Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

Extending energy system modelling to include extreme weather risks and application to hurricane events in Puerto Rico


Energy system optimization models often incorporate climate change impacts to examine different energy futures and draw insights that inform policy. However, increased risk of extreme weather events from climate change has proven more difficult to model. Here, we present an energy system optimization model that incorporates hurricane risks by combining storm probabilities with infrastructure fragility curves, and demonstrate its utility in the context of Puerto Rico, an island territory of the United States that had its energy system severely damaged by Hurricane Maria in 2017. The model assesses the potential to change grid architecture, fuel mix and grid hardening measures considering hurricane impacts as well as climate mitigation policies. When hurricane trends are included, 2040 electricity cost projections increase by 32% based on historical hurricane frequencies and by 82% for increased hurricane frequencies. Transitioning to renewables and natural gas reduces costs and emissions independent of climate mitigation policies.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Relevant articles

Open Access articles citing this article.

Access options

Rent or buy this article

Prices vary by article type



Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Fig. 1: Stylized grid topologies reveal some of the choices in grid architecture and power generation facing planners.
Fig. 2: Interactions of electric grid planning options.
Fig. 3: Hurricane Maria revealed the vulnerability of Puerto Rico’s current electric grid.
Fig. 4: Overview of framework for grid planning with extreme weather.
Fig. 5: Technology fragility curves.
Fig. 6: Projections of electricity costs, emissions and activity for stochastic optimization including reconstruction after severe weather events.
Fig. 7: Projections of electricity costs and emissions for case-based simulations.

Data availability

The input dataset is available for download with the code at (ref. 68). All model inputs are summarized in Supplementary Notes 13. Source data are provided with this paper.

Code availability

To enable replication of our work, the model and analysis code are open source, and an archived version is available for download at (ref. 68). This includes the Python package and all scripts used to instantiate Temoa, run the analyses and create the plots in this article, which are also available for download at


  1. Murakami, H., Levin, E., Delworth, T. L., Gudgel, R. & Hsu, P.-C. Dominant effect of relative tropical Atlantic warming on major hurricane occurrence. Science 362, 794–799 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Seidl, R. et al. Forest disturbances under climate change. Nat. Clim. Change 7, 395–402 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Ji, C. et al. Large-scale data analysis of power grid resilience across multiple US service regions. Nat. Energy 1, 16052 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Jufri, F. H., Widiputra, V. & Jung, J. State-of-the-art review on power grid resilience to extreme weather events: definitions, frameworks, quantitative assessment methodologies, and enhancement strategies. Appl. Energy 239, 1049–1065 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Chicco, G. & Mancarella, P. Distributed multi-generation: a comprehensive view. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 13, 535–551 (2009).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Viral, R. & Khatod, D. K. Optimal planning of distributed generation systems in distribution system: a review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 16, 5146–5165 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Gas Turbine World 2018 GTW Handbook (Pequot Publishing, 2018).

  8. Bie, Z., Lin, Y., Li, G. & Li, F. Battling the extreme: a study on the power system resilience. Proc. IEEE 105, 1253–1266 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Pehl, M. et al. Understanding future emissions from low-carbon power systems by integration of life-cycle assessment and integrated energy modelling. Nat. Energy 2, 939–945 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Hunter, K., Sreepathi, S. & DeCarolis, J. F. Modeling for insight using tools for energy model optimization and analysis (Temoa). Energy Econ. 40, 339–349 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. McCollum, D. L. et al. Quantifying uncertainties influencing the long-term impacts of oil prices on energy markets and carbon emissions. Nat. Energy 1, 16077 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Spyrou, E., Hobbs, B. F., Bazilian, M. D. & Chattopadhyay, D. Planning power systems in fragile and conflict-affected states. Nat. Energy 4, 300–310 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Patankar, N., de Queiroz, A. R., DeCarolis, J. F., Bazilian, M. D. & Chattopadhyay, D. Building conflict uncertainty into electricity planning: a South Sudan case study. Energy Sustain. Dev. 49, 53–64 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Perera, A. T. D., Nik, V. M., Chen, D., Scartezzini, J.-L. & Hong, T. Quantifying the impacts of climate change and extreme climate events on energy systems. Nat. Energy 5, 150–159 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Abdin, I. F., Fang, Y.-P. & Zio, E. A modeling and optimization framework for power systems design with operational flexibility and resilience against extreme heat waves and drought events. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 112, 706–719 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Mukhi, N., Hobbs, B., Chattopadhyay, D. & Spyrou, E. Building Climate Resilience into Power System Planning: the Case of Bangladesh (World Bank, 2017).

