...’ § 10222(a)(5) (emphasis added). Plaintiff thus has it backwards: rather than the Standard Contract being a recitation of statutory duty, the statute is a prescription to undertake a contractual obligation. Consumers Energy Co. v. United States, 57 Fed.Cl. 278, 280-81. 7 . Consumers Energy does attempt to base its regulatory and non-regulatory takings claim on the argument that the provisions of the NWPA restrict its ability to independently dispose of SNF. The Court is not convinced that the NWPA so limits Consumers Energy and even if it did any claim based on the provisions of the NWPA, which was enacted in 1983, would be barred by the six-year statute of limitations. See 28 U.S.C. § 2501; Steel Improvement & Forge Co. v. United States, 174 Ct.Cl. 24, 29-30, 355 F.2d 627 (1966)
holding that if subsequent to the taking and before the trial the ordinance was actually amended to permit the previously forbidden use then that of  itself was weighty evidence of the existence at the time of the taking of the fact that there was a reasonable probability of an imminent change holding cause of action accrues when some compensable damage occurs holding that a cause of action for breach of contract accrues at the time of the breach recognizing that breach of contract cause of action accrues at time of the breach holding that a cause of action for an unconstitutional taking accrues at the time the taking occurs