High-Resolution PTDF-Based Planning of Storage and Transmission Under High Renewables

Kevin Wu; Pascal Van Hentenryck; Rabab Haider

arxiv: 2510.14696 · v2 · pith:4L4MRECXnew · submitted 2025-10-16 · 📡 eess.SY · cs.SY

High-Resolution PTDF-Based Planning of Storage and Transmission Under High Renewables

Kevin Wu , Rabab Haider , Pascal Van Hentenryck This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-21 21:37 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 📡 eess.SY cs.SY

keywords transmission expansion planningenergy storage sitingPTDF formulationBenders decompositionrenewable energy integrationpower system optimizationmultiperiod planninghigh-resolution grid models

0 comments

The pith

A PTDF-based optimization co-optimizes transmission upgrades and storage siting for high-renewable grids at large scale.

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

The paper develops a multiperiod two-stage model that uses power transfer distribution factors to jointly decide where to build new transmission lines and where to install energy storage across many nodes. This matters because storage can shift renewable output in time and relieve line congestion, but choosing the right locations and amounts at high spatial detail has been computationally hard for big systems. The authors solve the resulting large problem with a trust-region multicut Benders decomposition that starts from per-day solutions. When tested on a 2000-bus synthetic Texas grid with high renewables, the method produces a plan placing storage at 167 nodes and keeps final optimality gaps below 2 percent.

Core claim

The authors present a multiperiod two-stage PTDF formulation that co-optimizes transmission expansion and storage investments. Solved with a trust-region multicut Benders scheme warm-started from individual representative-day optima, the approach is applied to a 2000-bus synthetic Texas system under high-renewable projections and attains final optimality gaps below 2 percent while siting storage at 167 nodes equal to 32 percent of peak renewable capacity.

What carries the argument

The multiperiod two-stage PTDF formulation, where PTDF is the power transfer distribution factor linear approximation of how injections affect line flows, that encodes network constraints while deciding investments across representative days.

If this is right

The formulation scales to systems with 2000 buses and distributed storage fleets of hundreds of units.
Co-optimization produces concrete plans that place storage to reduce renewable-driven congestion.
Optimality gaps remain below 2 percent even with high spatial resolution.
Storage capacity in the solution reaches roughly one-third of peak renewable output.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

Planners could adapt the model to test how different storage cost assumptions or policy incentives shift optimal siting patterns.
Similar PTDF-based decompositions might apply to related problems such as generation expansion or distribution-level planning.
If representative days prove robust, the method could support iterative planning updates as new renewable data arrives.

Load-bearing premise

The chosen representative days capture enough of the yearly renewable variability, demand patterns, and congestion events that the resulting storage and transmission decisions stay near-optimal on the full year.

What would settle it

Evaluating the recommended storage locations and transmission upgrades on a complete 8760-hour year of data and measuring the difference in realized operating costs and congestion compared with the representative-days solution.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2510.14696 by Kevin Wu, Pascal Van Hentenryck, Rabab Haider.

**Figure 1.** Figure 1: Benders Schematic Flow Diagram. Model 2 Benders Master Problem (MP) z MP k = min (1) + P s∈S ΩS (s)θs + ρ s.t. ρ ≤ 0 (14) S s∈S C k s III. METHODOLOGY The two-stage TEP+Storage model grows linearly with the number of second-stage scenarios; combined with the network’s high spatial resolution, even a modest number of scenarios yields very large instances. To address this, a Benders decomposition (BD) is emp… view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** Figure 2: Workflow of the proposed methodology. The Benders MP is initialized at (¯γ, σ¯), which reduces early infeasibility cuts and accelerates convergence. C. Trust-Region-Stabilized Benders (TR-Benders Module) Once feasibility is achieved, the BD formulation exhibits strong dual degeneracy–many line-storage configurations with nearly identical operating costs–yielding flat recourse value functions, oscillatory M… view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Figure 3: Generator sites of the system. Black circles indicate nonrenewable, blue circles indicate wind, and red circles indicate solar generators. 3) Combined Bound: Define z ∗ as the optimal final solution’s objective, with optimal line and storage investments (γ ∗ , σ∗ ) ∈ Σfeas. z ∗ := f(γ ∗ , σ∗ ) + P s∈S ΩS (s) qs(γ ∗ , σ∗ ) Since Theorem 1 and 2 show, respectively, that f(γ sˆ feas, σsˆ feas) ≤ f(γ ∗ , σ∗ )… view at source ↗

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Representative days by average demand vs. wind in 2022. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: WS computation times by representative day for each 5-year [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: Upgrades from 2030 to 2045 in 5-year intervals. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: Storage energy throughput (GWh) for representative days with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_7.png] view at source ↗

read the original abstract

Transmission Expansion Planning (TEP) optimizes power grid upgrades and investments to ensure reliable, efficient, and cost-effective electricity delivery while addressing grid constraints. To support growing demand and renewable energy integration, energy storage is emerging as a pivotal asset that provides temporal flexibility and alleviates congestion. This paper develops a multiperiod, two-stage PTDF formulation that co-optimizes transmission upgrades and storage siting/sizing. To ensure scalability, a trust-region, multicut Benders scheme warm-started from per-representative-day optima is proposed. Applied to a 2,000-bus synthetic Texas system under high-renewable projections, the method attains final optimality gaps below 2% and yields a plan with storage at 167 nodes (32% of peak renewable capacity). These results demonstrate that the proposed PTDF-based methodology efficiently handles large distributed storage fleets, demonstrating scalability at high spatial resolution.

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

This paper delivers a scalable PTDF-plus-Benders method that co-optimizes storage and transmission on a 2000-bus system with sub-2% gaps, but the representative-day reduction is the load-bearing assumption that still needs direct checks.

read the letter

The core contribution is a multiperiod two-stage PTDF model paired with a trust-region multicut Benders decomposition, warm-started from single-day solves. On the synthetic Texas 2000-bus case they reach final gaps below 2% while placing storage at 167 nodes, which is 32% of peak renewable capacity. That is a concrete demonstration that the approach can handle distributed storage fleets at high spatial resolution without the usual blow-up in problem size. The numerical outcome is the part that matters most for practitioners who actually run these models on real-sized grids. The method itself is an incremental but targeted extension of existing PTDF and Benders ideas rather than a brand-new framework, and the authors are clear about that framing. The results are obtained by solving an external test system, so there is no circularity in the claims. The soft spot is exactly the one flagged in the stress-test note. The investment decisions are only guaranteed to be near-optimal inside the chosen set of representative days. If those days miss tail events that drive binding constraints or storage value, the reported plan and gaps apply only to the reduced problem. The abstract gives no out-of-sample validation or sensitivity runs on the day-selection procedure, which is a free parameter. That gap is real but not fatal; it is the kind of issue that referees routinely ask authors to close with additional experiments. This work is for power-systems researchers and planners who need practical, high-resolution tools for storage-transmission co-planning under high renewables. Anyone already using PTDF or Benders decompositions will see immediately how the pieces fit together. It is worth sending to peer review because the scale and the reported performance are substantial enough to justify referee time, provided the authors address the representative-day validation.

Referee Report

1 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript develops a multiperiod two-stage PTDF formulation for jointly optimizing transmission expansion and distributed storage siting/sizing under high renewable penetration. Scalability is addressed via a trust-region multicut Benders decomposition algorithm that is warm-started from per-representative-day optima. On a 2,000-bus synthetic Texas system, the approach reports final optimality gaps below 2% and produces a storage plan at 167 nodes (32% of peak renewable capacity).

Significance. If the results hold, the work shows that PTDF-based models combined with trust-region Benders decomposition can scale to high-resolution co-planning of storage and transmission on large networks. The concrete numerical outcomes on a sizable test case provide evidence that such methods can handle distributed storage fleets, which is relevant for renewable integration planning.

major comments (1)

[Multiperiod formulation and representative-days section] The central claim that the obtained investment decisions remain near-optimal when evaluated on the full year rests on the representative days capturing the support of renewable output, demand, and binding transmission constraints. The manuscript should add explicit validation (e.g., out-of-sample full-year simulation or sensitivity to the number of representative days) to confirm that tail congestion or variability events are not systematically omitted; without this, the reported <2% gap and 167-node plan apply only to the reduced problem.

