Northeast Neb. Pub. Power Dist. v. Nebraska Pub. Power Dist.
24 Neb. Ct. App. 837
| Neb. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Northeast Nebraska Public Power District (Northeast) withdrew from NEG&T and in 2015 executed an Individual Wholesale Power Contract (WPC) with Nebraska Public Power District (NPPD) that included a provision allowing staged reductions in demand/energy purchases.
- Northeast sought to implement maximum reductions using a 30% per year method for three consecutive years ("30/30/30") beginning January 1, 2018; NPPD disputed that reading and argued the WPC allowed only initial 30% then 10% yearly thereafter ("30/10/10").
- Prior to executing the WPC, NPPD’s representative initially indicated the 30/30/30 interpretation was acceptable, then later reversed position in late 2013; Northeast contracted with Big Rivers Electric (BREC) contingent on the 30/30/30 understanding.
- Northeast filed for a declaratory judgment and equitable/promissory estoppel in June 2014; litigation continued while the WPC was executed (effective Jan. 1, 2015) and Northeast served formal reduction notices.
- The district court denied NPPD’s motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction (ripeness), denied NPPD’s motion to compel an unredacted BREC contract, and granted summary judgment for Northeast holding the WPC unambiguous and consistent with the 30/30/30 method; equitable estoppel issues were deemed moot.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Northeast) | Defendant's Argument (NPPD) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ripeness / subject-matter jurisdiction | Case is fit and presents legal question; delay would cause significant planning and monetary harm | Action was advisory because contract events were not yet in effect when filed | Court: Ripe. All triggering events had occurred; significant present/future harm existed, so dismissal denied |
| Motion to compel unredacted third-party (BREC) contract | Not expressly argued as plaintiff; produced redacted contract under protective order | Needed unredacted contract to verify cost differential and potentially dispositive evidence | Court: Denied. Protective order and competitive harm concerns outweighed need; redacted version sufficient; no abuse of discretion |
| Contract interpretation (30/30/30 vs 30/10/10) | WPC language permits successive 30% reductions up to 90%; no "ending date of a previous reduction" exists, so subsection (i) governs each notice | Plain contract limits successive reductions after initial year to max 10% per year (30/10/10) via subsection (ii)’s reference to an "ending date" | Court: WPC unambiguous for 30/30/30. Subsection (ii) inapplicable because no prior reductions end; summary judgment for Northeast affirmed |
| Equitable / promissory estoppel | Preserved as alternative; argued NPPD’s prior statements supported estoppel relief | Estoppel cannot create affirmative cause of action (only a defense) | Court: Moot. Contract ruling resolved dispute; equitable estoppel not reached on merits |
Key Cases Cited
- City of Omaha v. City of Elkhorn, 276 Neb. 70 (discussing ripeness analysis adopted from federal precedent)
- Nebraska Public Power Dist. v. MidAmerican Energy, 234 F.3d 1032 (8th Cir.) (ripeness: declaratory relief appropriate where legal question is fit and delay would cause significant harm)
- Labenz v. Labenz, 291 Neb. 455 (contract construction is a question of law reviewed de novo)