Energy and Digital Transitions for Energy Communities: Tools and Methodologies to Promote Digitalization in Italy

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

There is a key issue that needs to be addressed: As a reader, I expect to gain insights beyond a specific project when reading a paper. However, the benefit of this manuscript to the research community is unclear. While it provides a detailed explanation of the three dimensions of smart communities, it reads more like a product manual instead of an academic paper. Additionally, the manuscript especially focuses on the smart communities in Italy. How would readers from other countries benefit from this work? I believe there are some valuable lessons or experiences in building these systems, but they are not clearly highlighted. I have the following key suggestions:

1. Clarify the impact - I suggest the authors explicitly state the significance of their work beyond this specific project. For example, are there any findings or lessons learned that can be applied to other projects? 

2. Clarify the contributions - I suggest extracting some general principles, frameworks, or best practices that can benefit a wider audience and incorporating them to the introduction section. I understand that project reports may not have the same level of novel contributions as research papers, but the manuscript should highlight how its insights can benefit readers in other projects or other countries.

Some other comments:

1. Many specialized terms are introduced without explanation. For example,

1) ENEA first appears at Line 17 but is not defined.
2) ICT first appears at Line 21 but is not defined.
3) Several abbreviations in Section 3 (SIM, DHOMUS, CRUISE, SIMUL, etc.) should be defined when first introduced.

2. The formats of the contents are inconsistent. Some typos need to be fixed. For example,

1) Some paragraphs start with indents (e.g. Section 1), but some don’t (e.g. Section 2).
2) The line spacings are inconsistent (e.g. Section 4.1 vs. Section 4.2).
3) Figure 1: CruISE -> CRUISE
4) Line 289: remove the redundant “and” before “wind”.
5) Line 345: Simul -> SIMUL, Cruise -> CRUISE
6) Line 416: “3.67.” -> “3.7.”

Author Response

There is a key issue that needs to be addressed:

As a reader, I expect to gain insights beyond a specific project when reading a paper. However, the benefit of this manuscript to the research community is unclear. While it provides a detailed explanation of the three dimensions of smart communities, it reads more like a product manual instead of an academic paper. Additionally, the manuscript especially focuses on the smart communities in Italy. How would readers from other countries benefit from this work? I believe there are some valuable lessons or experiences in building these systems, but they are not clearly highlighted. I have the following key suggestions:

Comments 1: Clarify the impact - I suggest the authors explicitly state the significance of their work beyond this specific project. For example, are there any findings or lessons learned that can be applied to other projects? 

Response 1: We agree with the comment. We have created a new section 6. Discussion (p. 18, lines 1367-1388) addressing findings and lesson learned which can be useful also for other Countries and projects.

 

Comments 2: Clarify the contributions - I suggest extracting some general principles, frameworks, or best practices that can benefit a wider audience and incorporating them to the introduction section. I understand that project reports may not have the same level of novel contributions as research papers, but the manuscript should highlight how its insights can benefit readers in other projects or other countries.

Response 2: Thank you for pointing this out. General principles and frameworks in the EU context have been outlined in the section 1.3 (p. 3, lines 142-154). Moreover, in the new section 6. Discussion (p. 18, lines 1367-1388) we highlighted how the insights can benefit readers from other Countries.

Some other comments:

Comments 3: Many specialized terms are introduced without explanation. For example,

1) ENEA first appears at Line 17 but is not defined.
2) ICT first appears at Line 21 but is not defined.
3) Several abbreviations in Section 3 (SIM, DHOMUS, CRUISE, SIMUL, etc.) should be defined when first introduced.

Response 3: In the revised version of the article the specialized terms, like ENEA, ICT, etc. and some abbreviations have been defined.

Comments 4: The formats of the contents are inconsistent. Some typos need to be fixed. For example,

1) Some paragraphs start with indents (e.g. Section 1), but some don’t (e.g. Section 2).
2) The line spacings are inconsistent (e.g. Section 4.1 vs. Section 4.2).
3) Figure 1: CruISE -> CRUISE
4) Line 289: remove the redundant “and” before “wind”.
5) Line 345: Simul -> SIMUL, Cruise -> CRUISE
6) Line 416: “3.67.” -> “3.7.”

