- 196 -
We find Payless Cashways instructive because it notes that “if
such attribution were proper, we would be unwilling to attribute
to Payless more than 16.67 percent of the costs of construction,
which was the extent of Payless’ interest in the TPS,
partnership.” Id. at 82. In this case, we find that attribution
to FPL is proper because petitioner incurred the expenses as a
tenant in common, not as a partner. We follow the guidance of
Payless Cashways by limiting the construction costs committed or
incurred by petitioner to its percentage of ownership. Because
FPL owned only a 20-percent interest in the SJRPP, its percentage
of the construction costs is limited to 20 percent; therefore,
FPL does not satisfy the plant facility requirement because it
has not incurred or committed more than one-half of the
construction costs.
Because petitioner failed to provide a written specific
plan, and failed to incur or commit one-half of the construction
costs, we hold that petitioner is not entitled to an ITC for the
“wrap up” work and “enhancements and deficiencies” work at the
SJRPP under TRA section 203(b)(1)(C).
3. Distribution and Transmission Substations
Petitioner claims that transformers and other equipment
installed at the distribution and transmission substations
qualify for ITCs under the plant facility transitional rule.
The distribution and transmission substation components for which
Page: Previous 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011