Inequality in electricity consumption and economic growth: Evidence from a small area estimation study

Cuong Viet Nguyen; Khuong Duc Nguyen; Tuyen Quang Tran

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0284055

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionNovember 3, 2022
13 Jan 2023 Decision Letter - Carlos Alberto Zúniga-González, Editor PONE-D-22-30320Inequality in Electricity Consumption and Economic Growth: Evidence from a Small Area Estimation StudyPLOS ONE Dear Dr. tran, Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process. Please submit your revised manuscript by Feb 27 2023 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file. Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript: A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'. A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'. An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'. If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter. If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols. We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript. Kind regards, Carlos Alberto Zúniga-González, Ph.D Academic Editor PLOS ONE Journal Requirements: When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements. 1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf 2. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure: “The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript” At this time, please address the following queries: a) Please clarify the sources of funding (financial or material support) for your study. List the grants or organizations that supported your study, including funding received from your institution. b) State what role the funders took in the study. If the funders had no role in your study, please state: “The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.” c) If any authors received a salary from any of your funders, please state which authors and which funders. d) If you did not receive any funding for this study, please state: “The authors received no specific funding for this work.” Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf. 3. In your Data Availability statement, you have not specified where the minimal data set underlying the results described in your manuscript can be found. PLOS defines a study's minimal data set as the underlying data used to reach the conclusions drawn in the manuscript and any additional data required to replicate the reported study findings in their entirety. All PLOS journals require that the minimal data set be made fully available. For more information about our data policy, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability. Upon re-submitting your revised manuscript, please upload your study’s minimal underlying data set as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and include the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers within your revised cover letter. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories. Any potentially identifying patient information must be fully anonymized. Important: If there are ethical or legal restrictions to sharing your data publicly, please explain these restrictions in detail. Please see our guidelines for more information on what we consider unacceptable restrictions to publicly sharing data: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions. Note that it is not acceptable for the authors to be the sole named individuals responsible for ensuring data access. We will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide in your cover letter. 4. PLOS requires an ORCID iD for the corresponding author in Editorial Manager on papers submitted after December 6th, 2016. Please ensure that you have an ORCID iD and that it is validated in Editorial Manager. To do this, go to ‘Update my Information’ (in the upper left-hand corner of the main menu), and click on the Fetch/Validate link next to the ORCID field. This will take you to the ORCID site and allow you to create a new iD or authenticate a pre-existing iD in Editorial Manager. Please see the following video for instructions on linking an ORCID iD to your Editorial Manager account: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_xcclfuvtxQ 5. We note that Figures 2, 3 and 4 in your submission contain map images which may be copyrighted. All PLOS content is published under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0), which means that the manuscript, images, and Supporting Information files will be freely available online, and any third party is permitted to access, download, copy, distribute, and use these materials in any way, even commercially, with proper attribution. For these reasons, we cannot publish previously copyrighted maps or satellite images created using proprietary data, such as Google software (Google Maps, Street View, and Earth). For more information, see our copyright guidelines: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/licenses-and-copyright. We require you to either (1) present written permission from the copyright holder to publish these figures specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license, or (2) remove the figures from your submission: a. You may seek permission from the original copyright holder of Figures 2, 3 and 4 to publish the content specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license. We recommend that you contact the original copyright holder with the Content Permission Form (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=7c09/content-permission-form.pdf) and the following text: “I request permission for the open-access journal PLOS ONE to publish XXX under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CCAL) CC BY 4.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Please be aware that this license allows unrestricted use and distribution, even commercially, by third parties. Please reply and provide explicit written permission to publish XXX under a CC BY license and complete the attached form.” Please upload the completed Content Permission Form or other proof of granted permissions as an "Other" file with your submission. In the figure caption of the copyrighted figure, please include the following text: “Reprinted from [ref] under a CC BY license, with permission from [name of publisher], original copyright [original copyright year].” b. If you are unable to obtain permission from the original copyright holder to publish these figures under the CC BY 4.0 license or if the copyright holder’s requirements are incompatible with the CC BY 4.0 license, please either i) remove the figure or ii) supply a replacement figure that complies with the CC BY 4.0 license. Please check copyright information on all replacement figures and update the figure caption with source information. If applicable, please specify in the figure caption text when a figure is similar but not identical to the original image and is therefore for illustrative purposes only. The following resources for replacing copyrighted map figures may be helpful: USGS National Map Viewer (public domain): http://viewer.nationalmap.gov/viewer/ The Gateway to Astronaut Photography of Earth (public domain): http://eol.jsc.nasa.gov/sseop/clickmap/ Maps at the CIA (public domain): https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/index.html and https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/cia-maps-publications/index.html NASA Earth Observatory (public domain): http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/ Landsat: http://landsat.visibleearth.nasa.gov/ USGS EROS (Earth Resources Observatory and Science (EROS) Center) (public domain): http://eros.usgs.gov/# Natural Earth (public domain): http://www.naturalearthdata.com/ Additional Editor Comments: Dear author tuyen tran, I have read your manuscript and it is interesting, but I suggest you must add a discussion section (regarding Gini and model used), where you compare your results with other authors, y section 3 or before a add a bit more literature review where you say the author that use the method of analysis. also, I would like to suggest adding more reference may be 40. [Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.] Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ******** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available? The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English? PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 5. Review Comments to the Author Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters) Reviewer #1: The article adequately presents the methodology used to process the data necessary to examine the relationship between social inequity and electricity consumption. In my opinion, methodological support has been presented for the results shown; especially in those related to U-shaped relation between the inequality of electricity consumption and per capita household expenditure in Vietnamese communities Reviewer #2: The research topic is interesting. This research is very well designed and developed. However, I have the following comments about this study: 1. The description and use of the estimation method is not clear. The 2010 VHLSS and the 2009 VPHC are two different data sets. How to merger these data to estimate?... 2. In table 2, are the estimated results robust or not? ****** 6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files. If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public. Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy. Reviewer #1: Yes: Napoleon Vicente Blanco Orozco Reviewer #2: No ******** [NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.] While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0284055.r001
Revision 1
2 Mar 2023 Author Response Comments from editors Dear author Tuyen Tran, I have read your manuscript and it is interesting, but I suggest you must add a discussion section (regarding Gini and model used), where you compare your results with other authors, y section 3 or before a add a bit more literature review where you say the author that use the method of analysis. also, I would like to suggest adding more reference may be 40. Authors: Thank you very much for this useful comment. Following you suggestion, we added more discussion comparing our findings with other studies. We also increased the number of references to 40. We added the following paragraphs. “Similar findings were observed by Hasan and Mozumder (2017) who found that a U-shaped relationship exists between income and electricity consumption in Bangladesh. However, our result is partly inconsistent with some studies in other developing countries. For instance, Ma et al. (2021), find in rural China that energy inequality decreases with higher levels of energy consumption. while the distribution of electricity consumption was quite equal among income group in rural China (Wu, Zheng, & Wei, 2017). Also, electricity consumption inequality was found to increase with income levels in Indonesia (Dwi Cahyani, Nachrowi, Hartono, & Widyawati, 2020).” Following your recommendation, we also expanded the literature review and included some new references to the methods used in Section 3.1 Small-area estimation has gained a lot of attention in recent years due to the growing need for accurate small-area estimates from both the public and business sectors (Corral, Molina, Cojocaru, & Segovia, 2022; Perseh et al., 2023; Rahman, 2008). Using the small area estimation method, Perseh et al. (2023) estimated indquality indicators in diabetes care and health outcomes relevant to diabetes management in almost all districts of Iran. Reames (2016) predicted the mean census block group home heating energy usage intensity (EUI), an energy efficiency proxy, in Kansas City, Missouri, using small-area estimate approaches. Using this method, numerous studies have predicted poverty estimates at the different disaggregation levels in Vietnam ( Nguyen, 2011), Kenya (Christiaensen, Lanjouw, Luoto, & Stifel, 2012), Spain (Esteban, Morales, Pérez, & Santamaría, 2012) and India (Chandra, Aditya, & Sud, 2018).” Reviewer 1 The article adequately presents the methodology used to process the data necessary to examine the relationship between social inequity and electricity consumption. In my opinion, methodological support has been presented for the results shown; especially in those related to U-shaped relation between the inequality of electricity consumption and per capita household expenditure in Vietnamese communities. Authors: Thank you very much for your comments. Reviewer 2 The research topic is interesting. This research is very well designed and developed. However, I have the following comments about this study: 1. The description and use of the estimation method is not clear. The 2010 VHLSS and the 2009 VPHC are two different data sets. How to merger these data to estimate?... Authors: Thank you very much. Actually, we do not really merge the two data sets. Our main objective is to estimate the relation between inequality and mean electricity consumption at the district and province levels. The 2010 VHLSS contains data about not only expenditure on electricity but also the number of kilowatt hours (kWh) that households consumed in the last month. However, the 2010 VHLSS covered 9,399 households. It is just a sampled survey, which is not representative for provinces and districts. On the other hand, the 2009 VPHC has a large coverage of households, and it is representative at the provincial and district levels, but it does not contain data on electricity consumption of households. We first use the 2010 VHLSS to construct a model of electricity consumption as a function of household and community variables that are are available in both the 2010 VHLSS and the 2009 VHPC. Then, the parameter estimates from this model are applied to the 2009 VHPC to predict electricity consumption of all households in the population. These household-level data allow use to estimate the mean and inequality of electricity consumption for provincial and districts. In the revised manuscript, we added a paragraph in the Introduction section to note the data combination. 2. In table 2, are the estimated results robust or not? Authors: Thank you very much for this useful comment. Following you suggestion, we conducted additional robustness analyses. Firstly, we try both OLS and spatial regressions, which give quite similar results. Secondly, we examine whether the estimates are sensitive to inclusion of additional control variables. In Table A.8 in the Appendix, we include additional control variables including regional dummies, log of population density and the share of urban population of districts. Overall, the model with control variables gives similar results as the model without control variables in Table 2. In this study, we aim to examine the change in electricity inequality across the economic development level instead of estimating the causal effect of the economic development. Thus, we will use the result from regression without control variables for interpretation. Thirdly, in addition to the Gini index, we use log of the Gini index as the dependent variable. The results, which are reported in Tables A.9 and A.10 in the Appendix, show similar findings as those in Table 2. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Responses to reviewers_R1.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0284055.r002
