See comments

Much improved and thank you for considering the editorial comments in detail. There a some very minor points where additional corrections would be helpful:
- consider using variable rather than volatile electricity generation (the latter term has an unnecessarily negative connotation)
- the end of section 1.2 still seems abrupt- there is no tie back to the current paper saying what method this paper will pursue. Even though this is discussed in section 2 it would be good to hint at it here
- there are still some minor grammar issues, e.g. "To calculate hourly prices it is required, that short term demand characteristics like daily and weekly patterns 255 are modelled." I recommend one last grammar check
- generally the build from current literature to the approach could still be stronger. it is much improved, but the flow isn't there and the reader can get lost in terms of how the work builds on the SoA. I believe that reordering section 1 by having current section 1.3 come before section 1.2 would be good. That way you go straight from the SoA in forecasting to your approach starting in section 2.
- At the end of each sub-section in section 1, end by saying what this paper's approach will be.
- current section 1.2 seems to be mixing forecasting models and power system operations / planning models... Its important to be clear on this. Make sure you are using the proper terminology. In the power systems community, there are dispatch, commitment power system operations models and then planning models that include capacity and/or transmission expansion models. In the wind community, generally forecasting models tend to be forecasts of weather while power system operations models (which inherently include optimization - with game theoretic elements or not) are used for predicting prices over time. Again, revisit and make sure that the terminology and categorisation of models is clear before the final submission.
- Figure 9 is quite nice but the discussion of it doesn't seem adequate. The whole paper builds to this case study but there is only a short paragraph of analysis and interpretation of the results. I recommend expanding it a bit. What is so interesting about the results? What does it say about where the future could go and how likely are the different futures? the selection of much lower PPA than the reference has a big impact on the results... you might have chosen to go from 40 to 100 which would bookend the extremes (with a median expected future somewhere in between), this would give a better picture of the range of future outcomes and under what conditions VREs (variable renewables) will be profitable or not

Only some more technical corrections are required, to accept your paper for publication

Best Joachim Peinke (Chief editor)