The paper "Storm-time energy budget in the high latitude lower thermosphere-ionosphere: Quantification of energy exchange and comparison of different drivers in TIE-GCM" provides a detailed assessment of TIE-GSM heating and cooling terms relevant for neutrals, ions, and electrons, during a major geomagnetic storm. Two simulation runs are compared, one driven by the Weimer (2005) model of high latitude electric potential, the other by AMIE data.

Understanding and properly quantifying the energy budget in the ionosphere-thermosphere is certainly a major topic, likewise the related improvement of the simulation codes and boundary conditions. As soon as the few issues listed below and in the attached annotated manuscript are fixed, I shall be happy to recommend publication.

1. As far as I can judge, the main point that requires clarification is the direct Joule heating of the neutrals. This is invoked several times, as well as indicated in Figures 2 and 3. I am a bit confused, since Joule heating implies the effect of the electric field, which is obviously not directly felt by the neutrals. As aptly mentioned by the authors, the energy is passed to the ions by Joule heating, then transferred to the neutrals by collisions. But obviously there is also another mechanism, indicated in Figure 2 by the direct red arrow between the q_J box (q_\Omega in the figure - typo?) and in Figure 3 by the gray 'Joule heating' box (incidentally, the 'Joule heating' and 'Ions' boxes have somewhat different mutual roles in Figure 3 compared to Figure 2). I presume that the 'direct Joule heating' to neutrals and the Joule heating via ions are indeed related to specific terms of TIE-GCM. Perhaps the 'direct Joule heating' is related to the neutral wind term of Eq. (5), u_n \times B, i.e., to the (macroscopic) convection motion of the neutrals, whereas the ion term, related to the temperature difference (pointed out by the authors), is  rather a (microscopic) conduction effect? Or, as suggested by Eq. (11), there is a ‘prompt’ energy transfer (the ‘direct’ Joule heating of neutrals?) versus a ‘delayed’ transfer (see the annotated pdf)? Please clarify.

2. Another point that I regard as important is the reason behind the difference of the Weimer and AMIE results, in particular at / near the maximum phase of the storm (Figure 1). This is attributed mainly to the sub-grid variability, apparently better captured by AMIE, because of better spatial resolution (e.g., L567-569, 576-578). The better capturing of the actual conditions by AMIE is at least as important and should be emphasized better. To my understanding, AMIE takes (much?) better into account the actual conditions, as compared to a statistical model, like Weimer (2005), which provides some sort of 'average ' behavior. The more disturbed are the conditions, the farther off are the various parameters from some 'average' and the more important is to drive the simulation by (as close as possible to) actual boundary conditions. I think that some elaboration of the discussion and conclusions would be welcomed.

3. Besides the two points above, please see the annotated manuscript, attached, for various other remarks, mostly minor issues.

This study analyzes the energy budget in the high-latitude lower thermosphere-ionosphere during the 17 March 2015 storm. The authors compared the energy budget derived from TIE-GCM simulations with two electric potential drivers. Before I can suggest acceptance, several concerns should be addressed.

Major comments:

1. Joule heating estimate:

• The JH powers shown in Figure 2 seem to be different from the values shown in the authors' another study by Tourgaidis 2025a, which used the same model and drivers to show the global Joule heating during the same storm.
• Equation 11 is not correct for the partition of JH to the ions. See https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2025/egusphere-2025-2679/egusphere-2025-2679.pdf and https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2021EA001925

2. Particle precipitation power:

• JH is multpled by a factor of 1.5. Similarly, other terms, especially the particle precipitation power, may also be underestimated in the model.
• It's unclear what drivers for the particle precipitation were used in this study. The EPP powers are only 1/10 of the JH power. This seems a tiny percentage compared with the previous studies.

Please see the detailed comments in the attached PDF. In addition, the text shown in the figures is too small. It's tough to read if the manuscript is printed on A4 paper.