15 Mar 2023 Decision Letter - Carlos Alberto Zúniga-González, Editor PONE-D-22-30320R1Inequality in Electricity Consumption and Economic Growth: Evidence from a Small Area Estimation StudyPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Tran, Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process. Please submit your revised manuscript by Apr 29 2023 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file. Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript: A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'. A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'. An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'. If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter. If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols. We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript. Kind regards, Carlos Alberto Zúniga-González, Ph.D Academic Editor PLOS ONE Journal Requirements: Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice. Additional Editor Comments: Dear authors, thanks for your contribution for improvements your manuscript, so for finalize the editorial process only make the improvement indicated for reviewers 2. [Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.] Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation. Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed ******** 2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available? The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English? PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 6. Review Comments to the Author Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters) Reviewer #1: From my point of view, the author has incorporated all the observations made in the previous review and has done so objectively and purposefully.Therefore, I consider that this work should be published. Reviewer #2: From 2010 to now, the Government has invested in the energy sector for mountainous areas. The problem of energy poverty in Vietnam has also been improved significantly. So, I want the authors to further clarify the policy implications associated with the Vietnamese context. ****** 7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files. If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public. Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy. Reviewer #1: Yes: Napoleon Vicente Blanco Orozco Reviewer #2: No ******** [NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.] While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0284055.r003
Revision 2
18 Mar 2023 Author Response Reviewer #2: From 2010 to now, the Government has invested in the energy sector for mountainous areas. The problem of energy poverty in Vietnam has also been improved significantly. So, I want the authors to further clarify the policy implications associated with the Vietnamese context. Authors’ responses: Thank you so much for your helpful comments. Following your suggestion, we have addressed this implicatin in the revision as follows: Findings from our study suggest the provision of an electricity subsidy for low-income households, especially those in poor areas. The Vietnamese government has invested in the power sector for rural and mountainous areas since 2010; this has significantly improved the access to the electricity grid for a huge number of households (Minh and Nguyen, 2021). Since 2011, the government of Vietnam has been providing cash subsidies for electricity consumption to poor households (Government of Vietnam, 2011). The issue of energy poverty has been significantly reduced, and inequalities in electricity consumption also declined during the 2008–2018 period (Minh et al., 2021). However, the energy cost has recently increased, becoming a growing burden for low-income households (Nguyen, Nguyen, Hoang, Wilson, & Managi, 2019). Poor households face relatively high costs of energy, which can limit their affordability of other goods and consequently reduce their well-being (Nguyen et al., 2019). Thus, electricity-subsidy policies for poor households should be further strengthened and implemented. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Authors_responses_R2.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0284055.r004
22 Mar 2023 Decision Letter - Carlos Alberto Zúniga-González, Editor Inequality in Electricity Consumption and Economic Growth: Evidence from a Small Area Estimation Study PONE-D-22-30320R2 Dear Dr. tuyen tran, We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements. Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication. An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org. If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org. Kind regards, Carlos Alberto Zúniga-González, Ph.D Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): Dear author I have checked that you have been the corrections and clarified the observations of reviewer # 2. My sincere congratulations, my decision is accepted. Reviewers' comments: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0284055.r005
Formally Accepted
10 Apr 2023 Acceptance Letter - Carlos Alberto Zúniga-González, Editor PONE-D-22-30320R2 Inequality in Electricity Consumption and Economic Growth: Evidence from a Small Area Estimation Study Dear Dr. Tran: I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department. If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org. If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org. Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access. Kind regards, PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff on behalf of Dr. Prof. Carlos Alberto Zúniga-González Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0284055.r006

Open letter on the publication of peer review reports

PLOS recognizes the benefits of transparency in the peer review process. Therefore, we enable the publication of all of the content of peer review and author responses alongside final, published articles. Reviewers remain anonymous, unless they choose to reveal their names.

We encourage other journals to join us in this initiative. We hope that our action inspires the community, including researchers, research funders, and research institutions, to recognize the benefits of published peer review reports for all parts of the research system.

Learn more at ASAPbio .