Unintended Effects of Energy Efficiency Policy: Lessons Learned in the Residential Sector

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper analyzes the effectiveness of energy efficiency policies for multi-family buildings in Latvia by means of a system dynamics simulation model. The model is based on previous work by the same authors and is improved with the addition of a new behaviour submodel. The simulation results are validated using expert group opinions and historical trends.

The work is well written and clear. It has a large applicative interest as it deals with the effectiveness of energy efficiency policies and with possible unintended negative side-effects they can have. As such, I think the work is worth to be published.

I just would like to suggest the following minor corrections:

-In the abstract: ‘Based on experience accumulated in the last twelve years in Latvia.’ Something is missing in the sentence

-Page 3, line 95: Fig. 3 à Fig. 1

-Page 4, line 124: Forester à Forrester

-Page 5, line 140: I cannot detect the dark-colored boxes

-Fig. 5: some letters are not clear

-Line 427, eq.1: what is SMTH? Please define

-Line 429: ‘e’ missing

-Line 437-438: ‘the effect of the indicated probability of investing in energy efficiency on’ à ‘the effect on the indicated probability of investing in energy efficiency of’

-Line 451, eq. (2): How BV is valued? Is it between 0 and 1?

-The comparison between Figs. 20 and 21 seems to show that the stability of financing tools does not increase the fraction of successfully completed projects, but rather it decreases it, on average. Is this correct? Could this be commented by the authors?

-There are two Figs. 22: please correct

-Line 828: please define the acronym EEOS

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Thank you for your valuable comments,  here below please find our answers and see attached the corrected version of manuscript:

-In the abstract: ‘Based on experience accumulated in the last twelve years in Latvia.’ Something is missing in the sentence

Corrected.

-Page 3, line 95: Fig. 3 à Fig. 1:

Corrected.

-Page 4, line 124: Forester à Forrester:

Corrected.

-Page 5, line 140: I cannot detect the dark-colored boxes:

This sentence in Figure 2 applies to the scheme in the picture.

-Fig. 5: some letters are not clear

Corrected.

-Line 427, eq.1: what is SMTH? Please define

Corrected.

-Line 429: ‘e’ missing

Corrected.

-Line 437-438: ‘the effect of the indicated probability of investing in energy efficiency on’ à ‘the effect on the indicated probability of investing in energy efficiency of’

Corrected.

-Line 451, eq. (2): How BV is valued? Is it between 0 and 1?

Corrected.

-The comparison between Figs. 20 and 21 seems to show that the stability of financing tools does not increase the fraction of successfully completed projects, but rather it decreases it, on average. Is this correct? Could this be commented by the authors?

Share of successfully completed projects is determined by the ratio experienced construction companies over inexperienced construction companies. When the financing is not sustainable, the ratio is much higher than with sustainable financing thus perceived fraction is higher.

-There are two Figs. 22: please correct

Corrected.

-Line 828: please define the acronym EEOS

Corrected.

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper is extensive and stylistically incorrectly referenced about the journal to which it was sent. Thematic matches the journal scope and presents an interesting analysis. The "WE" style of writing is not appropriate and the text should be transformed into a third person passive. The title should be extended to the word of the country whose sector is being analyzed. Unintended effects of energy efficiency policy: lessons learned in the Latvian residential sector. The reason is that the authors are not well acquainted with the situation in the EU, so a general title would mislead a potential reader. After the general remark, I turn to specific details. The percentage must be written in two decimal places (despite the second number 0). References must be numbered [xy] not by the name of the lead author and thus you have freed one sheet of paper. When you put a statement like ''Multi-family buildings are a significant consumer in the residential sector in many EU countries.'' provide some information in form of numbers from Eurostat. The models you used are from the ’80s, I’m sure there are improved solutions that should be listed.
Please reformulate "The system under study is highly complex" because in this way someone may think that you are not well acquainted with the matter which is not true (significant effort and knowledge are evident from the paper).
The abbreviations in Figure 2 are not inscribed in the text. Given the subject, I am surprised that you did not take into account 20 years of application of the Energy performance of buildings directive into the model. EPBD should be taken into consideration. The technical aspects of improving the building's outer envelope are weak. Table 2 inflated as styrofoam :) Figures 23 and 24 of inappropriately large text. References do not have numbers. 

