Economic Assessment of the Peer-to-Peer Trading Policy of Distributed PV Electricity: A Case Study in China

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Text editing errors detected:

- Table 1 Components of the regulated electricity price.
Bold text, from "Table 1" to "regul".

- There is an Reference Error link broken in line 301.

- In line 324: "Model:" must be "Model B:"

- Line 398 y 553, Model A in bold, but model B and C, in normal type.

 

Author Response

Thanks very much for your kind comment! In the revised paper, we make the following revision.

Text editing errors detected:

1.Table 1 Components of the regulated electricity price.
Bold text, from "Table 1" to "regul".

Response: revised as requested.

2. There is an Reference Error link broken in line 301.

Response: revised as requested. 

"The equations from (4)-(15) illustrate the revenue of the PV generator, the cost of the end-user, the revenue of the power grid company, and the cost of the government (including the central and local government) of the models from Model A to Model C."

3. In line 324: "Model:" must be "Model B:"

Response: revised as requested. 

4. Line 398 y 553, Model A in bold, but model B and C, in normal type.

Response: revised as requested. 

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper is devoted to a very interesting topic. This paper focuses on economic assessment of the peer to peer trading policy of distributed PV electricity in China. Adequate mathematical models are applied. The paper is made qualitatively. Results are well discussed. Reference list is adequate. I think that the paper can be accepted after considering the following minor comments: 1. Page 10, Lines 299 and 301. The authors should check and modify. 2. Page 11, line 324. The authors forgot to include B. Please consider it as Model B. 3. Table numbers are mistakenly written. As an example see line 376 , please modify for the whole paper.

Author Response

Thanks very much for your kind comment!

1. Page 10, Lines 299 and 301. The authors should check and modify.

Response: In the revised paper, we make the following revision.

In part 4.4. Trading models:

To include the difference of different interpretations of the “grid fee”, three detailed models are built, as shown in Table 3. The nomenclature is given in Table 2.

The equations from (4)-(15) illustrate the revenue of the PV generator, the cost of the end-user, the revenue of the power grid company, and the cost of the government (including the central and local government) of the models from Model A to Model C.

 

2. Page 11, line 324. The authors forgot to include B. Please consider it as Model B.

Response: revised as requested.

 

3. Table numbers are mistakenly written. As an example see line 376 , please modify for the whole paper.

Response:

In the revised paper, we make the following revision.

Line 376: The average daily costs (for the end-users and the government) or the revenues (for the PV generators and power grid company) are shown in Figure 6 and Table 4.

Line 379: In Table 4, the results in the current mode (Model C) are set as the reference case.

Line 400: The grid fees for each trading peer are presented in Table 5, which is calculated based on the electric topology.

Line 403: When focusing on the impacts from the grid fee interpretations, it can be seen that the grid fees under the Interpretation II are averagely higher than the ones under the Interpretation I by 66%, as shown in Table 5.

 

 

Reviewer 3 Report

The paper is interesting and the case study is original. The literature review is quite extensive but could be better organized by highlighting how the cited papers are useful for your analysis. It is more a list of paper without too much work on connecting the results with your elaboration.

Author Response

Thanks very much for your kind comment!

We have re-organized the section 2: Literature review. We provide more details about the cited papers which are useful for your analysis. Meanwhile, some literature which is not closely related to our paper is deleted.

 

Please see the attachment of the revised paper. The changes are all in Tracking Changes. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf