Stay Ahead, Stay ONMINE

Introduction to Minimum Cost Flow Optimization in Python

Minimum cost flow optimization minimizes the cost of moving flow through a network of nodes and edges. Nodes include sources (supply) and sinks (demand), with different costs and capacity limits. The aim is to find the least costly way to move volume from sources to sinks while adhering to all capacity limitations. Applications Applications of […]

Minimum cost flow optimization minimizes the cost of moving flow through a network of nodes and edges. Nodes include sources (supply) and sinks (demand), with different costs and capacity limits. The aim is to find the least costly way to move volume from sources to sinks while adhering to all capacity limitations.

Applications

Applications of minimum cost flow optimization are vast and varied, spanning multiple industries and sectors. This approach is crucial in logistics and supply chain management, where it is used to minimize transportation costs while ensuring timely delivery of goods. In telecommunications, it helps in optimizing the routing of data through networks to reduce latency and improve bandwidth utilization. The energy sector leverages minimum cost flow optimization to efficiently distribute electricity through power grids, reducing losses and operational costs. Urban planning and infrastructure development also benefit from this optimization technique, as it assists in designing efficient public transportation systems and water distribution networks.

Example

Below is a simple flow optimization example:

The image above illustrates a minimum cost flow optimization problem with six nodes and eight edges. Nodes A and B serve as sources, each with a supply of 50 units, while nodes E and F act as sinks, each with a demand of 40 units. Every edge has a maximum capacity of 25 units, with variable costs indicated in the image. The objective of the optimization is to allocate flow on each edge to move the required units from nodes A and B to nodes E and F, respecting the edge capacities at the lowest possible cost.

Node F can only receive supply from node B. There are two paths: directly or through node D. The direct path has a cost of 2, while the indirect path via D has a combined cost of 3. Thus, 25 units (the maximum edge capacity) are moved directly from B to F. The remaining 15 units are routed via B -D-F to meet the demand.

Currently, 40 out of 50 units have been transferred from node B, leaving a remaining supply of 10 units that can be moved to node E. The available pathways for supplying node E include: A-E and B-E with a cost of 3, A-C-E with a cost of 4, and B-C-E with a cost of 5. Consequently, 25 units are transported from A-E (limited by the edge capacity) and 10 units from B-E (limited by the remaining supply at node B). To meet the demand of 40 units at node E, an additional 5 units are moved via A-C-E, resulting in no flow being allocated to the B-C pathway.

Mathematical formulation

I introduce two mathematical formulations of minimum cost flow optimization:

1. LP (linear program) with continuous variables only

2. MILP (mixed integer linear program) with continuous and discrete variables

I am using following definitions:

Definitions

LP formulation

This formulation only contains decision variables that are continuous, meaning they can have any value as long as all constraints are fulfilled. Decision variables are in this case the flow variables x(u, v) of all edges.

The objective function describes how the costs that are supposed to be minimized are calculated. In this case it is defined as the flow multiplied with the variable cost summed up over all edges:

Constraints are conditions that must be satisfied for the solution to be valid, ensuring that the flow does not exceed capacity limitations.

First, all flows must be non-negative and not exceed to edge capacities:

Flow conservation constraints ensure that the same amount of flow that goes into a node has to come out of the node. These constraints are applied to all nodes that are neither sources nor sinks:

For source and sink nodes the difference of out flow and in flow is smaller or equal the supply of the node:

If v is a source the difference of outflow minus inflow must not exceed the supply s(v). In case v is a sink node we do not allow that more than -s(v) can flow into the node than out of the node (for sinks s(v) is negative).

MILP

Additionally, to the continuous variables of the LP formulation, the MILP formulation also contains discreate variables that can only have specific values. Discrete variables allow to restrict the number of used nodes or edges to certain values. It can also be used to introduce fixed costs for using nodes or edges. In this article I show how to add fixed costs. It is important to note that adding discrete decision variables makes it much more difficult to find an optimal solution, hence this formulation should only be used if a LP formulation is not possible.

The objective function is defined as:

With three terms: variable cost of all edges, fixed cost of all edges, and fixed cost of all nodes.

The maximum flow that can be allocated to an edge depends on the edge’s capacity, the edge selection variable, and the origin node selection variable:

This equation ensures that flow can only be assigned to edges if the edge selection variable and the origin node selection variable are 1.

The flow conservation constraints are equivalent to the LP problem.

Implementation

In this section I explain how to implement a MILP optimization in Python. You can find the code in this repo.

Libraries

To build the flow network, I used NetworkX which is an excellent library (https://networkx.org/) for working with graphs. There are many interesting articles that demonstrate how powerful and easy to use NetworkX is to work with graphs, i.a. customizing NetworkX GraphsNetworkX: Code Demo for Manipulating SubgraphsSocial Network Analysis with NetworkX: A Gentle Introduction.

One important aspect when building an optimization is to make sure that the input is correctly defined. Even one small error can make the problem infeasible or can lead to an unexpected solution. To avoid this, I used Pydantic to validate the user input and raise any issues at the earliest possible stage. This article gives an easy to understand introduction to Pydantic.

To transform the defined network into a mathematical optimization problem I used PuLP. Which allows to define all variables and constraint in an intuitive way. This library also has the advantage that it can use many different solvers in a simple pug-and-play fashion. This article provides good introduction to this library.

