Georgia Power Company v. United States, 132 Fed. Cl. 412

Background

Plaintiffs (Alabama Power and Georgia Power) sued the United States over the government's ongoing breach of a Standard Contract to remove spent nuclear fuel (SNF); this is the third suit in that series.
Earlier litigation (trial and appeals) established government liability for breach; remand and settlement resolved damages through Dec. 31, 2004.
In a second-round suit (seeking damages for 2005–2010), plaintiffs sought recovery of various costs including a portion of NRC generic Spent Fuel Storage/Reactor Decommissioning (SFS/RD) fees; the Court of Federal Claims denied recovery of NRC fees for failure to prove causation.
Plaintiffs filed the present complaints seeking damages since Jan. 1, 2011, again including recovery of NRC fee increases allegedly caused by the government’s breach.
Defendant moved for partial summary judgment, arguing collateral estoppel bars relitigation of the NRC-fees causation issue decided in the prior (2014) Federal Claims opinion.
The Court held the NRC-fees claim is barred by collateral estoppel and entered judgment dismissing that portion of plaintiffs’ claims.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether plaintiffs may relitigate entitlement to NRC SFS/RD fee recovery	Plaintiffs: prior decision rejected their proof, not the legal availability; they will present new evidence (e.g., Commissioner Merrifield affidavit) to establish causation	Defendant: identical issue was actually litigated and decided against plaintiffs in prior case; collateral estoppel bars relitigation	Collateral estoppel applies; plaintiffs are precluded from relitigating NRC-fees causation
Whether the prior litigation actually litigated causation	Plaintiffs: new evidence was not considered previously, so issue not fully litigated	Defendant: causation was the central issue at trial and was determined by the court	Court: causation was actually litigated and decided in the prior proceeding
Whether the prior determination was essential to the judgment	Plaintiffs: argued prior ruling was about sufficiency of proof, not a definitive finding foreclosing recovery	Defendant: prior finding on causation compelled denial of NRC fees and was essential	Court: the causation finding was essential to the prior judgment
Whether plaintiffs had a full and fair opportunity previously to litigate causation	Plaintiffs: low incentive to appeal and they can offer new evidence now	Defendant: plaintiffs had opportunity, knowledge of witnesses, proved other claims at trial, and did not appeal	Court: plaintiffs had a full and fair opportunity; procedural exclusion of a witness was their fault; collateral estoppel applies

Key Cases Cited

Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242 (summary-judgment materiality standard)
Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574 (summary-judgment inferences and standard)
Huskey v. Trujillo, 302 F.3d 1307 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (suitability of summary judgment where issues are legal)
Dana Corp. v. United States, 174 F.3d 1344 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (same)
Laguna Hermosa Corp. v. United States, 671 F.3d 1284 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (elements of collateral estoppel)
In re Freeman, 30 F.3d 1459 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (issue preclusion principles)
Banner v. United States, 238 F.3d 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (what constitutes actually litigated)
Mother’s Restaurant, Inc. v. Mama’s Pizza, Inc., 723 F.2d 1566 (issue essentiality in collateral estoppel)
S. Nuclear Operating Co. v. United States, 637 F.3d 1297 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (appellate decision affirming liability in SNF cases)
Alabama Power Co. v. United States, 119 Fed. Cl. 615 (2014) (prior trial decision denying NRC-fees recovery for lack of proven causation)
Entergy Nuclear Indian Point 2 v. United States, 128 Fed. Cl. 526 (2016) (discussion of collateral estoppel and NRC-fees in related cases)