In conclusion, in short, the title without Lithuania is not good, it is desirable to shorten the paper, correct the referencing and formatting of the text, remove the 'we' speech, give a review of EBPD and its contribution, put numbers in the general text to support the claims.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Thank you for your valuable comments,  here below please find our answers and see attached the corrected version of manuscript:

1. The paper is extensive and stylistically incorrectly referenced about the journal to which it was sent. Thematic matches the journal scope and presents an interesting analysis. - We have corrected the refernces style according to the guidelines.
2. The "WE" style of writing is not appropriate and the text should be transformed into a third person passive. - revised and corrected.
3. The title should be extended to the word of the country whose sector is being analyzed. Unintended effects of energy efficiency policy: lessons learned in the Latvian residential sector. The reason is that the authors are not well acquainted with the situation in the EU, so a general title would mislead a potential reader. - We would like to keep the original title. As suggested by the reviewer, we have supplemented the text with the wider EU context of building energy efficiency, incl. EPBD and Renovation Wave. This information supports our findings and statements that the renovation diffusion is slow in most EU countries (on average, 1% per year).

• After the general remark, I turn to specific details:
  • The percentage must be written in two decimal places (despite the second number 0).

Corrected

• References must be numbered [xy] not by the name of the lead author and thus you have freed one sheet of paper.

Corrected

• When you put a statement like ''Multi-family buildings are a significant consumer in the residential sector in many EU countries.'' provide some information in form of numbers from Eurostat.

Reference added.

• The models you used are from the ’80s, I’m sure there are improved solutions that should be listed.

More references are added 

• Please reformulate "The system under study is highly complex" because in this way someone may think that you are not well acquainted with the matter which is not true (significant effort and knowledge are evident from the paper).

By this statement we mean that residential multi family building sector is highly complex system with multiple feedbacks, non-linearities and delays.


• The abbreviations in Figure 2 are not inscribed in the text.

Corrected.

• Given the subject, I am surprised that you did not take into account 20 years of application of the Energy performance of buildings directive into the model. EPBD should be taken into consideration.

Introduction section of the paper is supplemented with references to EPBD.

• The technical aspects of improving the building's outer envelope are weak.

Description of measures is added in line 128.

• Table 2 inflated as styrofoam :)

Table is compressed.

• Figures 23 and 24 of inappropriately large text.

Corrected.

• References do not have numbers. 

In conclusion, in short,:

• the title without Lithuania is not good,
• it is desirable to shorten the paper,
• correct the referencing and formatting of the text,
• remove the 'we' speech,
• give a review of EBPD and its contribution,
• put numbers in the general text to support the claims.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.doc

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

As this is an EU analysis as the authors stated, Figure 3 should be expanded with data from other EU cities.
The meaning of Figure 8 is not clear to me, it looks like a print screen of software if it is necessary to state where the information about the shape of the curve is taken from (if it does not show a curve with normalized values on axes that have a complete name of the meaning of each axis). STH is not defined in expression 1. Expression 2 (6 also) contains vector product, according to text it could be ordinary multiplication. Expression 5 would be nice to see graphical presented (ex example) based on available data for one individual example.
As far as EBPD is concerned, the authors are a bit short-sighted because they do not take the most important aspect of the directive but only directly visible statistics. Speaking of a small percentage, it has to be mentioned that numbers that are not coefficients should be written in 4 significant digits. Example 2949.6 GWh may seem like accurate data, but in essence, 2950 GWh represents an accurate value that is 0.01% higher due to rounding and does not burden the reader with unnecessary data which has even greater measurement uncertainty.
Figures 11, 12, and 13 show a software interface from which the reader might infer how the authors took the data put into the program and presented the simulations using the old model as a theoretical basis. For this not to happen, the authors must emphasize in the introduction their unique scientific contribution to the contribution of the paper and further explain the images. In addition, narrow down (format) Table 1; The text on the first two circles of Figure 4 is not legible, put the description outside the circles and connect with lines.