Defining nodes and edges

The code below shows how nodes are defined:

from pydantic import BaseModel, model_validator
from typing import Optional

# node and edge definitions
class Node(BaseModel, frozen=True):
    """
    class of network node with attributes:
    name: str - name of node
    demand: float - demand of node (if node is sink)
    supply: float - supply of node (if node is source)
    capacity: float - maximum flow out of node
    type: str - type of node
    x: float - x-coordinate of node
    y: float - y-coordinate of node
    fixed_cost: float - cost of selecting node
    """
    name: str
    demand: Optional[float] = 0.0
    supply: Optional[float] = 0.0
    capacity: Optional[float] = float('inf')
    type: Optional[str] = None
    x: Optional[float] = 0.0
    y: Optional[float] = 0.0
    fixed_cost: Optional[float] = 0.0

    @model_validator(mode='after')
    def validate(self):
        """
        validate if node definition are correct
        """
        # check that demand is non-negative
        if self.demand < 0 or self.demand == float('inf'): raise ValueError('demand must be non-negative and finite')
        # check that supply is non-negative
        if self.supply < 0: raise ValueError('supply must be non-negative')
        # check that capacity is non-negative
        if self.capacity < 0: raise ValueError('capacity must be non-negative')
        # check that fixed_cost is non-negative
        if self.fixed_cost < 0: raise ValueError('fixed_cost must be non-negative')
        return self

Nodes are defined through the Node class which is inherited from Pydantic’s BaseModel. This enables an automatic validation that ensures that all properties are defined with the correct datatype whenever a new object is created. In this case only the name is a required input, all other properties are optional, if they are not provided the specified default value is assigned to them. By setting the “frozen” parameter to True I made all properties immutable, meaning they cannot be changed after the object has been initialized.

The validate method is executed after the object has been initialized and applies more checks to ensure the provided values are as expected. Specifically it checks that demand, supply, capacity, variable cost and fixed cost are not negative. Furthermore, it also does not allow infinite demand as this would lead to an infeasible optimization problem.

These checks look trivial, however their main benefit is that they will trigger an error at the earliest possible stage when an input is incorrect. Thus, they prevent creating a optimization model that is incorrect. Exploring why a model cannot be solved would be much more time consuming as there are many factors that would need to be analyzed, while such “trivial” input error may not be the first aspect to investigate.

Edges are implemented as follows:

class Edge(BaseModel, frozen=True):
"""
class of edge between two nodes with attributes:
origin: 'Node' - origin node of edge
destination: 'Node' - destination node of edge
capacity: float - maximum flow through edge
variable_cost: float - cost per unit flow through edge
fixed_cost: float - cost of selecting edge
"""
origin: Node
destination: Node
capacity: Optional[float] = float('inf')
variable_cost: Optional[float] = 0.0
fixed_cost: Optional[float] = 0.0

@model_validator(mode='after')
def validate(self):
"""
validate of edge definition is correct
"""
# check that node names are different
if self.origin.name == self.destination.name: raise ValueError('origin and destination names must be different')
# check that capacity is non-negative
if self.capacity < 0: raise ValueError('capacity must be non-negative')
# check that variable_cost is non-negative
if self.variable_cost < 0: raise ValueError('variable_cost must be non-negative')
# check that fixed_cost is non-negative
if self.fixed_cost < 0: raise ValueError('fixed_cost must be non-negative')
return self

The required inputs are an origin node and a destination node object. Additionally, capacity, variable cost and fixed cost can be provided. The default value for capacity is infinity which means if no capacity value is provided it is assumed the edge does not have a capacity limitation. The validation ensures that the provided values are non-negative and that origin node name and the destination node name are different.

Initialization of flowgraph object

To define the flowgraph and optimize the flow I created a new class called FlowGraph that is inherited from NetworkX’s DiGraph class. By doing this I can add my own methods that are specific to the flow optimization and at the same time use all methods DiGraph provides:

from networkx import DiGraph
from pulp import LpProblem, LpVariable, LpMinimize, LpStatus

class FlowGraph(DiGraph):
    """
    class to define and solve minimum cost flow problems
    """
    def __init__(self, nodes=[], edges=[]):
        """
        initialize FlowGraph object
        :param nodes: list of nodes
        :param edges: list of edges
        """
        # initialialize digraph
        super().__init__(None)

        # add nodes and edges
        for node in nodes: self.add_node(node)
        for edge in edges: self.add_edge(edge)


    def add_node(self, node):
        """
        add node to graph
        :param node: Node object
        """
        # check if node is a Node object
        if not isinstance(node, Node): raise ValueError('node must be a Node object')
        # add node to graph
        super().add_node(node.name, demand=node.demand, supply=node.supply, capacity=node.capacity, type=node.type, 
                         fixed_cost=node.fixed_cost, x=node.x, y=node.y)
        
    
    def add_edge(self, edge):    
        """
        add edge to graph
        @param edge: Edge object
        """   
        # check if edge is an Edge object
        if not isinstance(edge, Edge): raise ValueError('edge must be an Edge object')
        # check if nodes exist
        if not edge.origin.name in super().nodes: self.add_node(edge.origin)
        if not edge.destination.name in super().nodes: self.add_node(edge.destination)

        # add edge to graph
        super().add_edge(edge.origin.name, edge.destination.name, capacity=edge.capacity, 
                         variable_cost=edge.variable_cost, fixed_cost=edge.fixed_cost)

FlowGraph is initialized by providing a list of nodes and edges. The first step is to initialize the parent class as an empty graph. Next, nodes and edges are added via the methods add_node and add_edge. These methods first check if the provided element is a Node or Edge object. If this is not the case an error will be raised. This ensures that all elements added to the graph have passed the validation of the previous section. Next, the values of these objects are added to the Digraph object. Note that the Digraph class also uses add_node and add_edge methods to do so. By using the same method name I am overwriting these methods to ensure that whenever a new element is added to the graph it must be added through the FlowGraph methods which validate the object type. Thus, it is not possible to build a graph with any element that has not passed the validation tests.

