Such acts have only an attenuated effect on the contracts at issue, at most making performance by the timber contractors unprofitable. We hold that the phrase “acts of Government” in the context of Provision B8.21 does not cover such acts. Our sister circuits have held that government policies that affect the profitability of a contract but do not preclude performance should not be considered “acts of government” for force majeure clause purposes. See, e.g., Langham-Hill Petroleum, Inc. v. S. Fuels Co., 813 F.2d 1327 (4th Cir.1987) (rejecting claim for relief under force majeure where the government of Saudi Arabia acted to cause a collapse in world oil prices, making a contract unprofitable for one party); N. Ind. Pub. Serv. Co. v. Carbon County Coal Co., 799 F.2d 265 (7th Cir.1986) (<HOLDING>). “A force majeure clause is not intended to
holding commission cannot authorize utility to increase rates based solely on return on stock and warning of potential danger of tying rates to one factor over which the utility exercises total control  without regard for the interests of the consumer recognizing utility of amendment as a proper basis for dismissal without leave to amend holding that a government order denying a request from a utility to pass increased coal prices along to its customers did not excuse utility from a longterm contract to buy coal even though contract was unprofitable holding that person who is not party to contract does not have standing to challenge contract holding that public utility company is not liable for inaccessible bus company it licenses where there is no contract between them