doi: 10.2172/1854582

work page doi:10.2172/1854582 2022

[24] [24]

U.S. Census Bureau,

United States Census Bureau, “U.S. Census Bureau, ” Census.gov. [Online]. Available: https://www.census.gov/en.html

[25] [25]

Annual Energy Outlook 2023,

EIA, “Annual Energy Outlook 2023, ” U.S. Energy Information Administration, 2023, 2023. Accessed: Oct. 29, 2023. [Online]. Available: https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/

2023

[26] [26]

Updated Buildings Sector Appliance and Equipment Costs and Efficiency,

Energy Information Agency, “Updated Buildings Sector Appliance and Equipment Costs and Efficiency, ” U.S. Energy Information Agency. Accessed: Oct. 29, 2025. [Online]. Available: https://www.eia.gov/analysis/studies/buildings/equipcosts/

2025

[27] [27]

A review of domestic heat pumps,

I. Staffell, D. Brett, N. Brandon, and A. Hawkes, “A review of domestic heat pumps, ” Energy Environ. Sci., vol. 5, no. 11, pp. 9291–9306, Oct. 2012, doi: 10.1039/C2EE22653G

work page doi:10.1039/c2ee22653g 2012

[28] [28]

Residential Energy Consumption Survey (RECS),

Energy Information Agency, “Residential Energy Consumption Survey (RECS), ” U.S. Energy Information Agency. Accessed: Oct. 18, 2025. [Online]. Available: https://www.eia.gov/consumption/residential/

2025

[29] [29]

Commercial Buildings Energy Consumption Survey (CBECS),

Energy Information Agency, “Commercial Buildings Energy Consumption Survey (CBECS), ” U.S. Energy Information Agency. Accessed: Oct. 18, 2025. [Online]. Available: https://www.eia.gov/consumption/commercial/

2025

[30] [30]

The Demand-Side Grid (dsgrid) Model Documentation,

E. Hale et al., “The Demand-Side Grid (dsgrid) Model Documentation, ” NREL/TP-6A20-71492, 1465659, MainId:16928, Aug. 2018. doi: 10.2172/1465659

work page doi:10.2172/1465659 2018

[31] [31]

Load Shape Library

Electric Power Research Institute, “Load Shape Library. ” 2024. Accessed: Jan. 08, 2025. [Online]. Available: https://loadshape.epri.com/

2024

[32] [32]

United States County-Level Industrial Energy Use

C. McMillan and V . Narwade, “United States County-Level Industrial Energy Use. ” National Renewable Energy Laboratory - Data (NREL-DATA), Golden, CO (United States); National Renewable Energy Laboratory, p. 7 files, 2018. doi: 10.7799/1481899

work page doi:10.7799/1481899 2018

[33] [33]

Manufacturing Energy Consumption Survey

U.S. Energy Information Agency, “Manufacturing Energy Consumption Survey. ” Accessed: Apr. 25, 2026. [Online]. Available: https://www.eia.gov/consumption/manufacturing/

2026

[34] [34]

National Labratory of the Rockies, NatLabRockies/Industry-Energy-Tool. (Feb. 24, 2025). Python. National Laboratory of the Rockies. Accessed: Apr. 25, 2026. [Online]. Available: https://github.com/NatLabRockies/Industry-Energy-Tool

2025

[35] [35]

Energy sources | Energistyrelsen

Danish Energy Agency, “Energy sources | Energistyrelsen. ” Accessed: Apr. 25, 2026. [Online]. Available: https://ens.dk/en/energy-sources

2026

[36] [36]

Electrification Futures Study: End-Use Electric Technology Cost and Performance Projections through 2050

P . Jadun, C. McMillan, D. Steinberg, M. Muratori, L. Vimmerstedt, and T. Mai, “Electrification Futures Study: End-Use Electric Technology Cost and Performance Projections through 2050”

2050

[37] [37]

Electrification Futures Study: Methodological Approaches for Assessing Long- Term Power System Impacts of End-Use Electrification,

Y . Sun et al., “Electrification Futures Study: Methodological Approaches for Assessing Long- Term Power System Impacts of End-Use Electrification, ” NREL/TP-6A20-73336, 1660122, MainId:6124, Jul. 2020. doi: 10.2172/1660122

work page doi:10.2172/1660122 2020

[38] [38]

Characterization of input uncertainties in strategic energy planning models,

S. Moret, V . Codina Gironès, M. Bierlaire, and F . Maréchal, “Characterization of input uncertainties in strategic energy planning models, ” Appl. Energy, vol. 202, pp. 597–617, Sep. 2017, doi: 10.1016/j.apenergy.2017.05.106. 34

work page doi:10.1016/j.apenergy.2017.05.106 2017

[39] [39]

