Optimizing Power Market Clearing with Segmented Electricity Prices: A Bilevel Model

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

In this paper, Optimizing Power Market Clearing with Segmented Electricity  Prices: A Bi-level Model proposed by authors. This reviewer has some points which can improve the quality of this paper.

1.    Introduction section should be improve by adding relevant latest papers with proper critical reviews.

2.    Highlights contributions of this paper in the last paragraph of this introduction section.

3.    Proposed methodology is not clear. Authors should add separate section and discuss about proposed method to implement this problem. Better to add flowchart. Also how to handle complex constraints to solve this problem are also not mentioned. It is better to include constraints handling method.

4.    It can be observed that results are not compared with the published work.

5.    Statistical analysis of the results are also not mentioned.

6. Risk is important term in market problem. There is a need of risk analysis. Which is not considered in this paper.

Need improvement

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Tiltle :Optimizing Power Market Clearing with Segmented Electricity  Prices: A Bi-level Model

This article investigates market clearing decisions of renewable and traditional energy companies, considering electricity price segmentation and analyzes cross-provincial renewable energy transactions and promote local renewable energy consumption using an inter-provincial bi-level market clearing decision-making model.This is an interesting paper, but some elements still need improvement.

Authors state that "Researching clearing models for renewable energy power producers participating..."Since the authors have given the research questions, why don't they interpret and answer the questions in detail.

The authors describe it extensively in Section 2.1, but the basis and context of such a reality needs to be explained.

What are the advantages and disadvantages of the Bi-level Model Construction model? The author applies their differences and connections.

Figure 4 needs to explain the economic motivation behind each figure and pattern. We know that just showing the results is meaningless.

Policy recommendations are not universal perspectives, but need to be analyzed and compared based on each of your results.

At the same time, the current research deficiencies of this paper and the direction of further improvement in the future should also be explained.

Moderate editing of English language required

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Adding Numeric Values to Abstract and Conclusion:

In the abstract, include specific numerical results or findings that highlight the key outcomes of the study.

In the conclusion, summarize the numerical results obtained and their significance. Highlight how the objectives were achieved and what the implications are.

Clear Methodology for the Work:

Detail the step-by-step approach followed in your research, starting from problem identification to data collection, model formulation, and solution techniques. Highlight the rationale for each step.

Flowchart:

Create a flowchart that visually represents the sequential steps of your research, from problem formulation to the solution approach, data analysis, and result interpretation.

Clarification of Upper and Lower Layer Construction:

Provide a detailed explanation of the construction of the upper layer and the lower layer in the bi-level model. Clearly define the decision variables, objectives, and constraints for each layer.

Why KKT and Comparison with Existing Models:

Explain why you specifically chose KKT conditions over other methods for optimization. Discuss the advantages of using KKT conditions, such as handling nonlinearities and constraints.

Compare your approach with existing models in the literature, highlighting the novel aspects or improvements your method offers.

Potential Limitations:

Discuss the potential limitations of your study, including assumptions made, data limitations, and scenarios where your model may not be applicable.

Clarification of Problem Statement:

Clearly state the problem you're addressing in the introduction, providing context, importance, and the specific challenges you're trying to overcome.

Justification of Model Assumptions:

Provide rationale for the assumptions made in your model. Explain why certain factors were considered and others were not, discussing the impact of these assumptions on the model outcomes.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

The article focuses on an important problem for the energy market in China. Generally speaking, this refers to environmental impact of energy production, inter alia, generating public goods, externlities) underlined in the internation goals and recommendation for public policies.. The model of bi-level market has been interestingly described. Futhermore,  all constraints are clear and detailed.  

My remarks:

·        The Introduction is too long and a little bit boring for potential readers. I propose to transfer a part of text into 2.1. Market framework.

·        The indicating the nexus of the research problem and the theory of economics (economics of public goods, environmental economics) is lacking. This should be incorporated in the text of the article. 

Discussion – this part contains some important comments,  but the references to empiricial findings are lacking.

To conclude, the manuscript may be considered for „Sustainability” after implementing minor revision.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Authors have addressed all my suggestions. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

accept

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

I have reviewed the contents, and I noticed that there are instances of Chinese words in the text displaying as 'Error! Reference source not found,' such as in lines 51, 82, and 84. Please ensure that the proper references are inserted in these places for accurate content. However, the authors have made the necessary modifications, and as such, I accept the manuscript for publication in its current version.

I noticed that there are instances of Chinese words in the text

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf