WPCZ+ 7C~[&pMb pYv.~p k.MVVē7ㄐJ=F!h"}7*߇ߚ7tޜQDJb+|!7H fr`bG'?(N3@'=iݹD@%!V[5 С蕦Dߥ'1vpXmft _A$i !DrE_Pvٸftcw9!EtR%E8滆:ͦŃvJS'P~r0y_]g~ڒ,ѹqUj&dgړt^#fīz}@Қp,l(̮5 7|.GN\ٍf,5ʼM7b@D-!glKS$ilq_D|>c5>>S -([쨳*af w PCU[}wd*`da'lV5Ue>$ 0 0<< 0!<xU6J 0 "Z -| " " B 0 C M "M"o"."PrH"";M]UJ"" 8"E"g""T!"&" ' 0.'0( 0 @(#(UN* %*M*(*N+^ +w)+4-+A+ mC+\  `&Times New Roman' BALTIMORE REFUSE ENERGY Training0thomast .   6) 4Heading 1XXX    <:Default Para<:Footnote RefkIA`2WP TypographicSymbols    1 )..      +s2X+Xs2+s2  X$]Xs2B.` hp x (#XBs2XX$]  X$]Xs2  s2XX$](21 $ )7!..      +s2X+Xs2+s2        ##Xd#         e  d($      )7!..      +s2X+Xs2+s2  B.` hp x (#XB  X  X$]Xs2  1  )  s2XX$]PlaintiffIntervenorNortheastMarylandWasteDisposalAuthority(thes2As2Authoritys2@s2)isalsoapartytothe  agreementinquestion.X$]Xs2^s2XX$]         e   )7!..      +s2X+Xs2+s2  B.` hp x (#XB  X  X$]Xs2  2  )  s2XX$]ThegeneralpartnerofBRESCOisWESIBaltimore,Inc.,aDelawarecorporationwithitsprincipalplace  ofbusinesslocatedinNewHampshire.WESIBaltimore,Inc.wasasignatorytotheJune3,1982agreementwith  theAuthorityandBGE.OnNovember5,1982WESIBaltimore,Inc.assignedallofitsright,titleandinterestin,to U andunderthe1982agreementtoBRESCO.X$]Xs2,ds2XX$]         e   )7!..      +s2X+Xs2+s2  B.` hp x (#XB  X  X$]Xs2  3  )  s2hX$]CountIalsoseeksmonetarydamages.x  )7!..      +s2X+Xs2+s2  B.` hp x (#XB  X  X$]Xs2  4  )  s2XX$]Thisreferstoanumbrellaorganizationresponsiblefortheoperationandcontroloftheelectricpower  systemthroughoutmajorportionsofthefiveMidAtlanticStatesandtheDistrictofColumbia.Asamemberof  PJM,BGEisrequiredtomaintainaminimumcapacityreservemarginwhichvariesfromtimetotime.BRESCO U nowcontendsthatitsfullcapacityisnecessaryfordefendanttomeetitsPJMcapacityobligation.X$]Xs2,ds2XX$]         e  C )7!..      +s2X+Xs2+s2  B.` hp x (#XB  X  X$]Xs2  5  )  s2XX$]InitsMemoranduminOppositiontoBGEs2=s2sMotionforPartialSummaryJudgmentBRESCOsetsforth  otherprovisionsoftheAgreement,asmodified,whichitcontendsfurtherdemonstratethenowconflictingtermsof  theAgreementandcreateanambiguitytoberesolvedbytheCourtfollowinganevidentiaryhearing.mUkIAg`2WP TypographicSymbols         e   )7!..      +s2X+Xs2+s2  <(4 ` hp xX<  X  X$]Xs2  6  )  s2XX$]TheCourtwillactasfinderoffactinthiscasebecausethepartieshaveelectedabenchtrial.x         e          e   )7!..      +s2X+Xs2+s2  B.` hp x (#XB  X  X$]Xs2  7  )  s2hX$]Seesupranote6.x J )7!..      +s2X+Xs2+s2  B.` hp x (#XB X  X$]Xs2  8  )  s2XX$]s2As2Thecreationofanagencyrelationshipultimatelyturnsonthepartiess2=s2Ԁintentionsasmanifestedbytheir  agreementsoractions.s2@s2ԀGreenv.H&RBlock,Inc.,355Md.488,503(1999)(emphasisadded)(citationsomitted).  Inaddition,thes2As2assignmentofarightisamanifestationoftheassignors2=s2sintentiontotransferit....s2@s2 W   XRestatement(Second)ofContractss2's2Ԁ317(1981)(emphasisadded).0h         e (2#$ )7!..      +s2X+Xs2+s2  $]Xs2  0  #|x(r7$..      +s2X+Xs2+s2HP LaserJet 5M,,,,0(9 Z6Times New Roman Regular+Xvz/ h.<< U )7!..      +s2X+Xs2+s2  _       hB.` hp x (#XBX$]Xs2 BALTIMOREREFUSEENERGY h   *  INTHE    hE.` hp x (#X(#ESYSTEMSCOMPANY,LIMITED    hE.` hp x (#X(#EPARTNERSHIP    h   *  CIRCUITCOURT |   hE.` hp x (#X(#E  hE.` hp x (#X(#EPlaintiff    h   *  FOR H   hE.` hp x (#X(#E  hE.` hp x (#X(#EAnd    h   *  BALTIMORECITY  d   hE.` hp x (#X(#E  hE.` hp x (#X(#ENORTHEASTMARYLANDWASTE  *    0   hE.` hp x (#X(#EDISPOSALAUTHORITY      hE.` hp x (#X(#E*  Part20     X hE.` hp x (#X(#EPlaintiff_Intervenor_      X* x   v. ^    hE.` hp x (#X(#E*  CaseNo.:24C01000234 D  [2003_MDBT_Ԁ6] *z  X$]XXX$]     h&  D   BALTIMOREGASANDELECTRICD   v Ԍ ` ЌX$]XXX$]  COMPANY `     h \\'*' Ԉ F  XDefendant    h \\'*   X******************************************************************************  Ѐ ORDER    X  UponconsiderationofdefendantBaltimoreGas&ElectricCompanyXEXXX$]=X$]XXXEsMotionforPartial Z SummaryJudgment,theoppositionstheretofiledbyplaintiffandplaintiff_intervenor_, *z defendantXEXXX$]=X$]XXXEsreplyandplaintiffXEXXX$]=X$]XXXEssupplementalresponse,oralargumentshavingbeenheardin F opencourtonApril5,2002,itisthis8thdayofMay,2002,bytheCircuitCourtforBaltimore  City,Part20,    ORDERED thatdefendantXEXXX$]=X$]XXXEsMotionforPartialSummaryJudgmentastoCountsOne ^"! andThreeoftheComplaintis DENIED forthereasonsmorefullysetforthintheaccompanying .$~# MemorandumandOpinionfiledthisdate. %J!%  hX '#' 򀀀 )$)    `     h (  ALBERTJ._MATRICCIANI_,JR. ^+&+ Judge D,',  h *-z(- _ԇ    XE.` hp x (#X(#Ecc:  G.StewartWebb,Jr.,Esquire b  X XE.` hp x (#X(#EAndrewGendron,Esquire H MariaF.Howell,Esquire . ~ Venable,BaetjerandHoward  d TwoHopkinsPlaza,Ste.1800  J Baltimore,Maryland212012978  0  X XWarrenK.Rich,Esquire    RichandHenderson   844WestStreet x  Annapolis,Maryland21404 ^   X XAlanC.Cason,Esquire *z  JosephM.English,IV,Esquire ` ErikC.Martini,Esquire F McGuire,Woods,Battle&Boothe , 7St.PaulStreet,Ste.1000  Baltimore,Maryland21202   X XLaurieR.Bortz,Esquire Z 20thFloor,GasandElectricBuilding @ P.O.Box1475 &v Baltimore,Maryland21203  \  X XNeilJ.Dilloff,Esqiure ( PiperMarburyRudnick&Wolfe,LLP  6225SmithAvenue  Baltimore,Maryland212093600    X    hE.` hp x (#X(#EBALTIMOREREFUSEENERGY h *  INTHE -n(- )    )     8$]XXdd8    e     hE.` hp x (#X(#ESYSTEMSCOMPANY,LIMITED    hE.` hp x (#X(#EPARTNERSHIP    h   *  CIRCUITCOURT    hE.` hp x (#X(#E  hE.` hp x (#X(#EPlaintiff    h   *  FOR b   hE.` hp x (#X(#E  hE.` hp x (#X(#EAnd    h   *  BALTIMORECITY . ~   hE.` hp x (#X(#E  hE.` hp x (#X(#ENORTHEASTMARYLANDWASTE  *    J   hE.` hp x (#X(#EDISPOSALAUTHORITY  0   hE.` hp x (#X(#E*  Part20     X hE.` hp x (#X(#EPlaintiffIntervenor       X*    v. x    hE.` hp x (#X(#E*  CaseNo.:24C01000234 ^    hE.