  17. Labriet, M., Kanudia, A. & Loulou, R. Climate mitigation under an uncertain technology future: a TIAM-World analysis. Energy Econ. 34, S366–S377 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Newlun, C. J., Figueroa, A. L. & McCalley, J. D. in Fifty-Sixth Annual Report of the Electric Power Research Center 33–41 (Iowa State University Electric Power Research Center, 2019).

  19. Nateghi, R., Guikema, S. D. & Quiring, S. M. Comparison and validation of statistical methods for predicting power outage durations in the event of hurricanes. Risk Anal. 31, 1897–1906 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Winkler, J., Dueñas-Osorio, L., Stein, R. & Subramanian, D. Performance assessment of topologically diverse power systems subjected to hurricane events. Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf. 95, 323–336 (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Panteli, M. & Mancarella, P. Modeling and evaluating the resilience of critical electrical power infrastructure to extreme weather events. IEEE Syst. J. 11, 1733–1742 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Energy Resilience Solutions for the Puerto Rico Grid (United States Department of Energy, 2018).

  23. Houser, T. & Marsters, P. The World’s Second Largest Blackout (Rhodium Group, 2019);

  24. Lu, D. & Alcantara, C. After Hurricane Maria, Puerto Rico was in the dark for 181 days, 6 hours and 45 minutes. The Washington Post (11 October 2017).

  25. Historical Hurricane Tracks (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, accessed 9 September 2019);

  26. Operational Profile (Puerto Rico Electric Power Authority, accessed 10 July 2018);

  27. Campbell, R. J., Clark, C. E. & Austin, D. A. Repair or Rebuild: Options for Electric Power in Puerto Rico (Congressional Research Service, 2017).

  28. ReImagina Puerto Rico Report (Resilient Puerto Rico Advisory Commission, 2018).

  29. Distribución Porcentual de la Generación de Energía por Tipo (Puerto Rico Energy Commission, accessed 28 July 2018);

  30. Puerto Rico: Territory Profile and Energy Estimates (US Energy Information Administration, accessed 10 July 2018);

  31. Puerto Rico Energy Public Policy Act (Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, 2019).

  32. Electricity Storage and Renewables: Costs and Markets to 2030 (International Renewable Energy Agency, 2017).

  33. Loulou, R., Goldstein, G. & Noble, K. Documentation for the MARKAL Family of Models (International Energy Agency Energy Technology Systems Analysis Program, 2004).

  34. Howells, M. et al. OSeMOSYS: the open source energy modeling system. An introduction to its ethos, structure and development. Energy Policy 39, 5850–5870 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Cohen, S. M. et al. Regional Energy Deployment System (ReEDS) Model Documentation: Version 2018 (National Renewable Energy Laboratory, 2019).

  36. Jaglom, W. S. et al. Assessment of projected temperature impacts from climate change on the U.S. electric power sector using the Integrated Planning Model. Energy Policy 73, 524–539 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Grinsted, A., Moore, J. C. & Jevrejeva, S. Projected Atlantic hurricane surge threat from rising temperatures. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 110, 5369–5373 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Staid, A., Guikema, S. D., Nateghi, R., Quiring, S. M. & Gao, M. Z. Simulation of tropical cyclone impacts to the U.S. power system under climate change scenarios. Climatic Change 127, 535–546 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Knutson, T. et al. Tropical cyclones and climate change assessment part II: projected response to anthropogenic warming. Bull. Am. Meteorol. Soc. 101, E303–E322 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Ouyang, M. & Dueñas-Osorio, L. Multi-dimensional hurricane resilience assessment of electric power systems. Struct. Saf. 48, 15–24 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Watson, E. B. Modeling Electrical Grid Resilience under Hurricane Wind Conditions with Increased Solar Photovoltaic and Wind Turbine Power Generation. PhD thesis, George Washington Univ. (2018).

  42. Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief And Emergency Assistance Act, P.L. 93-288 as Amended (United States Federal Government, 2016);

  43. Temoa Project Documentation (North Carolina State University, accessed 15 November 2020);

  44. PREPA Renewable Generation Integration Study (Siemens Industry, 2014).

  45. Teichgraeber, H. et al. Extreme events in time series aggregation: a case study for optimal residential energy supply systems. Appl. Energy 275, 115223 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Mavromatidis, G., Orehounig, K. & Carmeliet, J. Design of distributed energy systems under uncertainty: a two-stage stochastic programming approach. Appl. Energy 222, 932–950 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Descarga de Geodatos (Gobierno de Puerto Rico, accessed 15 May 2018);

  48. Hermann, S., Miketa, A. & Fichaux, N. Estimating the Renewable Energy Potential in Africa: a GIS-Based Approach Working Paper (International Renewable Energy Agency, 2014).

