pith. sign in

arxiv: 2510.03484 · v2 · submitted 2025-10-03 · 🧮 math.OC · cs.SY· eess.SY

Contingency-Aware Nodal Optimal Power Investments with High Temporal Resolution

Thomas Lee , Andy Sun This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-18 09:56 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🧮 math.OC cs.SYeess.SY
keywords power system planningtransmission expansioncontingency analysisoptimal investmentlarge-scale optimizationDC power flowunit commitment
0
0 comments X

The pith

CANOPI solves the contingency-aware nodal power investments problem at high resolution by combining linear approximation with a fixed-point correction for impedance changes.

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

The paper presents CANOPI as a framework to jointly optimize investments in generation, storage, and transmission while representing unit commitment, long-duration storage, and transmission contingencies. The core difficulty is the nonlinearity that arises because new or upgraded lines alter line impedances, combined with the need to enforce constraints across millions of possible failure scenarios at hourly resolution over many weeks. CANOPI addresses this with a linear approximation of the full model, a fixed-point algorithm that iteratively restores the impedance feedback, a level-bundle method that generates contingency constraints on the fly, and a minimal cycle basis that improves sparsity in the DC power flow subproblems. The method is tested on a 1493-bus Western Interconnection network drawn from realistic geography, using 52 week-long hourly operating scenarios. Numerical results demonstrate that explicitly including transmission contingencies changes the chosen investments and yields measurable gains in reliability and total cost.

Core claim

CANOPI solves the nonlinear contingency-aware nodal power investments problem by posing a linear expansion model, applying a fixed-point algorithm to capture the impedance feedback from transmission upgrades, solving the resulting large-scale linear program with a specialized level-bundle method that interleaves contingency constraint generation, and accelerating the operational subproblems with a minimal cycle basis algorithm for cycle-based DC power flow. When applied to a 1493-bus Western Interconnection test system with hourly operations across 52 week-long scenarios and up to 20 billion possible transmission contingency constraints, the framework produces investment plans whose economic

What carries the argument

The fixed-point algorithm that iteratively adjusts the linear model to account for how transmission upgrades change line impedances in the DC power flow equations.

If this is right

  • Investment decisions shift when transmission contingencies are enforced, producing plans that avoid overloading remaining lines after failures.
  • The resulting plans deliver higher reliability at comparable or lower total investment and operating cost than plans that omit contingencies.
  • The computational approach makes it practical to include unit commitment and long-duration storage decisions inside the same optimization.
  • The minimal cycle basis reduces solve times for the operational subproblems enough to handle 52 week-long hourly scenarios on a 1493-bus network.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The same linearization-plus-fixed-point pattern could be tested on AC power flow models to capture voltage and reactive power effects.
  • Planners could use the framework to compare the cost of meeting different reliability standards by varying the set of contingencies that must be survived.
  • Extending the scenario library to include climate-driven shifts in load and renewable output would allow direct assessment of investment robustness under uncertainty.

Load-bearing premise

The linear approximation of the nonlinear model combined with the fixed-point algorithm sufficiently captures the impedance feedback from transmission upgrades so that the resulting investment decisions remain close to those of the true nonlinear problem.

What would settle it

Solving the exact nonlinear investment model on a smaller network instance and verifying that the investment decisions and total costs produced by CANOPI are close to those of the nonlinear solver.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2510.03484 by Andy Sun, Thomas Lee.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Iterative procedure CORR to re-optimize a consistent [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_1.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

We present CANOPI, a novel algorithmic framework, for solving the Contingency-Aware Nodal Power Investments problem, a large-scale nonlinear optimization problem that jointly optimizes investments in generation, storage, and transmission upgrades, including representations of unit commitment and long-duration storage. The underlying problem is nonlinear due to the impact of transmission upgrades on impedances, and the problem's large scale arises from the confluence of spatial and temporal resolutions. We propose algorithmic approaches to address these computational challenges. We pose a linear approximation of the overall nonlinear model, and develop a fixed-point algorithm to adjust for the nonlinear impedance feedback effect. We solve the large-scale linear expansion model with a specialized level-bundle method leveraging a novel interleaved approach to contingency constraint generation. We introduce a minimal cycle basis algorithm that improves the numerical sparsity of cycle-based DC power flow formulations, accelerating solve times for the operational subproblems. CANOPI is demonstrated on a 1493-bus Western Interconnection test system built from realistic-geography network data, with hourly operations spanning 52 week-long scenarios and a total possible set of 20 billion individual transmission contingency constraints. Numerical results quantify reliability and economic benefits of incorporating transmission contingencies in integrated planning models and highlight the computational advantages of the proposed methods.

