2013-05-15T09:45:43-05:00 2012-06-30 420714325 McGladrey LLP 1 S Wacker Drive Suite 800 Chicago IL 60606 990 2011-07-01 363866530 Environmental Law and Policy Center of the Midwest ENVI 3126736500 35 East Wacker Drive No 1600 Chicago IL 606012206 Howard A Learner 3126736500 2013-05-15 1 David Faje P00031371 3126343400 2011 2016-02-24 21:20:13Z Howard A Learner 35 East Wacker Drive No 1600 Chicago IL 606012206 4623321 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. 17 16 42 1 0 0 6102769 4178358 50913 196246 140600 168216 42014 0 6336296 4542820 56500 100000 0 0 3830951 3882668 0 0 345068 1822083 1414870 5709534 5397538 626762 -854718 14365538 13521228 1317769 1277314 13047769 12243914 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 heritage. We are public interest environmental entrepreneurs who engage in creative business deal making with diverse interests to put into practice our belief that environmental progress and economic development can be achieved together. ELPC's multidisciplinary staff talented public interest attorneys, environmental business specialists, policy advocates, and communications specialists bring a strong and effective combination of skills to solve environmental problems and improve the quality of life in our communities. 0 0 2510314 126972 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. 1084235 1844 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. 558273 39571 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. 425214 100000 27859 4) Environmental Markets5) Global Warming Solutions6) Other Projects 425214 100000 27859 4578036 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 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 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 23 0 1 42 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 X 17 16 0 0 1 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 X X 287014 0 32837 Nancy Loeb 4.00 X X 0 0 0 Daniel Levin 1.00 X X 0 0 0 Cameron S Avery 2.50 X X 0 0 0 Harry W Drucker 1.00 X 0 0 0 Richard Day 1.00 X 0 0 0 Ellen C Craig 1.00 X 0 0 0 Manny Flores 1.00 X 0 0 0 Robert L Graham 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 X 0 0 0 Knute Nadelhoffer 1.00 X 0 0 0 Smita Shah 1.00 X 0 0 0 David Wilhelm 1.00 X 0 0 0 Brady C Williamson 1.00 X 0 0 0 Bob Nash 1.00 X 0 0 0 Kevin Brubaker 50.00 X 149649 0 32837 Linda Lipton 50.00 X 146720 0 8250 Karen Torrent 50.00 X 132311 0 10077 Allen Grosboll 50.00 X 117263 0 23666 Robert Kelter 50.00 X 124189 0 8277 957146 0 115944 6 0 1 0 MSB Energy Associates Inc 1800 Parmenter Street 204 Middleton WI 53562 Expert analysis of energy conservation p 102460 1 123114 4055244 4178358 Fee Awards 900099 109670 109670 Other Income 900099 47706 47706 Contract income 900099 38540 38540 Conference Income 900099 330 330 196246 151458 151458 16758 0 16758 16758 16758 80501 123114 80501 0 4542820 196246 0 168216 100000 100000 319851 272558 23914 23379 2861649 2438528 213951 209170 162015 138060 12113 11842 315204 268599 23566 23039 223949 190836 16744 16369 23177 19750 1733 1694 300488 274766 24432 1290 246754 168610 62851 15293 8303 5139 2754 410 426127 365992 30821 29314 223242 196464 22480 4298 53967 31792 21352 823 78725 67283 5627 5815 23447 18291 3609 1547 Public Awareness 28745 20898 7074 773 1895 470 1413 12 5397538 4578036 474434 345068 776208 522607 6548415 4231294 2605775 1549170 35899 39683 1643381 419419 1327725 1223962 3071516 5954512 14365538 13521228 231830 264130 1085939 1013184 1317769 1277314 X 9604937 9572008 3442832 2671906 13047769 12243914 14365538 13521228 X -854718 50863 X 0 1 1 X 0 X 5233269 6273055 6165707 6102769 4178358 27953158 5233269 6273055 6165707 6102769 4178358 27953158 3246794 24706364 261803 260284 175909 174329 151458 1023783 28976941 1406667 0.85260 0.63630 X RESTRICTED RESTRICTED RESTRICTED RESTRICTED RESTRICTED RESTRICTED RESTRICTED RESTRICTED 99729 288438 388167 5089872 5478039 423902 105976 0 0 392288 425575 435477 423902 1677242 2515863 229736 340962 282883 388167 1241748 98072 106394 108869 105976 419311 628967 60836 84254 97201 99729 342020 1 10876 3340 14216 0 0 1351059 171613 1179446 292322 247806 44516 1223962 Deferred rent 1013184 1013184 Part IV, Line 1b: ELPC served as fiscal agent for the Carbon Tax Center until the custodian account was paid out during FY 2012. As of 6/30/12, ELPC no longer serves as fiscal agent for the Carbon Tax Center. Description of Uncertain Tax Positions Under FIN 48: Part X: 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 (UBIT). 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. Gala 203615 123114 80501 66748 13753 203615 123114 80501 66748 13753 80501 0 1 Environmental Law and Policy Center Action Fund 35 East Wacker Drive Chicago IL 60601 264767097 501(c)(4) 100000 Operation needs 1 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 0 0 Howard A Learner 287014 0 0 0 0 0 16500 0 16337 0 319851 0 0 0 Kevin Brubaker 149649 0 0 0 0 0 16500 0 16337 0 182486 0 0 0 Linda Lipton 146720 0 0 0 0 0 8250 0 0 0 154970 0 0 0 Part I, Line 1a ELPC pays all employees $45/month toward health club membership. Form 990, Part VI, Section A, line 4 The number and composition of the organization's board of directors changed in the amended by-laws. 