Assessing the Cost-Effectiveness of Incentives for Energy Transition Using Marginal Abatement Cost Curves

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The issues contained in the study are very important and current because intensive exploitation and processing of traditional energy resources is taking its toll on nature. The climate changes caused by the anthropogenic warming of the atmosphere as a result of the increasing concentration of greenhouse gases, especially CO2, represent the main threat to the environment. There is good reason to believe that in the coming decades this phenomenon will become a threat to the health and lives of people in most regions of the world. Hence the initiatives of a large number of international communities and organisations aimed at taking action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. For this reason, the European Union and its individual Member States have decided to support such action. Due to the fact that the availability of financial resources is generally limited, they should be directed to where they are used effectively.

Below are comments for the study:

·         Too broad an introduction. Redundant last part (lines 124-132).

·         The general formula (1) would suffice. Redundant patterns 2-4 (lines 161-190)

·         The same text repeated many times: “This research applies the expert-based MAC curve methodology” (58-69, 92-96, 100, 136, 137, 153, 189, 194).

·         Discussion chapter needs to be rewritten, no references to literature.

Author Response

Please find the detailed answer to your comments in the attached document (Reviewer 1).

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Summary: This study conducts a techno-economic analysis for the South Tyrol region of Italy by comparing emissions reduction incentives in the buildings, transport, and heating sectors using marginal abatement cost curves. This analysis reveals that boiler replacement and mobility incentives are the most cost-effective measures for reducing emissions.

Main Recommendations:

·        The grammar and readability needs to be improved through careful revisions to the language and formatting. For example, in section 1 and throughout the paper there are a lot of short paragraphs of only 1-2 sentences long. Section 3 has a lot of grammar errors and is not written clearly. The equations and bulleted lists in the paper are difficult to read and should be put into a table format. In some places, it seems there is improper indentation of sections.

·        How do the MAC analyses results in this case study compare to other methods of analysis in previous literature to this region? It would help if there is some citation and reference in the discussion of the results and discussion sections. From reading this, it is difficult to say if these results add to the knowledge gained from other methods of analysis, or if these results are surprising or expected at all.

·        This paper fits well with the special issue call for energy system modeling, but many of the specific incentives reviewed are not renewable-energy based. For example, the three incentives in residential energy are purely energy efficiency. Mobility includes electric vehicles, which is not necessarily renewable-powered, and the heating section is boiler replacement through district heating or heat-pumps, which are also not necessarily renewable. To connect with the call better, more background on use of renewable energy in South Tyrol or the region would be helpful context, and a better connection to some renewable energy use would be helpful.

Specific Recommendations:

·        Pg. 1 last paragraph, explain where South Tyrol is, what Klimaplan is, and why this study focuses on South Tyrol.

·        Pg. 2 line 51, “This…” should be lowercase.

·        Pg. 3 lines 126-131, revise Chapters to Sections.

·        Pg. 4 the equations and formatting is a bit odd and difficult to read.

·        Pg. 5 more on why choosing South Tyrol for this case, how the lessons learned here may apply to other locations, etc. More context on why this is chosen as a case would be helpful.

·        Pg. 5 is very difficult to read with the bulleted and numbered lists – recommend using a table to communicate these lists better. The table could also highlight which values are used in this study.

·        Pg. 6 Section 4 begins indented too far.

·        Pg. 6 Line 282 should be MAC.

·        Pg. 12 Lines 451-454 does not really make sense, “ This research highlighted that the measures that can most cost-effectively produce a reduction in CO2 emissions are those for the replacement of boilers, while mobility incentives appear to be the most efficient in terms of potentially reduce emissions.” This suggests they are both cost-effective measures?

Comments on the Quality of English Language

·        The grammar and readability needs to be improved through careful revisions to the language and formatting.

Author Response

Please find the detailed answer to your comments in the attached document (Reviewer 2).

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is an attractive paper in which the author has carried out a series of work to analyze the incentives to reduce emissions using the Marginal Abatement Cost Curves Marginal Abatement Cost Curves. Before publication, it is recommended to make the following revisions:  

(1)The literature review is too weak and needs to systematize the academic stream and research focus. 

(2)It is necessary to elaborate on the reasons for selecting the South Tyrol region of Italy; 

(3)The sequence number of the article is confusing, for example, the second major part needs to be 2.1, etc., and can no longer be used as 1.2.3.

(4)The annexes do not need to contain so much content, some of it needs to be incorporated into the text to enhance persuasiveness.

(5)The discussion section is too weak, and needs in-depth analysis on the findings of the study, including comparative analysis with existing studies.

Author Response

Please find the detailed answer to your comments in the attached document (Reviewer 3).

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for these revisions - the paper has improved and acceptable for publication.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I see that the authors have addressed my comments appropriately. Well done! No more comments.