Distributed Power, Energy Storage Planning, and Power Tracking Studies for Distribution Networks

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. The concept of power tracking for the distribution network is not entirely clear. The authors did not provide enough justification as to why this was necessary, and the theoretical explanations for this were insufficient. 
2. Additionally, the technical details for the 14 bus system used were not provided. If the IEEE network were used, then the IEEE 14 bus system is not a distribution network but a transmission/sub-transmission network. The IEEE 13-bus would be a suitable alternative instead.
3. It was not clearly shown how the system constraints were handled when using the MOGA approach.
4. Also, the manuscript requires language editing as there were lots of grammatical errors in many sections within the manuscript.

Author Response

Please see the attachment. Also, to improve the quality of this paper, we have hired professional personnel to conduct English editing and polishing.(English Editing ID: english-97011)

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors make a solid contribution by proposing a comprehensive co-optimization model and validating it using a 14-node distribution system. The work contributes to academic discourse by showing how integrated planning of PV and energy storage can improve grid reliability and economics.

The arguments presented are generally coherent. The modeling approach is mathematically sound, and the simulation results align well with the objectives set out in the abstract. The step-by-step development of the optimization model is clear, and assumptions are generally reasonable.

Meanwhile, the paper could further emphasize what aspects of the trend tracking application are novel compared to prior methods and clearly distinguish the contributions from earlier works using similar MOGA-based optimization approaches. Below are my further suggestions:

Broaden the literature review to include more recent works after 2021 to highlight state-of-the-art benchmarks.

Cite more recent and relevant works from IEEE Transactions on Smart Grid, Applied Energy, or similar top-tier journals.

Include at least 2–3 papers from 2023–2024 that focus on coordinated DG and storage optimization for a stronger academic connection.

Clarify how this study advances prior methods in both planning and trend tracking.

The structure generally follows a logical academic format with a clear abstract, methodology, results, and conclusion. However, there are several grammar and clarity issues that need addressing.

 

Redraw and relabel figures more clearly. Some figures (e.g., Figure 9 matrix) are hard to read and interpret.

The increase in line losses due to energy storage could be discussed more critically. Is there a tradeoff point where the benefits of energy storage outweigh the added losses?

Consider running sensitivity analyses on key parameters like PV capacity or load variations to show robustness.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Improve English usage throughout the manuscript. For example, replace “tide tracking” with “trend tracking” or “power flow tracing” consistently.

Edit sentences for clarity, e.g., “scheme 1 can be found to be optimal through calculation” could be revised as “Scheme 1 is identified as the optimal configuration based on simulation results.”

Author Response

Please see the attachment. Also, to improve the quality of this paper, we have hired professional personnel to conduct English editing and polishing.(English Editing ID: english-97011)

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors, here are my observations.

1. The literature review is superficial. Only a few papers are cited, without providing a structured overview of the field. A related work section should be added that groups existing studies by: optimization methods used, planning objective, post-optimization analysis techniques, etc…
2. Line 98 there is a typo “Section 34”. Also, you forgot section 5.
3. The economic model used (equation 4) only considers the cost of coal-based generation. In a planning study it is absolutely essential to include the investment costs for photovoltaic and energy storage systems, as well as the operation and maintenance costs. Without these, the economic comparison between scenarios is irrelevant. Ignoring them makes economic optimization practically useless.
4. Also in section 2, how was the Pareto front generated? What criterion was used to select the final solution from this front?
5. Section 3 is quite brief. The term "trend tracking" is not standard, maybe "power flow tracing" is more appropriate. Also, very important, authors should clearly state that they are applying an existing method and cite the related works as the source of inspiration!!! Otherwise, it gives the impression that it is a new method, which is not the case.
6. In section 4, lines 299-300, Why were the weights 0.3, 0.4, 0.3 chosen? Without this justification, the choice is arbitrary.
7. Also here, line 306, "…..power generation cost of $167,800", but in table 2 the optimized price is given. While in scenario 1 and 2 it is not. There is a discrepancy between the text and the table.
8. For the tracing analysis in Figure 10 and 12 the related strategic interpretation is missing.
9. Lines 445-447 are an exaggeration. The authors approach a combination of standard methods, and the novelty lies in their simultaneous application and the resulting analysis. The formulation should be more modest and precise.
10. A "Discussion and future work" section should be introduced in the article. The authors should present the limitations and shortcomings of the method, ways to solve them in the future, etc.

Author Response

Please see the attachment. Also, to improve the quality of this paper, we have hired professional personnel to conduct English editing and polishing.(English Editing ID: english-97011)

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors, the work looks much better from an aesthetic perspective. However, I have very serious reservations about the correctness of the experiments performed.

In the first version, you chose an incorrect economic model that you applied in the case study. In the second version, you corrected the economic model based on my observations and improved the aspect related to the mathematical apparatus, but nothing has changed in terms of the results.

How can we believe that what you implemented corresponds to a correct, deep and useful analysis, if after you changed the methodology, exactly the same results were obtained?

Therefore, I recommend that you resume the simulation performed and adapt it to the new model so that we can see the new results.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 3

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

No more comments