Bonneville supports these changes. However, we suggest adding some additional clarifying language, similar to what was noted for section 3.1.5.2 above, to explicitly acknowledge the replacement of capacity lost to planned outages is the participant’s responsibility, and that the scope of this replacement responsibility is limited to the amount needed to return the participant to its FS Capacity Requirement and not the total amount of the participant’s original FS Demonstration (FS Capacity Requirement plus surplus). Below are Bonneville’s suggested language changes/additions to the proposed language in Appendix E section iv: (iv) [Participant] expects the aggregate of any such additional outages to either be equal to or less than [Participant]’s remaining surplus as defined by [Participant]’s Portfolio QCC in excess of [Participant]’s FS Capacity requirement or, to the extent it is not excess, [Participant] will replace the aggregate of any such outages with the necessary capacity or energy to meet the Operations Program requirements, consistent with Section 16.2.8.2 and Part III of the Tariff.