Update inputs documentation

[wesleyjcole]

Summary

This pull request builds on #157 and updates the ReadMe files in various inputs folders to document what the input files are, their units, and, in many cases, something about their source. Every file now has an entry (and stale entries, plus a couple unused files were removed). The entries are not 100% comprehensive, but they sure provide a lot more than our previous coverage.

Technical details

Implementation notes

I used Claude for the implementation, which traced each input file through the model to verify where and how it was used. Claude aslo pulled from this repo's history and the prior repo's history when needed to understand why files were added and gain context on file provenance. Finally, Claude cross-walked inputs with the Inputs_Processing repo to create links back to files where there was an obvious linkage (e.g., filenames matched exactly from the Inputs_Processing ReadMe and description).

I reviewed each entry, and made a few minor edits. I didn't find any cases where Claude made an error (every time I found an error, it was with a pre-existing description).

inputs/capacity_exogenous/cappayments.csv and inputs/financials/supply_chain_adjust.csv were both removed because they were not used.

I moved the Clean Air Act description from the nationa_generation folder to the emission_constraints folder.

I also asked Claude to check for any inconsistencies between the model and our model documentation. It identified several inconsistencies, which I fixed (using my words).

Note that when I updated references.bib several entries were removed. I verified that they aren't in Zotero, so it's possible that entries were added in the past but not synced with the online Zotero repository.

Issues resolved

Supports #43

Validation, testing, and comparison report(s)

Because this is a documentation only fix, model results are unchanged. I verified documentation changes by tracing input files, asking others on the team questions as needed, and inspecting input files.

Checklist for author

Details to double-check

• Charge code provided to reviewers
• [ ] Included comparison reports for appropriate test cases
• Documentation updated if necessary

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

Yes, as described in the implementation section.

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