Florida Progress Corporation and Subsidiaries - Page 21




                                       - 21 -                                         

          period in order to create level pricing.  Any remaining                     
          overrecoveries existing at the end of the recovery period,                  
          because of inaccuracies in estimating its projected costs, are              
          returned to customers pursuant to the true-up adjustment required           
          by the FPSC and FERC.  Florida Power cannot change or alter the             
          time or method of refunding the overrecoveries.  Because the time           
          and method of refunding overrecoveries is controlled by the FPSC            
          and FERC rather than by Florida Power, Florida Power does not               
          have complete dominion over the overrecoveries and is not                   
          required to recognize them as income when received.                         
               Respondent argues that Indianapolis Power & Light Co. does             
          not apply to this case because the Supreme Court was addressing             
          only the question of whether certain payments by customers were             
          advanced payments for services or were deposits.  Respondent                
          maintains that, in this case, the overrecoveries were paid to               
          Florida Power as part of the compensation it receives for                   
          providing electricity service rather than in the form of a                  
          deposit, and, therefore, the test for income announced in                   
          Indianapolis Power & Light Co. was not intended by the Supreme              
          Court to apply to overrecoveries.                                           
               We reject respondent’s argument that the holding in                    
          Indianapolis Power & Light Co. should be construed so narrowly.             
          Respondent is essentially making the same arguments in this case            
          regarding overrecoveries that were rejected by the Supreme Court            





Page:  Previous  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011