Initializing the optimization problem

The method below converts the network into an optimization model, solves it, and retrieves the optimized values.

  def min_cost_flow(self, verbose=True):
        """
        run minimum cost flow optimization
        @param verbose: bool - print optimization status (default: True)
        @return: status of optimization
        """
        self.verbose = verbose

        # get maximum flow
        self.max_flow = sum(node['demand'] for _, node in super().nodes.data() if node['demand'] > 0)

        start_time = time.time()
        # create LP problem
        self.prob = LpProblem("FlowGraph.min_cost_flow", LpMinimize)
        # assign decision variables
        self._assign_decision_variables()
        # assign objective function
        self._assign_objective_function()
        # assign constraints
        self._assign_constraints()
        if self.verbose: print(f"Model creation time: {time.time() - start_time:.2f} s")

        start_time = time.time()
        # solve LP problem
        self.prob.solve()
        solve_time = time.time() - start_time

        # get status
        status = LpStatus[self.prob.status]

        if verbose:
            # print optimization status
            if status == 'Optimal':
                # get objective value
                objective = self.prob.objective.value()
                print(f"Optimal solution found: {objective:.2f} in {solve_time:.2f} s")
            else:
                print(f"Optimization status: {status} in {solve_time:.2f} s")
        
        # assign variable values
        self._assign_variable_values(status=='Optimal')

        return status

Pulp’s LpProblem is initialized, the constant LpMinimize defines it as a minimization problem — meaning it is supposed to minimize the value of the objective function. In the following lines all decision variables are initialized, the objective function as well as all constraints are defined. These methods will be explained in the following sections.

Next, the problem is solved, in this step the optimal value of all decision variables is determined. Following the status of the optimization is retrieved. When the status is “Optimal” an optimal solution could be found other statuses are “Infeasible” (it is not possible to fulfill all constraints), “Unbounded” (the objective function can have an arbitrary low values), and “Undefined” meaning the problem definition is not complete. In case no optimal solution was found the problem definition needs to be reviewed.

Finally, the optimized values of all variables are retrieved and assigned to the respective nodes and edges.

Defining decision variables

All decision variables are initialized in the method below:

   def _assign_variable_values(self, opt_found):
        """
        assign decision variable values if optimal solution found, otherwise set to None
        @param opt_found: bool - if optimal solution was found
        """
        # assign edge values        
        for _, _, edge in super().edges.data():
            # initialize values
            edge['flow'] = None
            edge['selected'] = None
            # check if optimal solution found
            if opt_found and edge['flow_var'] is not None:                    
                edge['flow'] = edge['flow_var'].varValue                    

                if edge['selection_var'] is not None: 
                    edge['selected'] = edge['selection_var'].varValue

        # assign node values
        for _, node in super().nodes.data():
            # initialize values
            node['selected'] = None
            if opt_found:                
                # check if node has selection variable
                if node['selection_var'] is not None: 
                    node['selected'] = node['selection_var'].varValue

First it iterates through all edges and assigns continuous decision variables if the edge capacity is greater than 0. Furthermore, if fixed costs of the edge are greater than 0 a binary decision variable is defined as well. Next, it iterates through all nodes and assigns binary decision variables to nodes with fixed costs. The total number of continuous and binary decision variables is counted and printed at the end of the method.

Defining objective

After all decision variables have been initialized the objective function can be defined:

    def _assign_objective_function(self):
        """
        define objective function
        """
        objective = 0
 
        # add edge costs
        for _, _, edge in super().edges.data():
            if edge['selection_var'] is not None: objective += edge['selection_var'] * edge['fixed_cost']
            if edge['flow_var'] is not None: objective += edge['flow_var'] * edge['variable_cost']
        
        # add node costs
        for _, node in super().nodes.data():
            # add node selection costs
            if node['selection_var'] is not None: objective += node['selection_var'] * node['fixed_cost']

        self.prob += objective, 'Objective',

The objective is initialized as 0. Then for each edge fixed costs are added if the edge has a selection variable, and variable costs are added if the edge has a flow variable. For all nodes with selection variables fixed costs are added to the objective as well. At the end of the method the objective is added to the LP object.

Defining constraints

All constraints are defined in the method below:

  def _assign_constraints(self):
        """
        define constraints
        """
        # count of contraints
        constr_count = 0
        # add capacity constraints for edges with fixed costs
        for origin_name, destination_name, edge in super().edges.data():
            # get capacity
            capacity = edge['capacity'] if edge['capacity'] < float('inf') else self.max_flow
            rhs = capacity
            if edge['selection_var'] is not None: rhs *= edge['selection_var']
            self.prob += edge['flow_var'] <= rhs, f"capacity_{origin_name}-{destination_name}",
            constr_count += 1
            
            # get origin node
            origin_node = super().nodes[origin_name]
            # check if origin node has a selection variable
            if origin_node['selection_var'] is not None:
                rhs = capacity * origin_node['selection_var'] 
                self.prob += (edge['flow_var'] <= rhs, f"node_selection_{origin_name}-{destination_name}",)
                constr_count += 1

        total_demand = total_supply = 0
        # add flow conservation constraints
        for node_name, node in super().nodes.data():
            # aggregate in and out flows
            in_flow = 0
            for _, _, edge in super().in_edges(node_name, data=True):
                if edge['flow_var'] is not None: in_flow += edge['flow_var']
            
            out_flow = 0
            for _, _, edge in super().out_edges(node_name, data=True):
                if edge['flow_var'] is not None: out_flow += edge['flow_var']

            # add node capacity contraint
            if node['capacity'] < float('inf'):
                self.prob += out_flow = demand - supply
                rhs = node['demand'] - node['supply']
                self.prob += in_flow - out_flow >= rhs, f"flow_balance_{node_name}",
            constr_count += 1

            # update total demand and supply
            total_demand += node['demand']
            total_supply += node['supply']

        if self.verbose:
            print(f"Constraints: {constr_count}")
            print(f"Total supply: {total_supply}, Total demand: {total_demand}")

First, capacity constraints are defined for each edge. If the edge has a selection variable the capacity is multiplied with this variable. In case there is no capacity limitation (capacity is set to infinity) but there is a selection variable, the selection variable is multiplied with the maximum flow that has been calculated by aggregating the demand of all nodes. An additional constraint is added in case the edge’s origin node has a selection variable. This constraint means that flow can only come out of this node if the selection variable is set to 1.

