- 130 -
The amendments made * * * [to repeal the ITC] shall not
apply to any property which is readily identifiable
with and necessary to carry out a written supply * * *
contract * * * which was binding on * * * [December 31,
1985].
We believe that respondent’s interpretation is too restrictive.
If Congress had wanted to except only the supplier under a supply
contract, it would have specifically so stated. The language
excepts any property that is readily identifiable with and
necessary to carry out a written supply contract. Surely,
equipment purchased and installed by the party receiving goods
and services under a supply contract constitutes “any” property
that is necessary to carry out that contract. Respondent’s
interpretation is inconsistent with the plain meaning of TRA
section 204(a)(3) because, under the Southern company contracts,
FPL arguably needed to purchase and install certain equipment to
accept the electricity supplied by the Southern companies. We
hold that the Southern company contracts constitute supply
contracts for purposes of petitioner’s potential entitlement to
the benefits of TRA section 204(a)(3). Accordingly, we must then
decide whether petitioner’s property is readily identifiable with
and necessary to carry out the Southern company contracts.
The amendment to the power agreement entered into on
February 18, 1982, increased the amount of power that the
Southern companies would supply FPL. That agreement specified
the number of megawatts that the Southern companies would make
Page: Previous 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011