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 introduces CANOPI, an algorithmic framework for the Contingency-Aware Nodal Power Investments problem. This jointly optimizes generation, storage, and transmission investments while incorporating unit commitment, long-duration storage, and transmission contingencies. The approach linearizes the nonlinear model arising from impedance changes due to upgrades, applies a fixed-point iteration to recover consistency, solves the resulting large-scale linear program via a specialized level-bundle method with interleaved contingency generation, and accelerates operational subproblems using a minimal cycle basis for DC power flow. Results are reported on a 1493-bus Western Interconnection instance with 52 week-long hourly scenarios and up to 20 billion possible contingency constraints, quantifying reliability and economic gains from explicit contingency modeling.

Significance. If the fixed-point approximation is shown to produce decisions close to the nonlinear optimum, the work would represent a substantial advance in scalable, contingency-aware transmission and generation planning. The ability to handle 1493 buses, high temporal resolution, and massive contingency sets while reporting concrete reliability and cost metrics would be a notable contribution to power-systems optimization, especially given the use of realistic geography data and the computational innovations in bundle methods and cycle bases.

major comments (2)
  1. [Fixed-point algorithm and linear approximation section] The fixed-point algorithm for correcting impedance feedback from transmission upgrades (described after the linear approximation of the nonlinear model) is presented without a convergence analysis under upgrade-induced impedance shifts or any numerical validation against a nonlinear solver, even on a small test network. This is load-bearing for the central claim, because the reported reliability and economic benefits on the 1493-bus system rest on the assumption that the adjusted linear decisions remain sufficiently close to those of the true nonlinear problem.
  2. [Numerical results and algorithmic performance] No error bounds or a priori guarantees are supplied for the level-bundle method with interleaved contingency generation when applied to the 20-billion-constraint instance. The numerical results section reports solve times and objective values but does not quantify the gap to optimality or the conservatism introduced by the contingency handling strategy.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Numerical results] Clarify the exact number of contingencies actually generated and retained by the interleaved approach versus the theoretical 20 billion; a table or paragraph quantifying active constraints per scenario would improve transparency.
  2. [DC power flow formulation] The minimal cycle basis algorithm is claimed to improve sparsity; include a brief comparison of fill-in or solve time with and without the basis on a representative subproblem.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive feedback and for recognizing the computational challenges addressed in CANOPI. We address each major comment below and indicate the revisions we will make to strengthen the manuscript.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Fixed-point algorithm and linear approximation section] The fixed-point algorithm for correcting impedance feedback from transmission upgrades (described after the linear approximation of the nonlinear model) is presented without a convergence analysis under upgrade-induced impedance shifts or any numerical validation against a nonlinear solver, even on a small test network. This is load-bearing for the central claim, because the reported reliability and economic benefits on the 1493-bus system rest on the assumption that the adjusted linear decisions remain sufficiently close to those of the true nonlinear problem.

    Authors: We agree that a formal convergence analysis and direct numerical validation against a nonlinear solver would strengthen the central claim. In the revised manuscript we will add a short convergence argument under the assumption of bounded relative impedance changes (consistent with typical upgrade magnitudes) and include a new subsection with numerical comparisons on a 30-bus test network, solving both the fixed-point linear model and a nonlinear formulation to quantify the difference in investment decisions and objective values. This validation will be used to support the applicability of the approximation on the 1493-bus instance. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Numerical results and algorithmic performance] No error bounds or a priori guarantees are supplied for the level-bundle method with interleaved contingency generation when applied to the 20-billion-constraint instance. The numerical results section reports solve times and objective values but does not quantify the gap to optimality or the conservatism introduced by the contingency handling strategy.

