Energy Communities Implementation in the European Union: Case Studies from Pioneer and Laggard Countries

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

please see the attachment

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Reviewer #1 comments:

 

R1.1:

please, besides the five pillars, enumerate the main implications of your study (who may gain what and why upon your findings)

 

Authors:

Thank you for your suggestion. We have added the main implications of the study in the Introduction and the Conclusions sections, also according to your last comment R1.8. We have just briefly added them in the Abstract due to the maximum word limit for this section.

 

R1.2:

two issues:

1. figure ill-formated, please amend;
2. as a matter of style, I prefer that the introduction limits to contextualize the study and enunciate the research gap, the research question, and the general purpose of the article. Exhibits like figures should belong a further part of the article, the review, in which the explanations and rationalizations on the issue are to be found.

Please consider and amend if you agree

 

Authors:

Thank you for your observations. As regards point 1, we believe there was an issue with the doc formatting. Now it should have been fixed. Also, we agree with your point 2: we have now moved the research background to the dedicated section 2 titled “Research framework”, which reports deeper explanations and rationalizations of the issue and includes the explanatory figure and table.

 

R1.3:

idem, it is an explicative element that should not belong to the introduction

 

Authors:

Thank you. We have modified the framework and the organization of the first two sections of the paper, as described in the previous comment.

 

R1.4:

here is the right place to make your explanation and/ or argumentation (why you chose your issue), introduction should limit to show what is your issue.

Please consider

 

Authors:

Thanks for notifying this point. As explained in the reply to comment R1.2, we have limited the Introduction section to the presentation of the research gap, the research question, and the general purpose of the article, and we have added a dedicated section for the research background.

 

R1.5:

For your reference I would like to recommend two studies on Italian energy exchanges, please take a look if they can be useful to you

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2019.113825

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ifacol.2020.12.2504

 

Authors:

Thanks for your advice. The publications are relevant to the discussion and are discussed in the current section 3 together with other relevant literature.

 

R1.6:

before closing this chapter, a comparative, synoptic table reassuming your explanation, would be very useful for the reader, mainly those that live outside Europe

 

Authors:

Thank you for this suggestion. We have added the very useful suggested table at the end of the current section 3 to give a better and immediate description of the main aspects and differences between the regulatory frameworks in the two compared countries.

 

 

R1.7:

if possible, please develop also a subsection on eventual improvements in the Dutch case. Based on the literature (fi the two I have suggested and much more that you may find online), is it possible to pinpoint further directions even for a more developed case? If so, please consider)

 

Authors:

Thanks for this suggestion that allowed us to provide extremely relevant additional content. We added section 5.3 “Lessons to be learned in the Netherlands”.

 

R1.8:

an essential contribution of a study like yours (which is a good job done, congrats) are the implications. What´s next? What kind of stakeholder may benefit from your findings? Government, private companies, family householder? Please enumerate here what are the main implications for the day to day, real world that your study can entail.

 

Authors:

We are glad that the reviewer appreciated this study and we want to thank the reviewer for the thoughtful comments that helped to improve the work. We added the main implications of the study both in the Introduction and the Conclusions sections, as suggested.

Reviewer 2 Report

1. It is not clear from the summary how the authors examined the differences between laggard and pioneer countries;

2. The abstract does not elaborate on the results of the study and does not include a key message for the end users of the results of this paper;

3. The first two paragraphs briefly summarize key trends and dynamics in Europe, but recent developments in the geopolitical space (the Russo-Ukrainian war) also invite a critical assessment of the SDGs. The energy transition and the role of neighboring countries should be addressed in more detail. For example, refer to the following recent publications  - - -https://ideas.repec.org/p/zbw/esconf/227485.html 

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-55085-1_17

for a better conceptualization of this issue. The process of energy transition itself is delayed and the pressure for higher energy supply is increasing.  The mentioned papers also analyzed the syndrome of Dutch disease, which fits one of the case studies in this paper;

4. I suggest to significantly revise the introduction section. As it stands, it does not inform the reader about the main aim of the research, the research questions, and the research design. Simply stating that two countries will be studied is not sufficient. Furthermore, mention the recent paper on civic engagement in Europe and refer to the following source https://doi.org/10.1016/j.seps.2022.101347

4.1 I suggest that the research methodology be clearly explained, the research gap identified, and the contribution of the study highlighted. These aspects can also be addressed in the Abstract section;

5. Some parts of the Introduction section can be moved to the next sections. The authors inform the readers too much at the beginning of the article;

6. The authors should mention how their findings fit into the general mainstream of this research topic;

7. Is the division into "laggards" and "pioneers" an invention of the authors or has it already been used in the literature? Please define these terms more systematically with reference to the literature;

8. In section 2.3, the authors use very general statements such as "... the gap between these two countries is evident" or " This vast difference is due to 219 relevant technical, legal, financial, and social barriers hindering the laggard, mainly due 220 to the delay in defining the regulatory framework." I propose to elaborate on these points. Simply stating that there are differences and that Italy is somewhat underdeveloped does not fit the scientific argument;

9. A literature review should be added either in the introduction or in a separate section, because if there are other similar case studies on renewable and sustainable energy, readers should learn about them through this paper and make a connection to them;

10. The conclusion section should list the limitations and suggestions for future studies.

Minor comments:

1. L55: Unreadable sentence. Overlaps with the illustration;

2. L264: "this work wants" sounds strange;

3. L417-419: perhaps the economic aspects can be elaborated more;

Final opinion: I enjoyed reading this paper on the renewable and sustainable energy communities in the Netherlands and Italy. The paper describes how the regulatory framework and the exact communities are trying to get closer to the energy transition in Europe. The paper is logically structured and fulfills its main objectives. However, the paper definitely needs to be revised to improve its argumentation and writing style. There are redundancies and repetitions that need to be shortened. The summary and introduction  sections are problematic and need significant improvement. Although some parts of the paper are detailed and informative, some parts are still inconclusive. Some of these have already been mentioned above. However, the discussion section is well written and coherent. I strongly believe that papers based on qualitative research methods are necessary to shed light on things that are not easily captured by quantitative models or statistical analysis. Therefore, I suggest that this work be published after a thorough (major) revision.

Author Response

Reviewer #2 comments:

 

R2.1:
It is not clear from the summary how the authors examined the differences between laggard and pioneer countries;

Authors:

Thank you for giving us the chance to clarify this aspect. We have revised the summary in section 1 and we have added an explanation of the differences between laggard and pioneer countries, as follows: “Italy and the Netherlands, defined as "laggard" and "early adopter" or "pioneer" countries, respectively. The first term indicates those countries that present significant lacks and delays in policy definition and ECs setup and diffusion in their territory, while the second refers to those countries that already have several active energy communities throughout their territory and, thus, have developed policies and strategies to support the implementation of energy communities and the related technical aspects.” Also, we clarified this point in the Abstract.

 

R2.2:
The abstract does not elaborate on the results of the study and does not include a key message for the end users of the results of this paper;

Authors:

Thanks for the observation. We have modified the Abstract by adding the key message of the paper. We have just briefly added it due to the maximum word limit for this section.

 

R2.3:
The first two paragraphs briefly summarize key trends and dynamics in Europe, but recent developments in the geopolitical space (the Russo-Ukrainian war) also invite a critical assessment of the SDGs. The energy transition and the role of neighboring countries should be addressed in more detail. For example, refer to the following recent publications  - - -https://ideas.repec.org/p/zbw/esconf/227485.html 

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-55085-1_17

for a better conceptualization of this issue. The process of energy transition itself is delayed and the pressure for higher energy supply is increasing.  The mentioned papers also analyzed the syndrome of Dutch disease, which fits one of the case studies in this paper;

Authors:

Thanks for stressing the lack of this very relevant topic. We have improved the research background on this point at the beginning of section 2 and we have added more details about the energy transition and the energy system, as suggested, throughout the manuscript.

 

R2.4:
I suggest to significantly revise the introduction section. As it stands, it does not inform the reader about the main aim of the research, the research questions, and the research design. Simply stating that two countries will be studied is not sufficient. Furthermore, mention the recent paper on civic engagement in Europe and refer to the following source https://doi.org/10.1016/j.seps.2022.101347

Authors:

Thank you for the observation. We have mentioned the recommended relevant reference and we have also changed and reorganized the Introduction section and in general the framework of the first part of the article by adding a dedicated section for the research background (section 2 titled “Research framework”). Finally, we have improved the description of the purpose of the work.

 

R2.5:
I suggest that the research methodology be clearly explained, the research gap identified, and the contribution of the study highlighted. These aspects can also be addressed in the Abstract section;

 

Authors:

Thanks for stressing this lack. We have clarified the research gap and the implications of our study both at the end of the Introduction and in the Abstract.

 

R2.6:
Some parts of the Introduction section can be moved to the next sections. The authors inform the readers too much at the beginning of the article;

Authors:

We agree with the reviewer and moved several parts of the introduction into a new dedicated section to the research background, i.e. section 2 “Research framework”.

 

R2.7:
The authors should mention how their findings fit into the general mainstream of this research topic;

Authors:

Thanks for notifying this point. We have considered it worthwhile to dedicate a tailored section (section 3 “Local regulatory frameworks”) to the regulations and legislations of the analyzed countries, to better understand the real and specific differences in each context. In this view, we facilitated the analysis of the discrepancies and the solid points/lacks of each country. This point has been implemented also by clarifying the implications of the study in the Introduction, in the Conclusions, and briefly in the Abstract.

 

R2.8:
Is the division into "laggards" and "pioneers" an invention of the authors or has it already been used in the literature? Please define these terms more systematically with reference to the literature;

Authors:

Thanks for giving us the chance to clarify this point. These terms have been already used in literature. We have added specific references.

 

R2.9:

In section 2.3, the authors use very general statements such as "... the gap between these two countries is evident" or " This vast difference is due to 219 relevant technical, legal, financial, and social barriers hindering the laggard, mainly due 220 to the delay in defining the regulatory framework." I propose to elaborate on these points. Simply stating that there are differences and that Italy is somewhat underdeveloped does not fit the scientific argument;

Authors:

The numerous differences between the two countries are illustrated in detail in section 3, which is focused on the differences in terms of the regulatory framework, and in section 5, which gives a more comprehensive view. Also, they are summarized in Tables 3 and 4.

 

R2.10:

A literature review should be added either in the introduction or in a separate section, because if there are other similar case studies on renewable and sustainable energy, readers should learn about them through this paper and make a connection to them;

Authors:

Thanks for this suggestion. We have improved the literature review on renewable and sustainable energy to fill this gap in the dedicated section 2.

 

R2.11:

The conclusion section should list the limitations and suggestions for future studies.

Authors:

Thanks for this comment that allowed us to improve the Conclusions section. We have thoroughly revised the section by stating the main limitations and implications of the study.

 

Minor comments:

 

R2.12:

L55: Unreadable sentence. Overlaps with the illustration;

 

Authors:

Thanks for your observation. We believe there was an issue with the doc formatting. Now it should have been fixed.

 

R2.13:

L264: "this work wants" sounds strange;

Authors:

We have now revised the phrase.

 

R2.14:

L417-419: perhaps the economic aspects can be elaborated more;

Authors:

Thank you for your comment. We have enriched the discussion of the economic aspects.

 

Final opinion:

I enjoyed reading this paper on the renewable and sustainable energy communities in the Netherlands and Italy. The paper describes how the regulatory framework and the exact communities are trying to get closer to the energy transition in Europe. The paper is logically structured and fulfills its main objectives. However, the paper definitely needs to be revised to improve its argumentation and writing style. There are redundancies and repetitions that need to be shortened. The summary and introduction sections are problematic and need significant improvement. Although some parts of the paper are detailed and informative, some parts are still inconclusive. Some of these have already been mentioned above. However, the discussion section is well written and coherent. I strongly believe that papers based on qualitative research methods are necessary to shed light on things that are not easily captured by quantitative models or statistical analysis. Therefore, I suggest that this work be published after a thorough (major) revision.

 

Authors:

We want to thank the reviewer for the positive feedback, we are glad that the approach implemented has been appreciated. Also, we thank the reviewer for the thoughtful comments that significantly supported the improvement of our work, as addressed in the previous comments. We are now confident that it could be suitable for publication in this journal.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Ok

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper has been improved and could be published in present form.