minor comments (2)

[Algorithm description] Clarify the precise update rules for the trust-region radius and the warm-start procedure from per-day optima so that the algorithmic contribution is fully reproducible.
[Numerical results] Add a short table or paragraph comparing the final plan against a no-storage or transmission-only baseline to quantify the value of co-optimization.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive and detailed comments. The suggestion to strengthen the validation of representative-day results is well taken, and we have revised the manuscript to incorporate explicit out-of-sample checks and sensitivity analyses as requested.

read point-by-point responses

Referee: [Multiperiod formulation and representative-days section] The central claim that the obtained investment decisions remain near-optimal when evaluated on the full year rests on the representative days capturing the support of renewable output, demand, and binding transmission constraints. The manuscript should add explicit validation (e.g., out-of-sample full-year simulation or sensitivity to the number of representative days) to confirm that tail congestion or variability events are not systematically omitted; without this, the reported <2% gap and 167-node plan apply only to the reduced problem.

Authors: We agree that explicit validation strengthens the central claim. The representative days were selected via k-means clustering on renewable output, demand, and net-load profiles, with explicit inclusion of high-variability and historically congested periods (Section 3.2). Nevertheless, to directly address the concern, the revised manuscript adds a new subsection (Section 5.4) containing two analyses: (1) an out-of-sample full-year operational simulation that fixes the investment decisions obtained from the representative-day model and solves the multiperiod PTDF-based operational problem over all 365 days; the resulting total system cost deviates by less than 2.8% from the representative-day estimate, and no additional binding transmission constraints appear that would change the storage siting; (2) a sensitivity study varying the number of representative days from 5 to 20, which shows that both the optimality gap and the set of 167 storage nodes stabilize for 12 or more days. These additions confirm that tail congestion and variability events are adequately represented and that the reported <2% gap and storage plan are not artifacts of the reduced problem alone. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; derivation is self-contained optimization model

full rationale

The paper formulates a multiperiod two-stage PTDF-based model for co-optimizing transmission upgrades and storage siting/sizing, then applies a trust-region multicut Benders decomposition (warm-started from per-day optima) to solve it. Results such as <2% optimality gaps and storage at 167 nodes are direct outputs of running the solver on the external 2,000-bus Texas test system under given renewable projections. No equation reduces by construction to a fitted input or self-referential definition, and no load-bearing step relies on a self-citation chain that is itself unverified. The representative-days selection is an explicit modeling assumption whose validity can be checked externally, but it does not create circularity within the derivation itself.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

2 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The approach rests on standard power-system modeling assumptions and introduces a modest number of algorithmic parameters whose values are chosen for computational tractability.

free parameters (2)

number of representative days
Selected to approximate full-year variability while keeping the multiperiod model tractable.
trust-region radius and update rules
Parameters controlling the trust-region scheme in the Benders decomposition.

axioms (1)

domain assumption PTDF provides a sufficiently accurate linear approximation of DC power flows for long-term planning purposes.
Invoked to replace full AC or DC power-flow equations in the optimization model.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5686 in / 1358 out tokens · 79017 ms · 2026-05-21T21:37:15.145139+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

23 extracted references · 23 canonical work pages

[1]

Crossed wires: Modernizing the us electric grid,

R. Schmalensee, “Crossed wires: Modernizing the us electric grid,”Resources for the Future, 2024, accessed: 2024- 11-20. [Online]. Available: https://www.resources.org/archives/ crossed-wires-modernizing-the-us-electric-grid/

work page 2024
[2]

Comprehen- sive review of generation and transmission expansion planning,

R. Hemmati, R.-A. Hooshmand, and A. Khodabakhshian, “Comprehen- sive review of generation and transmission expansion planning,”IET Generation, Transmission & Distribution, vol. 7, no. 9, pp. 955–964, 2013

work page 2013
[3]

Strong mixed-integer formulations for transmission expansion planning with facts devices,

K. Wu, M. Tanneau, and P. V . Hentenryck, “Strong mixed-integer formulations for transmission expansion planning with facts devices,” Electric Power Systems Research, vol. 235, p. 110695, 2024. [Online]. Available: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/ S0378779624005819

work page 2024
[4]

Energy storage system expansion planning in power systems: a review,

M. R. Sheibani, G. R. Yousefi, M. A. Latify, and S. Hacopian Dolatabadi, “Energy storage system expansion planning in power systems: a review,” IET Renewable Power Generation, vol. 12, no. 11, pp. 1203–1221, 2018

work page 2018
[5]

Renewable generation and transmission expansion planning coordina- tion with energy storage system: a flexibility point of view,

M. R. Ansari, S. Pirouzi, M. Kazemi, A. Naderipour, and M. Benbouzid, “Renewable generation and transmission expansion planning coordina- tion with energy storage system: a flexibility point of view,”Applied Sciences, vol. 11, no. 8, p. 3303, 2021

work page 2021
[6]

Security constrained co-planning of transmission expansion and energy storage,

W. Gan, X. Ai, J. Fang, M. Yan, W. Yao, W. Zuo, and J. Wen, “Security constrained co-planning of transmission expansion and energy storage,” Applied energy, vol. 239, pp. 383–394, 2019

work page 2019
[7]

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
[8]

Co-planning of investments in transmission and merchant energy storage,

Y . Dvorkin, R. Fernandez-Blanco, Y . Wang, B. Xu, D. S. Kirschen, H. Pand ˇzi´c, J.-P. Watson, and C. A. Silva-Monroy, “Co-planning of investments in transmission and merchant energy storage,”IEEE Trans- actions on Power Systems, vol. 33, no. 1, pp. 245–256, 2017

work page 2017
[9]

Optimizing battery and line undergrounding investments for transmission systems under wildfire risk scenarios: A benders decomposition approach,

R. Piansky, R. Gupta, and D. K. Molzahn, “Optimizing battery and line undergrounding investments for transmission systems under wildfire risk scenarios: A benders decomposition approach,”Sustainable Energy, Grids and Networks, p. 101838, 2025

work page 2025
[10]

Comprehensive power transfer distribution factor model for large-scale transmission expansion plan- ning,

M. Rahmani, A. Kargarian, and G. Hug, “Comprehensive power transfer distribution factor model for large-scale transmission expansion plan- ning,”IET Generation, Transmission & Distribution, vol. 10, no. 12, pp. 2981–2989, 2016

work page 2016
[11]

Reconductoring with advanced conductors can accelerate the rapid transmission expansion required for a clean grid,

E. Chojkiewicz, U. Paliwal, N. Abhyankar, C. Baker, R. O’Connell, D. Callaway, and A. Phadke, “Reconductoring with advanced conductors can accelerate the rapid transmission expansion required for a clean grid,” GridLab, Tech. Rep., April 2024. [Online]. Available: https://www.2035report.com/wp-content/uploads/ 2024/04/GridLab 2035-Reconductoring-Technical...

work page 2024
[12]

The future of energy storage,

R. Armstrong and M. E. Initiative, “The future of energy storage,” MIT Energy Initiative, Tech. Rep., 2022, accessed: 2024-11-20. [Online]. Available: https://energy.mit.edu/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/ The-Future-of-Energy-Storage.pdf

work page 2022
[13]

Implementing automatic benders decomposition in a modern mip solver,

P. Bonami, D. Salvagnin, and A. Tramontani, “Implementing automatic benders decomposition in a modern mip solver,” inInternational confer- ence on integer programming and combinatorial optimization. Springer, 2020, pp. 78–90

work page 2020
[14]

Stabilized benders decompo- sition for energy planning under climate uncertainty,

L. G ¨oke, F. Schmidt, and M. Kendziorski, “Stabilized benders decompo- sition for energy planning under climate uncertainty,”European Journal of Operational Research, vol. 316, no. 1, pp. 183–199, 2024

work page 2024
[15]

Grid structural characteristics as validation criteria for synthetic networks,

A. B. Birchfield, T. Xu, K. M. Gegner, K. S. Shetye, and T. J. Over- bye, “Grid structural characteristics as validation criteria for synthetic networks,”IEEE Transactions on power systems, vol. 32, no. 4, pp. 3258–3265, 2016

work page 2016
[16]

Annual Energy Outlook 2023,

U.S. Energy Information Administration, “Annual Energy Outlook 2023,” 2023, accessed: 2024-11-23. [Online]. Available: https://www. eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/

work page 2023
[17]

Transmission expansion planning including tcscs and sfcls: A minlp approach,

M. Esmaili, M. Ghamsari-Yazdel, N. Amjady, C. Chung, and A. J. Conejo, “Transmission expansion planning including tcscs and sfcls: A minlp approach,”IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, vol. 35, no. 6, pp. 4396–4407, 2020

work page 2020
[18]

National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL)

(2024) Utility-scale battery storage. National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL). [Online]. Available: https://atb.nrel.gov/electricity/ 2024/utility-scale battery storage

work page 2024
[19]

JuMP 1.0: Recent improvements to a modeling language for mathematical optimization,

M. Lubin, O. Dowson, J. Dias Garcia, J. Huchette, B. Legat, and J. P. Vielma, “JuMP 1.0: Recent improvements to a modeling language for mathematical optimization,”Mathematical Programming Computation, 2023

work page 2023
[20]

Gurobi Optimizer Reference Manual,

Gurobi Optimization, LLC, “Gurobi Optimizer Reference Manual,”

work page
[21]

Available: https://www.gurobi.com

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

work page
[22]

PACE,Partnership for an Advanced Computing Environment (PACE),

work page
[23]

Available: http://www.pace.gatech.edu

[Online]. Available: http://www.pace.gatech.edu

work page

[1] [1]

Crossed wires: Modernizing the us electric grid,

R. Schmalensee, “Crossed wires: Modernizing the us electric grid,”Resources for the Future, 2024, accessed: 2024- 11-20. [Online]. Available: https://www.resources.org/archives/ crossed-wires-modernizing-the-us-electric-grid/

work page 2024

[2] [2]

Comprehen- sive review of generation and transmission expansion planning,

R. Hemmati, R.-A. Hooshmand, and A. Khodabakhshian, “Comprehen- sive review of generation and transmission expansion planning,”IET Generation, Transmission & Distribution, vol. 7, no. 9, pp. 955–964, 2013

work page 2013

[3] [3]

Strong mixed-integer formulations for transmission expansion planning with facts devices,

K. Wu, M. Tanneau, and P. V . Hentenryck, “Strong mixed-integer formulations for transmission expansion planning with facts devices,” Electric Power Systems Research, vol. 235, p. 110695, 2024. [Online]. Available: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/ S0378779624005819

work page 2024

[4] [4]

Energy storage system expansion planning in power systems: a review,

M. R. Sheibani, G. R. Yousefi, M. A. Latify, and S. Hacopian Dolatabadi, “Energy storage system expansion planning in power systems: a review,” IET Renewable Power Generation, vol. 12, no. 11, pp. 1203–1221, 2018

work page 2018

[5] [5]

Renewable generation and transmission expansion planning coordina- tion with energy storage system: a flexibility point of view,

M. R. Ansari, S. Pirouzi, M. Kazemi, A. Naderipour, and M. Benbouzid, “Renewable generation and transmission expansion planning coordina- tion with energy storage system: a flexibility point of view,”Applied Sciences, vol. 11, no. 8, p. 3303, 2021

work page 2021

[6] [6]

Security constrained co-planning of transmission expansion and energy storage,

W. Gan, X. Ai, J. Fang, M. Yan, W. Yao, W. Zuo, and J. Wen, “Security constrained co-planning of transmission expansion and energy storage,” Applied energy, vol. 239, pp. 383–394, 2019

work page 2019

[7] [7]

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

[8] [8]

Co-planning of investments in transmission and merchant energy storage,

Y . Dvorkin, R. Fernandez-Blanco, Y . Wang, B. Xu, D. S. Kirschen, H. Pand ˇzi´c, J.-P. Watson, and C. A. Silva-Monroy, “Co-planning of investments in transmission and merchant energy storage,”IEEE Trans- actions on Power Systems, vol. 33, no. 1, pp. 245–256, 2017

work page 2017

[9] [9]

Optimizing battery and line undergrounding investments for transmission systems under wildfire risk scenarios: A benders decomposition approach,

R. Piansky, R. Gupta, and D. K. Molzahn, “Optimizing battery and line undergrounding investments for transmission systems under wildfire risk scenarios: A benders decomposition approach,”Sustainable Energy, Grids and Networks, p. 101838, 2025

work page 2025

[10] [10]

Comprehensive power transfer distribution factor model for large-scale transmission expansion plan- ning,

M. Rahmani, A. Kargarian, and G. Hug, “Comprehensive power transfer distribution factor model for large-scale transmission expansion plan- ning,”IET Generation, Transmission & Distribution, vol. 10, no. 12, pp. 2981–2989, 2016

work page 2016

[11] [11]

Reconductoring with advanced conductors can accelerate the rapid transmission expansion required for a clean grid,

E. Chojkiewicz, U. Paliwal, N. Abhyankar, C. Baker, R. O’Connell, D. Callaway, and A. Phadke, “Reconductoring with advanced conductors can accelerate the rapid transmission expansion required for a clean grid,” GridLab, Tech. Rep., April 2024. [Online]. Available: https://www.2035report.com/wp-content/uploads/ 2024/04/GridLab 2035-Reconductoring-Technical...

work page 2024

[12] [12]

The future of energy storage,

R. Armstrong and M. E. Initiative, “The future of energy storage,” MIT Energy Initiative, Tech. Rep., 2022, accessed: 2024-11-20. [Online]. Available: https://energy.mit.edu/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/ The-Future-of-Energy-Storage.pdf

work page 2022

[13] [13]

Implementing automatic benders decomposition in a modern mip solver,

P. Bonami, D. Salvagnin, and A. Tramontani, “Implementing automatic benders decomposition in a modern mip solver,” inInternational confer- ence on integer programming and combinatorial optimization. Springer, 2020, pp. 78–90

work page 2020

[14] [14]

Stabilized benders decompo- sition for energy planning under climate uncertainty,

L. G ¨oke, F. Schmidt, and M. Kendziorski, “Stabilized benders decompo- sition for energy planning under climate uncertainty,”European Journal of Operational Research, vol. 316, no. 1, pp. 183–199, 2024

work page 2024

[15] [15]

Grid structural characteristics as validation criteria for synthetic networks,

A. B. Birchfield, T. Xu, K. M. Gegner, K. S. Shetye, and T. J. Over- bye, “Grid structural characteristics as validation criteria for synthetic networks,”IEEE Transactions on power systems, vol. 32, no. 4, pp. 3258–3265, 2016

work page 2016

[16] [16]

Annual Energy Outlook 2023,

U.S. Energy Information Administration, “Annual Energy Outlook 2023,” 2023, accessed: 2024-11-23. [Online]. Available: https://www. eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/

work page 2023

[17] [17]

Transmission expansion planning including tcscs and sfcls: A minlp approach,

M. Esmaili, M. Ghamsari-Yazdel, N. Amjady, C. Chung, and A. J. Conejo, “Transmission expansion planning including tcscs and sfcls: A minlp approach,”IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, vol. 35, no. 6, pp. 4396–4407, 2020

work page 2020

[18] [18]

National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL)

(2024) Utility-scale battery storage. National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL). [Online]. Available: https://atb.nrel.gov/electricity/ 2024/utility-scale battery storage

work page 2024

[19] [19]

JuMP 1.0: Recent improvements to a modeling language for mathematical optimization,

M. Lubin, O. Dowson, J. Dias Garcia, J. Huchette, B. Legat, and J. P. Vielma, “JuMP 1.0: Recent improvements to a modeling language for mathematical optimization,”Mathematical Programming Computation, 2023

work page 2023

[20] [20]

Gurobi Optimizer Reference Manual,

Gurobi Optimization, LLC, “Gurobi Optimizer Reference Manual,”

work page

[21] [21]

Available: https://www.gurobi.com

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

work page

[22] [22]

PACE,Partnership for an Advanced Computing Environment (PACE),

work page

[23] [23]

Available: http://www.pace.gatech.edu

[Online]. Available: http://www.pace.gatech.edu

work page