incurred.” Id. at 1305-07. Plaintiffs attempt to distinguish Energy Northwest III on the basis that it discussed plant modifications instead of cask loading costs. Pis.’ Post-Trial Br. 50-51. However, Plaintiffs do not point to any case exempting cask loading costs from the Federal Circuit’s well established requirement that a utility present a “comparison between the breach and non-breach worlds.” Yankee Atomic, 536 F.3d at 1273. Here, as in a subsequent Energy Northwest case, “the Court has no principled basis (nor have plaintiffs offered one) for treating ‘cask loading’ differently from the ‘plant modification costs’ at issue in [Energy Northwest III] .... ” Energy Nw. v. United States, 115 Fed.Cl. 69, 76 (2014); see also Ala. Power Co. v. United States, 119 Fed.Cl. 615, 629 (2014) (<HOLDING>); Sys. Fuels, Inc. v. United States, 120
holding that the plaintiffs failed to establish unconscionability based upon the alleged excessive cost of arbitration because they failed to supply information as to the actual costs that might be incurred holding that bankruptcy court could not enter judgment for 7402564 under  107a for incurred costs when such costs had not been incurred holding that because plaintiffs failed to prove that their incurred fuel characterization and loading costs would not have been incurred in the nonbreach world plaintiffs were not entitled to recovery for these costs holding that the plaintiffs suit for workrelated costs incurred pursuant to a consent decree was a contribution action under  113f holding that cleanup costs incurred pursuant to a consent decree were not incurred voluntarily and must be sought through a  113f contribution action