    Authors: We acknowledge the value of reporting solution quality metrics. Exact a priori error bounds for the interleaved contingency generation on this scale are not currently available in the literature and would require substantial additional theoretical development. In the revision we will report the final duality gap of the level-bundle method, the number of contingencies generated, and an estimate of conservatism obtained by comparing solutions with and without the full contingency set on smaller sub-instances. We will also add a brief discussion of why tighter guarantees remain an open research question for problems of this size. revision: partial

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: linear approximation and fixed-point iteration are independent modeling choices

full rationale

The paper poses a linear approximation of the nonlinear investment model and introduces a fixed-point algorithm to handle impedance feedback from upgrades. These steps are presented as standard algorithmic techniques applied to the Contingency-Aware Nodal Power Investments problem, without any self-definitional equations, fitted parameters renamed as predictions, or load-bearing self-citations. The 1493-bus numerical results on the Western Interconnection system function as an external benchmark rather than an internal consistency loop. No uniqueness theorems or ansatzes are smuggled in via prior author work, and the derivation chain does not reduce any claimed benefit or solution to its own inputs by construction.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The framework rests on standard power-systems modeling assumptions and algorithmic choices whose validity is not independently verified in the provided abstract.

axioms (2)
  • domain assumption DC power flow approximation remains sufficiently accurate for investment decisions even after transmission upgrades alter impedances.
    Invoked when the linear model is posed as an approximation to the nonlinear problem.
  • ad hoc to paper The fixed-point iteration converges to a consistent solution for the impedance feedback effect.
    Central to correcting the linear approximation but without stated convergence guarantees in the abstract.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5750 in / 1329 out tokens · 35615 ms · 2026-05-18T09:56:23.733622+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. Economic Valuation and Optimal Deployment of Static Synchronous Series Compensators for U.S. Power System Expansion

    eess.SY 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    Widespread SSSC deployment on U.S. transmission lines reduces annualized system costs by $1.9 billion or cuts required transmission expansion by 20%, with highest value in the Midwest for moving wind power eastward.

  2. Optimization Under Uncertainty for Energy Infrastructure Planning: A Synthesis of Methods, Tools, and Open Challenges

    eess.SY 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 4.0

    A survey synthesizing stochastic, robust, and distributionally robust optimization methods for energy infrastructure planning under uncertainty while identifying gaps and machine learning opportunities.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

57 extracted references · 57 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    Co-optimization of electricity transmission and generation resources for planning and policy analysis: review of concepts and modeling approaches,

    V . Krishnanet al., “Co-optimization of electricity transmission and generation resources for planning and policy analysis: review of concepts and modeling approaches,”Energy Systems, vol. 7, pp. 297–332, 2016

    work page 2016

  2. [2]

    The strong effect of network resolution on electricity system models with high shares of wind and solar,

    M. Frysztacki, J. Hörsch, V . Hagenmeyer, and T. Brown, “The strong effect of network resolution on electricity system models with high shares of wind and solar,”Appl. Energy, vol. 291, p. 116726, 2021

    work page 2021

  3. [3]

    Quantifying the impact of energy system model resolution on siting, cost, reliability, and emissions for electricity generation,

    A. Jacobson, D. Mauzerall, and J. Jenkins, “Quantifying the impact of energy system model resolution on siting, cost, reliability, and emissions for electricity generation,”Environ. Res.: Energy, vol. 1, no. 3, 2024

    work page 2024

  4. [4]

    The importance of spatial resolution in large-scale, long-term planning models,

    L. Serpe, W. Cole, B. Sergi, M. Brown, V . Carag, and A. Karmakar, “The importance of spatial resolution in large-scale, long-term planning models,”Appl. Energy, vol. 385, p. 125534, 2025

    work page 2025

  5. [5]

    2024 United States Data Center Energy Usage Report,

    A. Shehabiet al., “2024 United States Data Center Energy Usage Report,” LBNL., Tech. Rep., 2024

    work page 2024

  6. [6]

    National Transmission Needs Study,

    US DOE, “National Transmission Needs Study,” 2023

    work page 2023

  7. [7]

    Queued Up: 2024 Edition, Characteristics of Power Plants Seeking Transmission Interconnection,

    J. Randet al., “Queued Up: 2024 Edition, Characteristics of Power Plants Seeking Transmission Interconnection,” LBNL, Tech. Rep., 2024

    work page 2024

  8. [8]

    TPL-001-5.1: Transmission System Planning Performance Re- quirements,

    NERC, “TPL-001-5.1: Transmission System Planning Performance Re- quirements,” 2023

    work page 2023

  9. [9]

    Cycle Service Request Status,

    PJM, “Cycle Service Request Status,” accessed: May 28, 2025

    work page 2025

  10. [10]

    DA Marginal Value,

    ——, “DA Marginal Value,” Data Miner 2, accessed: May 28, 2025

    work page 2025

  11. [11]