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 the Form 990. The 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 submission. 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. 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 5: Net unrealized gains on investments: 131,364. SPECIAL EVENTS EXPENSE -80,501. Total to Form 990, Part XI, Line 5: 50,863. Form 990, Additional Disclosure: The Environmental Law & Policy Center was involved in the following litigation during FY 2012 (July 1, 2011 - June 30, 2012). Unless otherwise noted, court-awarded fees were not recovered in any of these cases during FY 2012. CLEAN AIR 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 were concluded May 23, 2012. A consent decree was lodged in the parallel federal case although ELPC was not formally a party in that case. ELPC expects the state case to be resolved and closed in coming months as a result of the federal consent decree. ELPC expects to receive about $109,000 in attorney's fees from BP within 30 days of entry of the consent decree. Sierra Club v. Energy and Environment Cabinet, File Nos. DAQ-41111-039 and DAQ-41792-039 (Kentucky Energy and Environment Cabinet). ELPC attorneys represent two environmental organizations, Sierra Club and Valley Watch, in two challenges to a combined Prevention of Significant Deterioration Title V operating permit issued in April 2010 to Kentucky Syngas, LLC for the construction and operation of a coal-to-synthetic natural gas plant in Muhlenberg County, Kentucky. The administrative hearing on the first challenge took place in November 2010. In February 2011, the Hearing Officer who presided over that administrative hearing issued his report to the Secretary of Kentucky's Energy and Environment Cabinet, recommending issuance of the permit conditioned on the addition of several provisions to further limit air pollutant emissions. On May 31, 2011, the Secretary issued an order adopting the Hearing Officer's Report and affirming issuance of the permit with the additional provisions recommended by the Hearing Officer. Neither ELPC nor its clients appealed the Secretary's May 31, 2011 Order. The second permit challenge contested the Cabinet's compliance with certain public participation requirements of the Clean Air Act. Rather than hold a separate administrative hearing on that challenge, the parties submitted cross motions for summary judgment on January 19, 2011. On May 18, 2011, the Hearing Officer issued a report recommending that the Sierra Club's and Valley Watch's motion be denied, and that Kentucky Syngas' and the Cabinet's motion for summary judgment be granted. On July 18, 2011, the Secretary adopted the Hearing Officer's recommendations and dismissed Sierra Club's and Valley Watch's petition with prejudice. Neither ELPC, nor its clients appealed the Secretary's July 18, 2011 Order. Concurrent with its appeal of the permit before the Cabinet and the Circuit Court, ELPC filed a petition in October 2010 with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) requesting that the U.S. EPA object to the permit pursuant to its authority under Title V of the Clean Air Act. In June 2012, the U.S. EPA granted in part and denied in part ELPC's petition, requiring various portions of the permit to be redrafted and requiring a new public comment period before the U.S. EPA would approve any final permit. Sierra Club et al. v. Energy and Environment Cabinet, Case No. 11-CV-00170 (Circuit Court of Henderson County, Kentucky). ELPC attorneys represent several non-profit organizations in an administrative challenge to a combined Prevention of Significant Deterioration Title V operating permit issued in March 2010 to Cash Creek Generation, LLC for the construction and operation of a coal-to-synthetic natural gas plant in Henderson County, Kentucky. The administrative hearing took place in September 2010, and, in December 2010, the Hearing Officer who presided over the administrative hearing issued her report to the Secretary of Kentucky's Energy and Environment Cabinet, recommending issuance of the permit. On February 3, 2011, the Secretary issued an Order adopting the Hearing Officer's Report and affirming issuance of the permit. On March 4, 2011, on behalf of Sierra Club and Valley Watch, ELPC attorneys filed a petition for review to appeal limited portions of the Secretary's decision. Appellate briefs were then filed, and oral arguments were heard on the appeal in the Circuit Court of Henderson County, Kentucky on July 19, 2011. On August 31, 2011, the Circuit Court affirmed the Cabinet's issuance of the permit. Concurrent with its appeal of the permit before the Cabinet and the Circuit Court, ELPC filed a petition in June 2010 with the U.S. EPA requesting that the federal agency object to the permit pursuant to its authority under Title V of the Clean Air Act. In June 2012, the U.S. EPA granted in part and denied in part ELPC's petition, requiring various portions of the permit to be redrafted and requiring a new public comment period before the U.S. EPA would approve any final permit. 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 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. The appeal is pending as the parties finish briefing. United States of America et al v. Midwest Generation, No. 1:09-cv-05277 (United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois). ELPC attorneys represent two non-profit organizations in litigation in the Northern District of Illinois brought initially by the U.S. Department of Justice, U.S. EPA, and the Illinois Attorney General's office alleging Clean Air Act violations at several Midwest Generation coal plants in Illinois. On March 16, 2011, the District Court granted motions filed by Midwest Generation, its parent company Edison Mission Energy, and former plant owner Commonwealth Edison to dismiss several of the government Plaintiffs' Prevention of Significant Deterioration ("PSD") claims against those parties. In the same order, the Court did not dismiss Intervenors' (including ELPC's) PSD claims related to one Midwest Generation plant. Both Plaintiffs' and Intervenors' claims for opacity violations were not affected by the March 16, 2011 Order. In the spring and summer of 2011, the Court granted several extensions to the government Plaintiffs allowing them to request an interlocutory appeal of the March 16, 2011 order. On November 10, 2011, the District Court granted the government Plaintiffs' request for an interlocutory appeal of that Order and stayed the remaining claims in the case, including the claims of ELPC's clients, pending resolution of that appeal. The government Plaintiffs' interlocutory appeal remains pending before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. Meanwhile, in February 2012, ELPC and its clients reached an agreement with Midwest Generation under which the company agreed to shut down two of the coal plants at issue in the case in exchange for ELPC and its clients' voluntary dismissal of their claims without prejudice and with leave to reinstate. ELPC, its clients and Midwest Generation submitted a joint motion to that effect on March 16, 2012. The District Court granted the motion ten days later and dismissed ELPC and its clients' claims without prejudice and with leave to reinstate. 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 case for the 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 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 informed ELPC at hearing that it would rule on whether to unseal the third group of documents from the July 21, 2011 Order prior to approving final settlement. As of June 2012, no ruling on those documents had yet been issued. 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 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 U.S. 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. Environmental Law and Policy Center v. Syngenta Crop Protection, LLC, No. 1:11-cv-02521 (United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois). On April 7, 2011, Syngenta Crop Protection subpoenaed ELPC, demanding production of documents and a deposition of an ELPC representative. On April 14, 2011, ELPC attorneys filed a motion to quash that subpoena in the Northern District of Illinois. That motion to quash was granted on July 13, 2011, closing the case. Gulf Restoration Network et al v. Jackson, No. 2:12-cv-00677-JCZ-DEK (E.D. Louisiana). ELPC attorneys are assisting in this lawsuit challenging the U.S. EPA'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 Court has not yet set a briefing schedule in this case. Gulf Restoration Network v. U.S. EPA (N.D. Florida). 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 U.S. EPA. 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 Court issued an Order in early 2012 that granted some of the relief requested by Plaintiffs and remanded the rule, in part, to U.S. EPA. Several of the parties appealed this Order and it is now pending on appeal in the U.S. Court of Appeals for 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 consideration of motions to dismiss the case was suspended pending the decision of near-identical motions in the Farmersburg Mine case. The case is ongoing as of June 2012. Iowa Farm Bureau Federal et al v. Iowa Environmental Protection Commission et al, File No. CV8371 (Iowa District Court, Polk County). 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. Natural Resources Defense Council v. Jackson, No. 12-cv-1848 (S.D.N.Y). ELPC attorneys are assisting in this lawsuit challenging the U.S. EPA's failure to respond to a rulemaking petition requesting the Agency to revise its definition of "secondary treatment" for wastewater treatment plants to include phosphorus removal. The parties are exploring opportunities for settlement and a briefing schedule has not yet been established. 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. This case remains in settlement negotiations. FOREST AND BIODIVERSITY PROTECTION Habitat Education Center, et al. v. Bosworth, et al., Civil Action Nos. 03-1023, 03-1024, 04-0254 (United States District Court, Eastern District of Wisconsin); Habitat Education Center, et al. v. U.S. Forest Service, Appeal Nos. 10-1322, 10-1346 (United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit). ELPC represented Plaintiffs Habitat Education Center and two individual scientists in three lawsuits initially challenging the United States Forest Service's approval of the Cayuga, McCaslin and Northwest Howell timber sales in the Chequamegon-Nicolet National Forest in northern Wisconsin on grounds that the Forest Service failed to comply with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the Administrative Procedure Act. In April and August 2005, the Court ruled in Plaintiffs' favor and issued injunctions against all three timber sales. The Forest Service then re-approved each of these timber sales. ELPC renewed its legal challenges to two of the timber sale projects (the Northwest Howell and McCaslin timber sales). (Case Nos. 03-1023 and 04-0254). In April 2009, ELPC reached an administrative settlement agreement with the Forest Service with respect to the Cayuga timber sale that would defer over 2,000 acres of logging in key wildlife habitat for the next four years. In April 2010, the District Court dissolved the injunction and dismissed the Cayuga case pursuant to the parties' settlement. (Case No. 03-1024). In January 2010, the District Court issued decisions in the Northwest Howell and McCaslin cases, rejecting Plaintiffs' claims and upholding the timber sale projects. (Case Nos. 03-1023 and 04-0254). In February 2010, ELPC appealed the District Court's decisions in Northwest Howell and McCaslin to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. On March 7, 2012, the Seventh Circuit ruled in favor of Defendants, upholding the District Court's Opinion allowing the Forest Service to proceed with the timber sale projects. (Appeal Nos. 10-1322, 10-1346.) NATURAL RESOURCES PRESERVATION Singapore Dunes LLC v. Saugatuck Township, Civil Action No. 10-cv-210 (United States District Court, Western District of Michigan). ELPC attorneys represent several non-party citizens and conservation groups in this case involving private developer Plaintiff Singapore Dunes LLC's challenge to Saugatuck Township's approved zoning standards applicable to a proposed development in an important Lake Michigan coastal dunes area in Western Michigan. In June 2012, the Court entered an Opinion and Order approving a revised consent decree and dismissed the case. 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 2012, 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. -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. -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. Iowa Public Utilities Commission: -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 Utility Board regarding "third-party" financing structures that are increasingly used to develop projects in leading solar markets. ELPC will continue to represent the solar coalition as interveners in an appeal to Iowa District Court. The appeal has been docketed as SZ Enterprises, LLC v. Iowa Utilities Board, no. CV 9166 (Polk County District Court). -In re Petition to Amend Energy Efficiency Rules; Docket No. RMU-2011-0005. ELPC attorneys filed a petition for rulemaking to change the planning cycle for Iowa public utility energy efficiency portfolio plans from a five-year cycle to a three-year cycle. On November 9, 2011, the Board denied the petition. Michigan Public Service Commission: -In the Matter of the Application of Consumers Energy Company to Amend Its Renewable Energy Plan Approved in Case No. U-15805; Michigan Public Service Commission Docket No. U-16543. -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 Biennial Energy Optimization Plans and Reconciliations for the Detroit Edison Company to Fully Comply with Public Act 295 of 2008; Michigan Public Service Commission Docket No. U-16671. Public Utilities Commission of Ohio: -In the Matter of the Application of Ohio Edison Company, The Cleveland Electric Illuminating Company and The Toledo Edison Company for Approval of a Force Majeure Determination for a Portion of the 2010 Solar Energy Resources Benchmark Requirement; PUCO Case No. 11-411. -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. 11-346. -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. 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 represent two citizens' organizations in a lawsuit against the U.S. 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. The case has been held in abeyance since filing while the parties discuss settlement options. 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 represent two citizens and environmental organizations in lawsuits challenging the U.S. 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 have 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 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. The Section 2 lawsuit is still pending as of June 2012. 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 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 Environmental Law and Policy Center Action Fund B 100000 Cost