Yankee Atomic Electric Co. v. United States, 679 F.3d 1354

This consolidated appeal arises from Yankee Atomic, Maine Yankee, and Connecticut Yankee's contract-dispute against the United States over failure to accept and dispose of SNF/HLW under the Standard Contract.
On remand from 2008, the district court awarded dry-storage ISFSI costs, reracking costs, and ISFSI construction costs, but denied certain wet-pool O&M costs and NRC fees.
GTCC was argued to potentially affect the SNF acceptance queue; the remand record addressed GTCC but the trial court barred some arguments as beyond the mandate.
The court adopted an exchanges model for damages, concluding that in the nonbreach world the utilities would have used fuel exchanges rather than building dry storage.
Issues on remand included future loading costs, crane upgrades, GTCC impact on the queue, and whether wet storage O&M costs and NRC fees could be recovered; the court clarified the scope of the remand and adjusted damages accordingly.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Remand scope for wet storage costs and NRC fees	Yankee argues these costs are recoverable under remand.	Government contends these issues were beyond remand scope.	Remand allowed recovery; denial reversed; awarded $17,021,742.
GTCC inclusion in SNF acceptance queue	GTCC would have affected the acceptance queue and costs.	GTCC arguments were not properly raised at trial or barred by mandate.	GTCC argument barred on remand; proper valuation left open for future adjudication.
Future loading costs and crane upgrades (deferred vs avoided costs)	Loading to DOE and crane costs are recoverable as deferred costs under subsequent law.	Costs were avoidable or outside mandate.	Deferred costs for loading to DOE affirmed; recoveries reinstated where appropriate.
Use of exchanges model to determine damages	Exchanges model credibly reflects nonbreach world.	Model is speculative or not sufficiently grounded.	Court affirmed damages using the exchanges model; DOE discretion not undermining the result.

Yankee Atomic Elec. Co. v. United States, 536 F.3d 1268 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (remand to apply 1987 ACR rate for damages)
Dairyland Power Cooperative v. United States, 645 F.3d 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (affirmed use of an exchanges model when damages are grounded in proper evidence)
Carolina Power & Light Co. v. United States, 573 F.3d 1271 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (established treatment of SNF/HLW acceptance under Standard Contract; GTCC considerations)
Indiana Michigan Power Co. v. United States, 422 F.3d 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (set standards for quantum and causation in damages)
Laitram Corp. v. NEC Corp., 115 F.3d 947 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (mandate scope and evolving rulings; controlling authority on remand)
Engel Indus., Inc. v. Lockformer Co., 166 F.3d 1379 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (considering letter and spirit of mandate on remand)
Cardiac Pacemakers, Inc. v. St. Jude Med., Inc., 576 F.3d 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (mandate principles apply to defenses raised on remand)