    ERCOT Shadow Prices DAM,

    GridStatus, “ERCOT Shadow Prices DAM,” accessed: May 28, 2025

    work page 2025

  12. [12]

    Branch Shadow Prices,

    CAISO, “Branch Shadow Prices,” OASIS, accessed: May 28, 2025

    work page 2025

  13. [13]

    Generator interconnection, network expansion, and energy transition,

    J. Mays, “Generator interconnection, network expansion, and energy transition,”IEEE Trans. Energy Mark. Policy Reg., vol. 1, no. 4, 2023

    work page 2023

  14. [14]

    Market-based generation and transmission planning with uncertainties,

    J. H. Roh, M. Shahidehpour, and L. Wu, “Market-based generation and transmission planning with uncertainties,”IEEE Trans. Power Syst., vol. 24, no. 3, pp. 1587–1598, 2009

    work page 2009

  15. [15]

    A trans- mission planning framework considering future generation expansions in electricity markets,

    A. Motamedi, H. Zareipour, M. O. Buygi, and W. D. Rosehart, “A trans- mission planning framework considering future generation expansions in electricity markets,”IEEE Trans. Power Syst., vol. 25, no. 4, 2010

    work page 2010

  16. [16]

    A mixed-integer linear pro- gramming approach to security-constrained co-optimization expansion planning of natural gas and electricity transmission systems,

    Y . Zhang, Y . Hu, J. Ma, and Z. Bie, “A mixed-integer linear pro- gramming approach to security-constrained co-optimization expansion planning of natural gas and electricity transmission systems,”IEEE Trans. Power Syst., vol. 33, no. 6, pp. 6368–6378, 2018

    work page 2018

  17. [17]

    Security-constrained transmission expansion planning using linear sensitivity factors,

    M. Mehrtash, A. Kargarian, and M. Rahmani, “Security-constrained transmission expansion planning using linear sensitivity factors,”IET Gener. Transm. Distrib., vol. 14, no. 2, pp. 200–210, 2020

    work page 2020

  18. [18]

    GPU accelerated security constrained optimal power flow,

    A. Degleris, A. E. Gamal, and R. Rajagopal, “GPU accelerated security constrained optimal power flow,”arXiv:2410.17203, 2024

    work page arXiv 2024

  19. [19]

    Climate-resilient nodal power system expansion planning for a realistic California test case,

    A. Musselman, T. Zuluaga, E. Glista, M. Monteagudo, J. Michael, M. Grappone, and J.-P. Watson, “Climate-resilient nodal power system expansion planning for a realistic California test case,”Opt. Online, 2025

    work page 2025

  20. [20]

    An integrated progres- sive hedging and benders decomposition with multiple master method to solve the Brazilian generation expansion problem,

    A. Soares, A. Street, T. Andrade, and J. Garcia, “An integrated progres- sive hedging and benders decomposition with multiple master method to solve the Brazilian generation expansion problem,”IEEE Trans. Power Syst., vol. 37, no. 5, pp. 4017–4027, 2022

    work page 2022

  21. [21]

    Linear optimal power flow using cycle flows,

    J. Hörsch, H. Ronellenfitsch, D. Witthaut, and T. Brown, “Linear optimal power flow using cycle flows,”Electric Power Systems Research, vol. 158, pp. 126–135, 2018

    work page 2018

  22. [22]

    Heuristics for transmission expansion plan- ning in low-carbon energy system models,

    F. Neumann and T. Brown, “Heuristics for transmission expansion plan- ning in low-carbon energy system models,” in2019 16th International Conference on the European Energy Market. IEEE, 2019, pp. 1–8

    work page 2019

  23. [23]

    Parallel computing for power system climate resiliency: Solving a large-scale stochastic capacity expansion problem with mpi-sppy,

    T. V . Zuluaga, A. Musselman, J.-P. Watson, and S. S. Oren, “Parallel computing for power system climate resiliency: Solving a large-scale stochastic capacity expansion problem with mpi-sppy,”Electric Power Systems Research, vol. 235, p. 110720, 2024

    work page 2024

  24. [24]

    ReEDS Model Documentation (Version 2020),

    J. Ho, J. Becker, M. Brown, P. Brown, I. Chernyakhovskiy, S. Cohen, W. Cole, S. Corcoran, K. Eurek, W. Frazieret al., “ReEDS Model Documentation (Version 2020),” NREL, Tech. Rep., 2021

    work page 2020

  25. [25]

