determining causation, to utilize the 1987 acceptance rate and allowance to demark January 1, 2000, as the first date on which DOE was obligated to accept SNF from Rancho Seco. In effect, the Federal Circuit ruled that the court made the wrong inquiry. The court should have determined whether, in the non-breach world, SMUD would have continued or abandoned decommissioning Rancho Seco and implementing the dry storage project in light of the 1987 acceptance rate and allowance, i.e. by January 1, 2000. SMUD IV, 293 Fed.Appx. at 770 (“The difficulty with the distinction drawn by the Court of Federal Claims ... is that the court made its determination without explicitly discerning the rate at which the Department would have accepted SMUD’s waste in a non-breach world.”); see also id. at 771 (<HOLDING>) (emphasis added). At the Post-Remand
holding that the court first must determine the snf and hlw acceptance rate under the standard contract and then apply that rate in determining the substantial cause of smuds costs holding that once a rate is filed with the appropriate agency except for review of the agencys orders the courts can assume no right to a different rate on that ground that in its opinion it is the only or the more reasonable rate holding that with respect to the eaja the local or national market rate for legal services cannot be a special factor used to increase the rate beyond the statutory rate holding that under the filed rate doctrine a question regarding reasonable rates should be addressed to the department of insurance and that the rate plaintiff was charged is conclusively presumed reasonable under the filed rate doctrine holding that the proper rate for prejudgment interest is the rate fixed by the parties in a contract