Manuscript Title: Landfalling Tropical Cyclones Significantly Reduce Bangladesh’s Energy Security

 Summary of the Manuscript

This manuscript examines the impact of landfalling tropical cyclones on Bangladesh’s energy security, using a combination of daily metered electricity demand data for Bangladesh’s nine power zones with meteorological and hazard datasets. The authors argue that landfalling tropical cyclones cause an average 20% reduction in national electricity supply, with coastal zones disproportion affected, experiencing drops of up to 38%. Finally, authors highlight the need for continued investment in climate-resilient energy infrastructure in the region, as well as adaptation to such extremes, which are projected to become more severe with climate change. The topic is timely, policy-relevant, and empirically important. The paper makes a valuable contribution to understanding the climate–energy nexus in a highly vulnerable country. It addresses a critical gap — the intersection of DRR and energy security — particularly within the West Bengal and Bangladesh context. However, the manuscript requires substantial clarification, data transparency, and necessary refinement to reach publishable standard. The argument is compelling, but methodological rigor and framing could be improved to meet international expectations.

Major comments

• The concept of “energy security” is not clearly defined in introduction section.
  
  
  
  
• Authors should clarify how cyclone impacts are mapped onto diverse dimensions.

• The introduction overlooks key comparative studies: for example, Southeast Asian energy systems and Bangladesh’s coastal energy vulnerability. How this study can contribute to the existing literature?

• In method part, causal relationship using robust statistics is missing. I suggest to specify whether regression, correlation, or event-based impact assessment.
• I also found some missing details about data sources, for example, Cyclone dataset (JTWC, IMD, or BMD?); Energy data (BPDB, WAPDA, or open-source?); Time resolution (monthly, daily, event-based?

• I suggest that spatial analysis (GIS or remote sensing) could greatly strengthen the results.
• In the discussion section, this study lacks scholarly discussion for example, how landfalling tropical cyclones significantly impacted Bangladesh’s energy security

• The conclusion is currently descriptive and too much.
• What is the key message for reader? Authors should connect findings to SDG 7 (Affordable and Clean Energy) and SDG 13 (Climate Action).

Minor Comments

1. Authors clarify units for energy loss (MW vs. MWh).
2. I suggest to provide cyclone names and years in a new Table for reader clarity.
3. Authors should improve figure readability (especially cyclone track map).

Rationale:

The manuscript is promising but needs clearer methodological articulation, standardized definitions of energy security, and stronger quantitative validation. Addressing these issues will make the paper suitable for publication in this journal.

The study integrates cyclone impacts with energy demand data — relevant and regionally novel. However, the novelty statement should be clearer and distinguished from prior cyclone–energy studies.

Major comments:

1. Daily demand data may mix physical outages and load-shedding. Provide uncertainty bounds or a brief sensitivity test to confirm attribution.
2. Include quantitative details (wind speed, surge, rainfall) for each event and test the relation between cyclone intensity and demand loss.
3. The India–Bangladesh power-sharing section needs quantitative support—e.g., frequency or MW impact of synchronized dips.
4. Adaptation options are strong but could be ranked by vulnerability or summarized in a schematic table for clarity.

Minor comments:

1. Abstract: Add numbers for average and maximum power losses.
2. Figures: Clarify units, improve color contrast.
3. Methods: Briefly mention missing-data handling and smoothing approach.
4. Reference: Add one or two regional energy policy sources.
5. Maintain consistency in “met demand” terminology.

Overall, the study is good, but improvements in quantitative precision, clarity, and uncertainty reduction are needed before acceptance.