- 203 -
would only install the additional transformers when increased
demand required FPL to expand. Mr. Veronee testified:
Q. And Florida Power & Light would have put the
second transformer in only when and if growth reached
the point where it was necessary? [Emphasis added.]
A. That is correct.
These plans were projections for the future, which allowed FPL to
expand its facilities to satisfy increased demand or to improve
reliability. While the plot plans allowed petitioner to add
transformers and other equipment as needed, the plans did not
obligate petitioner to construct any of these items. Because
petitioner was never bound to complete the projects outlined in
the plot plans, we conclude that petitioner did not commit to
one-half of the construction costs as of December 31, 1985, as
required by TRA section 203(b)(1)(C).
Because petitioner failed to begin construction or commit to
one-half of the construction costs as of December 31, 1985, we
hold that TRA section 203(b)(1)(C) does not provide petitioner
with relief from the ITC repeal for the distribution and
transmission substations.
Page: Previous 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011