Cross-Case Analysis of the Energy Communities in Spain, Italy, and Greece: Progress, Barriers, and the Road Ahead

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The article manuscript “Cross-Analysis of the Energy Communities in Spain, Italy, and Greece” examines the adaptability and applicability of two key European directives regulating energy communities (ECs) within national legislation, together with the legal and administrative frameworks in Spain, Italy, and Greece. The paper examines three key issues looking for commonalities and differences between the three countries: (a) regulatory framework for ECs; (b)structure, i.e., form of organization, support received, benefits generated), and (c) governance.

Methodologically, the manuscript is based on qualitative research comprising desktop research, qualitative interviews with 20 key informants from Spain, Italy, and Greece and cross-case analysis.

The manuscript adds to the wealthy literature on community energy. The topic is relevant for the field and presented in a relatively well-structured manner. The manuscript’s findings appear reproducible.

However, the data need to be interpreted more appropriately and consistently throughout the manuscript. The manuscript remains rather descriptive, and its theoretical added value is low. Although the topic of the manuscript is relevant and of interest to the scientific community, it exhibits serious deficits.

Concept:

There is a lack of conceptual clarity and diligence. The purpose of the research and the guiding research question(s) do not become really clear. Is the purpose to assess the state of transposition of the two directives in the three countries or is its purpose to analyse the practical applicability of the emerging national legal/regulatory framework that transposes the two EU directives?

There is a growing body of research analysing the transposition of the RED II and EMD with focus on ECs. There are several country studies and comparative studies covering the three countries analysed. There is particularly rich literature on the transposition in Italy. However, the manuscript provides only patchy references. The research/knowledge gaps addressed by the paper, the novelty and added value of the paper do not become clear and should be much better explained by referring to the existing literature with additional references. In its current form, the literature review is not sufficiently focused and quite fragmentary.

The analytical framework of the manuscript is poorly described and rather selective: it covers items like the legal form, and to a certain extent proximity while other governance related elements addressed by the two EU directives are not or only marginally addressed (e.g., autonomy, effective control, membership/role of citizens, primary purpose). The same applies to the rights/activities ECs are entitled to. The authors only address energy sharing, ownership of distribution networks and subsector coverage while other items/activities like e.g., production, storage, sales, aggregation, access to suitable markets are not or only marginally covered.

In line130, the authors write that it is “desirable” to develop an enabling framework (EF). However, from the manuscript it does not get clear that Member States are obliged (!) to develop an enabling framework for RECs according to Art.22,4 RED II. This should be clearly emphasized. The RED II lists nine elements such an EF should include. The authors focus on “Fair, proportionate and transparent procedures” and “access to finance”. Access to information is mentioned in Fig.1, but in the analysis of the countries this issue is only poorly covered. Other elements are not mentioned. These selective approaches appear somehow arbitrary and deserve definitively further substantiation and argumentation. On which rationales/theoretical or practical consideration is the selection of the three analytical categories based upon? What is their relationship to Art. 2(16), Art. 22(4)-(7) of the RED II. Figure 1 and the three different elements and the differences between those elements should be much better explained. Is “support received” not part of the “regulatory framework” (see also Art.22(7) Is “access to information” not part of structure or regulatory framework? Why is access to finance not included in the figure? In the analysis, financing is mentioned relatively often.

 Methodology:

I suggest using the term “cross-case analysis” instead of “cross-analysis”.

The methodology is based on “direct interviews”. This expression, however, seems not very common in social science research. The authors should consider using alternative terms to describe the methods (e.g., personal, qualitative, semi-standardised interviews etc.). Have the interviews been carried out face to face, in person or online? In contrast to the other two countries, no ECs were interviewed in IT? The authors should explain this. I suggest not to mention personal names but only organization and function of the interviewee. What are the methodological limitations of the research?

Although the cited references are relevant, the literature should be definitively enriched. The literature review is not sufficiently focused and fragmentary (see above). The discussion and particularly the conclusion sections are far too short. They should refer to the evidence found for the three analytical categories, namely regulatory framework, corporate governance, structure and may lead to targeted policy lessons/recommendations. In the conclusion section, the authors mention "training courses" and "project partners", but these appear completely abrupt and disjointed from the rest of the manuscript without any earlier mentioning.

General comments and suggestions

The concept of EC emerged in North and Western Europe (e.g. BE, DK, DE, NL, SCOT) already before the RED II and IEMD were adopted. The Alpine regions of IT have also a certain historical tradition of energy cooperatives.

·         The authors should definitively enrich the literature/references section. In my view, 26 references for a comparative assessment of three countries is far too little.

·        There is a need to substantiate several statements with adequate references (e.g., Lines 335, 487-491, 536-538).

·         In order to avoid confusion with the term “public governance” I suggest to generally use the term “corporate governance”.