I still think the title without Lithuania is not good :) 'Unintended effects of energy efficiency policy: lessons learned in the Latvian residential sector'

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Thank you very much for your detailed attention and all the comments you made - that's resulted in a great uplift of our work indeed. 

Please find our comments regarding the last updates we made according to your suggestions:

• As this is an EU analysis as the authors stated, Figure 3 should be expanded with data from other EU cities. 
  
  This section of the paper is solely about Latvian situation and shows that number of renovated buildings does not correlate with development level of the region. Development indicator is developed and applied by the Latvian government and application of this indicator to EU cities is beyond the scope of this study. 
• The meaning of Figure 8 is not clear to me, it looks like a print screen of software if it is necessary to state where the information about the shape of the curve is taken from (if it does not show a curve with normalized values on axes that have a complete name of the meaning of each axis).  
  
  Explanation added in the paper. 
• STH is not defined in expression 1.  
  
  Explanation added in the paper. 
• Expression 2 (6 also) contains vector product, according to text it could be ordinary multiplication.  
  
  Corrected. 
• Expression 5 would be nice to see graphical presented (ex example) based on available data for one individual example. 
  
  Explanation is added in the text. 
• As far as EBPD is concerned, the authors are a bit short-sighted because they do not take the most important aspect of the directive but only directly visible statistics.  
  
  We are well aware of EPBD. But it is important how requirements of EPBD are transposed to national legislation and how it is interpreted and implemented in the reality by the EU member states. Interpretation can slow down the diffusion process but this sort of analysis is not included in the scope of our study. 
• Speaking of a small percentage, it has to be mentioned that numbers that are not coefficients should be written in 4 significant digits. Example 2949.6 GWh may seem like accurate data, but in essence, 2950 GWh represents an accurate value that is 0.01% higher due to rounding and does not burden the reader with unnecessary data which has even greater measurement uncertainty. 
  
  Corrected. 
• Figures 11, 12, and 13 show a software interface from which the reader might infer how the authors took the data put into the program and presented the simulations using the old model as a theoretical basis. For this not to happen, the authors must emphasize in the introduction their unique scientific contribution to the contribution of the paper and further explain the images.  
  
  Explanation is added. 
• In addition, narrow down (format) Table 1;  
  
  Corrected.
• The text on the first two circles of Figure 4 is not legible, put the description outside the circles and connect with lines. 
  
  Corrected. 
• I still think the title without Lithuania is not good :) 'Unintended effects of energy efficiency policy: lessons learned in the Latvian residential sector' 

We still would argue of not including Latvia in the title of publication. There are two main reasons for that. First, a structure and principles used in the model are of more general nature and relevance. Therefore mentioning “Latvia” in the title would narrow a scope of the study, in our opinion. Second, it is written in Abstract that the model is applied to the case of Latvia, and readers thus are informed already in the beginning about the fact that approbation of the model is done for a specific country.

Best regards on behalf of the authors

 

Author Response File: Author Response.doc

Round 3

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear authors, 
corrections that were made, through each iteration, are minimal. The mistakes they have made so far indicate a lack of background in mathematical modeling. The biggest problem with paper, discovered in the second round of review, it seems to me that the whole paper was based only on a simulation within the program: https://www.iseesystems.com/store/products/stella-architect.aspx; while doing so you forgot to reference all images as a product of the program, which must be explicitly stated, otherwise it is assumed that you drew them yourself. Using a modeling program is not bad but the contribution of your engagement in the model itself must be emphasized not only in the application of other people's solutions and models. I leave it to the editorial board to decide whether that is acceptable.

Images are missing:
Figure 24 Simulation results of cumulative energy savings for all four scenarios
Figure 25 Simulation results for annual costs for each scenario