  This is the reply to the 2nd version of the comment, [arXiv.1312.5286v2], by
McCutcheon {\it et al.} on our paper [PRL 109, 170402 (2012)]. Our letter
presents three examples. For the steady-state solution of the first example,
i.e., the dissipationless part of Eq.(12) in the PRL, the 2nd version of the
Comment claimed that "this [dissipationless] regime exists if and only if the
total Hamiltonian is unbounded from below, casting serious doubts on the
usefulness of this result." In this reply, we show again that the 2nd version
of the Comment is also incorrect.