Following, the flow conservation constraints for all nodes are defined. To do so the total in and outflow of the node is calculated. Getting all in and outgoing edges can easily be done by using the in_edges and out_edges methods of the DiGraph class. If the node has a capacity limitation the maximum outflow will be constraint by that value. For the flow conservation it is necessary to check if the node is either a source or sink node or a transshipment node (demand equals supply). In the first case the difference between inflow and outflow must be greater or equal the difference between demand and supply while in the latter case in and outflow must be equal.

The total number of constraints is counted and printed at the end of the method.

Retrieving optimized values

After running the optimization, the optimized variable values can be retrieved with the following method:

    def _assign_variable_values(self, opt_found):
        """
        assign decision variable values if optimal solution found, otherwise set to None
        @param opt_found: bool - if optimal solution was found
        """
        # assign edge values        
        for _, _, edge in super().edges.data():
            # initialize values
            edge['flow'] = None
            edge['selected'] = None
            # check if optimal solution found
            if opt_found and edge['flow_var'] is not None:                    
                edge['flow'] = edge['flow_var'].varValue                    

                if edge['selection_var'] is not None: 
                    edge['selected'] = edge['selection_var'].varValue

        # assign node values
        for _, node in super().nodes.data():
            # initialize values
            node['selected'] = None
            if opt_found:                
                # check if node has selection variable
                if node['selection_var'] is not None: 
                    node['selected'] = node['selection_var'].varValue 

This method iterates through all edges and nodes, checks if decision variables have been assigned and adds the decision variable value via varValue to the respective edge or node.

Demo

To demonstrate how to apply the flow optimization I created a supply chain network consisting of 2 factories, 4 distribution centers (DC), and 15 markets. All goods produced by the factories have to flow through one distribution center until they can be delivered to the markets.

Supply chain problem

Node properties were defined:

Node definitions

Ranges mean that uniformly distributed random numbers were generated to assign these properties. Since Factories and DCs have fixed costs the optimization also needs to decide which of these entities should be selected.

Edges are generated between all Factories and DCs, as well as all DCs and Markets. The variable cost of edges is calculated as the Euclidian distance between origin and destination node. Capacities of edges from Factories to DCs are set to 350 while from DCs to Markets are set to 100.

The code below shows how the network is defined and how the optimization is run:

# Define nodes
factories = [Node(name=f'Factory {i}', supply=700, type='Factory', fixed_cost=100, x=random.uniform(0, 2),
                  y=random.uniform(0, 1)) for i in range(2)]
dcs = [Node(name=f'DC {i}', fixed_cost=25, capacity=500, type='DC', x=random.uniform(0, 2), 
            y=random.uniform(0, 1)) for i in range(4)]
markets = [Node(name=f'Market {i}', demand=random.randint(1, 100), type='Market', x=random.uniform(0, 2), 
                y=random.uniform(0, 1)) for i in range(15)]

# Define edges
edges = []
# Factories to DCs
for factory in factories:
    for dc in dcs:
        distance = ((factory.x - dc.x)**2 + (factory.y - dc.y)**2)**0.5
        edges.append(Edge(origin=factory, destination=dc, capacity=350, variable_cost=distance))

# DCs to Markets
for dc in dcs:
    for market in markets:
        distance = ((dc.x - market.x)**2 + (dc.y - market.y)**2)**0.5
        edges.append(Edge(origin=dc, destination=market, capacity=100, variable_cost=distance))

# Create FlowGraph
G = FlowGraph(edges=edges)

G.min_cost_flow()

The output of flow optimization is as follows:

Variable types: 68 continuous, 6 binary
Constraints: 161
Total supply: 1400.0, Total demand: 909.0
Model creation time: 0.00 s
Optimal solution found: 1334.88 in 0.23 s

The problem consists of 68 continuous variables which are the edges’ flow variables and 6 binary decision variables which are the selection variables of the Factories and DCs. There are 161 constraints in total which consist of edge and node capacity constraints, node selection constraints (edges can only have flow if the origin node is selected), and flow conservation constraints. The next line shows that the total supply is 1400 which is higher than the total demand of 909 (if the demand was higher than the supply the problem would be infeasible). Since this is a small optimization problem, the time to define the optimization model was less than 0.01 seconds. The last line shows that an optimal solution with an objective value of 1335 could be found in 0.23 seconds.

Additionally, to the code I described in this post I also added two methods that visualize the optimized solution. The code of these methods can also be found in the repo.

Flow graph

All nodes are located by their respective x and y coordinates. The node and edge size is relative to the total volume that is flowing through. The edge color refers to its utilization (flow over capacity). Dashed lines show edges without flow allocation.

In the optimal solution both Factories were selected which is inevitable as the maximum supply of one Factory is 700 and the total demand is 909. However, only 3 of the 4 DCs are used (DC 0 has not been selected).

In general the plot shows the Factories are supplying the nearest DCs and DCs the nearest Markets. However, there are a few exceptions to this observation: Factory 0 also supplies DC 3 although Factory 1 is nearer. This is due to the capacity constraints of the edges which only allow to move at most 350 units per edge. However, the closest Markets to DC 3 have a slightly higher demand, hence Factory 0 is moving additional units to DC 3 to meet that demand. Although Market 9 is closest to DC 3 it is supplied by DC 2. This is because DC 3 would require an additional supply from Factory 0 to supply this market and since the total distance from Factory 0 over DC 3 is longer than the distance from Factory 0 through DC 2, Market 9 is supplied via the latter route.

Another way to visualize the results is via a Sankey diagram which focuses on visualizing the flows of the edges:

Sankey flow diagram

The colors represent the edges’ utilizations with lowest utilizations in green changing to yellow and red for the highest utilizations. This diagram shows very well how much flow goes through each node and edge. It highlights the flow from Factory 0 to DC 3 and also that Market 13 is supplied by DC 2 and DC 1.

Summary

Minimum cost flow optimizations can be a very helpful tool in many domains like logistics, transportation, telecommunication, energy sector and many more. To apply this optimization it is important to translate a physical system into a mathematical graph consisting of nodes and edges. This should be done in a way to have as few discrete (e.g. binary) decision variables as necessary as those make it significantly more difficult to find an optimal solution. By combining Python’s NetworkX, Pulp and Pydantic libraries I built an flow optimization class that is intuitive to initialize and at the same time follows a generalized formulation which allows to apply it in many different use cases. Graph and flow diagrams are very helpful to understand the solution found by the optimizer.

If not otherwise stated all images were created by the author.

Shape
Shape
Stay Ahead

Explore More Insights

Stay ahead with more perspectives on cutting-edge power, infrastructure, energy,  bitcoin and AI solutions. Explore these articles to uncover strategies and insights shaping the future of industries.

Shape

Dell, Nutanix combo expands virtualization, private cloud choices

Dell and Nutanix have teamed to offer customers more enterprise storage choices in Nutanix private cloud environments. Dell’s PowerStore enterprise all-flash storage system now supports Nutanix Cloud Platform 7.6, with validated deployment and managed through Dell Private Cloud, the vendors announced. “This collaboration makes PowerStore the second Dell storage platform to

Read More »

Energy Department Announces Partnership to Expand Reliable, Affordable Energy Access and Power America’s AI Future in Western Kentucky

WASHINGTON—The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) today announced a landmark partnership with Brookfield, NextEra Energy, Big Rivers Electric Power Corporation, Jackson Purchase Energy Cooperative, and Paducah Power System to redevelop portions of DOE’s Paducah Site into a data center campus accompanied by new affordable energy infrastructure. The more than $100 billion privately funded investment, one of the largest in Kentucky’s history, is expected to create approximately 8,000 construction jobs and 600 permanent jobs. Consistent with President Trump’s Ratepayer Protection Pledge, the project’s generation and storage capacity would exceed the campus’s energy needs, allowing excess electricity to be delivered to the regional grid, helping reduce energy costs for American families and businesses. At or near the Paducah campus, NextEra Energy plans to develop 2 gigawatts (GW) of new grid-connected natural gas-fired generation, upgrade existing transmission infrastructure, and deploy up to 2.6 GW of battery energy storage to support a new 1.8 GW artificial intelligence and high-performance computing (HPC) innovation campus. “Thanks to President Trump, the U.S. government is leveraging its assets—like our federal lands—to add power generation, create jobs, and ensure the United States wins the AI race,” said U.S. Secretary of Energy Chris Wright. “The President’s Ratepayer Protection Pledge ensures America can build the energy infrastructure needed to power the AI revolution while lowering electricity costs for American families and businesses. By transforming former DOE sites into engines of innovation and economic growth, we can revitalize communities with increased tax revenue and thousands of jobs, while also strengthening America’s energy security.” “The $100 billion private sector investment in Paducah is historic,” said U.S. Congressman Andy Barr (R-KY). “I’m grateful to Secretary Wright for his leadership and partnership in securing a long-term commitment from the federal government to back this project. After speaking with local and state officials who were strongly supportive

Read More »

Nuclear Lifecycle Innovation Campuses Contenders Announced

WASHINGTON—The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) today announced the selection of Utah, Tennessee, Oklahoma, Louisiana, and Idaho as potential host states for Nuclear Lifecycle Innovation Campuses, a new effort to strengthen and modernize the nation’s full nuclear fuel cycle. The campuses will attract significant investment, expand domestic manufacturing, and create thousands of new high-paying jobs in their respective regions. Following record levels of interest in the application process, U.S. Secretary of Energy Chris Wright signed Memorandums of Understanding with the five states to continue exploring opportunities to host Innovation Campuses and support President Trump’s bold vision for American energy dominance and national energy security. “I’m pleased to announce that after reviewing 28 applications from 26 states, the Energy Department has selected five initial contenders to further explore building Nuclear Lifecycle Innovation Campuses,” Secretary Wright said. “These campuses will be massive generators of economic growth, create thousands of high-paying jobs, and be crucial to unleashing America’s nuclear renaissance. The innovative concept is a direct result of President Trump’s leadership and ambitious directives to restore the domestic nuclear fuel cycle and get America’s nuclear industry growing again.”  “Utah welcomes the chance to help America reclaim its leadership in civil nuclear energy,” said Utah Governor Spencer J. Cox. “We’re building the advanced technologies that will drive affordable, abundant power across our country. Through Operation Gigawatt, Utah is developing the entire nuclear lifecycle, from fuel production to advanced reactor deployment—strengthening our national security while helping secure America’s energy independence. This campus will accelerate that work.” “As the global epicenter of nuclear energy, Tennessee is honored to be selected as a potential host for a Nuclear Lifecycle Innovation Campus,” said Tennessee Governor Bill Lee. “As our state answered the call during the Manhattan Project and helped shape the course of history, Tennessee stands ready once again

Read More »

Energy Secretary Secures Grid Across 17 States Amid Period of Hot Weather

WASHINGTON—The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) issued an emergency order to keep Americans across 17 states powered during the region’s energy emergency brought on by hot weather conditions. The order directs the Southwest Power Pool, Inc. (SPP) to dispatch specified generation units and to order their operation as needed to maintain reliability. The order also authorizes SPP to direct backup generation resources to operate as a last resort before declaring an Energy Emergency Alert (EEA) 3 or during an EEA 3. The order was issued pursuant to a request from SPP. “The Trump Administration is tapping into an abundant supply of unused backup generation to maintain affordable, reliable, and secure power for hardworking American families and businesses,” said U.S. Secretary of Energy Chris Wright. “The previous administration’s energy subtraction policies weakened the grid, leaving Americans more vulnerable during emergency events. Thanks to President Trump’s leadership, we are reversing those failures and using every available tool to ensure Americans have continued access to affordable, reliable, and secure energy to power and cool their homes.” DOE estimates more than 35 gigawatts (GW) of unused backup generation remain available nationwide. On day one of his second term, President Trump declared a national energy emergency after the Biden administration’s energy subtraction agenda left behind a grid increasingly vulnerable to blackouts. Power outages cost the American people $44 billion per year, according to data from DOE’s National Laboratories. This order mitigates the possibility of power outages in the region and highlights the commonsense policies of the Trump Administration to ensure Americans have access to affordable, reliable, and secure electricity. The order is effective on July 26, 2026, and shall expire at 11:59 PM CDT on August 3, 2026.                                   