Long-term patterns of European PV output using 30 years of validated hourly reanalysis and satellite data,

S. Pfenninger and I. Staffell, “Long-term patterns of European PV output using 30 years of validated hourly reanalysis and satellite data, ” Energy, vol. 114, pp. 1251–1265, Nov. 2016, doi: 10.1016/j.energy.2016.08.060

work page doi:10.1016/j.energy.2016.08.060 2016

[40] [40]

Barnes, DeltaE/pypsa-gsa

T. Barnes, DeltaE/pypsa-gsa. (2026). Jupyter Notebook. ΔE+. Accessed: Apr. 25, 2026. [Online]. Available: https://github.com/DeltaE/pypsa-gsa

2026

[41] [41]

Global sensitivity analysis to enhance the transparency and rigour of energy system optimisation modelling [version 1; peer review: 1 approved, 2 approved with reservations],

W. Usher, T. Barnes, N. Moksnes, and T. Niet, “Global sensitivity analysis to enhance the transparency and rigour of energy system optimisation modelling [version 1; peer review: 1 approved, 2 approved with reservations], ” Open Res. Eur., vol. 3, p. 30, Feb. 2023, doi: 10.12688/openreseurope.15461.1

work page doi:10.12688/openreseurope.15461.1 2023

[42] [42]

Factorial Sampling Plans for Preliminary Computational Experiments,

M. D. Morris, “Factorial Sampling Plans for Preliminary Computational Experiments, ” Technometrics, vol. 33, no. 2, pp. 161–174, 1991, doi: 10.2307/1269043

work page doi:10.2307/1269043 1991

[43] [43]

An effective screening design for sensitivity analysis of large models,

F . Campolongo, J. Cariboni, and A. Saltelli, “An effective screening design for sensitivity analysis of large models, ” Environ. Model. Softw., vol. 22, no. 10, pp. 1509–1518, Oct. 2007, doi: 10.1016/j.envsoft.2006.10.004

work page doi:10.1016/j.envsoft.2006.10.004 2007

[44] [44]

Saltelli, Ed., Global sensitivity analysis: the primer

A. Saltelli, Ed., Global sensitivity analysis: the primer. Chichester, England ; Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley, 2008

2008

[45] [45]

SALib: An open-source Python library for Sensitivity Analysis,

J. Herman and W. Usher, “SALib: An open-source Python library for Sensitivity Analysis, ” J. Open Source Softw., vol. 2, no. 9, p. 97, Jan. 2017, doi: 10.21105/joss.00097

work page doi:10.21105/joss.00097 2017

[46] [46]

Toward SALib 2.0: Advancing the accessibility and interpretability of global sensitivity analyses,

T. Iwanaga, W. Usher, and J. Herman, “Toward SALib 2.0: Advancing the accessibility and interpretability of global sensitivity analyses, ” Socio-Environ. Syst. Model., vol. 4, pp. 18155– 18155, May 2022, doi: 10.18174/sesmo.18155

work page doi:10.18174/sesmo.18155 2022

[47] [47]

Improving the Morris method for sensitivity analysis by scaling the elementary effects,

G. Sin and K. V . Gernaey, “Improving the Morris method for sensitivity analysis by scaling the elementary effects, ” in Computer Aided Chemical Engineering, J. Jeżowski and J. Thullie, Eds., in 19 European Symposium on Computer Aided Process Engineering, vol. 26. Elsevier, Jan. 2009, pp. 925–930. doi: 10.1016/S1570-7946(09)70154-3

work page doi:10.1016/s1570-7946(09)70154-3 2009

[48] [48]

The relative importance of uncertain parameters and structural formulation for electricity systems planning in Kenya and Benin,

N. Moksnes and W. Usher, “The relative importance of uncertain parameters and structural formulation for electricity systems planning in Kenya and Benin, ” iScience, vol. 28, no. 2, p. 111792, Feb. 2025, doi: 10.1016/j.isci.2025.111792

work page doi:10.1016/j.isci.2025.111792 2025

[49] [49]

A Comparison of Three Methods for Selecting Values of Input Variables in the Analysis of Output from a Computer Code,

M. D. McKay, R. J. Beckman, and W. J. Conover, “A Comparison of Three Methods for Selecting Values of Input Variables in the Analysis of Output from a Computer Code, ” Technometrics, vol. 21, no. 2, pp. 239–245, 1979, doi: 10.2307/1268522. Additional Results: Figure 1: Average marginal costs of electricity sensitivity. The sensitivity to average marginal ...

work page doi:10.2307/1268522 1979