Advancing Sustainable Development: Feed-In Tariff Subsidies and Renewable Electricity Growth in China

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

• The county dataset aggregates units ≥6 MW (“generator unit with capacity more than 6000 kW”), which likely omits much distributed PV and very small wind; you can discuss implications and. add a limitation sentence in Methods and Conclusion 
• You implement DID with county and year FE and an interaction with resource-year; please add a note on treatment timing heterogeneity and, if feasible, report a modern DID diagnostic (e.g., cohort-specific effects or event-study with saturated cohort interactions) to reassure against TWFE bias.
• The text alternates between “10% increase in relative subsidy” and log-linear/PPML effects. Include a paragraph that explains how to convert coefficients into percentage changes, guiding the reader through the process. This will help prevent misinterpretation.
• The utilisation rate declines as relative FIT increases; consider reporting average curtailment proxies where available or referencing dispatch constraints (already discussed) with a brief schematic linking subsidy rigidity, investment surge, transmission constraints,  utilisation drop.
• Confirm consistent capacity units (kW vs. MW) and power (kWh vs. GWh), and consider scaling for readability

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Overall, the text is clear and easy to read, but it could benefit from some light to moderate language polishing to better match the journal style. Please review:

• Article and preposition use (“the/this/its” in technical noun phrases)
• Consistent hyphenation of compound adjectives (e.g., “stand-alone,” “grid-connected,” “three-phase”)
• Subject–verb agreement and comma use in longer sentences
• Uniform capitalisation of terms and section headings
• Slightly tighten some lengthy sentences in figure captions to improve clarity

Consider engaging a professional copyeditor to harmonise style and punctuation around references and equations.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article addresses an important topic related to the development of renewable energy sources and contains practical conclusions. 
Specific comments:
- A list of abbreviations used (RMB, REPG, FIT, FIP, FFIT, DID, ENPG, etc.) would be useful.
- The literature review is selective, but seems sufficient.
- It would be useful to include references to the literature sources of the formulas used in the models (unless they are the author's own modifications); when commenting on formulas (1)-(4), it would also be useful to add information about the ranges of possible values of the parameters of these formulas and what the limit values of these parameters may indicate;
- Instead of the phrase “model (1)” in the text, would it be better to use “model related to formula (1)”?
- It is unclear what “FE” means in the tables (e.g., Table 2) and the asterisks next to the values in the tables (*, **, ***).
- A more comprehensive comment on how the values on the vertical axis of the graphs in Fig. 1 were determined would be useful.
- The article would be enriched by a comment on how the experiences examined in China can be translated into the development of renewable energy sources in other countries.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper examines how FIT incentives motivate the adoption of renewables in China. It makes a valuable contribution and could offer interesting insights into the field. This paper "evaluates the effectiveness of the FIT policy and its impact on the development of the PV and wind energy sectors"

However, I think some issues need refinement to achieve publishable quality. Next, I list some points:

• Regarding the numbering of your sections, the Introduction must be section 1, and subsequent sections should follow with formal numbering.
• Since our energy matrices are rapidly changing, some data, like "According to the International Energy Agency, renewables accounted for 29% of global electricity generation", must explicitly say the year in which it occurs.
• Furthermore, this paragraph does not cite the information correctly, just like the first part of the second one. 
•  In my opinion, just a personal appreciation, the Introduction section should include key insights, questions, hypotheses, and a brief background. So a specific background must be included in the Background section. 
• Another personal note: The Background section must include relevant references to support your assumptions and historical context. For me, as an ethical signature, it is fundamental in the AI era and misinformation. 
• As a good scientific exercise, I love states like this:" Existing empirical studies on China’s renewable power generation industry often rely on data from provinces, specific regions, or publicly listed companies." However, again, to guarantee transparency, it is valuable to know which ones?
• As you develop a model, I am unclear about its origin. Why did you choose this particular model? Has it been used in other similar studies? etcétera. (You made it in 2.1.4, but referring to the model in Eq. #4) 
• A suggestion to improve readers' understanding is to briefly and clearly state your planned approach as a header in subsection "2.1. Model specification". Indicate briefly which years are analysed, the issues covered, and other relevant details that will be specified later in 2.11, 2.12, etc.  
• I think Table 2 appears somewhat abrupt (the same goes for Table 8). I suggest adding (before title 3) a header that clarifies what will be presented in section 3. Additionally, after the 3.1 title, it might be beneficial to include an explanation of Table 2, just as a suggestion for better fluency.
• Overall, after reviewing the methods and results, I find myself wondering: does this work mainly focus on the relationship between technological add and FIT? Is that okay? But what about other possible factors? For me, it's not a problem if you didn't consider them or didn't believe they were relevant. However, mentioning this could be a helpful clarification that improves your study and helps readers better understand your work. Some points in this line could have been detailed in 3.3.3, but for better comprehension, they might have been stated before. 
• Point 3.7 is valuable, but I'm not clear how you arrived at this topic...
• Tables might be better presented without overloaded information for a cleaner visualisation. 

Well done and good luck!

Comments on the Quality of English Language

I'm not a native English speaker, so my assessment might not be perfect. Still, I believe this paper could be improved for better fluency. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper investigates the impact of China’s Feed-in Tariff (FIT) policy on the development of renewable energy, using detailed county-level data for wind and photovoltaic power generation. However, there remains room for improvement regarding mechanism analysis, variable control, and regional heterogeneity. The detailed comments are provided below.

 

1. The novelty mainly lies in the data resolution rather than in model design or policy mechanism analysis. The authors are advised to further strengthen the theoretical discussion on underlying mechanisms..
2. The authors employ a DID model and event study to assess the impact of FITs, but the verification of the parallel trend assumption relies solely on graphical evidence. A formal regression-based test should be added, along with discussion on potential heterogeneous or anticipatory policy effects. Besides, the following related research can be compared: a: Sustainable-Fast Charging Strategy for Lithium-ion Batteries based on A Random Forest- Enhanced Electro-Thermal-Degradation Model b: Weather Routing Based Multi-Energy Ship Microgrid Operation Under Diverse Uncertainties: A Risk-Averse Stochastic Approach c: An Operating Profit-Oriented Medium-Term Planning Method for Renewable-Integrated Cascaded Hydropower
3. The control variables include only GDP and secondary industry value added, which may not fully capture regional economic or policy heterogeneity. It is recommended to include additional county-level controls such as industrial structure, fiscal subsidy intensity, or grid access conditions to mitigate omitted variable bias.
4. The paper argues that FITs cause overinvestment and a decline in utilization rates, yet this causal link remains insufficiently tested. The authors are encouraged to incorporate mediation analysis or a structural equation model to provide stronger evidence for this mechanism.
5. The authors should further quantify resource endowment indicators, such as average wind speed, solar irradiance, or hydropower ratio, and conduct sensitivity analyses on the threshold to improve robustness.
6. The interaction analysis with UHV transmission is insightful for revealing the role of infrastructure, but the authors should specify the data source, sample coverage, and project completion years to enhance transparency and reproducibility.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

good

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf