the interest and penalty measures promulgated by the Board, it was merely acting pursuant to a right it held under the contract, and no contractual term of the Lease was impaired. This Court also noted in Consolidation Coal that there is a critical difference “between interest provided for by contract and interest provided as damages.” 886 P.2d at 528 n. 23. In other words, if a law changes or abrogates interest payments explicitly provided by the contract, such a law would impair the contractual rights of the parties; whereas, if a law merely changes the amount of interest provided by law as a remedy for breach of the contract, the underlying contract is not necessarily impaired. Cf. Morley v. Lake Shore & Mich. S. Ry., 146 U.S. 162, 168-71, 13 S.Ct. 54, 56-58, 36 L.Ed. 925 (1892) (<HOLDING>). Trail Mountain, relying on General Motors
holding that trial court erred by dismissing breach of contract claim because appellee made promises to perform specific acts in contract the breach of which would give rise to a breach of contract action holding breach of contract claim not preempted as a straightforward breach of contract action as it alleged violation of specific covenant holding that interest assessed pursuant to judgment on breach of contract action was not itself contractually vested right immune to alteration by legislative action 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