Attach to Form 990 or Form 990-EZ.
See separate instructions.
Information about Schedule A (Form 990 or 990-EZ) and its instructions is at www.irs.gov/form990.
| (i) Name of supported organization | (ii) EIN | (iii) Type of organization (described on lines 1- 9 above or IRC section (see instructions)) | (iv) Is the organization in col. (i) listed in your governing document? | (v) Did you notify the organization in col. (i) of your support? | (vi) Is the organization in col. (i) organized in the U.S.? | (vii) Amount of monetary support | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yes | No | Yes | No | Yes | No | ||||
| Total | |||||||||
Calendar year (or fiscal year beginning in) ![]() |
(a) 2009 | (b) 2010 | (c) 2011 | (d) 2012 | (e) 2013 | (f) Total | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Gifts, grants, contributions, and membership fees received. (Do not include any "unusual grants.") .... | 6,165,707 | 6,102,769 | 4,178,358 | 6,028,641 | 6,512,271 | 28,987,746 |
| 2 | Tax revenues levied for the organization's benefit and either paid to or expended on its behalf....... | ||||||
| 3 | The value of services or facilities furnished by a governmental unit to the organization without charge.. | ||||||
| 4 | Total. Add lines 1 through 3 | 6,165,707 | 6,102,769 | 4,178,358 | 6,028,641 | 6,512,271 | 28,987,746 |
| 5 | The portion of total contributions by each person (other than a governmental unit or publicly supported organization) included on line 1 that exceeds 2% of the amount shown on line 11, column (f).. | 4,968,090 | |||||
| 6 | Public support. Subtract line 5 from line 4. | 24,019,656 | |||||
Calendar year
(or fiscal year beginning in) ![]() |
(a) 2009 | (b) 2010 | (c) 2011 | (d) 2012 | (e) 2013 | (f) Total | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 7 | Amounts from line 4.. | 6,165,707 | 6,102,769 | 4,178,358 | 6,028,641 | 6,512,271 | 28,987,746 |
| 8 | Gross income from interest, dividends, payments received on securities loans, rents, royalties and income from similar sources... | 175,909 | 174,329 | 151,458 | 225,794 | 233,367 | 960,857 |
| 9 | Net income from unrelated business activities, whether or not the business is regularly carried on.. | ||||||
| 10 | Other income. Do not include gain or loss from the sale of capital assets (Explain in Part IV.).. | ||||||
| 11 | Total support (Add lines 7 through 10). | 29,948,603 | |||||






Calendar year (or fiscal year beginning in) ![]() |
(a) 2009 | (b) 2010 | (c) 2011 | (d) 2012 | (e) 2013 | (f) Total | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Gifts, grants, contributions, and membership fees received. (Do not include any "unusual grants.") . | ||||||
| 2 | Gross receipts from admissions, merchandise sold or services performed, or facilities furnished in any activity that is related to the organization's tax-exempt purpose...... | ||||||
| 3 | Gross receipts from activities that are not an unrelated trade or business under section 513.. | ||||||
| 4 | Tax revenues levied for the organization's benefit and either paid to or expended on its behalf... | ||||||
| 5 | The value of services or facilities furnished by a governmental unit to the organization without charge.. | ||||||
| 6 | Total. Add lines 1 through 5. | ||||||
| 7a | Amounts included on lines 1, 2, and 3 received from disqualified persons... | ||||||
| b | Amounts included on lines 2 and 3 received from other than disqualified persons that exceed the greater of $5,000 or 1% of the amount on line 13 for the year. | ||||||
| c | Add lines 7a and 7b.. | ||||||
| 8 | Public support (Subtract line 7c from line 6.) | ||||||
Calendar year (or fiscal year beginning in) ![]() |
(a) 2009 | (b) 2010 | (c) 2011 | (d) 2012 | (e) 2013 | (f) Total | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 9 | Amounts from line 6... | ||||||
| 10a | Gross income from interest, dividends, payments received on securities loans, rents, royalties and income from similar sources.. | ||||||
| b | Unrelated business taxable income (less section 511 taxes) from businesses acquired after June 30, 1975. | ||||||
| c | Add lines 10a and 10b. | ||||||
| 11 | Net income from unrelated business activities not included in line 10b, whether or not the business is regularly carried on. | ||||||
| 12 | Other income. Do not include gain or loss from the sale of capital assets (Explain in Part IV.) .. | ||||||
| 13 | Total support. (Add lines 9, 10c, 11, and 12.).. | ||||||




| Facts And Circumstances Test |
|---|
| Explanation |
|---|
| Software ID: | |
| Software Version: |
Attach to Form 990 or 990-EZ.
Information about Schedule O (Form 990 or 990-EZ) and its instructions is at| Return Reference | Explanation |
|---|---|
| Form 990, Additional Disclosure: | The Environmental Law & Policy Center was involved in the following litigation during FY 2014 (July 1, 2013 June 30, 2014). Unless otherwise noted, court-awarded fees were not recovered in any of these cases during FY 2014. CLEAN AIR Freeman et al. v. Grain Processing Corporation (Iowa Supreme Court No. 13-0723). A group of citizens brought multiple causes of action against Grain Processing Corporation ("GPC") for air pollution emitted from its Muscatine operations. The Iowa district court ruled for GPC on summary judgment and held that the Clean Air Act preempted state common law claims. The Plaintiffs appealed to the Iowa Supreme Court. On July 29, 2013, ELPC filed an amicus curiae brief on behalf of ELPC and the Iowa Environmental Council supporting the Plaintiffs' position and arguing that the lower court's ruling would erode common law protections for public health and the environment. On June 13, 2014, the Iowa Supreme Court issued an opinion reversing the district court and remanding the case. GPC appealed the case to the United States Supreme Court, which subsequently denied review. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., et al. v. Illinois Power Resources, LLC, et al., Case No.: 1:13-cv-01181 (United States District Court, Central District of Illinois). ELPC attorneys represent ELPC, Sierra Club and the Respiratory Health Association in litigation alleging Clean Air Act violations at the E.D. Edwards Coal Plant in Bartonville, Illinois, operated by subsidiaries of Dynegy. Plaintiffs allege that the Plant has violated its emission limits on opacity and particulate matter on thousands of occasions. The case was filed in April 2013 and is pending as of July 2014. The parties are engaged in factual discovery, which is set to close in May 2015. North Dakota et al. v. Heydinger et al., No. 11-cv-3232 (U.S. District Court, District of Minn.), on appeal, Nos. 14-2156, 14-2251 (U.S. Court of Appeals, 8th Circuit). North Dakota, the Industrial Commission of North Dakota, the Lignite Energy Council, Basin Electric Power Cooperation, The North American Coal Corporation, Great Northern Properties, LP, Missouri Basin Municipal Power Agency, and Minnkota Power Cooperative, Inc. challenged the constitutionality of Minnesota's Next Generation Electricity Act ("NGEA"). On September 20, 2013, ELPC and other environmental groups filed an amicus brief in the case in support of the constitutionality of the NGEA. On April 18, 2014, the district court judge entered an opinion and order holding that the NGEA is unconstitutional and granting summary judgment to the plaintiffs. This case is on appeal before the Eighth Circuit. CLEAN WATER 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. Oral argument was heard on September 10, 2013. As of June 30, 2014, the appeal remains pending before the Seventh Circuit. United States et al. v. Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater Chicago, No. 14-1776 (United States Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals). On December 14, 2011, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA),the State of Illinois, and the Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater Chicago lodged a Consent Decree with the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois 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. After discovery and briefing, this case was decided on January 6, 2014. On April 9, 2014, ELPC and other environmental appealed the District Court's entry of the consent decree to resolve Clean Water Act violations associated with the Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater Chicago's combined sewer overflows. Our initial appellate brief was filed on June 19, 2014 and awaits responsive briefing. 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 ("IPCB") 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 IPCB. In October 2013, the IPCB denied the motion to dismiss, and ELPC filed a renewed motion before the Bankruptcy Court to lift the stay as to the remainder of the IPCB groundwater case. The Bankruptcy Court granted ELPC's motion in December 2013, allowing ELPC's groundwater case to proceed before the IPCB. In April 2014, the Bankruptcy Court approved a plan allowing Edison Mission Energy, as well as some of its subsidiaries including Midwest Generation, LLC, to emerge from bankruptcy. Gulf Restoration Network et al v. McCarthy, No. 13-31214 (United States Court of Appeals, 5th Circuit). ELPC is participating 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. U.S. District Judge Jay Zainey granted plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment requiring U.S. EPA to render a "determination" whether federal nutrient criteria were necessary to meet the requirements of the CWA. U.S. EPA appealed, arguing that the decision was vested to the Agency's unreviewable discretion. The case is fully briefed, and the parties are awaiting a decision from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. Sierra Club v. Indiana Department of Environmental Management, Indiana Office of Environmental Adjudication, and Peabody Midwest Mining, LLC, Cause No. 49F12-1310-MI-17360 (Marion County Superior Court, Environmental Division, Court No. F12). 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, and oral argument was heard on April 30, 2013. The administrative law judge issued a decision on September 11, 2013. On October 10, 2013, ELPC attorneys filed an appeal of the decision of the Indiana Office of Environmental Adjudication regarding pollution discharges from the Bear Run Mine. The case was briefed, and oral argument was held on June 30, 2014. 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). |