` hp x (#X(#EBALTIMOREGASANDELECTRIC D  COMPANY `     h   * *z   XDefendant    h   *  F  X****************************************************************************** ,  Ӏ MEMORANDUMANDOPINION     l<`  XThiscase,inwhichplaintiffanddefendantassertclaimsfordeclaratoryreliefandbreach  ofcontract,requirestheCourttointerpretanElectricPowerPurchaseAgreementdatedJune3, Z 1982andaModificationtothatagreementdatedJuly1,1988.     1     $terv   &v PlaintiffBaltimoreRefuseEnergySystemsCompany,LimitedPartnership(XEXXX$]AX$]XXXEBRESCOXEXXX$]@X$]XXXE) B ownsandoperatesasolidwasteprocessing/energyrecoveryfacility,commonlyreferredtoasa  resourcerecoveryfacility,onRussellStreetinBaltimoreCity.     2     &terv  Throughthecombustionofsolid   waste,thefacilityproducessteamthatmayeitherbesolddirectlyassteamorconvertedby Z"! turbinegeneratorandsoldaselectricenergy.DefendantBaltimoreGasandElectricCompany &$v#    ee   (XEXXX$]AX$]XXXEBGEXEXXX$]@X$]XXXE)isapublicutilitycompanyengagedinthebusinessofgeneratingandphysically  transmitting,distributingandsellingelectricityatretailtobusinessesandresidentsinBaltimore  andintencentralMarylandcountiespursuanttoregulationbytheMarylandPublicService L Commission(theXEXXX$]AX$]XXXEPSCXEXXX$]@X$]XXXE).  h In1982theAuthorityandBRESCOenteredintoagreementsforthedesign,construction,  8 ownershipandoperationoftheRussellStreetfacility.Operationsbeganin1984.Pursuantto    theJune3,1982agreemententeredintobyWESIBaltimore,Inc.,BGEandtheAuthority,WESI   Baltimore,Inc.(andlaterBRESCO)wasentitledtoselluptoalloftheenergyproducedatthe L  RussellStreetfacilitytoBGE,atthediscretionofBRESCO.The1988modificationalteredthis h arrangement,permittingBGE,onthirtyminutesnotice,topurchaseuptoalltheenergy 4 producedbythefacilityinexchangeforfixedcapacitypaymentstoBRESCO,subjectto  enumeratedconditions. | ByletterdatedAugust31,2000,ConstellationPowerSource(XEXXX$]AX$]XXXEConstellationXEXXX$]@X$]XXXE),actingas H agentofandonbehalfofBGE,notifiedBRESCOthatBRESCOshouldprovideBGEwith57 h MWofenergy,effectivelythedemonstratednetcapabilityoftheBRESCOfacility,untilfurther 4 notice.BRESCOrefusedtocomplyand,accordingly,BGEhasassessedpenaltiesagainst  plaintiffforeachmonththatithasnotprovidedthefullenergyoutputoftheRussellStreet |!  facilitytoBGE. H#" InitsMotionforPartialSummaryJudgmentBGEassertsthatthetermsoftheAgreement %d $ and,moreparticularly,the1988Modificationtotheagreement,areclearandunambiguous, &0"&  therebyprecludinganygenuineissuesofmaterialfact,andthatitisentitledtosummary (#(    ee   judgmentasamatteroflawonCountIofplaintiffXEXXX$]=X$]XXXEscomplaint.CountIrequests     3     04terv  theCourtto   declarethat:(1)BGEwrongfullyissuedthedemandofAugust31,2000;(2)BRESCOisnot  requiredtodeliverelectricenergytoBGEatdemonstratednetcapabilityatalltimesforan L indefiniteperiodoftime;and(3)BGEXEXXX$]=X$]XXXEsdiscretionaryauthorityislimitedtoemergencyornear  h emergencyconditionsonthePJMInterconnectionSystem.  