    Assessment of projected temperature impacts from climate change on the US electric power sector using the Integrated Planning Model,

    W. Jaglomet al., “Assessment of projected temperature impacts from climate change on the US electric power sector using the Integrated Planning Model,”Energy Policy, vol. 73, pp. 524–539, 2014

    work page 2014

  26. [26]

    Regularized benders decomposition for high performance capacity expansion models,

    F. Pecci and J. Jenkins, “Regularized benders decomposition for high performance capacity expansion models,”IEEE Trans. Power Syst., vol. 40, no. 4, 2025

    work page 2025

  27. [27]

    A general method for estimating zonal trans- mission interface limits from nodal network data,

    P. Brownet al., “A general method for estimating zonal trans- mission interface limits from nodal network data,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2308.03612, 2023

    work page arXiv 2023

  28. [28]

    Transmission interface limits for high- spatial resolution capacity expansion modeling,

    B. Sergi, P. Brown, and W. Cole, “Transmission interface limits for high- spatial resolution capacity expansion modeling,” in2024 IEEE PES Gen. Meet.IEEE, 2024, pp. 1–5

    work page 2024

  29. [29]

    Interregional Transfer Capability Study (ITCS): Final Report,

    NERC, “Interregional Transfer Capability Study (ITCS): Final Report,” NERC, Tech. Rep., 2024

    work page 2024

  30. [30]

    2023 State of the Market Report for PJM,

    Monitoring Analytics, “2023 State of the Market Report for PJM,” 2024

    work page 2023

  31. [31]

    Grid structural characteristics as validation criteria for synthetic networks,

    A. Birchfield, T. Xu, K. Gegner, K. Shetye, and T. Overbye, “Grid structural characteristics as validation criteria for synthetic networks,” IEEE Trans. Power Syst., vol. 32, no. 4, pp. 3258–3265, 2016

    work page 2016

  32. [32]

    US test system with high spatial and temporal resolution for renewable integration studies,

    Y . Xuet al., “US test system with high spatial and temporal resolution for renewable integration studies,” in2020 IEEE PESGM. IEEE, 2020

    work page 2020

  33. [33]

    National Transmission Planning Study,

    US DOE, NREL, and PNNL, “National Transmission Planning Study,” US DOE, Tech. Rep., 2024

    work page 2024

  34. [34]

    A compu- tationally efficient benders decomposition for energy systems planning problems with detailed operations and time-coupling constraints,

    A. Jacobson, F. Pecci, N. Sepulveda, Q. Xu, and J. Jenkins, “A compu- tationally efficient benders decomposition for energy systems planning problems with detailed operations and time-coupling constraints,”IN- FORMS Journal on Optimization, vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 32–45, 2024

    work page 2024

  35. [35]

    Accelerating transmission capacity ex- pansion by using advanced conductors in existing right-of-way,

    E. Chojkiewicz, U. Paliwal, N. Abhyankar, C. Baker, R. O’Connell, D. Callaway, and A. Phadke, “Accelerating transmission capacity ex- pansion by using advanced conductors in existing right-of-way,”Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A., vol. 121, no. 40, p. e2411207121, 2024

    work page 2024

  36. [36]

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

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

    work page 2016

  37. [37]

    Diestel,Graph Theory

    R. Diestel,Graph Theory. Springer, 2024

    work page 2024

  38. [38]

    Cost-optimal power system extension under flow-based market coupling,

    S. Hagspiel, C. Jägemann, D. Lindenberger, T. Brown, S. Cherevatskiy, and E. Tröster, “Cost-optimal power system extension under flow-based market coupling,”Energy, vol. 66, pp. 654–666, 2014

    work page 2014

  39. [39]

    Improved evaluation of large network matrices for linear power flow within optimization problems,

    A. Castelli and J. Lara, “Improved evaluation of large network matrices for linear power flow within optimization problems,” in2024 IEEE PES Gen. Meet.IEEE, 2024, pp. 1–5

    work page 2024

  40. [40]

    A dual method for computing power transfer distribution factors,

    H. Ronellenfitsch, M. Timme, and D. Witthaut, “A dual method for computing power transfer distribution factors,”IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, vol. 32, no. 2, pp. 1007–1015, 2016

    work page 2016

  41. [41]

    Nesterov,Lectures on Convex Optimization

    Y . Nesterov,Lectures on Convex Optimization. Springer, 2018

    work page 2018

  42. [42]

