A Scenario-Based Approach to Using Electric Vehicle Batteries in Virtual Power Plants: Insights from Environmental, Social, and Governance and Monte Carlo Simulations

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript is unnecessarily long, difficult to follow and redundant, with many concepts repeated across distinct sections. It intends to discuss uncertainties and scenario planning, but the methodology proposed does not lead to interpretable results. It relies on Monte Carlo simulations, but it is unclear why this method would be the best choice over other approaches. While the theoretical background is weak, the reader will not find a single equation in the document. 

The article attempts to cover too many issues, but its contribution remains unclear compared to past research. The methodology is confusing and the boundary conditions are not clearly stated. It also fails to provide strategic insights or introduce significant new findings. The discussion is of little value to policymakers and researchers interested in this subject.

The manuscript is loosely organized. Most tables are displayed as figures. Text should be typed directly into the manuscript rather than copied and pasted as images. References in languages other than English are not readily accessible to most audiences and must be removed.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The manuscript must be thoroughly proofread.

Author Response

We sincerely appreciate your thorough review and constructive feedback on our manuscript. We have carefully considered each of your concerns and have made substantial revisions to improve the clarity, structure, and methodological rigor of our work. In the file attached, we provide a point-by-point response to your comments.

Please find the file attached.
Thank you in advance.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1.The study is among the first to holistically examine EV-VPP integration uncertainties within an ESG framework, bridging the gap between technical energy systems research and sustainability governance. The focus on "transparency requirements" (G) as a subfactor influencing systemic resilience adds originality.
2.The methodological innovation of embedding ESG elements into scenario matrices advances interdisciplinary research, providing a replicable template for analyzing socio-technical transitions.

3.The hybrid approach (quantitative Monte Carlo simulations + qualitative scenario planning) effectively addresses complex, interdependent uncertainties. The use of scenario matrices to visualize ESG-driven futures is particularly compelling.

4.The identification of four distinct scenarios demonstrates a logical progression from uncertainty mapping to strategy formulation, ensuring practical relevance.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

1.The study is among the first to holistically examine EV-VPP integration uncertainties within an ESG framework, bridging the gap between technical energy systems research and sustainability governance. The focus on "transparency requirements" (G) as a subfactor influencing systemic resilience adds originality.
2.The methodological innovation of embedding ESG elements into scenario matrices advances interdisciplinary research, providing a replicable template for analyzing socio-technical transitions.

3.The hybrid approach (quantitative Monte Carlo simulations + qualitative scenario planning) effectively addresses complex, interdependent uncertainties. The use of scenario matrices to visualize ESG-driven futures is particularly compelling.

4.The identification of four distinct scenarios demonstrates a logical progression from uncertainty mapping to strategy formulation, ensuring practical relevance.

Author Response

We sincerely appreciate your thorough review and constructive feedback on our manuscript. In the file attached, we provide a point-by-point response to your comments.

Thank you in advance.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Ref.: Manuscript Number: sustainability-3537406: A Scenario-Based Approach to Using EV Batteries in Virtual 2 Power Plants: Insights from ESG and Monte Carlo Simulations

Comments to authors

The paper study the investigating the EV batteries can serve as a VPP resource to simultaneously achieve grid stability and carbon neutrality. The main goal of this paper was to propose future scenarios and corresponding response strategies from an ESG perspective. Specifically, a mixed-methods research approach combining scenario planning, Monte Carlo simulations, and scenario matrices was employed to derive diverse future scenarios that incorporate key ESG elements such as economic feasibility, social acceptance, and transparency requirements.

The results surpass previous studies and explore the impact of the EV batteries in virtual power plants. The manuscript is well structured and well written. However, some improvements are needed to enhance its quality. Therefore, I recommend to see my comments/suggestions below.

 

1/ Authors must add a table contain all nomenclature and abbreviations and must be in the beginning of the section: Literature Review.

2/ Authors must give me the key benefits of EV battery integration into VPPs?

