Green Power Trade Behavior in China’s Renewable Portfolio Standard: An Evolutionary Game-Based System Dynamics Approach
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The manuscript is interesting, relevant and meets the scope of a journal.
I find it having a potential to contribute to the science, although I would expect a more solid literature review, which would help to better indicate the research gap.
Additioanl attention should be paid to the proofreading of the manuscript. There are some rudiments from the template (for example, line 200) and some typo errors.
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
Great thanks for offering us the opportunity to revise the manuscript. We have referred to the reviewer comments thoroughly and revised the manuscript accordingly. Attached is our response to the comments in a point-by-point way.
Best regards!
The authors
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
- The current work provides a new perspective during development of renewable energy for the participants, although it may need more validation work to improve the methodology itself.
- As for the methodology, how can the readers believe its validation when they need refer to the results you have obtained by the method.
- More explanation of the methodology is recommended to supplement to the manuscript. For intance, α1 is defined as the strategy of selling green power, and it equals (P-Δc-ω1C）q1. I am a little bit confused about this. How can "strategy" equals (P-Δc-ω1C）q1.
- It takes two years to achieve full participation in RE consumption under the premise of 0.63 yuan/kWh fine, which is an important result. How to evaluate the uncertainty of the results. If more factors were included in the method, what will the scenario be?
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
Great thanks for offering us the opportunity to revise the manuscript. We have referred to the reviewer comments thoroughly and revised the manuscript accordingly. Attached is our response to the comments in a point-by-point way.
Best regards!
The authors
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The paper may be considered for publication, although some general corrections and specific refinement are required:
- The authors are advised to add an abbreviation list at the end of the paper with all the acronyms. Furthermore, some of the abbreviations (e.g. NEA) are not described in the paper.
- Values in the equations should be given description that is more detailed. For example, units for the values in equation (1) are missing (specifically, unit green power must be clarified).
- Authors should clarify what energy sources they define as renewable power and thermal power.
- The structure of the paper should be edited. In its present form, it is a mixture of the methods and some of the results. It seems, some sections were meant to be worked on further (Lines 200 and 201 are evidently from the initial draft). Furthermore, the authors should outline the significance of the results obtained in comparison with other works.
- There are quite a lot of grammar and stylistic mistakes: sometimes the articles are misused, singular and plural numbers are incorrect, commas are missed, etc. Authors should check the text thoroughly to make it better readable.
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
Great thanks for offering us the opportunity to revise the manuscript. We have referred to the reviewer comments thoroughly and revised the manuscript accordingly. Attached is our response to the comments in a point-by-point way.
Best regards!
The authors
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Authors properly reacted to comments, improved the paper substantially. I think current version of a manuscript can be published.