Read More »

Magnolia expands Giddings position with $4-billion WildFire Energy acquisition

In the filing, Magnolia said WildFire’s second-quarter 2025 production is expected to average 53,000 boe/d, about 70% oil, primarily from the Eagle Ford, Austin Chalk, and Woodbine formations. Magnolia said the acquisition would strengthen its position in the Eagle Ford/Austin Chalk trend by expanding its inventory of high-return drilling locations, adding development flexibility and longer laterals, and leveraging its technical expertise to improve well performance and lower costs. “WildFire has a large, low-decline oily PDP base with historic development centered on the Eagle Ford. While there are significant future Eagle Ford development opportunities, our technical teams see extensive future potential in the Austin Chalk with further upside in the Woodbine as well as other appraisal opportunities that should expand on our success in Giddings since 2018,” said Chris Stavros, Magnolia’s chairman, president, and chief executive officer. The deal is expected to result in a pro forma position in Giddings of more than 1.25 million net acres, add more than 500 miles of gas-gathering pipelines, and offer various cost savings, the company said. “Magnolia is guiding to $100 million in run rate synergies by the end of 2027, with savings coming from the chance to deploy long laterals, shared facilities and infrastructure and additional sand sourcing for operations from WildFire’s in-basin mine. As always, successful execution will be key for the longer-term success of the deal,” Enverus’ Dittmar said. Total consideration consists of $2.65 billion in cash, 32.2 million shares of Magnolia Class A common stock, and the assumption of $600 million of outstanding debt.

Read More »

Vår Energi inks deal to acquire BlueNord

Vår Energi ASA has agreed to buy BlueNord ASA as part of a proposed merger that, if completed, will expand Vår Energi’s presence beyond the Norwegian Continental Shelf (NCS), positioning the operator as Europe’s largest independent oil and gas producer. Acqusition of BlueNord would add producing assets on the Danish Continental Shelf (DCS) to Vår Energi’s current holdings, with the combined post-merger portfolio anticipated to lift long-term production to about 450,000 boe/d, with about 2.4 billion boe of reserves and resources and an estimated reserve and resource life of about 15 years. BlueNord’s portfolio includes interests in the Tyra, Halfdan, Dan, and Gorm hub areas, which are part of the Danish Underground Consortium operated by TotalEnergies SE. The assets are expected to contribute about 45,000 boe/d of net production beginning in 2026 and include about 195 million boe of net 2P reserves and 2C contingent resources, extending production beyond 2040. “The transaction marks a significant milestone in Vår Energi’s growth journey, creating the largest independent producer of oil and gas in Europe with a long-term production target of [about 450,000 b/d] and reinforcing our role as a reliable and secure supplier of energy to Europe,” said Nick Walker, Vår Energi’s chief executive officer. Vår Energi said the DCS assets complement its existing North Sea operations because of their geological, operational, and fiscal similarities to the NCS. The combination also expands the company’s exposure to European natural gas markets through access to the Nybro and Den Helder gas delivery points. The combined portfolio would maintain a production mix of about 65% oil and 35% natural gas, with operating costs projected to remain at $10-11/boe. The proposed merger remains subject to approval by BlueNord shareholders, regulatory and governmental approvals, license and partner consent, and other customary conditions. If approved, the companies said

Read More »

Bahrain’s GPIC enlists Fluor for new unit at Sitra complex

Gulf Petrochemical Industries Co. (GPIC) has awarded Fluor Corp. a contract to execute front-end engineering and design (FEED) for a proposed aromatics plant to be built at GPIC’s petrochemicals complex located across 60 hectares of reclaimed land in Sitra, Bahrain. As part of the contract, Fluor will deliver a FEED study based on commercially proven process technologies for the plant’s targeted production of 1.2 million tonnes/year (tpy) of paraxylene and 500,000 tpy of benzene, the service provider said on July 21. Critical building blocks for plastics, polyester fibers, and packaging materials, paraxylene and benzene production from the plant would help meet global demand for high‑performance consumer and industrial products, as well as expand capabilities of GPIC’s current operations at Sitra, Fluor said. GPIC’s existing complex currently uses a feedstock of natural gas domestically produced in Bahrain to produce about 1.2 million tonnes/day of ammonia, 1.2 million tonnes/day of methanol, and 1.7 million tonnes/day of urea. Neither Fluor nor GPIC revealed details regarding a timeline for completion of the proposed aromatics plant. GPIC is a joint venture of Bahrain Petroleum Co. (33.3%), SABIC Agri-Nutrients Investment Co. (33.3%), and Kuwait’s Petrochemical Industries Co. (PIC; 33.3%).