3/ Compare the scenario-based approach improve the assessment of EV battery utilisation in VPPs with the traditional methods.

4/ Authors should give me the feasibility and sustainability of EV battery VPPs in terms of environmental, social and governance (ESG) factors.

5/ To analyse the uncertainties associated with EV battery VPP, why is Monte Carlo simulation a suitable method and no other tool of simulation?

6/ In Monte Carlo simulations, what probability distributions are used for the modelling of the uncertain variables?

7/Why the authors choose 1000000 simulations runs in this work? Explain more.

8/ How many simulations runs to find a good statistical significance?

9/ In table 8, to accept any results, the standard deviation must be less than 10%.

10/ Authors should give us the input file or data used in Monte Carlo simulation.

11/ Authors must illustrate the output file or data obtained by Monte Carlo simulation.

12/ Authors must give us the proposed VPP for aggregation and coordination of the energy storage systems of distributed for electric vehicles EV.

13/ Section: 3.2.2. Monte Carlo Simulation: need to be improved

Author Response

We sincerely appreciate your thorough review and constructive feedback on our manuscript. We have carefully considered each of your concerns and have made substantial revisions to improve the clarity, structure, and methodological rigor of our work. In the file attached, we provide a point-by-point response to your comments.

Please find the file attached.
Thank you in advance.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. How Monte Carlo simulations influence the economic valuation of VPP operations.

2. Why ESG considerations should be prioritized over traditional market-driven decision-making. How governance factors (e.g., transparency, regulations) directly impact VPP efficiency. Why social acceptance and job creation are more critical than technical feasibility or market competitiveness.

3. The methodology section mentions probability distributions but does not provide the actual equations or assumptions used in the Monte Carlo model, nor does it explain how Monte Carlo outcomes translate into scenario selection.

4. The four proposed scenarios are not evaluated in terms of likelihood, impact on economic feasibility, and sensitivity analysis.

5. There is no need to add Python code to the main content of the paper.

6. Improve the quality of Tables 3–9 (e.g., align columns, reduce redundancy). Figure 6 (scenario matrix) should have clearly labeled axes.

Author Response

We sincerely appreciate your thorough review and constructive feedback on our manuscript. We have carefully considered each of your concerns and have made substantial revisions to improve the clarity, structure, and methodological rigor of our work. In the file attached, we provide a point-by-point response to your comments.

Please find the file attached.
Thank you in advance.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 5 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

• Abstract: While well-structured, the abstract lacks numerical outcomes. The final paragraph could be revised to incorporate quantitative results that support the qualitative conclusions. Integrating numerical data when discussing tailored response strategies would reinforce the study’s contributions to ESG-based decision-making in uncertain environments.
• Literature Review (Lines 71-82): This section transitions from a brief literature review to objectives and research gaps. Merging Chapters 1 and 2 would improve clarity and better align with reader expectations. Chapter 2 could be synthesized and incorporated into these lines to provide a more seamless introduction.
• Research Questions: The research questions are not explicitly clear. The authors should emphasize how the study expands existing literature and addresses key gaps to establish a stronger connection between research objectives and findings.
• Paragraph Structure: The manuscript’s paragraph separation should be reviewed. Paragraph breaks should only be used for significant topic shifts; excessive separations disrupt readability.
• Abbreviations: Ensure abbreviations are consistently used after their first mention. For example, "EV" is repeated unnecessarily at line 228. A comprehensive check should be conducted for consistency.
• Relevance to Grid Stability: The participation of EVs in grid stability services is an important topic. The literature would benefit from the integration of a country-scale application of the proposed methodology. The following reference may provide valuable insights: https://doi.org/10.3390/wevj15090413.
• Lines 555-565: This section could be restructured to improve clarity. Consider using a list format or merging it into a concise paragraph to enhance readability.
• Simulation Assumptions (Line 525): The number of simulations executed is mentioned without justification. Could the authors elaborate on how this assumption was determined? Was sensitivity analysis conducted to validate the choice?
• Module Steps (Lines 405-436): This section requires revision for clarity. Consider using a list format to better separate and highlight the module’s steps.
• Software Libraries (Line 452): The mention of specific libraries may limit the comprehensiveness and scalability of the procedure. The authors could consider removing these references or generalizing them to improve accessibility.
• Tables & Figures Placement: In the results section, tables and figures should ideally be placed at the top or bottom of a page to enhance readability.
• Figure 3: This figure appears out of scope. The authors could consider making the related code publicly available via GitHub or another general repository instead.
• Figure 4: Graphical quality should be improved, as labels are too small. From a theoretical perspective, the authors could provide additional discussion—what insights can be derived from these results? Additionally, what explanation can be given for the right-side tails in the market growth chart in the bottom-right figure?
• Figure 5: While also seemingly out of scope, unlike Figure 3, it presents assumptions that should be explicitly discussed. Specifically, how were the variability ranges evaluated?
• Discussion Section: The discussion is long and somewhat unfocused. To enhance readability, the authors could consider restructuring it to directly follow related results (e.g., Figure 6), facilitating a more immediate and cohesive discussion.
• Appendix Formatting: The appendix should be adapted to the required template for consistency.
• Table Revisions (Tables 2 & 7): These tables require revision to ensure clarity, accuracy, and consistency with the study’s structure.
• Lines 819-834: This section appears in the results section but does not present actual results. The authors could consider moving it to the methodology section for better logical flow.

