- 123 -
transponders, the voltage of the transponders, the type of
property that the transponders served, and the year that FPL
planned to install the transponders. While the terms of the
related documents are not required to identify the exact property
in issue, the terms must contain specific details. See United
States v. Commonwealth Energy Sys., 235 F.3d at 16. Petitioner’s
“related documents” itemize many components and subcomponents of
the LMS property and indicate the number of transponders needed
for the system.
Although the Westinghouse contract fails to readily identify
the nuclear fuel assemblies, appendix A of the Exxon contract
contains specific details that identify the assemblies at St.
Lucie Unit 1. Also, the LMS property is readily identifiable
from the terms of the A.B. Chance contract and the LMS
specifications. Therefore, the Exxon contract and the A.B.
Chance contract and the LMS specifications readily identify the
St. Lucie Unit 1 nuclear fuel assemblies and the LMS property,
respectively.105
Because the tariff is not a contract for purposes of TRA
section 204(a)(3), the tariff does not readily identify any
105 We address this issue to complete our analysis of the
supply or service contract transitional rule. However, the
property does not qualify for an ITC because we have held that
the tariff is not a supply or service contract for purposes of
TRA section 204(a)(3), and we have held that the tariff does not
incorporate the “related documents”.
Page: Previous 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011