Opinion of the Court
would, moreover, have been a foolish understanding, since the regional monopoly to recoup construction costs would not be a monopoly if South Carolina withdrew and continued to operate its facility—which is exactly what happened in 1995.[1] Even leaving aside the principle, discussed infra, at 21, that implied obligations are not to be read into interstate compacts, Justice Breyer's intuition fails to reflect the reality of what was implied.
2
Plaintiffs take exception to the Special Master's rejection of their alternative argument that North Carolina repudiated the Compact when it announced it would not take further steps toward obtaining a license. They argue that North Carolina's announcement that it was shutting down the project constituted a refusal to tender any further performance under the contract.
Plaintiffs' repudiation theory fails for the same reasons their breach theory fails. A repudiation occurs when an obligor either informs an obligee "that the obligor will
- ↑ South Carolina's withdrawal from the Compact not only "could" affect North Carolina's ability to recoup its facility costs, as Justice Breyer grudgingly concedes, post, at 5; it unquestionably would. With a regional competitor in the Barnwell facility and declining demand for waste disposal facilities due to technological and other factors, App. 261, 263–264, North Carolina would receive significantly lower revenues from its facility, id., at 261–262, 265. The document attached to a 1996 letter from North Carolina to the Commission trumpeting "$600 million in cost savings" that would come from a new facility, post, at 5, proves precisely the opposite of what Justice Breyer thinks. The cost savings were to accrue "to all generators" of waste, App. 266 (emphasis added) that is, those who would use North Carolina's facility. Those savings would come, of course, from lower costs for waste disposal, which means that North Carolina would be charging lower rates than the Barnwell facility (and thus receiving lower revenues).
ble with the proposition that North Carolina did not have to provide all funding for licensing the facility, and that it would be "inappropriate" to proceed toward obtaining a license for a facility that would never be needed or built.