Read More »

Why KVM-over-IP is becoming the backbone of modern infrastructure management

IT teams responsible for data centers, colocation facilities, and test labs face a persistent challenge when it comes to providing affordable, timely maintenance and troubleshooting for their organizations’ IT infrastructure. Facilities aren’t often staffed around the clock, and sending someone on-site to address every hardware failure or issue is slow and expensive, especially for colocation customers that already pay for local staff support. Additionally, when critical infrastructure goes down, organizations can’t afford to endure an outage during the time it takes to get a technician on-site. IT teams typically employ tools to enable remote access, but the most common have significant limitations and drawbacks. Remote desktop protocol (RDP), for instance, provides access, but only while the operating system is running. If the OS crashes or fails to boot, or if a firmware change ends the session, RDP is useless, and IT will need to send a technician for an on-site visit. There are also security concerns, as open software ports make RDP vulnerable to attack. Another tool, physical intelligent platform management interface (IPMI), sits below the OS layer, so it can be used regardless of the state of the OS. However, legacy IPMI implementations have historically been associated with security concerns, particularly when exposed to public or poorly secured networks. Many organizations now restrict IPMI access or supplement it with additional security controls. Some organizations have moved to Distributed Management Task Force (DMTF) Redfish because it provides stronger security. But its security behaviors, such as session timeouts, rate limiting, and lockout policies, are undefined and left to the implementer, so improper implementation poses a significant risk. KVM (keyboard, video, and mouse)-over-IP addresses both the reliability and security concerns of RDP, IPMI, and DMTF Redfish. KVM connects directly to hardware, which gives administrators remote BIOS-level access and full control of a

Read More »

AI data centers in the US may face power cuts under PJM reliability proposal

High risk for new builds While PJM coordinates the wholesale electricity grid across 13 states, including Delaware, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Maryland, etc., and the District of Columbia, not every data center will be affected by this development. The proposal is expected to primarily impact new facilities that will fail to secure dedicated or contracted power supplies. “The data centers most at risk are new ones being built that haven’t signed contracts for their own power source yet, especially smaller or newer companies without deep pockets. Giant companies like Amazon, Google, or Microsoft can more easily afford to build their own backup power, so they’re safer. The riskiest locations are places already packed with data centers, like Northern Virginia and growing areas in Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Maryland, where the local power grid is already stretched thin,” noted Jain.

Read More »

A 13-year-old flaw is exposing tens of thousands of data center management systems

Why this attack method is dangerous BMCs sit a layer below that which many security products monitor, on shared out-of-band management networks where administrative credentials are often reused. Thus, malicious changes made to BMCs or other platform hardware are able to survive OS reinstalls, disk replacements, and standard incident response procedures, Katchinskiy noted. The risk is “especially pronounced” in neocloud and GPU cloud environments, he said. AI infrastructure can span thousands of GPUs on shared management networks, with joint storage, high-speed interconnects, and multi-tenant tooling. He pointed out that, while a customer may rent their own dedicated servers, they are still connected to shared, provider-managed, out-of-band networks where orchestration and provisioning services, credential stores, and admin tools span infrastructure used by numerous joint customers.

Read More »

Fortinet’s new FortiGate platform converges firewall, SASE technologies

When configured as a FortiSASE Outpost, the 1200G can be deployed as a local SASE point of presence (POP), extending SASE enforcement closer to users and applications in customer-controlled locations, such as on-premises sites, private data centers, or colocation facilities, while maintaining centralized cloud management, according to Fortinet. Users can maintain local enforcement where needed without building separate stacks, the vendor stated. The FortiSASE interface centrally manages configuration, policy, monitoring, lifecycle operations, and upgrades across both deployment models, maintaining consistent zero-trust policies, visibility and protection without treating the on-site POP as a separate security environment. In addition customers can keep designated traffic, logs, and processing within defined geographic or private infrastructure boundaries to meet regulatory requirements and reduce connectivity costs without changing the end-user experience, Fortinet stated. “As AI adoption, encrypted traffic, and hybrid infrastructure reshape enterprise networks, organizations need to inspect growing traffic volumes without introducing performance bottlenecks,” Fortinet stated. “They also need the flexibility to determine where security enforcement occurs based on application performance, data sovereignty, compliance, and operational requirements.”

Read More »

Up to 50% of data center capacity slated for 2026 could be delayed

A primary obstacle is electricity. After a number of instances where local citizens saw their electric bill skyrocket after a data center opened up shop in their neighborhood, there has been tremendous pushback from cities and states on large scale data centers. In some instances, operators are being required to provide their own power rather than get power from the public grid, according to Currence. Although projects powered entirely by on-site generation or hybrid systems account for fewer than 10% of announced facilities, they represent nearly half of the total announced capacity, according to the report. Mindful of their public image, hyperscalers are responding quickly to these demands. Google has expanded its strategy by acquiring a large renewable energy development pipeline, while Amazon has increased direct investments in solar generation and battery storage.

Read More »

When Buildability Breaks: What Prince William and New York Signal for Data Center Development

For several years, the Prince William Digital Gateway represented data center ambition at its largest scale: a proposed 2,100-acre technology corridor near Gainesville, Virginia, capable of accommodating tens of millions of square feet of digital infrastructure. Its location also made it uniquely contentious. The corridor bordered Manassas National Battlefield Park and other historic, environmental and residential resources, drawing the data center development debate beyond its usual industry and land-use constituencies. Opposition increasingly centered not only on the project’s scale, but on whether development of that magnitude belonged alongside one of the country’s most significant Civil War landscapes. In July 2026, that vision effectively ended. QTS Data Centers terminated its participation in the Digital Gateway and withdrew its remaining petitions before the Supreme Court of Virginia. The decision followed Compass Datacenters’ withdrawal in April, leaving neither of the project’s original developers pursuing the corridor. QTS said it reached the decision after “careful consideration,” while emphasizing that Virginia remains an important market for the company. From Proposed Capacity to Executable Capacity The collapse of the Digital Gateway is more than the cancellation of one unusually large development. It comes as the data center industry confronts a widening gap between announced capacity and executable capacity. Power remains the most visible constraint. But permitting discipline, environmental review, community acceptance and the durability of political support are increasingly determining whether a project can progress from land control and conceptual capacity to construction and operation. A separate development in New York underscored that shift less than two weeks after QTS withdrew. On July 14, Gov. Kathy Hochul issued Executive Order 62, establishing what the state describes as the nation’s first statewide moratorium on new hyperscale data centers. The order temporarily holds in abeyance certain incomplete state environmental permit applications for data centers capable of drawing at