    Gondzio, O

    J. Gondzio, O. du Merle, R. Sarkissian, and J.-P. Vial,ACCPM: a library for convex optimization based on an analytic center cutting plane method. HEC Université de Genève, 1996

    work page 1996

  43. [43]

    Integrated investment, retrofit and abandonment energy system planning with multi-timescale uncertainty using stabilised adap- tive benders decomposition,

    H. Zhang, I. Grossmann, K. McKinnon, B. Knudsen, R. Nava, and A. Tomasgard, “Integrated investment, retrofit and abandonment energy system planning with multi-timescale uncertainty using stabilised adap- tive benders decomposition,”Eur. J. Oper. Res., 2025

    work page 2025

  44. [44]

    Smart,Fixed Point Theorems

    D. Smart,Fixed Point Theorems. Cambridge University Press, 1980

    work page 1980

  45. [45]

    Exploring network structure, dynamics, and function using NetworkX,

    A. Hagberg, P. Swart, and D. Schult, “Exploring network structure, dynamics, and function using NetworkX,” inProc. 7th Python in Science Conf., 2008, pp. 11–15

    work page 2008

  46. [46]

    A greedy approach to compute a minimum cycle basis of a directed graph,

    C. Liebchen and R. Rizzi, “A greedy approach to compute a minimum cycle basis of a directed graph,”Information Processing Letters, vol. 94, no. 3, pp. 107–112, 2005

    work page 2005

  47. [47]

    An ˜O(m2n) algorithm for minimum cycle basis of graphs,

    T. Kavitha, K. Mehlhorn, D. Michail, and K. E. Paluch, “An ˜O(m2n) algorithm for minimum cycle basis of graphs,”Algorithmica, vol. 52, no. 3, pp. 333–349, 2008

    work page 2008

  48. [48]

    Minimum cycle bases: Faster and simpler,

    K. Mehlhorn and D. Michail, “Minimum cycle bases: Faster and simpler,”ACM Trans. Algorithms, vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 1–13, 2009

    work page 2009

  49. [49]

    Minimum cycle bases and their applications,

    F. Berger, P. Gritzmann, and S. de Vries, “Minimum cycle bases and their applications,” inAlgorithmics of Large and Complex Networks: Design, Analysis, and Simulation. Springer, 2009, pp. 34–49

    work page 2009

  50. [50]

    PyPSA-Earth. A new global open energy system optimization model demonstrated in Africa,

    M. Parzen, H. Abdel-Khalek, E. Fedotova, M. Mahmood, and M. Frysz- tacki, “PyPSA-Earth. A new global open energy system optimization model demonstrated in Africa,”Appl. Energy, vol. 341, p. 121096, 2023

    work page 2023

  51. [51]

    Does a detailed model of the elec- tricity grid matter? Estimating the impacts of the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative,

    D. Shawhan, J. Taber, and D. Shi, “Does a detailed model of the elec- tricity grid matter? Estimating the impacts of the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative,”Resour. Energy Econ., vol. 36, no. 1, pp. 191–207, 2014

    work page 2014

  52. [52]

    (2024) Annual Technology Baseline

    NREL. (2024) Annual Technology Baseline. Accessed: May 1, 2025

    work page 2024

  53. [53]

    Impact of siting ordinances on land availability for wind and solar development,

    A. Lopezet al., “Impact of siting ordinances on land availability for wind and solar development,”Nature Energy, vol. 8, no. 9, 2023

    work page 2023

  54. [54]

    New variants of bundle methods,

    C. Lemaréchal, A. Nemirovskii, and Y . Nesterov, “New variants of bundle methods,”Math. Program., vol. 69, pp. 111–147, 1995

    work page 1995

  55. [55]

    Julia: A fresh approach to numerical computing,

    J. Bezanson, A. Edelman, S. Karpinski, and V . Shah, “Julia: A fresh approach to numerical computing,”SIAM Review, vol. 59, no. 1, 2017

    work page 2017

  56. [56]

    JuMP 1.0: Recent improvements to a modeling language for mathemat- ical optimization,

    M. Lubin, O. Dowson, J. Garcia, J. Huchette, B. Legat, and J. Vielma, “JuMP 1.0: Recent improvements to a modeling language for mathemat- ical optimization,”Math. Program. Computation, vol. 15, no. 3, 2023

    work page 2023

  57. [57]

    Gurobi Optimization, LLC,Gurobi Optimizer 10.0, 2023

    work page 2023