| Form 990, Additional Disclosure (continued) | 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. ELPC attorneys presented oral arguments before the Iowa Supreme Court on October 9, 2013. The case was still awaiting decision as of June 30, 2014. Prairie Rivers Network, Natural Resources Defense Council, Sierra Club, Environmental Law & Policy Center, Friends of Chicago River, and Gulf Restoration Network v. Illinois Environmental Protection Agency and Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater Chicago (O'Brien Plant, Permit No. 28088), PCB 14-106 (Illinois Pollution Control Board); Prairie Rivers Network, Natural Resources Defense Council, Sierra Club, Environmental Law & Policy Center, Friends of Chicago River, and Gulf Restoration Network v. Illinois Environmental Protection Agency and Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater Chicago (Calumet Plant, Permit No. 28061), PCB 14-107 (Illinois Pollution Control Board); and Prairie Rivers Network, Natural Resources Defense Council, Sierra Club, Environmental Law & Policy Center, Friends of Chicago River, and Gulf Restoration Network v. Illinois Environmental Protection Agency and Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater Chicago (Stickney Plant, Permit No. 28053), PCB 14-108 (Illinois Pollution Control Board). ELPC and other petitioners initiated these third-party appeals of three NPDES permits issued to the Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater Chicago for operation of three of its Water Reclamation Plants. Separate petitions to the Illinois Pollution Control Board were filed on January 27, 2014, alleging similar deficiencies in each of the three permits issued by the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency. The cases were consolidated on March 6, 2014. A briefing schedule was established for the second half of 2014. 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 action 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 case has been stayed pending the resolution of the enforcement case in IPCB 10-61. 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 Gateway 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 was settled, and a motion for voluntary dismissal was filed on June 17, 2014. 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 attorneys, on behalf of ELPC, 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. In October 2013, the Illinois Pollution Control Board denied Midwest Generation's motion to dismiss, and in December 2013 the Bankruptcy Court lifted the stay as to the remainder of the groundwater contamination suit, allowing the suit to proceed before the Illinois Pollution Control Board. As of July 2014, discovery in that suit is underway. FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION CASES ELPC intervenes frequently in proceedings before the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) regarding transmission, reliability must-run, and wholesale market structure issues. In FY 2014, ELPC attorneys worked on the following cases: -Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc. submits tariff filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii): 2014-04-15 SA 6507 White Pine SSR Agreement to be effective 4/16/2014; FERC Docket ER14-1724. -Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc. submits tariff filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii): 2014-04-15_Schedule 43H - White Pine SSR; FERC Docket ER14-1725. -Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc. submits tariff filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii): 07-11-2013 SA 6502 Ameren-MISO SSR Agreement; FERC Docket ER13-1962-000. -Formal Complaint of FirstEnergy Service Company; FERC Docket EL14-55. -AmerenEnergy Resources Generating Company Formal Complaint and Request for Fast-Track Processing; FERC Docket EL13-76. -Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc. submits tariff filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii): 2014-01-31_SA 6506 Presque Isle SSR Agreement; FERC Docket ER14-1242. -Public Service Commission of Wisconsin Formal Complaint; FERC Docket EL14-34. STATE COURT CASES Iowa Supreme Court 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 filed a notice of appeal to the Iowa Supreme Court (No. 13-0642). ELPC filed its appellate brief August 19, 2013, and the parties finalized the appendix in September 2013. ELPC attorneys presented oral arguments before the Iowa Supreme Court on January 22, 2014. The case was still awaiting decision as of June 30, 2014. |
| Form 990, Additional Disclosure (continued) | 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. In the Matter of the Application of Champaign Wind, LLC, for a Certificate to Construct a Wind-Powered Electric Generating Facility in Champaign, Count, Ohio, No. 2013-1874 (Supreme Court of Ohio). ELPC, along with other environmental organizations, filed an amicus brief in support of the Ohio Power Siting Board's decision to approve the siting of the wind farm. ELPC argued that Ohio's renewable portfolio standard did not violate the dormant Commerce Clause. The Ohio Supreme Court has not yet set a date for oral argument or ruled on the case. -In the Matter of the Adoption of Rules for Alternative and Renewable Energy Technology, Resources, and Climate Regulations, and Review of Chapters 4901:5-1, 4901:5-5, and 4901:5-7 of the Ohio Administrative Code, Pursuant to Amended Substitute Senate Bill No. 221. Case no. 2013-1472 (Supreme Court of Ohio). -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; Case No. 13-2026. 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 2014, ELPC attorneys worked on the following cases: Illinois Commerce Commission -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. -Approval of the Energy Efficiency and Demand Response Plan Pursuant to Section 8-103(f) of the Public Utilities Act; Commonwealth Edison; Illinois Commerce Commission Docket No. 13-0495. -Approval of the Energy Efficiency and Demand-Response Plan pursuant to 220 ILCS 5/8-103 and 220 ILCS 5/8-104; Ameren Illinois Company; Illinois Commerce Commission Docket No. 13-0498. -Approval of its Energy Efficiency Portfolio and Plan Pursuant to Sections 8-103(e) and (f) and 8-104(e) and (f) of the Public Utilities Act; Illinois Department of Commerce and Economic Opportunity; Docket No. 13-0499. -Illinois Commerce Commission on Its Own Motion re: Investigation of Applicability of Sections 16.122 and 16.108 of the Public Utilities Act; Docket No. 13-0506. -Application pursuant to Section 8-104 of the Public Utilities Act for Consent to and Approval of an Energy Efficiency Plan; Northern Illinois Gas Company d/b/a Nicor Gas Company; Illinois Commerce Commission Docket No. 13-0549. -Petition pursuant to Section 8-104 of the Public Utilities Act to Submit an Energy Efficiency Plan; North Shore Gas Company and The Peoples Gas Light and Coke Company; Illinois Commerce Commission Docket No. 13-0550. -The Citizens Utility Board and The Environmental Law and Policy Center Petition to Initiate Rulemaking With notice and Comment for Approval of Certain Amendments to Illinois Administrative Code Part 466 Concerning Interconnection Standards for Distributed Generation; Docket No. 14-135 -Illinois Commerce Commission on Its Own Motion vs. Commonwealth Edison Company re. Investigation of Commonwealth Edison Company's cost of service for low-use customers in each residential class; Docket No. 14-0384 -Wisconsin Energy Corporation, Integrys Energy Group, Inc., Peoples Energy, LLC, The Peoples Gas Light and Coke Company, North Shore Gas Company, ATC Management Inc., and American Transmission Company LLC re: Application pursuant to Section 7-204 of the Public Utilities Act for authority to engage in a Reorganization, to enter into agreements with affiliated interests pursuant to Section 7-101, and for such other approvals as may be required under the Public Utilities Act to effectuate the Reorganization; Docket No. 14-0496. Iowa Utilities Board -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 Iowa Utilities Board issued a decision conditionally approving the generating station on November 8, 2013. -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. Environmental Intervenors participated in a partial settlement agreement to narrow the issues for hearing. ELPC participated in hearing on this docket the week of July 29, 2013. ELPC filed briefings in the case in August 2013. The Iowa Utilities Board issued a final order in this docket on December 2, 2013. The parties are moving forward with plan implementation and settlement items in accordance with the Board order. -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. Environmental Intervenors participated in a partial settlement agreement to narrow the issues for hearing. ELPC participated in hearing on this docket the week of August 28, 2013. ELPC filed briefings in September, 2013. The Iowa Utilities Board issued a final order in this docket on December 16, 2013. The parties are moving forward with plan implementation and settlement items in accordance with the Board order. -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. ELPC filed testimony on select issues. ELPC participated in a partial settlement agreement that addressed our main issues in the docket. ELPC participated in the hearing on this docket the week of December 2, 2013. The Iowa Utilities Board issued an order on March 17, 2014 approving the settlement and addressing other issues in the case. -In re: Interstate Power & Light Company; Docket No. EPB-2014-0150; ELPC intervened in Interstate Power & Light Company's (IPL) Emission Plan and Budget docket to advocate for the most effective compliance with environmental regulations including the Clean Power Plan. ELPC has participated in discovery. Settlement negotiations are ongoing. -In re: MidAmerican Energy Company; Docket No. EPB-2014-156; intervened in MidAmerican Energy Company's Emission Plan and Budget docket to advocate for the most effective compliance with environmental regulations including the Clean Power Plan. ELPC has participated in discovery. Settlement negotiations are ongoing. Michigan Public Service Commission -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. |