·         The concept of “governance” is sometimes confused with the legal/organizational form (Lines356f., 446, Table 5).

·         Some concepts are confused: “Sharing electricity self-consumption” (252/253), “coverture ratios” (268); “compliance of ECs with procedures” (308/309) “since the Directives are an open regulation” (522; the formulation may be misleading; the authors should not confuse directives with regulations which represent a specific type of EU legislation of their own).

Specific comments

·        In chapter 4 the authors may start with a short summary of the most significant differences and parallels between the three countries. Can the differences be explained? How may the “copy and paste” approach in IT and SP be explained? Please, specify the type of “subsidies” (Lines 250, 258) and “incentives” (Line 300).

·        In Line 319 the authors write that in Italy there are no “other types of incentives” for ECs. This should be checked. Does this not contradict line 300? Is there not a premium/special tariff for shared energy in Italy which is “adapted to the reality of ECs” (see also Line 528)

·        Line 348: here the authors write “not available information”, although in the text they mention several times “incentives”. Is this not a contradiction?

·         Line 354: what does 100% refer to?

Add the source of Figure 1.

·  Several further items should be better explained (e.g., restriction on low voltage connection, Line189)

There are numerous grammar and language/style issues which make it sometimes difficult to fully understand the text. I urgently suggest improving the grammar and style of the entire manuscript. Help of native speakers is highly commended.

 

The grammar/style of numerous sentences needs improvements. Here is only a selection (non-exhaustive):

·         Article missing beginning of lines 175, 285

·         Lines 22 and 463: EC instead of CE

·         Line 460: replace CER with CEC

·         Replace capital letters with small letters (Lines 161, 414 local)

·         Replace “numbers” by “figures” (Line 484)

·         Replace “observed” by “analysed” (512)

·         Replace in-depth studied by studied in-depth (519)

·         Spelling: Line 164; received instead of recieved (fig.1)

·         Consistent spelling: Lines 162/169 (table)

·         Iterations: 71 (concept/-ual); 171/172 (results/presented); 278/279; 473, 522 (regulation), 564

·         Grammar: 69 (discusses), potentials (69), defines (98), Transposition in EU countries (Table 1), Acronyms (164), 202/203, 216 (fosters), 248 (located), unleashing (620)

·         Language/Style: Here are some of the most striking examples, but this list is not exhaustive: 261/262 (through a DH network/system), coverage instead of “coverture ratios” (268); talks about (311/312), transposes/incorporates instead of adapts (291) or adopt (378),  experience instead of experiment (320), Lines 323/324, Lines 339/340, Lines 356/357: governance arises/adopting governance, governance itself (369), welfare (375), lines 379, 398/399, 402/403, 418, operational instead implementing (Line 483), Lines 513-517 (what exactly did the authors try to answer?).

·         Should it not read “must” instead of “may” (Lines 328, 342)?

·         Please, check the Interview questions for grammar and language. Several questions are not clear or incomplete.

·         Check Table 3: several items are not complete (e.g., “National recover”)

·         Check Table 4: What do the authors mean with “Share of ECs compared to national RES”? Carefully check the figures in Table 4, there are obviously some mistakes.

·         Consider analysing the three countries in an alphabetical order: Greece, Italy, Spain. This also refers to the tables.

·         Skip lines 508-511

Check and adjust the formate of all dates (e.g. line 246)

 

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

I do acknowledge the efforts to bring this analysis and results, riding on the basis of good hard work involving relevant bodies from three countries. The points, comparison everything seem good quality.

This is good work of its kind. It has included the facts/data from three countries by interviewing key stakeholder companies/organizations, analyzed them, presented the analysis in the good manner and confirmed in the conclusion that the Spain, Greece and Italy are still far from harmonization of their energy policies, because of the different level of achievements in the implementation in their respective countries. The authors from all these countries have collaborated to make the studies/analysis possible. 

Though the work already contains sufficient analysis on the back of the data and supports the conclusion, but I have just requested to improve by highlighting a couple of points. I hope the authors consider these positively. So, I recommend for a major revision, citing the importance of the points I have found.

I feel the title can be improved, as the analysis is always for a certain purpose, which is clearly visible while reading the article, but it is required to be incorporated in the title as well. 

Additionally, I feel the authors are in a good position after this deep analysis, and it will not be justified if the article is left without the recommendations incorporated which the authors feel, those can be adopted by the countries on the individual level to reach the harmony in energy policies, by bringing required change in energy usage behaviors. It is indeed not possible easily, but some recommendations would be good to highlight in the light of the struggles done to bring this article to this status. It will indeed make the article look more complete with it. Thanks for consideration.  

Some grammatical errors were noticed during reading of the article. So, I suggest the authors to carefully read the whole article to make such corrections. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Thank you for the article. It is an interesting article that discuss about the energy communities in Italy, Spain and Greece. 