  49. Lehner, B., Verdin, K. & Jarvis, A. New global hydrography derived from spaceborne elevation data. Eos 89, 93–94 (2008).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Broxton, P. D., Zeng, X., Sulla-Menashe, D. & Troch, P. A. A global land cover climatology using MODIS data. J. Appl. Meteorol. Climatol. 53, 1593–1605 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Natural Protected Areas of Puerto Rico 2015 (The Caribbean Landscape Conservation Cooperative, accessed 15 May 2018);

  52. Global Wind Atlas 2.0 (Technical University of Denmark, accessed 23 August, 2019);

  53. Solar Resource Map (Solargis, accessed 10 July 2018);

  54. Hoogwijk, M., de Vries, B. & Turkenburg, W. Assessment of the global and regional geographical, technical and economic potential of onshore wind energy. Energy Econ. 26, 889–919 (2004).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Energy Snapshot Puerto Rico (National Renewable Energy Laboratory, 2015).

  56. Puerto Rico Integrated Resource Plan 2018–2019 (Siemens Industry, 2019).

  57. Fortieth Annual Report on the Electric Property of the Puerto Rico Electric Power Authority (URS Corporation, 2013).

  58. 2019 Annual Technology Baseline (National Renewable Energy Laboratory, accessed 24 October 2019);

  59. Annual Energy Outlook 2020 (US Energy Information Administration, 2020).

  60. Electricity Transmission and Distribution (International Energy Agency Energy Technology Systems Analysis Program, 2014).

  61. Panteli, M., Pickering, C., Wilkinson, S., Dawson, R. & Mancarella, P. Power system resilience to extreme weather: fragility modelling, probabilistic impact assessment, and adaptation measures. IEEE Trans. Power Syst. 32, 3747–3757 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  62. Undergrounding Assessment Phase 3 Report: Ex Ante Cost and Benefit Modeling (Quanta Technology, 2008).

  63. Schneider, P. J. & Schauer, B. A. HAZUS—its development and its future. Nat. Hazards Rev. 7, 40–44 (2006).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  64. Goodman, J. N. Performance Measures for Residential PV Structural Response to Wind Effects. PhD thesis, Georiga Institute of Technology (2015).

  65. Rose, S., Jaramillo, P., Small, M. J., Grossmann, I. & Apt, J. Quantifying the hurricane risk to offshore wind turbines. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 109, 3247–3252 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  66. Franklin, J. L., Black, M. L. & Valde, K. Eyewall Wind Profiles in Hurricanes Determined by GPS Dropwindsondes (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 2000);

  67. Hall, K. L. Out of Sight, Out of Mind 2012: an Updated Study on the Undergrounding Of Overhead Power Lines (Edison Electric Institute, 2013).

  68. Bennett, J. A., DeCarolis, J. F. & Clarens, A. F. Model and Data for “Extending Energy System Modelling to Include Extreme Weather Risks and Application to Hurricane Events in Puerto Rico” (Univ. of Virginia Dataverse, 2020);

  69. Bennett, J. A. et al. Feasibility of using sCO2 turbines to balance load in power grids with a high deployment of solar generation. Energy 181, 548–560 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  70. Hubbard, S. Hazus: Estimated Damage and Economic Losses: Puerto Rico, United States (Federal Emergency Management Agency, 2017).

Download references


Support for this work came from the University of Virginia Environmental Resilience Institute and the Rotating Machinery and Controls Laboratory. We acknowledge Research Computing ( at the University of Virginia for providing computational resources and technical support that contributed to the results reported within this publication.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations



J.A.B., C.N.T., J.F.D. and A.F.C. designed the research. J.A.B. and C.N.T. conducted the literature review and data collection. J.A.B. performed the analysis. J.A.B. and A.F.C. created the figures. J.F.D. supported model development and implementation. C.O.-G., M.P.-L. and B.T.E. provided feedback on the scenarios and framing. J.A.B., J.F.D. and A.F.C. wrote the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Andres F. Clarens.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Peer review information Nature Energy thanks Christian Otto and the other, anonymous, reviewer(s) for their contribution to the peer review of this work.

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary information

Supplementary Information

Supplementary Notes 1–9, Tables 1–16, Figs. 1–5 and references.

Source data

Source Data Fig. 5

Fragility curve outputs as a function of wind speed as calculated in Python.

Source Data Fig. 6

Raw data for three subplots. Columns 1 and 2 identify subplot and quantity being plotted. Subplots a and b are box plots that use the raw data provided; subplot c creates line plots using the summarized data (minimum, mean, maximum) for the cases included.

Source Data Fig. 7

Statistical data (minimum, mean, maximum) for cost of electricity and emissions by case.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Bennett, J.A., Trevisan, C.N., DeCarolis, J.F. et al. Extending energy system modelling to include extreme weather risks and application to hurricane events in Puerto Rico. Nat Energy 6, 240–249 (2021).

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI:

This article is cited by


Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing