Smoky Hills Wind Project II v. Independence, Missouri, No. 17-1091 (8th Cir. 2018)
Annotate this CaseSmoky II filed a breach of contract suit against the city when it did not receive payment from the city on invoices related to curtailed energy (wind energy that was not actually produced because the producer was directed to reduce production). The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment and held that the parties' contract provided that the city could be billed for economic curtailments; the district court did not err in holding the city liable for certain charges that it found to be "timely-billed;" the plain language of the Renewable Energy Purchase Agreement (REPA) supported the district court's interpretation of the meaning of "Emergency Curtailment;" the trial evidence clearly supported the district court's rejection of the city's theory regarding over-allocation of energy; and Smoky II waived the issue of substantial performance.
Court Description: Erickson, Author, with Smith, Chief Judge, and Kelly, Circuit Judge] Civil case - Contracts. The parties' contract for the provision of wind-generated electric power provided that defendant could be billed for economic curtailments, and the district court did not err in determining defendant was liable for the costs associated with the specified economic curtailments; under the provisions of the parties' agreement, plaintiff timely billed defendant for the curtailment costs by submitting the bills as part of its monthly billing invoices; the district court did not err in interpreting the contract's provision governing "emergency curtailment;" nor did the court err in concluding plaintiff had not over-allocated power to defendant beyond the share it had contracted to receive.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.