Response 4: We’re sorry about this. In the new version you can find the contents in the correct format e some typos fixed.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Although it is a very interesting work, it needs some improvements.

Please, revise the English writing.

Please, provide the meaning of all acronyms and abbreviations.

Uniform the paragraph space, sometimes it is simple, sometimes it is double.

Improve Figure 2. Furthermore, it is interesting to better explain the table and graph contained in it. It seems that was copied from other document with no explanation (in the figure there are figures 15 and 16).

Some figures and/or tables have texts in Italian, please provide everything in English. However, those that came from the developed platforms do not need to.

Author Response

Although it is a very interesting work, it needs some improvements.

Comments 1: Please, revise the English writing.

Response 1: we have revised the English writing, however if needed we might engage a professional review.

 

Comments 2: Please, provide the meaning of all acronyms and abbreviations.

Response 2: we have explained all the acronymous and abbreviations.

 

Comments 3: Uniform the paragraph space, sometimes it is simple, sometimes it is double.

Response 3: Thank you for pointing this out, in the revised version the paragraph space is uniform.

 

Comments 4: Improve Figure 2. Furthermore, it is interesting to better explain the table and graph contained in it. It seems that was copied from other document with no explanation (in the figure there are figures 15 and 16).

Response 4: The figure and its caption has been replaced with one that is more adherent to the text and in the original, taken from a report being published cited in the references in press and owned by ENEA.

Comments 5: Some figures and/or tables have texts in Italian, please provide everything in English. However, those that came from the developed platforms do not need to.

Response 5: Figures 3, 4, 5 and 7 and the new figures 8 and 9 have texts in Italian because are a screenshot of the digital tools.

 

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have presented "Energy and Digital Transitions for Energy Communities: Tools and Methodologies to Promote Digitalization in Italy." The comments are as follows:

1. The manuscript presents a comprehensive and well-structured framework to support Renewable Energy Communities (RECs) through digitalization and governance. However, the paper would benefit from a clearer articulation of how the proposed approach aligns with broader EU policy objectives such as the Fit-for-55 Package, REPowerEU, or the Green Deal. Establishing this connection would enhance the strategic relevance of the work.

2. The detailed presentation of ENEA’s digital tools (e.g., RECON, SIMUL, DHOMUS) is a strength of the manuscript. Nonetheless, it is recommended that the authors provide examples of tool validation or performance assessment using real-world data. Comparative analysis or demonstration of practical effectiveness would increase the technical robustness and credibility of the tools described.

3. The inclusion of three diverse use cases (Portici, Garda Uno, and Lignano Sabbiadoro) provides valuable practical insight. To improve the generalizability of the findings, the authors are encouraged to include a brief discussion of the challenges encountered during these implementations and key lessons learned. This would support the transferability of the proposed methods to other contexts or regions.

4. The establishment of the Energy Communities Observatory is an important contribution. To enhance its value, the authors may consider elaborating on how the Observatory’s findings will be disseminated, used to inform future projects, or integrated into policy-making. A discussion on any plans for regular reporting, stakeholder engagement, or feedback loops would be a valuable addition.

Author Response

The authors have presented "Energy and Digital Transitions for Energy Communities: Tools and Methodologies to Promote Digitalization in Italy".  The comments are as follows:

Comments 1: The manuscript presents a comprehensive and well-structured framework to support Renewable Energy Communities (RECs) through digitalization and governance. However, the paper would benefit from a clearer articulation of how the proposed approach aligns with broader EU policy objectives such as the Fit-for-55 Package, REPowerEU, or the Green Deal. Establishing this connection would enhance the strategic relevance of the work.

Response 1: We have, accordingly, added in the section 1.3, at p. 3,  from line 142 to 154 how the work deals with the EU policies emphasizing the potential impacts and their alignment with national and EU goals.

