- 181 -
redesigned and installed the condensate polisher tie line. We
find that St. Lucie Unit 2 and the condensate polisher tie lines
are separate properties.
We find that petitioner did not incur or commit $1 million
or 5 percent of the costs for the condensate polisher tie line as
of December 31, 1985.127 ER 195, which was processed in 1987,
authorized the condensate polisher tie line at St. Lucie Unit 2.
We find that petitioner failed to begin construction before
January 1986. We hold that petitioner is not entitled to an ITC
with respect to the condensate polisher tie line.
c. Instrument Air Upgrade
The final backfit item for which petitioner seeks an ITC is
the instrument air upgrade system. Petitioner argues that the
St. Lucie power plant’s original design included the instrument
air system. Further, petitioner asserts that the self-
constructed property rule provides relief from the ITC repeal for
the redesign of an essential component. Respondent argues that
the instrument air upgrade system constitutes a separate piece of
property from St. Lucie Units 1 and 2 because these power plants
operated for several years without the instrument air upgrade.
127 A condensate polisher was included in the design plan for
St. Lucie Units 1 and 2. Petitioner, however, did not install
the condensate polisher tie line at Unit 2 as designed, but
instead, FPL conducted a study to determine the need for the
condensate system. FPL’s engineers recommended the condensate
polisher tie lines in a November 1985 study, and FPL’s corporate
staff agreed to the engineering recommendation in January 1986.
Page: Previous 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011