2014-05-15T12:25:50-05:00 2013-06-30 420714325 MCGLADREY LLP 1 S WACKER DRIVE STE 800 CHICAGO IL 60606 990 2012-07-01 363866530 Environmental Law and Policy Center of the Midwest ENVI 3126736500 35 East Wacker Drive No 1600 Chicago IL 606012208 Howard A Learner 3126736500 2014-05-15 1 Zack Fortsch P00052725 3126343400 2012 2015-11-30 17:44:51Z Howard A Learner 35 East Wacker Drive No 1600 Chicago IL 606012208 6460000 0 X www.elpc.org X 1992 IL Public interest environmental legal and policy advocacy and eco-business innovation organization working to improve environmental quality and protect our natural heritage. 16 15 56 5 0 0 4178358 6028641 196246 160565 168216 225794 0 -126075 4542820 6288925 100000 362400 0 0 3882668 3890859 0 0 585590 1414870 1737499 5397538 5990758 -854718 298167 13521228 14560483 1277314 1216940 12243914 13343543 X The Environmental Law & Policy Center (ELPC) is the Midwest's leading public interest environmental legal advocacy and eco-business innovation organization, and among the nation's leaders. We develop and lead successful strategic environmental (continued on Schedule O) advocacy campaigns to improve environmental quality and protect our natural resources. We are public interest environmental entrepreneurs who engage in creative business dealmaking with diverse interests to put into practice our belief that environmental progress and economic development can be achieved together. ELPC's multidisciplinary staff of talented and experienced public interest attorneys, environmental business specialists, policy advocates, and communications specialists bring a strong and effective combination of skills to solve environmental problems. 0 0 3145905 362400 103188 Energy Project - ELPC promotes clean energy efficiency and renewable energy development solutions, and advocates for cleaner air and cleaner water by reducing pollution from conventional power plants. 869074 15223 Preserving Wild and Natural Places - ELPC engages in litigation and policy advocacy to protect our National Forests, rivers, and the Great Lakes. ELPC advocates sound environmental management practices that preserve natural resources and improve the quality of life in our communities. 615384 25857 Transportation and Land Use Reform - ELPC promotes innovative transportation soutions, including development of a Midwest high-speed rail network, which will lead to cleaner air and more jobs. 220239 16297 Environmental Markets, Global Warming Solutions, and Other Projects 220239 16297 4850602 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 16 0 1 56 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 X 16 15 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 IL X X Kevin Brubaker 3126736500 35 East Wacker Drive Ste 1600 Chicago IL 606012206 Howard A Learner 60.00 1.00 X X 301305 0 32563 Nancy Loeb 4.00 0.50 X X 0 0 0 Daniel Levin 1.00 X X 0 0 0 Cameron S Avery 2.00 X X 0 0 0 Brady C Williamson 1.00 X X 0 0 0 Robert L Graham 1.00 X X 0 0 0 Harry W Drucker 1.00 0.50 X 0 0 0 Richard Day 1.00 0.50 X 0 0 0 Ellen C Craig 1.00 X 0 0 0 Manny Flores 1.00 X 0 0 0 Stan Goldblatt 1.00 X 0 0 0 Scott Heidepriem 1.00 X 0 0 0 Lois Lipton 1.00 X 0 0 0 William McNary 1.00 0.50 X 0 0 0 Knute Nadelhoffer 1.00 X 0 0 0 Bob Nash 1.00 X 0 0 0 Smita Shah 1.00 X 0 0 0 David Wilhelm 1.00 0.50 X 0 0 0 Kevin Brubaker 50.00 0.50 X 156611 0 32563 Linda Lipton 50.00 X 154520 0 9839 Karen Torrent 50.00 X 138827 0 12413 Allen Grosboll 50.00 X 122236 0 26258 Robert Kelter 50.00 X 130356 0 8324 Barry Matchett 50.00 X 103615 0 16541 1107470 0 138501 8 0 1 0 Albert Ettinger 53 W Jackson 1664 Chicago IL 60604 Clean Water Advocacy 108158 1 342410 5686231 68073 6028641 Other Income 900099 125709 125709 Contract income 900099 33256 33256 Conference Income 900099 1600 1600 160565 225794 225794 45000 342410 171075 -126075 -126075 6288925 160565 0 99719 362400 362400 333869 263734 29271 40864 2769071 2187382 242770 338919 211630 167174 18554 25902 359972 284354 31560 44058 216317 170876 18965 26476 20827 18746 2081 466901 445080 19013 2808 300753 178880 80044 41829 16189 6120 9156 913 413903 348306 33202 32395 262518 235598 16876 10044 47006 20904 22666 3436 68123 54003 5770 8350 27144 21370 2469 3305 Public Awareness 73403 55560 11787 6056 Training/recruitment 5692 5692 35040 30115 4690 235 5990758 4850602 554566 585590 522607 625758 4231294 1957547 1549170 1840800 39683 49848 1662055 573351 1223962 1088704 5954512 8997826 13521228 14560483 264130 283089 1013184 933851 1277314 1216940 X 9572008 9878651 2671906 3464892 12243914 13343543 13521228 14560483 X 298167 596421 205041 X 0 1 X 1 0 X 6273055 6165707 6102769 4178358 6028641 28748530 6273055 6165707 6102769 4178358 6028641 28748530 4431046 24317484 260284 175909 174329 151458 225794 987774 29736304 1029256 0.81780 0.85260 X RESTRICTED RESTRICTED RESTRICTED RESTRICTED RESTRICTED RESTRICTED RESTRICTED RESTRICTED 28675 407092 435767 5726066 6161833 458092 114523 0 0 425575 435477 423902 458092 1743046 2614569 340962 282883 388167 435767 1447779 106394 108869 105976 114523 435762 653643 84254 97201 99729 28675 309859 1359328 344218 1015110 302727 229133 73594 1088704 Deferred rent 933851 933851 X Description of Uncertain Tax Positions Under FIN 48: Part X, Line 2: ELPC follows the accounting standard on accounting for uncertainty in income taxes, which addresses the determination of whether tax benefits claimed or expected to be claimed on a tax return should be recorded in the financial statements. Under this guidance, ELPC may recognize the tax benefit from an uncertain tax position only if it is more likely than not that the tax position will be sustained on examination by taxing authorities, based on the technical merits of the position. Examples of tax positions include the tax-exempt status of ELPC and various positions related to the potential sources of unrelated business taxable income. The tax benefits recognized in the financial statements from such a position are measured based on the largest benefit that has a greater than 50 percent likelihood of being realized upon ultimate settlement. There were no unrecognized tax benefits identified or recorded as liabilities for the financial reporting period projected in these financial statements. ELPC files Forms 990 in the U.S. federal jurisdiction and the State of Illinois. The ELPC is generally no longer subject to examination by the Internal Revenue Service for years before 2010. Gala 387410 342410 45000 91614 62524 16937 387410 342410 45000 91614 62524 16937 171075 -126075 1 Environmental Law and Policy Center Action Fund 35 East Wacker Drive Suite 1600 Chicago IL 60601 264767097 501(c)(4) 256000 To advance clean energy policy Wind on the Wires 570 Ashbury Street St Paul MN 55104 061670689 501(c)(3) 20000 To advance clean energy policy Sierra Club Illinois Chapter 70 E Lake Street Chicago IL 60601 946069890 501(c)(4) 20000 To promote renewable energy Union of Concerned Scientists 101 N Wacker Drive Suite 2005 Chicago IL 60601 042535767 501(c)(3) 18000 To advance clean energy policy Public Action Foundation 27 E Monroe Street Chicago IL 60603 364016102 501(c)(3) 17500 To promote clean air policy Respiratory Health Association 1440 W Washington Boulevard Chicago IL 60607 362222687 501(c)(3) 17500 To promote clean air policy Illinois Environmental Council 230 Broadway Suite 150 Springfield IL 62701 370989990 501(c)(3) 7000 To advance clean energy policy. Intertribal Council on Utility Policy PO Box 25 Rosebud SD 57570 201957457 6400 To promote renewable energy. 5 3 Procedure for Monitoring Grants in the U.S.: Part I, Line 2: Schedule I, Part I, Line 2: The grantee must follow up with the organization with a report that explains the use of grant funds awarded to them. X 1 1 X X X X 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 Howard A Learner 296845 0 4460 0 0 0 17500 0 15063 0 333868 0 0 0 Kevin Brubaker 154251 0 2360 0 0 0 17500 0 15063 0 189174 0 0 0 Linda Lipton 152300 0 2220 0 0 0 9493 0 346 0 164359 0 0 0 Karen Torrent 136817 0 2010 0 0 0 7167 0 5246 0 151240 0 0 0 Part I, Line 1a ELPC pays all employees $45/month toward health club membership. The benefit is treated as taxable. Part I, Line 7 The Executive Committee determines any bonus for the President and Executive Director. The Executive Director, in consultation with the Executive Committee, determines bonuses for all other employees. X 7 68073 FMV 0 0 0 0 Method for Determining Number of Contributions: Part I, Column (b): The number in Column (b) represents the number of contributions. Form 990, Part VI, Section A, line 6 ELPC shall have one class of members. The Board of Directors may, from time to time, designate different subclasses such as "Sustaining," "Sponsoring," "Participating," and similar such classes. Form 990, Part VI, Section B, line 11 ELPC's Deputy Director was closely involved in the preparation of Form 990. Form 990 was reviewed by the Executive Director and the Board Treasurer and it was distributed to the entire Board of Directors prior to its filing. Form 990, Part VI, Section B, line 12c ELPC annually distributes the conflict of interest statement to its directors to ensure that they are aware of its requirements. In the course of meetings and activities involving ELPC, any board member or staff member will disclose any interests in a transaction or decision where he/she has a material interest in the outcome or where his/her other affiliations might impair his/her ability to act solely in the best interests of ELPC. Attorneys are also expected to follow the rules of professional conduct provided by American Bar Association concerning conflicts of interest. A board member will not be permitted to vote on any matter on which he/she has a material interest. The executive director shall decide to what extent, if any, a staff member may participate in an activity in which he/she has a material interest. Form 990, Part VI, Section B, line 15a The Executive Director's compensation is determined by the Executive Committee of the Board of Directors based on an annual performance appraisal and benchmarking against salaries of executive directors of comparable nonprofit organizations. Form 990, Part VI, Section C, line 19 The organization makes its governing documents and financial statements available to the public upon written request. Changes in Net Assets or Fund Balances: Form 990, Part XI, line 9: Transfer of Net Assets 205,041. Form 990, Additional Disclosure: The Environmental Law & Policy Center was involved in the following litigation during FY 2013 (July 1, 2012 June 30, 2013). Unless otherwise noted, court-awarded fees were not recovered in any of these cases during FY 2013. CLEAN AIR Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., et al. v. Ameren Energy Resources Company LLC, et al., Case No.: 1:13-cv-01181 (United States District Court, Central District of Illinois) ELPC attorneys represent ELPC, the Sierra Club and the Respiratory Health Association of Metropolitan Chicago in litigation alleging Clean Air Act violations at the E.D. Edwards Plant in Bartonville, Illinois, operated by Ameren and, now, Dynegy. The case was filed in April 2013 and is pending as of July 2013. Save the Dunes, et al., v. BP Products North America, Inc., et al., Cause Nos. 08-A-J-4115 and 4142 (Indiana Office of Environmental Adjudication). ELPC attorneys represented the Hoosier Environmental Council in a state administrative challenge to the construction and operating air permits for BP's proposed expansion of its oil refinery in Whiting, Indiana. The basis for the challenge is BP's and the Indiana Department of Environmental Management's failure to comply with the requirements of the New Source Review and Title V provisions of the Clean Air Act. The case was filed in summer 2008. Settlement negotiations began in March 2010 and resulted in a settlement agreement on May 23, 2012. As part of the settlement agreement, a Consent Decree was lodged in the parallel federal case although ELPC was not formally a party in that case. The settlement agreement also included a Consent Decree covering the state case, which was filed on September 18, 2012. The Consent Decrees contain requirements for air pollution controls, far reaching limits on flaring, reductions in CO2 pollution, Supplemental Environmental Projects that will improve air quality, and emissions monitoring. As part of the settlement agreement, ELPC received $109,670 in attorney's fees from BP on January 15, 2013. On January 18, 2013, the parties filed a request that the case be dismissed as a result of the settlement agreement. Sierra Club, et al. v. Michigan Department of Environmental Quality, et al., Case No. 11-1027-AA (Ingham County Circuit Court) and Case No. 309843 (Michigan Court of Appeals). ELPC attorneys represent the Sierra Club in an administrative challenge of a Prevention of Significant Deterioration preconstruction permit issued in June 2011 by the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ) to Wolverine Power Supply Cooperative, Inc. (Wolverine) for the construction of a new coal-fired power plant in Rogers City, Michigan. In September 2011, ELPC attorneys filed a petition for administrative review of the permit in Michigan Circuit Court. Wolverine intervened as a respondent. On April 3, 2012, the Circuit Court entered an Order affirming MDEQ's issuance of the permit. On April 19, 2012, ELPC attorneys filed a notice of appeal of the Circuit Court's decision in the Michigan Court of Appeals. On March 14, 2013, the Michigan Court of Appeals entered an order dismissing the appeal as moot in light of its finding that federal hazardous air pollutant standards had superseded the permit's limits. Natural Resources Defense Council, et al. v. Michigan Department of Environmental Quality, et al., Case No. 13-16-AA (Ingham County Circuit Court) ELPC attorneys represented the Sierra Club in an administrative challenge of the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality's (MDEQ) December 2012 decision to extend for eighteen months the expiration date of the Prevention of Significant Deterioration permit at issue in Sierra Club v. MDEQ, Case No. 11-1027-AA (Ingham County Circuit Court) and Case No. 309843 (Michigan Court of Appeals). In January 2013, ELPC attorneys filed a claim of appeal for administrative review in Michigan Circuit Court. Wolverine intervened as a respondent. On June 4, 2013, the Court entered an Order affirming MDEQ's extension of the Permit. United States of America et al. v. American Electric Power Services Corp., No. C2-99-1182 (United States District Court, Southern District of Ohio) This case involved reopening a Consent Decree filed in a lawsuit originally brought in a federal court in Ohio in 1999, and it is a modification to the 2007 settlement of that lawsuit. American Electric Power (AEP) agreed to install pollution-curbing dry sorbent injection technology on its Rockport coal-fired power plant in Southern Indiana. The 2007 agreement also requires AEP to either retire the two Rockport units in 2025 and 2028, respectively, or to install additional pollution reduction control equipment designed to achieve removal of at least 98 percent of the sulfur dioxide created by the burning of coal at those units. Additionally, the agreement commits AEP to developing 50 megawatts (MW) of wind or solar power this year and an additional 150 MW of wind or solar power in Indiana or Michigan by 2015. AEP also agreed to invest $2.5 million to improve air quality in Indiana through various measures including retrofitting outdoor wood boilers, investing in distributed renewable generation, and land acquisition. The revised Consent Decree was lodged with the court on February 25, 2013 and entered by the court on May 14, 2013. As part of the settlement modifying the Consent Decree, AEP agreed to pay $62,410 in fees to ELPC. CLEAN WATER City of Greenville, et al. v. Syngenta Crop Protection, LLC, No. 3:10-cv-00188-JPG-PMF (United States District Court, Southern District of Illinois) In March 2011, ELPC attorneys, on behalf of ELPC and Prairie Rivers Network, moved to intervene in this federal court litigation for the limited purpose of challenging the sealing of numerous documents filed with the Court. In April 2011, ELPC moved to unseal those documents and to vacate a protective order filed in the case. Without ruling on ELPC's motion to intervene, on April 19, 2011, the Court issued an Order to Show Cause directing the Defendants Syngenta et al., to show why the documents filed under seal should not be unsealed. Defendants filed their response on May 13, 2011, and Plaintiffs responded to that filing on May 20, 2011. On July 21, 2011, the Court granted ELPC's and Prairie Rivers Networks' motion to intervene, and ordered that one set of the sealed documents be immediately unsealed while a second set could remain under seal at present. In the same Order, the Court reserved judgment as to whether to unseal a third group of sealed documents. In August 2011, ELPC and Prairie Rivers Network moved the Court to reconsider its ruling that certain documents be kept under seal, but on September 16, 2011, the Court denied that motion. On May 30, 2012, the Court granted preliminary approval to a settlement of plaintiffs' claims, and approved final settlement of those claims in October 2012. Subsequently, in December 2012, the Court ruled that the third group of documents from the July 21, 2011 order should be unsealed. Defendants moved the Court to reconsider its order with respect to a small number of documents, but the Court denied that motion in March 2013, leaving no further matters pending before the Court in this case. City of Greenville, et al v. Syngenta Crop Protection, Inc. et al, Appeal No. 11-3377 (United States Court of Appeals, 7th Circuit). In October 2011, ELPC and Prairie Rivers Network appealed the Court's denial of their August 2011 motion for reconsideration in City of Greenville, et al. v. Syngenta Crop Protection, LLC, No. 3:10-cv-00188-JPG-PMF (United States District Court, Southern District of Illinois) to the United States. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. The Defendant moved to dismiss ELPC's and Prairie Rivers Network's appeal for lack of jurisdiction. In July 2012, the Seventh Circuit granted Syngenta's motion and dismissed the appeal. City of Greenville, et al v. Syngenta Crop Protection, Inc. et al, Appeal No. 13-1626 (United States Court of Appeals, 7th Circuit). In April 2013, after the Court in City of Greenville, et al. v. Syngenta Crop Protection, LLC, No. 3:10-cv-00188-JPG-PMF (United States District Court, Southern District of Illinois) issued its final order concerning ELPC and Prairie Rivers Network's April 2011 motion to unseal documents filed in that case, ELPC and Prairie Rivers Network appealed that Court's denial of their August 2011 motion for reconsideration to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. As of July 2013, that appeal remains pending before the Seventh Circuit. Oral argument has been scheduled for September 10, 2013. United States et al. v. Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater Chicago, No. l:ll-cv-08859 (United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois). On December 14, 2011, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) and the State of Illinois lodged a Consent Decree with the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. The Consent Decree represented a settlement among U.S. EPA, the State of Illinois, and the Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater Chicago (MWRD) for Clean Water Act violations related to MWRD's combined sewer overflows. The Department of Justice accepted public comments on the consent decree through March 21, 2012. ELPC was among eight public interest environmental groups who submitted joint comments on the proposed settlement. On March 20, 2012 ELPC and four other public interest environmental groups filed a motion to intervene in the case. The motion to intervene was granted on August 8, 2012. After reviewing public comments, the United States moved to enter the Consent Decree on June 7, 2013. Plaintiff-Intervenors were granted 60 days to conduct discovery to ascertain the bases for the governments' assertions. A briefing schedule has been established for responses to the Motion to Enter. In re: Edison Mission Energy, LLC, et al., No. 12-49219 (JPC) (United States Bankruptcy Court, Northern District of Illinois). In December 2012, Edison Mission Energy, along with numerous of its subsidiaries including Midwest Generation, LLC, sought bankruptcy protection under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code in the United State Bankruptcy Court of the Northern District of Illinois. In February 2013, ELPC filed a motion with the United States Bankruptcy Court of the Northern District of Illinois seeking relief from the automatic stay of its case before the Illinois Pollution Control Board alleging that Midwest Generation, LLC violated groundwater and open dumping standards due to contamination from coal ash at four of its coal-fired power plants. Ruling from the bench in March 2013, the Bankruptcy Judge granted that motion in part, ordering that the stay be lifted for purposes of resolution of the motion to dismiss pending in the case before the Illinois Pollution Control Board. As of July 2013, the motion to dismiss remains pending before the Illinois Pollution Control Board. Further argument on ELPC's motion to lift the stay as to the remainder of the Illinois Pollution Control Board groundwater case is scheduled to be heard by the Bankruptcy Court in September 2013. Gulf Restoration Network et al v. Jackson, No. 2:12-cv-00677-JCZ-DEK (United States District Court, E.D. Louisiana). ELPC attorneys are assisting in this lawsuit challenging the United States Environmental Protection Agency's denial of a rulemaking petition requesting that the Agency set numeric water quality standards for nitrogen and phosphorus for states in the Mississippi River Basin. The case is fully briefed, and the parties are awaiting a decision. Gulf Restoration Network v. U.S. EPA, No. 12-12119 (United States Court of Appeals, 11th Circuit). ELPC attorneys represent the Gulf Restoration Network and Natural Resources Defense Council in a challenge to the adequacy of numeric nutrient standards adopted for Florida lakes, rivers and springs by the United States Environmental Protection Agency. This case involves claims by our clients that the Agency's phosphorus and nitrogen standards are not strong enough to protect recreation and drinking water. Other parties are arguing that the criteria established by the Agency are too stringent and will impose large costs on Florida municipalities and businesses. The District Court issued an Order in early 2012 granting some of the relief requested by Plaintiffs and remanding the rule, in part, to the Agency. Several of the parties appealed this Order, and it is pending before the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. In the Matter of: Objection to the Issuance of NPDES Permit No. ING040239 Bear Run Mine Peabody Midwest Mining, LLC, Sullivan, Sullivan County, Indiana, Cause No. 10-W-J-4386 (Indiana Office of Environmental Adjudication). ELPC attorneys filed this petition for review on behalf of two citizens groups challenging the Indiana Department of Environmental Management's issuance of a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit. The petition was filed on June 30, 2010 before the Indiana Office of Environmental Adjudication challenging authorization to discharge pollutants from Bear Run Mine under a NPDES general permit. The petition alleged that the Indiana Department of Environmental Management failed to comply with various state and federal water quality standards when it issued the permit. An amended petition was filed August 12, 2010, and ELPC moved for summary judgment in July 2011. After delays by Peabody Coal Company, we received responses to our motion on February 15, 2013. Our reply was filed on April 12, 2013, and oral argument took place in April 30, 2013. The parties' proposed findings and conclusions of law were filed in June 2013 and we are awaiting the administrative law judge's decision. Iowa Farm Bureau Federal et al v. Iowa Environmental Protection Commission et al, (File No. CV8371 (Iowa District Court, Polk County) (Supreme Court No. 12-0827). ELPC attorneys represent the Iowa Environmental Council (IEC) as an intervening party in the Iowa Farm Bureau's state court challenge to Iowa's Clean Water Act antidegradation standards. Plaintiffs claimed that IEC's water program director Susan Heathcote has a conflict of interest and should have abstained from an Iowa Environmental Protection Commission vote approving the standards. Plaintiffs also argued the antidegradation standards should be invalidated. ELPC objected to a Motion to Compel seeking disclosure of IEC's internal communications and emails. On March 29, 2012 the District Court issued an Opinion dismissing the Farm Bureau's lawsuit in its entirety. The Farm Bureau subsequently filed a notice of appeal to the Iowa Supreme Court. ELPC filed its appellate brief November 28, 2012, and the parties finalized the appendix in February 2013. The appeal is currently pending, and the Iowa Supreme Court has not scheduled arguments or assigned the case to the Court of Appeals as of July 2013. Natural Resources Defense Council v. Jackson, No. 12-cv-1848 (S.D.N.Y). ELPC attorneys are assisting in this lawsuit challenging the United States Environmental Protection Agency's failure to respond to a rulemaking petition requesting that the Agency revise its definition of "secondary treatment" for wastewater treatment plants to include phosphorus removal. EPA responded to the petition in December 2012, and the parties stipulated to dismissing the case in January 2013. People of the State of Illinois v. Freeman United Coal Mining Co. LLC, and Springfield Coal Co. LLC, PCB 2010-061 (Illinois Pollution Control Board). ELPC attorneys represent two citizen groups in a case to enforce penalties for several hundred National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit violations at a coal mine in central Illinois. ELPC sent a notice of intent to sue the coal mine operators under the citizen suit provisions of the Clean Water Act, which prompted the Illinois Attorney General to file an enforcement suit before the Illinois Pollution Control Board prior to the expiration of the notice period. ELPC attorneys represent the citizen groups who moved to intervene in the State's case in February 2010 and were granted leave to intervene in April 2010. ELPC's clients prevailed on summary judgment for liability in November 2012. Penalties will be assessed following a future hearing focused on this issue. Prairie Rivers Network and Sierra Club v. Illinois Environmental Protection Agency and Springfield Coal Co. LLC, PCB 13-67 (Illinois Pollution Control Board). ELPC attorneys represent two citizen groups in a third-party appeal of an NPDES permit renewal issued to the Industry Mine. The petition was filed on May 31, 2013 before the Illinois Pollution Control Board, alleging that the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency failed to comply with various state and federal water quality standards when it issued the permit. The hearing officer had not yet held an initial status conference as of June 30, 2013. Prairie Rivers Network and Sierra Club v. Illinois Environmental Protection Agency and Peabody Gateway North Mining. LLC, PCB 13-21 (Illinois Pollution Control Board). ELPC attorneys represent two citizen groups in a third-party appeal of an NPDES permit renewal issued to the Industry Mine. The petition was filed on November 15, 2012 before the Illinois Pollution Control Board, alleging that the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency failed to comply with various state and federal water quality standards when it issued the permit. The case remains in settlement negotiations. Sierra Club, Environmental Law & Policy Center, Prairie Rivers Network and Citizens Against Ruining the Environment vs. Midwest Generation, LLC, PCB 2013-015 (Illinois Pollution Control Board). In October 2012, ELPC, on behalf of itself, the Sierra Club, and Prairie Rivers Network, filed an administrative enforcement action before the Illinois Pollution Control Board, alleging hundreds of violations of Illinois groundwater and opening dumping standards as a result of contamination from coal ash from four Midwest Generation coal plants. Later that month, Midwest Generation filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. In December 2012, before the Illinois Pollution Control Board had received full briefing on that motion, Midwest Generation sought bankruptcy protection under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code, automatically staying the case pursuant to the bankruptcy code. In February 2013, ELPC filed a motion with the United States Bankruptcy Court of the Northern District of Illinois to lift the stay of the groundwater contamination case before the Illinois Pollution Control Board. Ruling from the bench in March 2013, the Bankruptcy Judge granted that motion in part, ordering that the stay be lifted for purposes of resolution of the motion to dismiss pending in the case. As of July 2013, briefing on the motion to dismiss is now complete, and the motion remains pending before the Illinois Pollution Control Board. NATURAL RESOURCES PRESERVATION Saugatuck Dunes Coastal Alliance v. Saugatuck Township Zoning Board, Civil Action No. 13-051701-AA (Michigan District Court, Allegan County). In this case, ELPC attorneys and other counsel represent a local conservation group, the Saugatuck Dunes Coastal Alliance (SDCA). SDCA is challenging the Saugatuck Township Zoning Board of Appeals' decision that SDCA did not have standing to challenge the Township Planning Commission's decision to grant preliminary approval to a development site plan on a lakefront sand dunes parcel, and to request that the Zoning Board of Appeals interpret the Township's zoning ordinance governing the property. STATE PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSION CASES ELPC intervenes frequently in state public utilities regulatory commission proceedings regarding electric and natural gas utility rate regulation, renewable energy and energy efficiency issues, and terms of service. ELPC works in these cases to improve energy efficiency and renewable energy policies and programs at the state level. In FY 2013, ELPC attorneys worked on the following cases: Illinois Commerce Commission: -In re: Application for Approval of a Reorganization pursuant to Section 7-204 of the Public Utilities Act; Nicor Gas Company; Illinois Commerce Commission, Docket No. 11-0046. -In re: Petition for Approval of the 220 ILCS 5/16-111.5(d) Procurement Plan; Illinois Commerce Commission, Docket No. 11-0660. -In re Petition for Statutory Approval of a Smart Grid Advanced Metering Infrastructure Deployment Plan pursuant to Section 16-108.6 of the Public Utilities Act; Commonwealth Edison Co.; Illinois Commerce Commission, Docket No. 12-0298. -In re: Petition for Statutory Approval of a Smart Grid Advanced Metering Infrastructure Deployment Plan pursuant to Section 16-108.6 of the Public Utilities Act; Ameren Co.; Illinois Commerce Commission, Docket No. 12-0244. -Illinois Commerce Commission On Its Own Motion; Certification Requirements Applicable to Vendors that Install Electric Vehicle Charging Stations; Illinois Commerce Commission Docket No. 12-0212. -Illinois Commerce Commission On Its Own Motion; Implementation of Section 16-128A(a) of the Public Utilities Act; Illinois Commerce Commission Docket No. 12-0213. -Illinois Commerce Commission On Its Own Motion vs. Commonwealth Edison Company re. Investigation of Rate BESH, Rider POGNM, and General Terms and Conditions; Illinois Commerce Commission Docket No. 12-0365. -In re: Petition for Approval of the 220 ILCS 5/16-111.5(d) Procurement Plan; Illinois Power Agency, Illinois Commerce Commission Docket No. 12-0544. -Illinois Commerce Commission On Its Own Motion vs. Commonwealth Edison Company re. Investigation regarding progress in Implementing the Advanced Metering Infrastructure Deployment Plan; Illinois Commerce Commission Docket No. 13-0285. -Illinois Commerce Commission On Its Own Motion vs. Commonwealth Edison Company, The Peoples Gas Light and Coke Company, North Shore Gas Company, Ameren Illinois Company d/b/a Ameren Illinois, Northern Illinois Gas Company d/b/a Nicor Gas re. Standard Evaluation Methodology and Criteria for On-Bill Financing Programs; Illinois Commerce Commission Case No. 11-0689. -In re: Petition for an Order granting Rock Island Clean Line LLC a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity pursuant to Section 8-406 of the Public Utilities Act as a Transmission Public Utility and to Construct, Operate and Maintain an Electric Transmission Line and Authorizing and Directing Rock Island Clean Line Pursuant to Section 8-503 of the Public Utilities Act to Construct an Electric Transmission Line; Rock Island Clean Line LLC, Illinois Commerce Commission Docket No. 12-0560. Iowa Utilities Board: -In re: SZ Enterprise, LLC d/b/a Eagle Point Solar; Docket No. DRU-2012-001. ELPC attorneys represented a broad state and national solar coalition in proceedings before the Iowa Utilities Board regarding "third-party" financing structures that are increasingly used to develop projects in leading solar markets. ELPC represented the solar coalition as interveners in an appeal to Iowa District Court. On March 29, 2013, the Iowa District Court overturned the Iowa Utilities Board's ruling that effectively prohibited third-party power purchasing agreements. (SZ Enterprises, LLC v. Iowa Utilities Board, no. CV 9166 (Polk County District Court)). The Iowa Utilities Board, the investor-owned utilities and the rural electric cooperatives have filed a notice of appeal to the Iowa Supreme Court (No. 13-0642). Briefs are scheduled to be filed in late July and August 2013. -In re: Interstate Power & Light Company; Docket No. TF-2012-0546; ELPC filed to highlight concerns with the methodology of Interstate Power & Light Company's (IPL) PURPA avoided cost tariff filing. -In re: MidAmerican Energy Company; Docket No. TF-2012-0574; ELPC filed to highlight concerns with the methodology of MidAmerican's PURPA avoided cost tariff filing. -In re: Interstate Power & Light Company; Docket No. GCU-2012-0001; Docket No. RPU-2012-0003; ELPC filed to intervene in IPL's proposed gas plant. ELPC intervened primarily to monitor developments in the proceeding and encourage the new plant be built to maximize integration with renewables. ELPC filed exhibits, but did not file testimony. The docket is still pending. -In re: Interstate Power & Light Company; Docket No. EEP-2012-0001; ELPC attorneys filed an intervention on behalf of itself and other environmental intervenors in IPL's five-year energy efficiency plan. The Environmental Intervenors have submitted testimony. The case is set for hearing on July 29, 2013. -In re: MidAmerican Energy Company; Docket No. EEP-2012-0002; ELPC attorneys filed an intervention on behalf of itself and other environmental intervenors in MidAmerican's five-year energy efficiency plan. The Environmental Intervenors have submitted testimony. The case is set for hearing on August 28, 2013. -In re: Interstate Power & Light Company; Docket No. DRU-2013-0001; ELPC attorneys filed an intervention in petition for declaratory order where IPL sought a Board ruling on whether it had a legally enforceable obligation to purchase energy from a wind project in Minnesota. ELPC intervened because of potential ramifications for other renewable energy projects in Iowa. The Board declined to issue a declaratory ruling on March 5, 2013. -In re: Industrial Employers; Docket No. DRU-2013-0002; ELPC attorneys filed to intervene in the petition for declaratory order by industrial customers requesting that the Board indicate that it had authority to allow an industrial opt-out from the utility energy efficiency programs. ELPC argued that the Board did not have this authority. The petitioners withdrew their request, and the docket was closed on March 4, 2013. -In re: MidAmerican Energy Company; Docket No. RPU-2013-0004; ELPC attorneys filed an intervention in MidAmerican's rate case to address rate change impacts on combined heat and power, the use of LED streetlights and the potential impact of rate changes on energy efficiency and renewables. The contested case proceeding will run through Fall 2013. Michigan Public Service Commission: -In the Matter of Biennial Energy Optimization Plans and Reconciliations for Consumers Energy Company to Fully Comply with Public Act 295 of 2008; Michigan Public Service Commission Docket No. U-16670. -In the Matter of The Application of Consumers Energy Company to Amend its Energy Optimization Plan Approved in Case No. U-16670; Michigan Public Service Commission Docket No. U-17138. -In the Matter of The Detroit Edison Company's Application for Approval of its Amended Energy Optimization Plan filed pursuant to the provisions of Public Act 295 of 2008; Michigan Public Service Commission Docket No. U-17049. -In the Matter, on the Commission's own motion, regarding the regulatory reviews, revisions, determinations and/or approvals necessary for Consumers Energy Company to fully comply with Public Acts 286 and 295 of 2008; Michigan Public Service Commission Docket No. U-17301. -In the Matter, on the Commission's own motion, regarding the regulatory reviews, revisions, determinations and/or approvals necessary for the DTE Electric Company (f/k/a The Detroit Edison Company)to fully comply with Public Acts 286 and 295 of 2008; Michigan Public Service Commission Docket No. U-17302. Public Utilities Commission of Ohio: -In the Matter of the Annual Report of Ohio Edison Company, The Cleveland Electric Illuminating Company and The Toledo Edison Company Regarding Their Alternative Energy Status and Application of Ohio Edison Company, The Cleveland Electric Illuminating Company and The Toledo Edison Company for a Force Majeure Determination; PUCO Case No. 11-2479. -In the Matter of the Application of Columbus Southern Power Company and Ohio Power Company for Authority to Establish a Standard Service Offer Pursuant to 4928.143, Ohio Rev. Code, in the Form of an Electric Security Plan; PUCO Case No. 11-0346. -In the Matter of the Application, Motion for Protective Order and Memorandum in Support of Duke Energy Ohio for Authority to Establish a Standard Service Offer pursuant to Section 4928.143, Revised Code, in the form of an Electric Security Plan, Accounting Modifications and Tariffs for Generation Service; PUCO Case No. 11-3549. -In the Matter of Ohio Edison Company, The Cleveland Electric Illuminating Company, and The Toledo Edison Company for Authority to Provide for a Standard Service Offer Pursuant to Section 4928.13, Revised Code, in the Form of an Electric Security Plan; PUCO Case No. 12-1230-EL-SSO. -In the Matter of the Mercantile Customer Pilot Program for Integration of Customer Energy Efficiency or Peak-Demand Reduction Programs; PUCO Case No. 10-0834-EL-POR. -In the Matter of the Application of The Cleveland Electric Illuminating Company, Ohio Edison Company, and the Toledo Edison Company for Approval of their Energy Efficiency and Peak Demand Reduction Program Plans for 2013 through 2015; PUCO Case Nos. 12-2190-EL-POR, 12-2191-EL-POR, 12-2192-EL-POR. -In the Matter of the Application of Duke Energy Ohio, Inc., for Approval of its Energy Efficiency and Peak Demand Reduction Portfolio Programs; PUCO Case No. 13-0431-EL-POR. -In the Matter of the Application of the Dayton Power and Light Company for Approval of its Energy Efficiency and Peak Demand Reduction Program Portfolio Plan for 2013 through 2015; PUCO Case Nos. 13-0833-EL-POR, 13-0837-EL-WVR. -In the Matter of the Review of the Alternative Energy Rider Contained in the Tariffs of Ohio Edison Company, the Cleveland Electric Illuminating Company, and the Toledo Edison Company; PUCO Case No. 11-5201-EL-RDR. -In the Matter of the Commission's Investigation of Ohio's Retail Electric Service Market; PUCO Case No. 12-3151-EL-COI. -In the Matter of the Application of American Transmission Systems Incorporated for a Certificate Relative to the Bruce Mansfield-Glenwillow 345 kV Transmission Line Project; PUCO Case No. 12-1726-EL-BLN. Supreme Court of Ohio: -Environmental Law & Policy Center v. Public Utilities Commission of Ohio (PUCO), No. 2013-0513 (Supreme Court of Ohio). ELPC is appealing a PUCO decision approving FirstEnergy's electric security plan. ELPC is claiming that the decision is unlawful because FirstEnergy did not follow PUCO rules in filing a completed application and testimony supporting the application. TRANSPORTATION Friends of the Fox River, et al., v. United States Department of Transportation, et al., No. 09-cv-1855 (United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois). ELPC attorneys represented two citizens' organizations in a lawsuit against the United States Department of Transportation and related agencies involving the proposed Prairie Parkway highway project in northern Illinois. Plaintiffs filed their complaint on March 25, 2009, alleging that the Defendants violated the National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA) in the course of planning the Prairie Parkway. Plaintiffs requested that the Court declare the Defendants in violation of NEPA and order them to cease work on the project pending compliance with NEPA. On August 23, 2012, the case was dismissed without prejudice pursuant to a stipulation of dismissal that the parties filed after Defendants withdrew the Record of Decision approving the project. Hoosier Environmental Council, et al. v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, et al., No. 1:11-cv-0202; Hoosier Environmental Council, et al. v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, et al., No. 1:11-cv-1387 (United States District Court, Southern District of Indiana). ELPC attorneys represented two citizens' and environmental organizations in lawsuits challenging the United States Army Corps of Engineers' approval of Clean Water Act Section 404 permits for Sections 2 and 3 of the I-69 highway between Evansville and Indianapolis, Indiana. ELPC filed the complaint in the Section 3 lawsuit (Case No. 1:11-cv-0202) on behalf of the organizations on February 9, 2011, and the complaint in the Section 2 lawsuit (Case No. 1:11-cv-1387) on October 14, 2011. Plaintiffs requested that the Court declare the Section 404 permits unlawful and enjoin further work on the highway. The Indiana Department of Transportation intervened as a Defendant-Intervenor in both lawsuits. On July 24, 2012, the District Court entered a final Opinion and Order in the Section 3 case denying Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment and granting Defendants' cross-motions for summary judgment. Plaintiffs appealed that Order to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, but ELPC did not serve as appellate counsel. On July 16, 2013, the Court of Appeals upheld the District Court's Opinion and Order. The Section 2 lawsuit has been stayed pending the Court of Appeals' decision. On November 13, 2012, the Court administratively closed the case with leave to reopen within 60 days of a decision in the appeal of the Opinion and Order in the Section 3 case. Environmental Law and Policy Center Action Fund 35 East Wacker Drive Suite 1600 Chicago IL 606012208 264767097 Environmental advocacy IL 501(c)(4) Environmental Law & Policy Center of the Midwest 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 Environmental Law and Policy Center Action Fund B 256000 FMV Environmental Law and Policy Center Action Fund Q 131755 FMV