Tariff Menus to Avoid Rebound Peaks: Results from a Discrete Choice Experiment with Swiss Customers
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
thank you this is an interesting manuscript worth publishing after minor revisions
I suggest to highlight that explicit demand response is in most cases not linked to a utility or supplier, but in the case of residential customers participants to independent aggregators, which are not mentioned in the article.
Barriers to explicit demand response participation by residential shall be highlighted as well the level of financial benefits which would entice residential customers to participate in DR programmes.
Policy conclusions are missing, not sure utilities will share the system benefits of demand response with customers
Also the role of second generation of smart meeters should be mentioned.
in the introduction first paragraph you it is strongly recommended to cite https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2022.112075
Author Response
Please see attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Paper is well written. My only concern is the title and the abstract. Given that energies is mainly for engineers, title could be modified for better reflect the content. Abstract could be expanded to provide more infor on motivation and findings.
Author Response
Please see attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
I think the study is country-specific and perhaps the findings and conclusions cannot be as generalized as it seems. Authors should rethink the structure and the title of the paper. Please clarify.
- Figure 1 seems pointless as it is. Consider improving it or deleting.
- Please explain the type of variables in the text. Dummy-coded, etc.
- Refer to this sentence in your paper in 338: "In total, 1050 respondents participated in the survey. To filter respondents who did not pay adequate attention, a screening question was included in the survey. 140 respondents who were not able to correctly answer the screening question were excluded. This resulted in 776 participants who successfully completed the survey." 1050-140 = 910. Authors state 776 participants. What Am I missing here?
- The reference list could be updated with more recent works. Most are 4+ old.
- Does your conclusions needs to cite any references? I guess you already cite them previously in the adequate places. Please clarify.
- Improve the quality of the figure 6. The label of the axis should be displayed below the axis. The yy axis label should be displayed vertically. Also consider to align the figures and improving overall.
- "While are findings are mostly in line with literature" - > "While findings are mostly in line with literature"
Author Response
Please see attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
Overall seems to have improved and the answers are ok. But please provide a modified version of the manuscript with highlighted changes for a final check.
Author Response
Changes have been highlighted using Word's "Compare" function, comparing the original submission and the resubmitted version.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
