“…Such GIC risk assessment analysis based on hypothetical or historical storms has been implemented both by the power grid utilities in‐house with the use of their proprietary system grid configuration models using generic, generally commercial, power grid modeling software, and in the academic literature, using approximate grid system configurations and, generally, homemade or open source modeling packages. These studies achieve different levels of modeling complexity, ranging from the use of a half‐space or 1‐D Earth assumption (e.g., Viljanen et al., 2014, in Europe; de Silva Barbosa et al., 2015, in Brazil; and Liu, Ganebo, et al., 2018; Senbato et al., 2018, in Ethiopia), to the use of a compilation of 1‐D Earth models (e.g., Liu et al., 2014, in China; Marti et al., 2014, in Canada; Caraballo, 2016, in Uruguay; Blake et al., 2016, in Ireland; Kelly et al., 2017, in the United Kingdom and France; and Espinosa et al., 2019, in Brazil), to the laterally heterogeneous thin‐sheet overlaying a 1‐D profiles (Beggan, 2015, in the United Kingdom; Divett et al., 2017, in New Zealand; Nakamura et al., 2018, in Japan; and Bailey et al., 2018, in Austria), and 3‐D Earth models (Rosenqvist & Hall, 2019, in Sweden; Liu, Wang, et al., 2018, in China; and Marshall et al., 2019, in Australia), the latter all recent developments (see Kelbert, 2020, for a detailed discussion). Here, a 1‐D Earth refers to the assumption that the Earth's conductivity is laterally homogeneous and varies only with depth, whereas 3‐D Earth models make no such assumption.…”