Author Response

We sincerely appreciate your thorough review and constructive feedback on our manuscript. We have carefully considered each of your concerns and have made substantial revisions to improve the clarity, structure, and methodological rigor of our work. In the file attached, we provide a point-by-point response to your comments.

Please find the file attached.
Thank you in advance.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors revised the manuscript accordingly. I have no more questions.

Author Response

I would like to express my sincere gratitude for your thorough and insightful feedback throughout the review process. Your thoughtful comments and constructive suggestions greatly contributed to enhancing the quality, clarity, and academic rigor of our manuscript.

We deeply respect and appreciate the time and effort you devoted to reviewing our work. It has been an honor to incorporate your valuable insights, and we are confident that the revised version has been significantly strengthened as a result.

Thank you once again for your kind support and professional guidance.

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thanks for addressing my comments. 

Author Response

I would like to express my sincere gratitude for your thorough and insightful feedback throughout the review process. Your thoughtful comments and constructive suggestions greatly contributed to enhancing the quality, clarity, and academic rigor of our manuscript.

We deeply respect and appreciate the time and effort you devoted to reviewing our work. It has been an honor to incorporate your valuable insights, and we are confident that the revised version has been significantly strengthened as a result.

Thank you once again for your kind support and professional guidance.

Reviewer 5 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have addressed my previous comments. However, I have a few minor suggestions and adjustments, after which I believe the manuscript can proceed to publication:

1. Table 9 Numerical Value: Could the authors please double-check the numerical value reported in Table 9? The figure 4.16% seems to recur in an unusual manner.

2. Python Code: I recommend that the Python code not be included in the appendix. Instead, I suggest providing a link to a public repository or folder for access.

3. Relevance of Tables 1 and 2: Could the authors elaborate on the relevance of Tables 1 and 2? If these tables do not add substantial value, they may be removed and replaced with a brief explanation in the text.

4. Comment 6 from Previous Review: Comment 6 from my previous review has not been addressed adequately. The suggestion was to integrate relevant literature into Chapter 2 (the review section). This would provide the reader with a clearer framework of the existing literature and the issues in the field. I recommend considering the following publication, which might be helpful:

 https://doi.org/10.3390/wevj15090413  

Author Response

We sincerely appreciate your continued review and constructive feedback on our revised manuscript. Your additional comments were very helpful in guiding further improvements, and we have carefully addressed each point to enhance the manuscript’s clarity, structure, and academic contribution. In the file attached, we provide a point-by-point response to your comments.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx