Lessons Learnt and Policy Implications from Implementing the POWERPOOR Approach to Alleviate Energy Poverty

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear authors,

Please find below my main suggestions:

Please remove the dot at the end of the title

Please expand the citations and bibliographical references with other authors' papers on the topic, field researched.

I suggest that the paper should be a review rather than an article, given the rather poorly developed empirical analysis of the data.

Please complete the sections at the end of the article (author contributions, funding, ... etc.).

Finally, I believe that if the paper is modified as a review and the suggested changes are made, it can be published.

Author Response

First, the authors would like to sincerely thank Reviewer #1 for the positive and constructive feedback. We believe that addressing the comments raised has helped us in improving the content and quality of our study and strengthening our manuscript. Below, we respond to each point raised in blue.

Point 1: Please remove the dot at the end of the title

Response 1: The dot has been removed

 

Point 2: Please expand the citations and bibliographical references with other authors' papers on the topic, field researched.

Response 2: More relevant references have been added especially in chapter 3 that is presenting the regional and national context in the eight countries.

 

Point 3: I suggest that the paper should be a review rather than an article, given the rather poorly developed empirical analysis of the data.

Response 3:The authors agree with this comment and the whole layout of the paper better fits the description of a review. We have adjusted throughout the manuscript where needed.

 

Point 4: Please complete the sections at the end of the article (author contributions, funding, ... etc.).

Response 4: The sections at the end of the article have been completed accoring to the instructions.  

 

Again, we would like to sincerely thank Reviewer 1; the provided suggestions and directions have been instrumental in the major revision of our manuscript.

Reviewer 2 Report

I rate the reviewed work very positively. First of all, the problem raised in it is very important, up-to-date and has a wide range. Secondly, in my opinion, the value of this work is its ordering and synthesizing character. There are many analytical studies in the literature, with a simultaneous deficit of studies using the method of synthesis, which allow for efficient drawing of practical conclusions. Thirdly, in the context of the issue examined in this work, I believe that the use of secondary data (including documents) generated in other projects is reasonable and justified. Each work done should be explored as deeply as possible.

The purpose of the assessed work was precisely formulated. However, I would suggest a more synthetic elaboration of the content of chapters 3 and 5. Both tables prepared by the Authors are an important creative contribution to this article. Combining them with the more focused content of chapters 3 and 5 will, in my opinion, enhance the value of this work.

Author Response

First, the authors would like to sincerely thank Reviewer #2 for the positive and constructive feedback. We believe that addressing the comments raised has helped us in improving the content and quality of our study and strengthening our manuscript. Below, we respond to each point raised in blue.

 

Point 1: I rate the reviewed work very positively. First of all, the problem raised in it is very important, up-to-date and has a wide range. Secondly, in my opinion, the value of this work is its ordering and synthesizing character. There are many analytical studies in the literature, with a simultaneous deficit of studies using the method of synthesis, which allow for efficient drawing of practical conclusions. Thirdly, in the context of the issue examined in this work, I believe that the use of secondary data (including documents) generated in other projects is reasonable and justified. Each work done should be explored as deeply as possible.

Response 1: Thank you for the positive feedback, indeed alleviating energy poverty while empowering vulnerable consumers is an important issue. Using insights from projects and work done in the field is important as it can further the research without reinventing the wheel.

 

Point 2: The purpose of the assessed work was precisely formulated. However, I would suggest a more synthetic elaboration of the content of chapters 3 and 5. Both tables prepared by the Authors are an important creative contribution to this article. Combining them with the more focused content of chapters 3 and 5 will, in my opinion, enhance the value of this work.

Response 2: More relevant references have been added in chapters 3 and 5. Especially in chapter 3 that gives the context, presenting existing energy poverty mitigation actions and policies in the eight countries.

 

Again, we would like to sincerely thank Reviewer 2; the provided suggestions and directions have been instrumental in the revision of our manuscript.

Reviewer 3 Report

This is a clearly written paper which provides a comprehensive review of policy efforts to in 8 EU member states to address energy poverty. However, my main criticism of the paper is that it treats citizens as a homogenous group, although there are references to differentiation eg Croatia – pensioners and families with children. The available evidence shows that the experiences and causes of energy poverty are differentiated across a range of social categories which will be context dependent. To be effective any policies attempting to address energy poverty needs to reflect differences.

I realise that intersectional data is not easy to find and is not collected by Eurostat. NECPs have nothing to say on gender – although they are required to. The authors have the possibility to provide intersectional data but do not describe (at least in this paper) the composition of their stakeholder groups.

