answer and affirmative defenses within 15 days of the entry of this order. 1 . The other plaintiff in this case, R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant, LLC, is Rochester’s successor-in-interest, having acquired Rochester Gas & Electric’s nuclear power plant on June 10, 2004. 2 . See also Nonhem States Power Co. v. United States Dept. of Energy, No. 97-1064, 1998 WL 276581, at *2 (D.C.Cir. May 5, 1998) (denying motion for rehearing because "[t]he Tucker Act does not prevent us from exercising jurisdiction over an action to enforce compliance with the NWPA," as “[t]he statutory duty to include an unconditional obligation in the contract is independent of any rights under the contract”). 3 . See also Wisconsin Electric Power Co. v. United States Dept. of Energy, 211 F.3d 646, 648 (D.C.Cir.2000) (<HOLDING>); PSEG Nuclear, L.L.C. v. United States, 465
holding that tjhere is no question that parties to a contract may agree to limit their respective remedies and that those remedies need not be the same if the contract provision is reasonable holding that court of claims has jurisdiction over actions for breach of standard contract holding that dc circuit has no jurisdiction to determine remedies under standard contract holding that nonsignatories to a contract have no rights under the contract and thus no standing to assert claims under the contract recognizing that no federal circuit has addressed the issue