Reinforced Transmission Within State

[ppinchuk]

Added option to allow supply curve points to connect to substations within a state and substations to connect to endpoints within a state (as opposed to strictly within their BA) when computing network reinforcement costs. This alleviates some of the fictitious cost boundaries that were observed in supply curve LCOT's that corresponded to (pretty much arbitrary) ReEDS BA boundaries.

Also addressed some issues with clipping radius that @WilliamsTravis discovered when he ran LCP for Alaska.

This PR also fixes #175

[codecov-commenter]

Codecov Report

Merging #181 (ace5805) into main (9423c6c) will increase coverage by 0.16%.
The diff coverage is 79.33%.

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main     #181      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   80.99%   81.16%   +0.16%     
==========================================
  Files         111      111              
  Lines       13075    13159      +84     
==========================================
+ Hits        10590    10680      +90     
+ Misses       2485     2479       -6     

Flag	Coverage Δ
unittests	81.16% <79.33%> (+0.16%)	⬆️

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
reVX/least_cost_xmission/least_cost_xmission.py	90.16% <43.75%> (-1.23%)	⬇️
reVX/least_cost_xmission/least_cost_paths_cli.py	74.40% <50.00%> (+0.62%)	⬆️
...eVX/least_cost_xmission/least_cost_xmission_cli.py	52.31% <50.00%> (+0.62%)	⬆️
reVX/config/least_cost_xmission.py	98.58% <100.00%> (+0.06%)	⬆️
reVX/least_cost_xmission/least_cost_paths.py	97.80% <100.00%> (+0.09%)	⬆️
tests/test_xmission_least_cost.py	94.38% <100.00%> (+0.47%)	⬆️
tests/test_xmission_least_cost_paths.py	96.22% <100.00%> (+0.51%)	⬆️

... and 7 files with indirect coverage changes

[grantbuster]

Looks fine and makes sense, but im wondering if there's a way to make this more generic... Now we're doing within states... tomorrow will be within countries when we run an international workflow... Should we consider a distance threshold?

[ppinchuk]

There actually already is a "radius" option to limit the connections to a certain distance. Besides that, I think it may be difficult to limit connections to arbitrary shapes no? Hmmmm I guess it could be doable if we allow a "boundary" shapefile input or something. That could work for sure.

Not sure if there is funding/appetite for such a change at the moment, but perhaps this is the correct way to go if people change their mind again in the future. I will add it to my list of potential LCP calculation improvements