Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This paper presents an innovative model of interrelationships of local energy transition. The concept is novel and contemporary and implementation of the same can improve energy conservation and enhance optimal utilization of the resources. However I have few comment which may be incorporated in the paper :

1) The structure of the paper need to be rearranged. The paper must start with Introduction > Objective and Scope > Novelty > Methodology > Results > Discussions > Conclusion > Overall Summery

2) The difference between the policy proposed by Porter and the LET model can be understood from the explanation provided in the paper. However the contribution of the authors in this aspect is unclear. This need to be properly highlighted.

3) It would have been better if the concepts were discussed with a case study. 

4)Presently this paper is written like a technical note. But I will suggest that the authors may try convert this into a research paper buy including case studies, comparison with existing studies, future-scope and novelty of the paper.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

First, I would like to thank the author for very well written review paper, thoroughly sourced with examples from across EU countries and regions as well as with 2 relevant case studies that appropriately illustrate the possibilities and challenges of Local Energy Transition (LET) frameworks. Coming from North American context, for me this paper was excitingly informative, and I am glad that I have learned a lot of potential pathways of broadening the implementation of renewable energy.

 

I have only a couple of small comments that more deal possibly with the fact that, presumably, both the author’s and mine English is a 2^nd language. I have to admit that initially I misunderstood the term Endowement used in this paper, so I had to consult several dictionaries and thesauri. They always indicated very similar definition, such as: 1) gift, grant, bequest; or 2) capacity, talent, faculties, ability, capability; or 3) gift of nature. Only after getting to the description of endowments, Section 3.1 on p. 4, I understood that, besides natural characteristics of a region, the author also considers economy, industrialization, social and political background, and legislation, I wonder if this would be better understood worldwide if the author simply use the term: Context.

 

This is just something to think about, and I do not require the author to revise this.

 

Finally, the section 6. is titled Patent, while it does not seem that what follows represent any patented outcome of this work. This section could be renamed: Acknowledgements and disclaimers.

Author Response

Please see the attachement

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf