Boston Edison Co. v. United States
106 Fed. Cl. 330
| Fed. Cl. | 2012Background
- Boston Edison and Entergy pursued claims against the United States for breach of the DOE Standard Contract over SNF disposal failures.
- The Pilgrim plant was sold to Entergy in 1999; Entergy assumed decommissioning and SNF storage responsibilities under a decommissioning fund.
- A partial consolidation of Boston Edison and Entergy claims occurred in 2005 to address contract formation, pre-sale performance, and diminution-in-value issues.
- A 2012 stipulation permitted final judgment in Entergy’s case, which the court entered, while severing that action from Boston Edison’s and preserving related rights.
- The government sought reconsideration of the Entergy judgment and argued about severance and the status of Boston Edison’s nascent decommissioning claim.
- The Federal Circuit remanded certain issues and clarified that Boston Edison’s decommissioning claim would mature only upon actual decommissioning costs, guiding the district court’s handling of future claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the government’s Rule 59 motion to reconsider is proper | Entergy maintains discretion bars relief absent clear error or injustice | Government contends manifest error/injustice justifies reconsideration | Denied; no manifest injustice found |
| Whether severing Entergy’s judgment from Boston Edison’s was proper | Boston Edison argues severance avoids intertwining and respects prior rulings | Government contends claims remain intertwined and should not have been severed | Severance upheld; Entergy judgment remains final |
| Whether Boston Edison’s decommissioning-cost claim is prematurely asserted | Boston Edison contends decommissioning costs are cognizable and unsettled damages may accrue later | Costs are contingent and mature only after decommissioning, making claim premature | Dismissed without prejudice; implicit remand for future maturation |
| Whether dismissal of Boston Edison’s claim should be with prejudice | Boston Edison opposes dismissal with prejudice as premature and contingent | Given the circuit’s treatment, dismissal with prejudice is warranted | Dismissal without prejudice |
| Whether the Federal Circuit implicitly remanded post-decommissioning rights | Boston Edison asserts explicit remand to adjudicate decommissioning rights | Mandate limited to diminution-in-value issue; remand for decommissioning rights not explicit | Implicit remand exists; district court to adjudicate post-decommissioning rights |
Key Cases Cited
- Boston Edison Co. v. United States, 658 F.3d 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (reversal/remand of decommissioning and SNF claims; accrual in partial breach setting)
- Boston Edison Co. v. United States, 93 Fed.Cl. 105 (2010) (trial on SNF storage costs and NRC fees; offset considerations)
- Boston Edison Co. v. United States, 80 Fed.Cl. 468 (2008) (predecessor dismissal/trial on diminution-in-value and related issues)
- Boston Edison Co. v. United States, 67 Fed.Cl. 63 (2005) (partial consolidation and issues addressed)
- Indiana Mich. Power Co. v. United States, 422 F.3d 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (partial breach accrual framework and timing of damages)
- Exxon Chem. Patents, Inc. v. Lubrizol Corp., 137 F.3d 1475 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (mandate/remand analysis; limits of reversal to issues decided)
- Sprague v. Ticonic Nat’l Bank, 307 U.S. 161 (1939) (restatement of prudential dismissal principles and implicit remand concepts)
- Restatement (Second) of Judgments § 26(l)(b), Restatement (Second) of Judgments (1982) (exceptions to merger and bar; preservation of future rights)
- Tennessee Valley Auth. v. United States, 60 Fed.Cl. 665 (2004) (accrual and future damages in partial-breach context)