End ReEDS run early if no valid scenarios

[kennedy-mindermann]

Summary

This PR updates runreeds.py to end the run in a few different places if there are no valid scenarios left.

I also did a minor update to one of the existing error messages so it was easier to read.

Validation, testing, and comparison report(s)

I didn't do a full run since it doesn't change the model itself. I did check all combinations of getting a run started to make sure it behaved as expected.

Checklist for author

Details to double-check

• Charge code provided to reviewers
• Included comparison reports for appropriate test cases
• Documentation updated if necessary
• If input data added/modified:
  • Dollar year recorded and converted to 2004$ for GAMS
  • Timeseries are in Central Time
  • Units are specified
  • Preprocessing steps have been documented and committed to ReEDS_Input_Processing
  • New large data files handled with .h5 instead of .csv
  • If spatially resolved inputs are modified, the following visualizations for each file are included in the PR description (time-averaged if the inputs are time-resolved):
    • Map of absolute values before
    • Map of absolute values after
    • Map of differences: (after - before) or (after / before)
  • If entries are added/removed/changed in the EIA-NEMS unit database:
    • Changes have been committed to ReEDS_Input_Processing
    • hourlize/resource.py was rerun to regenerate the existing/prescribed VRE capacity data
• Code formatting standardized
• Reusable functions used where possible instead of copy/pasted code

General information to guide review

• Zero impact on results of default case
• No large data file(s) added/modified
• No substantive impact on runtime for full-US reference case
• No substantive impact on folder size for full-US reference case
• No change to process flow (runreeds.py, reeds/core/solve/solve.py)
• No change to code organization
• No change to package requirements (environment.yml or Project.toml)

Did you use LLM tools (chatbot or copilot) in the preparation of this PR? If so, describe how

Tag points of contact here if you would like additional review of the relevant parts of the model

[patrickbrown4]

Thanks Kennedy, some suggestions but otherwise looks good

[patrickbrown4]

Personally I would revert and keep these on their own lines as I think that's easier to read

[patrickbrown4]

For readability, define further down, next to the one place it's used