Dear Authors,

I have now received input from the reviewers regarding your revised paper. While one of the reviewers finds your revisions satisfactory, the second reviewer mentions: "I see the changes the authors have made are very superficial, and don't really address most of my concerns. I'm sticking with my original assessment of "Major revisions"

Unfortunately, I must agree with the second reviewer. First of all, a "demo" or tutorial of PC applied to wind energy is not sufficient in itself to merit a publication in WESC. You should convincingly show that your selected PC method outperforms the rectangle rule or possibly other methods that are current standard. In this respect, mainly the first and the second comment of Reviewer 2 are of major concern.
1. you need to convincingly show that your proposed PC expansion in the wind direction uncertainty indeed converges exponential (or at least at an algebraic rate that is faster than the second-order convergence of the rectangle rule), or, as suggested by the reviewer, you should change your expansion in this dimension using Fourier series (that is expected to converge exponentially given the periodicity of the distribution).
2. you need to show convincingly that you outperform the rectangle rule. As you admit yourself (following the reviewers comments), the improved performance of PC-R is probably simply the result of filtering the noisy wind-direction distribution (rather then better convergence rate). In other words, e.g, smoothing the distribution before applying the rectangle rule, may lead to the same efficiency.

These issues are not simply solved by some superfluous responses to the reviewer, but require additional analysis corroborated with extra or different figures, possibly an adaptation of your method, etc.

Sincerely,
Johan Meyers

Dear Mr. Padrón,

Following your last revision, reviewer 2 suggested to reject the paper unless some significant improvements were made to the methodology. You decided not to follow-up on this. Since there was also a positive review, I decided to ask a third opinion. As you can see Reviewer 3 sees merit in your work, but thinks that you are overselling the PC method over other methods. Please carefully address the concerns raised by Reviewer 3 in a next revision of your paper.

Sincerely,
Johan Meyers

Dear Authors,

As you can see, the reviewer is in general happy with your revisions, but has some additional minor suggestions, that should be very straightforward to adapt. Please incorporate them in a next revision. Please also upload a separate document with the reviewer requests, and the verbatim quote of the changes that you made, so that I can make a final decision without the need to send the document back to the reviewer.

Kind regards,
Johan Meyers

Thank you for the final corrections and the work you have put in carefully addressing all reviewer comments during this lengthy revision process. Congratulations with this nice work!
Sincerely,
Johan Meyers

Congratulation
Joachim Peinke