Thank you to all the reviewers for the helpful comments and insights!

Here are the changes to document in response to the reviewer's comments:

• In response to Reviewer #1’s comments:
  • Added to last sentence in Introduction: “The improved spatial accuracy of this approach ensures better estimates of technical and economic distributed wind potential by analyzing granular information and capturing local variations rather than broad approximations.”
  • Added limitations in Discussion and conclusion section
  • Table 1/Line 365/Line 367: “RAISE ineligibility” information to “REAP ineligibility”
  • Line 21: Changed range of distributed wind definition from 10 to 60m to 10 to 80m as this reflects our modeling
  • Line 83: Updated sentence as follows: “accounting for incentives and revenue streams”
  • Line 95: changed “As shown in this figure, calculation of economic generation potential at a given site involves three main phases corresponding to agent generation and technical potential calculation, inclusion of the wind resource to calculate estimated annual energy production, and the consideration of local energy demand and system costs to determine the techno-economic subset” to “As shown in this figure, separate model components calculate different metrics throughout the model pipeline: the agent generation process sites and sizes systems to determine parcel-level technical potential, the reV model calculates annual energy production according to wind resource, and the dWind model assesses parcel-level economic potential according to local energy demand and system costs” for clarity.
  • Table 1: The description of the datasets that were updated from the prior study are included in the section above the table.
  • Line 116: CPU defined as “Central Processing Unit”
  • Line 117: I/O defined as “Input/Output”
  • Figure 4: Clarification that the magnitude of the circles represents the available land area for siting on parcels.
  • Figure 7: Updated caption to include: “The maximum BTM turbine has been used to show maximum capacity, rather than the sized down turbine.”
  • Line 402: Removed “these gains underscore the vast untapped DW potential”
• In response to Reviewer #2’s comments:
  • Definition of Distributed Wind: Changed range of distributed wind definition from 10 to 60m to 10 to 80m as this reflects our modeling
  • Calculation of wind resource and energy yield: Included a reference to the turbine power curves used in Table 1 and included an “Energy production” entry in Table 1 that describes that the reV model calculates energy production using the wind resource data (WIND Toolkit) and turbine power curves.
  • Blade height: changed language from “minimum/maximum blade height” to “allowable minimum/maximum blade height” for clarity.
  • Changed “parallel processing” to “multiprocessing” as both the prior study and this one both used parallelization, but the updated model also incorporates multiprocessing.
  • Added references on the value of DERs and grid reliability and resilience in the introduction section.
  • Added uncertainties as limitation in the Discussion section
• In response to Reviewer #3’s comments:
  • Added the geographic constraints of the modeling as a limitation in the Discussion section.
• Other changes:
  • Updated reference to Lightbox parcels dataset in Table 1
  • Removed colored cells in tables
  • Added the following sections: “Competing Interests,” “Disclaimer,” “Acknowledgements,” “Financial Support”

Responses Reviewer #1:

• The commentary on RAISE is misleading. RAISE did not directly make additional funds available to end users considering DW installation. RAISE is an initiative, not an incentive, so a customer cannot be eligible or ineligible for the RAISE initiative. I think you may be referring to USDA’s REAP eligibility. Please clarify.
  
  Yes, while discussing incentives, we are referring to REAP eligibility.
• Line 21: Distributed wind can encompass more than turbines up to 60m in height. Please clarify if you are choosing to define DW this way because of your model structure or provide a resource that backs this. References you cite show there is more range than this.
  
  Yes, we also include turbines up to 80m in our modeling.
• Line 83: Potential missing word in “account for is and revenue streams”
  
  Sentence should be “accounting for incentives and revenue streams.”
• Line 95: This sentence is long, and its intention unclear. With the workflow critical to understanding the paper’s contribution, I recommend rephrasing and better aligning the language with Figure 1 to maximize the figure’s usefulness.
  
  Sentence rephrased for clarity.
• Table 1: In addition to descriptions of the datasets that are used, this section needs a discussion around why these specific sources were selected over others and which ones were used in the original model compared to the new version that this paper covers.
  
  All data sources and vintages have remained consistent with the prior study except for U.S. Census boundary definitions (as new data from 2010 to 2020 have become available) and utility boundaries (as updated 2020 definitions have become available).
• Figure 4: This figure needs a legend defining what the magnitude of the circles represents. I also recommend using a higher resolution figure if it is available.
  
  The magnitude of the circles represents the available land area for siting on parcels.
• Line 190: Which of the cities are respectively urban, suburban, and rural? What makes these cities representative of those environments?
  
  All of these cities include some urban, suburban, and rural parcels.
• Figure 7: Does this show the scenarios where the largest turbine is sited or sized to load? Please specify.
  
  The maximum BTM turbine has been used to show maximum capacity, rather than the sized down turbine.

Responses Reviewer #2:

1.2.1  Definition of distributed wind

A definition of distributed wind appears to be lacking. Although DW turbines are on average certainly smaller than utility-scale wind turbines, it is not clear where the proposed tower height range 10 - 60 m comes from. Especially since front of the meter turbines appear to be included in the (implicit) definition of DW (l. 39), larger tower heights are possible.

Our modeling includes heights of 80m as well, so we have updated this definition.

1.2.2  Calculation of wind resource and energy yield

How is the wind resource calculated?  For instance, is a reference height used, and are the results influenced by vertical extrapolation and wind shear?  How was AEP calculated?  Which wind turbines were used?  Some of this information can supposedly be found in the links in Table 1, but it is not very clear. E.g. reference turbine power curves can be found, according to the manuscript, in a zenodo link in table 1 but this does not seem to show any power curves or at least none that can be easily found. In a paper investigating the energy potential for distributed wind, there should be no ambiguity on how the energy yield is calculated.

The wind resource is derived from the WIND Toolkit (described in Table 1) and includes resource information at various heights. Energy production was calculated using the reV model as reV uses the wind resource data and reference turbine power curves to calculate annual and hourly estimates of energy production at a site and choice of turbine model. More information regarding annual energy production is described in section 2.4: Modeling annual energy production and economic potential.

1.3  UQ

Results are given without an estimate of their level of uncertainty. Uncertainties should be added, together with an informative discussion of the main contributions to this uncertainty. For instance, one may expect the uncertainty to depend on tower height. Is that the case?  If not, why not? 

Added to limitations in the Discussion and conclusion section.

1.4  Blade height

Eq. 1 gives a minimum blade height of zero if the canopy percentage is below a certain threshold. This sounds odd and does not fit standard practice. I am concerned that this may lead to an overestimate of the RSA of the sited turbines in the proposed evaluation. If this is not the case, could the authors explain this in the manuscript? 

Although the minimum blade height is set to 0 if the canopy coverage is below a certain threshold, Turbine systems are classified and sized according to the minimum and maximum allowable blade height requirements calculated for each parcel using the system configuration information in Table A3. Therefore, there are never any turbines that are sited as “0 m” in our modeling. Additionally, parcels that do not site turbines (or have a determined system size of zero) were filtered from the model pipeline.

1.5  Agents and MCA

There is a pipeline for generating agents but little detail is given. Although there is a breakdown between residential and commercial above Table 3, it is not clear what these agents look like.  Is some multicriteria analysis performed, as different agents may have a different weighting for different criteria? If the authors do not believe this is relevant, please explain

Agents are categorized as residential, commercial, or industrial according to their land use category (inherent in the Lightbox parcel dataset). This mapping of land use category to sector is identified in Table A1.

Responses Reviewer #3:

• The "blade height setback factor" needs to be described and discussed.  
  
  The blade height setback factor is identified (and cited) in the “Modeling parcel-level technical potential” section.