Entergy Louisiana, L.L.C. v. United States
133 Fed. Cl. 258
| Fed. Cl. | 2017Background
- River Bend Nuclear Generating Station (a BWR) is owned by Entergy Louisiana (successor to Entergy Gulf States) and began using onsite dry ISFSI storage in 2005 after DOE delayed pick-up of spent nuclear fuel under the Standard Contract.
- This is Entergy’s second SNF suit; the first recovered damages for 1999–2010 but denied recovery of NRC Part 171 fees tied to the NRC’s 1999 SFS/RD fee rule change.
- Entergy’s complaint here seeks damages for January 1, 2011–December 29, 2016, including NRC Part 171 fees, a breach-of-contract claim, a claim for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and a Fifth Amendment takings claim.
- The government moved to dismiss parts of the complaint: arguing collateral estoppel bars Entergy’s Part 171 fees claim, and that the implied-covenant and takings claims are legally insufficient.
- The court denied the motion to dismiss, holding: (1) it is premature to apply collateral estoppel to the Part 171 fees claim because Entergy may present different/new evidence for the later damages period; (2) the implied covenant claim is a viable, distinct cause of action; and (3) the takings claim may be pleaded in the alternative and cannot be dismissed at this stage given the fact‑intensive nature of regulatory takings analysis.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Recoverability of NRC Part 171 fees (SFS/RD fee) | Entergy: DOE’s breach substantially caused NRC’s 1999 fee rule change; Entergy seeks fees for 2011–2016 and will offer evidence specific to that period | Government: Collateral estoppel from prior judgment bars relitigation of causation; same issue already decided | Denied dismissal: collateral estoppel premature because Entergy may offer different/new evidence for the new damages period |
| Breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing | Entergy: DOE’s evasions, lack of diligence, and insistence on fee payments despite nonperformance frustrate contract purpose; separate cause of action from express breach | Government: Claim duplicates the express contract claim and alleges no extra‑contractual conduct | Denied dismissal: implied covenant is a distinct, cognizable duty that can be pled alongside breach of contract |
| Fifth Amendment taking | Entergy: DOE’s non‑performance has deprived Entergy of property use (delayed decommissioning/commercial reuse) — viable regulatory takings theory; pleaded in the alternative | Government: Proper remedy is breach of contract; takings claim inappropriate | Denied dismissal: takings claim may be pled alternatively and is fact‑intensive; court will address it only if contract claim fails |
Key Cases Cited
- Entergy Gulf States, Inc. v. United States, 125 Fed. Cl. 678 (decision denying Part 171 fee recovery in first round and discussed causation evidence) (Fed. Cl. 2016)
- Consol. Edison Co. of N.Y., Inc. v. Entergy Nuclear Indian Point 2, LLC, 676 F.3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (Federal Circuit held NRC public statements insufficient to prove DOE causation for 1999 rule change)
- Metcalf Constr. Co., Inc. v. United States, 742 F.3d 984 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (recognizes implied duty of good faith and fair dealing in government contracts)
- Shell Petroleum, Inc. v. United States, 319 F.3d 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (elements for collateral estoppel)
- Jet, Inc. v. Sewage Aeration Sys., 223 F.3d 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (collateral estoppel prevents relitigation of fully litigated issues)
- Omaha Pub. Power Dist. v. United States, 69 Fed. Cl. 237 (2005) (permitting takings theory in SNF context; treated as alternative to contract claim)
- Sys. Fuels, Inc. v. United States, 65 Fed. Cl. 163 (2005) (regulatory takings analysis is fact‑intensive; takings claim can be maintained as alternative)
- Sacramento Mun. Util. Dist. v. United States, 61 Fed. Cl. 438 (2004) (same: premature to dismiss takings claim early)
- Maine Yankee Atomic Power Co. v. United States, 225 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (SNF cases recognizing alternative takings theories)
- Detroit Edison Co. v. United States, 56 Fed. Cl. 299 (2003) (treats takings claim as alternative to contract claim and reserves takings analysis until after contract resolution)