Comments 2: The detailed presentation of ENEA’s digital tools (e.g., RECON, SIMUL, DHOMUS) is a strength of the manuscript. Nonetheless, it is recommended that the authors provide examples of tool validation or performance assessment using real-world data. Comparative analysis or demonstration of practical effectiveness would increase the technical robustness and credibility of the tools described.

Response 2: Thank you for pointing this out.

Although in the prototype phase, the data reported in the Geoportal for RECs are real because they are extrapolated from the existing official databases and so are the first different test scenarios (p. 6, section 3.2, lines 431-439).

As regards RECON, we provided details (p. 8, section 3.3, lines 612-630) on the data used for the validation of the single models (hydropower, wind power plant, PV) included in the simulator and for the validation of the simulator by comparing results with a commercial tools related to case studies defined on real data.

The DHOMUS platform has been tested in real contexts, the paper reports the results obtained with 2 different groups of users: only consumers and consumers with micro photovoltaic (pp. 10, section 3.4, lines 727-731), furthermore the bibliographic references have been added for further insights relating to the two use cases. The number of completed forms on which statistical analysis was performed to define KPIs was also provided for the Smart SIM tool.

For SIMUL and CRUISE we provided information (pp. 11, section 3.5, lines 761-766) concerning datasets and case studies related to collective self-consumption and comparisons with similar, though less precise, tools currently available.

As concerns ECListener, we gave a description (p. 13, section 3.7, lines 850-857) of how web news and crawling campaigns in newspapers and social media have been carried out and which data were analysed.

As regards PELL, we added further details (p. 13, section 3.8, lines 879-887) qualifying the PELL use case in real scenarios and introduced the amount of data collected from actual municipalities in Italy regarding public lighting use case.

Lastly, LTE clarified (p. 12, section 3.6, lines 825-827) the current development of the tool is in a post – production monitoring phase with a pilot REC.

 

Comments 3: The inclusion of three diverse use cases (Portici, Garda Uno, and Lignano Sabbiadoro) provides valuable practical insight. To improve the generalizability of the findings, the authors are encouraged to include a brief discussion of the challenges encountered during these implementations and key lessons learned. This would support the transferability of the proposed methods to other contexts or regions.

Response 3: Thank you for this useful advice.

As regards the Portici use case, the main challenges, given by high population density and historical constraints were addressed (p. 15, section 4.1, lines 931-941).

As regards the Garda Uno use case we highlighted (p. 16, section 4.2, lines 1062-1075) the challenges (as citizens and local officers engagement) and the key lessons learnt like the simplification of operations by defining a clear and replicable REC model.

For the Lignano Sabbiadoro use case we reported (p. 16-17, section 4.3, lines 1106-1117) the key role of shared energy in the configuration and operation stages.

 

Comments 4: The establishment of the Energy Communities Observatory is an important contribution. To enhance its value, the authors may consider elaborating on how the Observatory’s findings will be disseminated, used to inform future projects, or integrated into policy-making. A discussion on any plans for regular reporting, stakeholder engagement, or feedback loops would be a valuable addition.

Response 4: Thank you for pointing this out. We added (p. 18, section 5, lines 1329-1328) details concerning events, results and outcomes of the working groups.

 

 

 

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have successfully addressed all the comments raised by the reviewer in the previous submission and have also updated the current manuscript accordingly. no more changes needed.

Author Response

Comments 1: We noticed that a high proportion of the cited references belong to you or
your co-authors: Refs. 1, 2, 8, 9, 10, 16, 17, 18, which is a self-citation
rate of about 44%.

As MDPl is a member of COPE (https://publicationethics.org), all references
in our published articles must contribute to the scholarly content of the
paper and avoid bias (self-citations, journal citations, school of thought,
etc, and reflect the current state of knowledge in the field.

We encourage you to consider this and reduce the self-citations below 15% to
make sure that only the most relevant citations are kept.

Response 1: We have reduced the number of the references with  self-citations. We cannot remove all of them because they are needed to respond to one of the reviewers' requests on tool validation and performance assessment using real-world data.