7   4     6terv    8 BGEalsoseekssummaryjudgmentonCountIIIofthecomplaint,whichcontendsthat    BGEXEXXX$]=X$]XXXEsappointmentofConstellationasitsagentforpurposesofthisAgreementconstitutes,in   effect,anassignmentofitsrightsunderthe1982Agreement,asmodified,withoutBRESCOXEXXX$]=X$]XXXEs P  consent,inviolationofthetermsoftheagreement.BecausedefendantXEXXX$]=X$]XXXEsXEXXX$]AX$]XXXEagencyXEXXX$]@X$]XXXEԀagreement  p withConstellationretainscertainrightsforBGEunderthe1982Agreement,asmodified,BGE @ contendsthatitismerelyanagencyagreement,notanassignment,andthatdefendantisentitled   tosummaryjudgmentonthiscountasamatteroflawaswell.   X  COUNTI T  X  ThefocusofthepartiesXEXXX$]=X$]XXXEԀdisputeunderCountIofthecomplaintisnewSection4.B  p containedintheModificationtotheAgreementdatedJuly1,1988.Moreparticularly,Part1.c @ ofthenewsectionreadsasfollows:    X  ?(4 ` hp xX(#?BrescoshalldeliverenergyatitsDemonstratedNetCapabilitytothe !  Companywithin30minutesofnotificationbytheCompany,thetimingof n"! suchnotificationshallbeattheCompanyXEXXX$]=X$]XXXEssolediscretion.BrescoXEXXX$]=X$]XXXEsfailure T#" todeliversuchenergyshallresultinareductioninpaymentforthemonthin <$# whichsuchfailureoccurred,  proportionaltotheaveragemegawatt "%r $ reductionfromDemonstratedNetCapabilityexperiencedduringthemonth.  ...    B.` hp x (#4XB XTheaboveprovisionappearstocontradict,oratleasttobeinconflictwith,other b remainingprovisionsofthe1982Agreement,     5     Aterv  suchasSection4.A,whichvestsdiscretionin . ~ BRESCOfortheamountofelectricenergythefacilityiscapableofgeneratingonanetbasis,all  J ofwhichBGEagreestoacceptandforwhichitagreestopayplaintiff.    Defendantherecontendsthatthe1988ModificationtotheAgreementeliminated   BRESCOXa XXX$]=X$]X XXasdiscretionastotheamountofenergytobedeliveredtoBGE(nowtoitsagent ^  Constellation)andplacedinBGEXEXXX$]=X$]XXXEssolediscretionthetimingofanydemandtherefor. .~  Accordingtodefendant,whenthemodifiedSection4.Bisreadinconjunctionwithmodified N Section3,BRESCOisrequiredtodeliverenergyatitsDemonstratedNetCapabilityonthirty  minutesnoticethroughtheendoftheinitialtermoftheagreement(June30,2013).BRESCO  adamantlydisputesthisinterpretationofthemodificationandassertsthatthefailureofthe b Agreement,asmodified,tostatethedurationofBRESCOXEXXX$]=X$]XXXEsobligationtodeliverenergytoBGE .~ atitsDemonstratedNetCapabilityonthirtyminutesnoticecreatesanambiguityinthetermsof N theAgreementwhichcannotberesolvedwithouttheintroductionofparoleevidencetoassistthe  Courtinitsinterpretation.   TheCourtofAppealsofMarylandhasnotedthatXEXXX$]AX$]XXXEthelawofcontracts...permitsthe b"! useofextrinsicevidenceonlyifthecontractisambiguousonitsface.XEXXX$]@X$]XXXEԀKastenConstr.Co.v. 2$# RodEnterprises,Inc.,268Md.318,329(1973).BecausetheXEXXX$]AX$]XXXEintentionofthepartiesmustbe &R!% garneredfromthetermsofthecontractconsideredasawhole,andnotfromtheclauses '"#' ##  ee  ee   consideredseparately,XEXXX$]@X$]XXXEԀtheconflictingprovisionsofthe1982Agreement,asmodifiedin1988,  createinthisCourtXEXXX$]=X$]XXXEsjudgmentanambiguityfurthercomplicatedbythefailureofthe1988  modificationtoestablishaspecificdurationforthegenerationofelectricalenergyuponthirty P minutesdemandundernewSection4.B.Id.at329(citationsomitted).  l Othercaseshavetaughtusthat:  8  X  ?(4 ` hp xX(#?Undertheobjectivelawofcontracts,acourt,inconstruinganagreement,    mustfirstdeterminefromthelanguageoftheagreementitself,whata   reasonablepersoninthepositionofthepartieswouldhavemeantatthetime   itwaseffectuated. f    B.` hp x (#4XBAnneArundelCountyv.CroftonCorp.,286Md.666,673(1980)(citationsomitted). 2    ?(4 ` hp xX(#?Wherethelanguageisambiguous,thecourtmustthendeterminetheintent N andpurposeofthepartiesatthetimethecontractwasmade,whichisa 4 questionoffact.Itmustthereforeconsiderthecircumstancesand  conditionsaffectingthepartiesatthattime,andtheirsubsequentconduct  andconstructionofthecontract.Intheabsenceofanexpresstimefor  performance,areasonabletimewillbeimplied. |   B.` hp x (#4XBId.at673(citationsomitted). H   ?(4 ` hp xX(#?Marylandcourtsshouldexaminethecharacterofthecontract,itspurpose, d andthefactsandcircumstancesofthepartiesatthetimeofexecution. J  X 0  XInsodoing,weaccordwordstheirordinaryandacceptedmeanings.The  testiswhatmeaningareasonablyprudentlaypersonwouldattachtothe  term....   Courtsmayconstrueunambiguouscontractsasamatteroflaw.... ^"! Iftheextrinsicevidencepresentsdisputedfactualissues,constructionofthe *$z# ambiguouscontractisforthejury.     6     Wterv   %` $   B.` hp x (#4XB PacificIndem.v.InterstateFire&Cas.Co.,302Md.383,38889(1985)(citationsomitted). &,"&  X Besidestheconflictestablishedbythetermsofthe1982Agreement,asmodifiedin   1988,BRESCOpointstoanillustration(inAppendixBtothe1988Modification),tothepartiesXEXXX$]=X$]XXXE | courseofperformanceoverthepasttwelveyearsandtorepresentationsmadetothePSC,as L evidenceinsupportofitsinterpretationofthepivotalprovisionuponwhichthepartiesseekthe  h CourtXEXXX$]=X$]XXXEsinterpretationinCountI.  4 BecausetheCourtbelievesthatthereisrelevantevidenceavailabletoit,whichcanassist    theCourtingleaningtheintentionofthepartiesatthetimethattheAgreementwasmodifiedin   1988,theCourtwillpermitthepartiestointroduceparoleevidenceatthetrialofthismatterand, L  accordingly,defendantXEXXX$]=X$]XXXEsmotionforpartialsummaryjudgmentwithrespecttoCountIis h  DENIED ,therebeingmaterialfactualissuesindispute. 8  X  COUNTIII   X  BGEaskstheCourttodeclarethatthePowerPurchaseandSaleAgreementexecuted  betweendefendantandConstellationonJune14,2000establishesamereagencyrelationship L ratherthananassignmentofBGEXEXXX$]=X$]XXXEsrightsunderthe1982Agreement,asmodified,and, h therefore,isnotviolativeofanyofthetermsoftheAgreementbetweenplaintiffanddefendant. 8 BRESCOdisputesthisinterpretation,assertingthatthePowerPurchaseandSaleAgreement  constitutesanassignmentofBGEXEXXX$]=X$]XXXEsrightsobtainedwithoutpriorwrittenconsentofBRESCOas !  requiredbythetermsofthe1982Agreement,asmodified. P#" AccordingtotheRestatement(Second)ofthelawofAgency, %l $  X E.4` hp x (#X(#EAgencyisthefiduciaryrelationwhichresultsfromthemanifestationofconsentby &8"& onepersontoanotherthattheothershallactonhisbehalfandsubjecttohiscontrol, '#' andconsentbytheothersotoact. ($(  E.` hp x (#4X(#ERestatement(Second)ofAgencyXEXXX$]'X$]XXXEԀ1(1958). *%*  h+&+      ee    XAnassignment,bycontrast,isdefinedasfollows:   X  ?(4 ` hp xX(#?AnassignmentofarightisamanifestationoftheassignorXEXXX$]=X$]XXXEsintentionto | transferitbyvirtueofwhichtheassignorXEXXX$]=X$]XXXEsrighttoperformancebythe d obligorisextinguishedinwholeorinpartandtheassigneeacquiresaright L tosuchperformance. 2    B.` hp x (#4XBRestatement(Second)ofContractsXEXXX$]'X$]XXXEԀ317(1981).  N  X!"Reviewingallthematerialssubmittedbycounselfortherespectivepartiesinconnection  6 withdefendantXEXXX$]=X$]XXXEsmotionforpartialsummaryjudgment,theCourtisunabletoconcludeasa    matteroflawwhethertheAgreementbetweenBGEandConstellationconstitutesanagency   relationshiporanassignment.Underthesecircumstances,theCourtofAppealshasconcluded N  thatXEXXX$]AX$]XXXE[w]henlegallysufficientevidenceisproducedofanagencyrelationship,thequestionofthe j existenceoftheagency :  Xrelationshipisafactualmatterandmustbesubmittedtothejury.XEXXX$]@  #   7     )lterv  X$]XhXEGreenv.H&RBlock,Inc.,  355Md.488,504(1999).TheGreenCourtalsonotedthatXEXXX$]AX$]XXXEwhereonlyoneinferencemaybe  drawnfromtheevidence,itisproperforthecourttofindtheexistenceofanagencyrelationship V asamatteroflaw.XEXXX$]@X$]XXXEԀId.at505.Inthecasesubjudice,however,thereismorethanasingle "r inferencetobedrawnfromthePowerPurchaseContractbetweenBGEandConstellation.The B determinationofthisquestion,therefore,hingesontheintentofthepartiesinformingsucha  relationship.  $7   8     oterv  Thequestionofwhetheranagencyrelationshipexistsbetweendefendantand !   Constellation,orwhetherdefendantassigneditsrightstoConstellation,isaquestionoffacttobe V#"  ! "  ! "!ee "  decidedbythetrieroffactaftertrial.Becauseagenuinedisputeexistsastomaterialfactson  CountIIIaswell,defendantXEXXX$]=X$]XXXEsmotionforsummaryjudgmentonthatCountis DENIED . |  h򀀀(#(#K(#  h    `     h   ALBERTJ.MATRICCIANI,JR.  N Judge  4  h%&  XE.` hp x (#X(#Ecc:  G.StewartWebb,Jr.,Esquire |   X XE.` hp x (#X(#EAndrewGendron,Esquire b  MariaF.Howell,Esquire H  Venable,BaetjerandHoward .~  TwoHopkinsPlaza,Ste.1800 d Baltimore,Maryland212012978 J  X XWarrenK.Rich,Esquire  RichandHenderson  844WestStreet  Annapolis,Maryland21404 x  X XAlanC.Cason,Esquire D JosephM.English,IV,Esquire *z ErikC.Martini,Esquire ` McGuire,Woods,Battle&Boothe F 7St.PaulStreet,Ste.1000 , Baltimore,Maryland21202   X XLaurieR.Bortz,Esquire t!  20thFloor,GasandElectricBuilding Z"! P.O.Box1475 @#" Baltimore,Maryland21203 &$v#  X XNeilJ.Dilloff,Esqiure %B!% PiperMarburyRudnick&Wolfe,LLP &("& 6225SmithAvenue '#' Baltimore,Maryland212093600 (#(  Xs2XX$]