Proposing Dynamic Pricing as an Alternative to Improve Technical and Economic Conditions in Rural Electrification: A Case Study from Colombia
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Please see attached file
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
Attached to this message you will find a response letter that provides a detailed solution to each of the comments indicated for our manuscript.
We appreciate your feedback and attention throughout the process.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
This paper proposes a time-of-use pricing to enhance the sustainability of the rural electrification system. The paper introduces updated information on the dynamic pricing technology and its connection to sustainability. Then the authors propose the time-of-use pricing methodology for their case study site, an isolated micro-grid system in Colombia. The simulation work and sensitive analysis have been performed. As a result, the proposed method shows a better flattened pattern in grid power stability. The paper is well written and could be informative to the readers. However, I’d like to point out that the purpose of the proposed method is to improve the technical and economic sustainability of the rural electrification that is emphasized in the paper’s title. Therefore, the readers expect how the proposed system can improve the system's sustainabilities. Although the paper concluded, “This flattening translate, for the user, into a possible decrease in their electricity bill...” The authors should evaluate and compared with the other method or at least an existing tariff method. Also, I should mention that the scale of the micro-grid system, consumers’ information and demographic information should be added to the case study. In this line, I should ask about the authors that their definition of rural electrification because the isolated micro-grid system of the case study has four 1 MVA hydro and four 0.3 MWp solar system that is quite large and very flexible operation would be implemented. But many of “rural electrification scheme” has a simple system. So the readers who want to know how to improve the rural electrification sustainability may be thrown away this paper. Therefore, I recommend the authors to re-consider the title of the paper. Also, it might be better to submit the paper to Energies, in case.
I also would like to recommend;
1. Page 9, eq.(1) freu-I = 0.95
Is it correct?
2. Page 10, L.408
What is ACPM?
3. Page 10, L.413
What is NBI?
4. Page 10, L.425
What is XM?
5. Page 14, L.482-483 a range from 0.0 to 0.3....
The unit of price elasticity is %? If not, the definition should be mentioned to a wide range of the “Sustainability” readers.
6. Page 14. L.499 the primary control of the governors of the small hydroelectric plans
Does the primary control mean the priority of the power generating procedure? It would be better to clarify the “primary control”.
7. 5. Results and Discussion
Why the authors do not report on the result of the voltage?
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
Attached to this message you will find a response letter that provides a detailed solution to each of the comments indicated for our manuscript.
We appreciate your feedback and attention throughout the process.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The idea of using dynamic pricing for following the renewable generation pattern is interesting. I have the following comments to improve it further
1. The contribution is not clear to me, there are several studies on dynamic pricing for rural electrification and isolated microgrids. What is different in this study as compared to the existing literature is not clear.
2. Some of the sections are too long, making sub-sections can enhance the readability.
3. Generally a single sub-section is not used such as 2.1 or 3.1. Make more sub-sections.
4. There are several lumped references, all references need to be stated separately where possible.
5. Comma is used instead of decimal points in several tables and graphs, which needs to be corrected.
6. Resolution of some figures is low and the paper is more textual. I suggested adding more figures and illustrations to enhance readability.
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
Attached to this message you will find a response letter that provides a detailed solution to each of the comments indicated for our manuscript.
We appreciate your feedback and attention throughout the process.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
Thank you for the detailed response and changes to the article. I have no more comments.