Read More »

Microsoft will invest $80B in AI data centers in fiscal 2025

And Microsoft isn’t the only one that is ramping up its investments into AI-enabled data centers. Rival cloud service providers are all investing in either upgrading or opening new data centers to capture a larger chunk of business from developers and users of large language models (LLMs).  In a report published in October 2024, Bloomberg Intelligence estimated that demand for generative AI would push Microsoft, AWS, Google, Oracle, Meta, and Apple would between them devote $200 billion to capex in 2025, up from $110 billion in 2023. Microsoft is one of the biggest spenders, followed closely by Google and AWS, Bloomberg Intelligence said. Its estimate of Microsoft’s capital spending on AI, at $62.4 billion for calendar 2025, is lower than Smith’s claim that the company will invest $80 billion in the fiscal year to June 30, 2025. Both figures, though, are way higher than Microsoft’s 2020 capital expenditure of “just” $17.6 billion. The majority of the increased spending is tied to cloud services and the expansion of AI infrastructure needed to provide compute capacity for OpenAI workloads. Separately, last October Amazon CEO Andy Jassy said his company planned total capex spend of $75 billion in 2024 and even more in 2025, with much of it going to AWS, its cloud computing division.

Read More »

John Deere unveils more autonomous farm machines to address skill labor shortage

Join our daily and weekly newsletters for the latest updates and exclusive content on industry-leading AI coverage. Learn More Self-driving tractors might be the path to self-driving cars. John Deere has revealed a new line of autonomous machines and tech across agriculture, construction and commercial landscaping. The Moline, Illinois-based John Deere has been in business for 187 years, yet it’s been a regular as a non-tech company showing off technology at the big tech trade show in Las Vegas and is back at CES 2025 with more autonomous tractors and other vehicles. This is not something we usually cover, but John Deere has a lot of data that is interesting in the big picture of tech. The message from the company is that there aren’t enough skilled farm laborers to do the work that its customers need. It’s been a challenge for most of the last two decades, said Jahmy Hindman, CTO at John Deere, in a briefing. Much of the tech will come this fall and after that. He noted that the average farmer in the U.S. is over 58 and works 12 to 18 hours a day to grow food for us. And he said the American Farm Bureau Federation estimates there are roughly 2.4 million farm jobs that need to be filled annually; and the agricultural work force continues to shrink. (This is my hint to the anti-immigration crowd). John Deere’s autonomous 9RX Tractor. Farmers can oversee it using an app. While each of these industries experiences their own set of challenges, a commonality across all is skilled labor availability. In construction, about 80% percent of contractors struggle to find skilled labor. And in commercial landscaping, 86% of landscaping business owners can’t find labor to fill open positions, he said. “They have to figure out how to do

Read More »

2025 playbook for enterprise AI success, from agents to evals

Join our daily and weekly newsletters for the latest updates and exclusive content on industry-leading AI coverage. Learn More 2025 is poised to be a pivotal year for enterprise AI. The past year has seen rapid innovation, and this year will see the same. This has made it more critical than ever to revisit your AI strategy to stay competitive and create value for your customers. From scaling AI agents to optimizing costs, here are the five critical areas enterprises should prioritize for their AI strategy this year. 1. Agents: the next generation of automation AI agents are no longer theoretical. In 2025, they’re indispensable tools for enterprises looking to streamline operations and enhance customer interactions. Unlike traditional software, agents powered by large language models (LLMs) can make nuanced decisions, navigate complex multi-step tasks, and integrate seamlessly with tools and APIs. At the start of 2024, agents were not ready for prime time, making frustrating mistakes like hallucinating URLs. They started getting better as frontier large language models themselves improved. “Let me put it this way,” said Sam Witteveen, cofounder of Red Dragon, a company that develops agents for companies, and that recently reviewed the 48 agents it built last year. “Interestingly, the ones that we built at the start of the year, a lot of those worked way better at the end of the year just because the models got better.” Witteveen shared this in the video podcast we filmed to discuss these five big trends in detail. Models are getting better and hallucinating less, and they’re also being trained to do agentic tasks. Another feature that the model providers are researching is a way to use the LLM as a judge, and as models get cheaper (something we’ll cover below), companies can use three or more models to

Read More »

OpenAI’s red teaming innovations define new essentials for security leaders in the AI era

Join our daily and weekly newsletters for the latest updates and exclusive content on industry-leading AI coverage. Learn More OpenAI has taken a more aggressive approach to red teaming than its AI competitors, demonstrating its security teams’ advanced capabilities in two areas: multi-step reinforcement and external red teaming. OpenAI recently released two papers that set a new competitive standard for improving the quality, reliability and safety of AI models in these two techniques and more. The first paper, “OpenAI’s Approach to External Red Teaming for AI Models and Systems,” reports that specialized teams outside the company have proven effective in uncovering vulnerabilities that might otherwise have made it into a released model because in-house testing techniques may have missed them. In the second paper, “Diverse and Effective Red Teaming with Auto-Generated Rewards and Multi-Step Reinforcement Learning,” OpenAI introduces an automated framework that relies on iterative reinforcement learning to generate a broad spectrum of novel, wide-ranging attacks. Going all-in on red teaming pays practical, competitive dividends It’s encouraging to see competitive intensity in red teaming growing among AI companies. When Anthropic released its AI red team guidelines in June of last year, it joined AI providers including Google, Microsoft, Nvidia, OpenAI, and even the U.S.’s National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), which all had released red teaming frameworks. Investing heavily in red teaming yields tangible benefits for security leaders in any organization. OpenAI’s paper on external red teaming provides a detailed analysis of how the company strives to create specialized external teams that include cybersecurity and subject matter experts. The goal is to see if knowledgeable external teams can defeat models’ security perimeters and find gaps in their security, biases and controls that prompt-based testing couldn’t find. What makes OpenAI’s recent papers noteworthy is how well they define using human-in-the-middle

Read More »