There have been a number of authors criticising this lack of differentiation. If I look at the reference list, very few research papers have been cited and I think the authors could benefit from a more comprehensive literature review both academic and commissioned. (See for example, Bouzarovski, S., & Tirado Herrero, S. (2014). The energy divide: Integrating energy transitions, regional inequalities and poverty trends in the European Union. European Urban and Regional Studies, 24(1), 69–86. It might also be useful to look at a recent report for the European Parliament’s FEMM Committee: The Gender Impact of the Fitfor55 Package and report for DG Energy - Trinomics (2016)) Selecting indicators to measure energy poverty).

Among the recommendations, the authors refer to energy communities. The evidence so far shows that they have tended to be the preserve of middle-class white men (often with technical background), hence they are far from socially inclusive. They can require a membership fee which becomes a barrier to low-income households. (See for example: Radtke, J. and Ohlhorst, D. (2021). Community Energy in Germany – Bowling Alone in Elite Clubs? Utilities Policy, 72: 101269.}

Author Response

First, the authors would like to sincerely thank Reviewer #3 for the positive and constructive feedback. We believe that addressing the comments raised has helped us in improving the content and quality of our study and strengthening our manuscript. Below, we respond to each point raised in blue.

 

Point 1: This is a clearly written paper which provides a comprehensive review of policy efforts to in 8 EU member states to address energy poverty. However, my main criticism of the paper is that it treats citizens as a homogenous group, although there are references to differentiation eg Croatia – pensioners and families with children. The available evidence shows that the experiences and causes of energy poverty are differentiated across a range of social categories which will be context dependent. To be effective any policies attempting to address energy poverty needs to reflect differences.

Response 1: The policy recommendations have been co-created with relevant stakeholders from the eight national countries. The stakeholders represented various actors and were asked to act as focal points and communicate their different needs and views. Also the recommendations have been specifically developed for each country seperately to better fit the local needs of citizens when it comes to mitigating energy poverty. The accruing policy recommendations are a common ground among the vastly different stakeholder groups that co-created their developlment but take into accoun the vastly different characteristics of the stakeholders.  

 

Point 2: I realise that intersectional data is not easy to find and is not collected by Eurostat. NECPs have nothing to say on gender – although they are required to. The authors have the possibility to provide intersectional data but do not describe (at least in this paper) the composition of their stakeholder groups.

Response 2: Indeed intersectional data are hard to find. This review focuses on presenting the policy recommendations stemming from implementing the POWERPOOR approach in alleviating energy poverty in the eight selected countries. The composition of the stakeholder groups that co-created the policy recommendations were as balanced as possible when it comes to gender, since it was within the aim of the POWERPOOR project to have a diverse set of stakeholders that can represent the various needs of the different actors that are affected by energy poverty. Some relevant information have been added to chapter 4 that is presenting the general approach of co-creating the policy recommendations with the stakeholders.

 

Point 3: There have been a number of authors criticising this lack of differentiation. If I look at the reference list, very few research papers have been cited and I think the authors could benefit from a more comprehensive literature review both academic and commissioned. (See for example, Bouzarovski, S., & Tirado Herrero, S. (2014). The energy divide: Integrating energy transitions, regional inequalities and poverty trends in the European Union. European Urban and Regional Studies, 24(1), 69–86. It might also be useful to look at a recent report for the European Parliament’s FEMM Committee: The Gender Impact of the Fitfor55 Package and report for DG Energy - Trinomics (2016)) Selecting indicators to measure energy poverty).

Response 3: More relevant references and studies haven been added, especially in chapter 3 that is presenting the current context and policies in the eight selected countries. The gender aspect is very interesting and thank you for bringing the authors’ attention to it.

 

Point 4: Among the recommendations, the authors refer to energy communities. The evidence so far shows that they have tended to be the preserve of middle-class white men (often with technical background), hence they are far from socially inclusive. They can require a membership fee which becomes a barrier to low-income households. (See for example: Radtke, J. and Ohlhorst, D. (2021). Community Energy in Germany – Bowling Alone in Elite Clubs? Utilities Policy, 72: 101269.}

Response 4: Indeed energy communities as they are cannot be considered a means to mitigate energy poverty. The POWERPOOR approach and what we focus on this study is for energy communities that are already established or are to be established to include energy poverty in their activities. What is more we encourage the developlment of energy communities that take into account energy poverty and follow specific measures to alleviate the issue (e.g., providing the extra energy that may have been produced one day to energy poor in the region the energy community is located). The goal is to prompt local authorities and relevant actors to empower all citizens and especially vulnerable consumers by providing them with the tools and knowledge to establish an energy community that takes into account their needs or to take part in an energy communtity that already does so.

 

Again, we would like to sincerely thank Reviewer 3; the provided suggestions and directions have been instrumental in the revision of our manuscript.