Dear team, please find attached my review. BR.  Rémi.

Comments to the manuscript “Performance of wind assessment datasets in United States coastal areas”

General comments

This manuscript compares the existing wind speed datasets in the coastal regions of the United States by using measurement data at 23 points. The discussion is clear and the reviewer could not find any fundamental mistakes in their analysis. However, at the same time, the reviewer could not find any scientific or engineering value which is worth for this manuscript to be published as a research paper in Wind Energy Science journal. In other words, what are the findings in this work and what is the contribution of this work for wind energy community? The authors do not answer this most important question. As seen in the table 1, which is the summary of the datasets used in this work, the characteristics of the data are very different by datasets. For example, the method of downscaling is different, the temporal resolution is different and the spatial resolution is different, making it very difficult to investigate the cause of the error for each site. It seems that the discussion in this manuscript is very specific to the datasets and measurement sites, and it is hard to generalize the conclusion. Thus, the reviewer does not agree this manuscript to be published even with major revisions, unless substantial change are made with the introduction of the new viewpoints which brings more general conclusions.

Technical comments

Table 1.: What is the meaning of “Annual, seasonal, diurnal” in the temporal resolution rowof GWA3 and WTK-LED Climate? Does it mean annual average value per each year, seasonal average per season and diurnal average per a day are provided? But if so, the “temporal” resolutions is “once a day”, isn’t it?? (I mean annual or seasonal average value can be calculated from diurnal average data….) And the averaging time is different from the resolution and has to be specified separately. Anyway, more clarification needed

Equation 4.: The numerator of the right side of the equation looks like a ceiling function. But it does not make sense. Is it a simple bracket or absolute value?? From the following discussion, the relative error is always positive and the reviewer assumes this is an absolute value. But in that case, equation 4 has to be modified to the absolute value.

Figure 3: The difference of the different method to calculate the shear exponent is a little unclear. It’s better to explicitly show by equation.

Line 296-302: NOW-23 is based on different PBL scheme by different locations, right? However it does not justify to discuss the results as the difference of the PBL scheme as figure 8. They are based on different sites. This discussion is misleading and unacceptable.

Line 347-: What is the meaning to discuss the relative diurnal cycle?? The meaning of discussing the diurnal cycle for wind power application is not clear. The authors needs to clarify the justification of this discussion.