Reviewer: Christos Giotitsas

This paper presents an alternative approach in distributed energy based on the tenets of the social economy concept and makes proposals specifically designed for the Ecuadorian context. Being a policy paper and not a strict academic research paper, this review avoids any critique on the structure of the paper and its possible omissions on “proper” academic writing (for instance a methodology section).

1. Is the subject matter relevant?
The subject is very relevant. Its view on energy infrastructures is novel and its critique on the current conditions quite timely.

2. Is the treatment of the subject matter intellectually interesting? Are there citations or bodies of literature you think are essential to which the author has not referred?
The treatment of the subject is very interesting. I would have liked to see more information on distributed energy as well as a more clear context on the specific input gained by each of the case studies presented.

3. Are there any noticeable problems with the author’s means of validating assumptions or making judgements?
The connection between the case studies presented and the general principles drawn could have been illustrated in more detail.

4. Is the article well written?
The language of the paper is exceptional. Its structure and narrative, however, could have been more clear. Also the “A framework for energy policy in Ecuador” of the last section is somewhat convoluted and hard to follow.

5. Are there portions of the article that you recommend be shortened, excised or expanded?
The last section of the paper, that of “The Ecuadorian policy framework”, could have been more elaborate. Especially its third part, that of the policy recommendations, could have presented a more thorough list of the strategic guidelines as well as details for some (or all) of the proposed pilot projects.

All in all, this policy paper makes for an interesting and thought-provoking read and would make an excellent publication should the few issues raised above be addressed.

Reviewers: Vasilis Kostakis and Andreas Roos

General comment
The FLOK policy paper on distributed energy is a well written and informative policy paper. Above all it is a comprehensible paper with a pedagogical structure that guides the reader in a clear and concise manner while utilising interesting case studies as empirical references. The authors demonstrate how distributed energy systems are a valid policy option—and in many ways a superior option—to the current energy paradigm of privatisation and capital/resource intensive mega-projects. With an analysis on Ecuadorian policy frameworks as well as policy recommendations the paper ends with a positive inclination towards action.

While the policy paper is concerned with transitions in the energy sector it is somewhat unclear how the paper understands the influence of conflicting interests (power) on the policy proposal and in a transition phase towards distributed energy at large. For example, what reason do we have to believe that a distributed energy paradigm will replace old capitalist orders and not be an additional external or internal energy sector? It is also arguably so that the current energy paradigm includes powerful (wealthy) actors that might not willingly approve of the financial dynamics of distributed energy and thus continue business-as-usual despite the potential and the proliferation of distributed energy. With this in mind, a very brief presentation on potential obstacles (not necessarily of the argument made here) for a full or partial energy paradigm transition (maybe in relation to the Ecuadorian policy context) might be relevant for policy makers and pilot projects and arguably strengthen the paper.

On another note it might be problematic that the term “energy production” remains unexplained. As you are probably well aware, the first law of thermodynamics states that energy can neither be produced or consumed but only converted to other forms of energy. Thus it is technically incorrect to speak of energy production (or not?). In a paper on policy recommendations this might not be of relevance but it could potentially become an issue of credibility in certain settings if your understanding of this term is not explicitly explained. It can also lead to confusion (especially in transdisciplinary settings). The need for such an explanation depends of course principally on whether this terminology is praxis within the audience field or not.

1. Is the subject matter relevant?
The subject matter is certainly relevant. As a vital part of a much needed paradigm shift inquiries of the energy sector is of utmost importance. Not only is it relevant for internal matters of the energy sector but also—as the authors make very clear—for understanding the role of the energy sector as a part of society and nature at large.

2. Is the treatment of the subject matter intellectually interesting? Are there citations or bodies of literature you think are essential to which the author has not referred?
See question above. The subject matter is very interesting, particularly when considering how it forms and contributes with a vital part to the grand narrative of the commons now challenging the antiquated narrative dualism of the 19th and 20th century.

3. Are there any noticeable problems with the author’s means of validating assumptions or making judgements?
We would recommend the authors not to utilise Wikipedia.org as a source of referencing. Wikipedia articles lack consistent academic requirements of peer-review and are thus often considered a controversial source of information in academic contexts. Sometimes Wikipedia articles utilise references which can be used instead—provided that they are peer-reviewed and relevant for the point you want to make.

4. Is the article well written?
The text is very well written and remarkably absent of unnecessary extrapolations. Very good. There are some minor hiccups with regards to references, e.g. concerning Stephen Bunker, that should be revised.

5. Are there portions of the article that you recommend be shortened, excised or expanded?
Some section or sub-section could advantageously include a note on identified obstacles for the intended effects of a distributed energy paradigm and/or for the successful implementations of the policies in question.