However, here are the comments that should be added in the article to improve the quality.

- Figure need to be added that can summarize the discussion and findings, so it can be easy to communicate to the readers. Figure can be for each case studied.

- List of energy communities with some details that are discussed can be added in a table with references

-Conclusions can be extended to summarize the main findings.

-More references relevant to the study can be added

This is fine

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Although the paper has been improved (particularly the title, discussion and conclusion part), it still shows several weaknesses. The most important shortcoming is language.

The authors still miss necessary scientific and particularly language diligence. I lack the capacities to amend each language/grammar issue. Below some examples which are not exhaustive.

 

The purpose of the paper and the guiding research question should be made more explicit. The novelty/added value of the paper is still not sufficiently explained. The reasons for the selective approach are still not sufficiently described.

Many concepts remain still unclear and blurred. One example: Line 153-170: “Nine enabling frameworks that MS must address…”: The authors should change the formulation “nine enabling frameworks”. The RED II requires MS to provide an enabling framework to promote and facilitate the development of renewable energy communities. This enabling framework has to include/consider nine key elements.

Several concepts are confused or are still not clear: Line 646 citizen governance (do you mean (co-)ownership by citizens?). Often the authors use the term typology instead of types.

Table 3: Voltage grid connection: remove “voltage” in column 1 and add “voltage” in the country columns, e.g. “low or medium voltage”

The authors still use the term “direct interviews”. Again, I suggest replacing this.

Line 200: Sciello et al. should probably read Sciullo et al. Or Sciello et al. should be included in the references section. Check the style of referencing figures with the journal’s guidelines/template.

Table 1 reveals still grammar issues:

·        Line 3: when was the [energy community] formed?

·         [What is] the regional distribution among your members?

·         How much energy does [your energy community] produce?

·         What is the installed capacity of the respective RES technologies?

Below is a selection of further grammar/language issues. This list is by far not exhaustive.

Line 22 ECs instead of CEs

Line 112: define[s]

Line 225: target countries

Line 236: were [held] online

Line 251: Use acronym instead of acronymous (line 249).

Line 244:…Also an updated list of currently active energy communities is available on [the website of] Rescoop.eu

Correct and consistent writing: target countries instead of target Countries (line 225)

There are still numerous language issues, just to mention a very few exemplary ones:

line 61 (produced)

line 75 potentialities /potentials

Line 244: persons instead of people

interview partners instead of interlocutors,  

Line 259 [the government is in the process of implementing the provisions…] instead of “they are in the process of doing so”

Use types instead of typologies (line 266, 489)

Regarding its characteristics, it can be said that…(408),

The availability of the available electricity space (duplication line 623)

Replace “people” with “persons” or “individuals” throughout the text.

Replications: for example: conceptual/concept (Line 77), Line 159: RED II Directive (skip “directive”)

Line 52f: sentence much too long, needs splitting. Splitting will help to better explain the research aim and guiding question(s).

Line 90: Green Deal instead of Green Pact

Line 138: public financial support and other "entities" (better: items?)

Several formulations are not clear and require further explanations. Just to mention few exemplary ones:: “2nd degree entity” (Line); subsidies vary between 30-60% (do the authors mean investment grants?)

Table 3, row 8, Italy: …in collective self-consumption schemes

“Note here that there are some ECs that are fully implemented and others that are in the operational phase…” (what is the difference between full implementation and operation?)

Line 333: the authors write: “Finally, Greece is the only country that has included in its legal framework the reduction 332 of energy poverty as a priority objective of energy communities [21]. Does this refer to all EU countries or only the three countries analysed? Please, specify

Table 4: “Percentage of ECs compared to national RES” is still unclear. Do the authors mean the share of installed RES capacity owned by ECs in total installed capacity?

Table 4: average project size 697MW (?): the correct unit should be kW!

Line 691: ECN? correct? Explain!

Line 767 replace "these organisations" by energy communities

Line 774 replace the formulation with effective transposition of EU directives into [national] legislation

Line 790 replace “…contact with interlocutors” by “interviews with stakeholders”

Line 127-129 needs reference(s)

There are many more language issues which deserve the authors' attention. As pointed out earlier, the authors should make a thorough language check, preferably by a native speaker.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Thanks, you would have noted the current status of the paper in addition to the title, a more appropriate title. 

Author Response

Thank you very much for your comments and for taking the time to do this review.

Best regards

Reviewer 3 Report

Thanks for the modifications

Can be improved 

Author Response

Thank you very much for your comments and for taking the time to do this review.

Best regards

Round 3

Reviewer 1 Report

Thank you for the revised version. The authors considered my previous suggestions.

There are few grammar/language issues left. Before publishing the authors are advised to check the sentences covered by the following for grammar/language: Lines 71-90, 177, 239, 336, 346/347, 405-407, 699-701, 807.