| Form 990, Additional Disclosure (continued) | Public Utilities Commission of Ohio -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. -In the Matter of Aligning Electric Distribution Utility Rate Structure with Ohio's Public Policies to Promote Competition, Energy Efficiency, and Distributed Generation; PUCO Case No. 10-3126. -In the Matter of the Ohio Power Siting Board's Review of Chapters 4906-1, 4906-5, 4906-7, 4906-11, 4906-13, 4906-15, and 4906-17 of the Ohio Administrative Code. PUCO Case No. 12-1981 -In the Matter of the Commission's Review of its Rules for Energy Efficiency Programs Contained in Chapter 4901:1-39 of the Ohio Administrative Code; PUCO Case No. 13-0651. -In the Matter of the Commission's Review of its Rules for the Alternative Energy Portfolio Standard Contained in Chapter 4901:1-40 of the Ohio Administrative Code; PUCO Case No. 13-0652. -In the Matter of the Annual Verification of the Energy Efficiency and Peak Demand Reductions Achieved by the Electric Distribution Utilities Pursuant to R.C. 4928.66; PUCO Case No. 13-1027. -In the Matter of the Energy Efficiency and Peak Demand Reduction Program Portfolio Status Report of Ohio Edison Company, The Cleveland Electric Illuminating Company and the Toledo Edison Company; PUCO Case No. 13-1185, 13-1186, 13-1187. -In the Matter of the Application of Ohio Power Company to Initiate Phase 2 of its gridSMART Project and to Establish the gridSMART Phase 2 Rider; PUCO Case No. 13-1939 -In the Matter of the Application of Ohio Power Company for Authority to Establish a Standard Service Offer Pursuant to section 4928.143, Revised Code, in the Form of an Electric Security Plan; PUCO Case No. 13-2385. -In the Matter of the Application of Ohio Power Company for Approval of Certain Accounting Authority; PUCO Case No. 13-2386. Public Service Commission of Wisconsin -Joint Application of American Transmission Company, LLC and Northern States Power Company-Wisconsin, as Electric Public Utilities, for Authority to Construct and Operate a New Badger-Coulee 345 kV Transmission Line from the La Crosse Area, in La Crosse County, to the Greater Madison Area in Dane County, Wisconsin; PSCW Docket No. 5-CE-142. -Application of Madison Gas and Electric Company for Authority to Change Electric and Natural Gas Rates; PSCW Docket No. 3270-UR-120. -Application of Wisconsin Public Service Corporation for Authority to Adjust Electric and Natural Gas Rates; PSCW Docket No. 6690-UR-123. -Joint Application of Wisconsin Electric Power Company and Wisconsin Gas LLC, both d/b/a We Energies, for Authority to Adjust Electric, Natural Gas, and Steam Rates; PSCW Docket No. 5-UR-107. South Dakota Public Utilities Commission -In the Matter of the Consideration of Standards to Govern Avoided Cost Determinations; SDPUC Docket No. RM13-002. TRANSPORTATION Openlands, et al. v. U.S. Department of Transportation, et al., No. 1:13-cv-04950 (United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois). ELPC attorneys represent three environmental organizations in a lawsuit against the United States Department of Transportation and related agencies and officials involving the proposed Illiana Corridor highway project in northern Illinois and Indiana. Plaintiffs filed their complaint on July 10, 2013, alleging that the Defendants violated the National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA) by approving the Tier 1 Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) and Record of Decision (ROD). Plaintiffs request that the Court declare the Defendants in violation of NEPA, reverse the FEIS and ROD, and enjoin the Defendants from using the FEIS and ROD in further proceedings. ELPC moved for summary judgment on April 22, 2014. The motion is fully briefed. Openlands, et al. v, Illinois Department of Transportation, et al., No. 2014-CH-06630 (Circuit Court of Cook County); No. 1:14-cv-03912 (United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois). ELPC attorneys represent two environmental organizations in a lawsuit against the Illinois Department of Transportation (IDOT) and two regional transportation planning agencies involving the proposed Illiana Corridor highway project in northern Illinois and Indiana. Plaintiffs filed their complaint on April 17, 2014, alleging that Defendants violated the Illinois Regional Planning Act (RPA) by carrying forward the project without prior approval by the Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning. On April 21, 2014, Plaintiffs filed a petition asking for permission to file an amended complaint adding a taxpayer count to the complaint. The court granted the petition on April 29, 2014, and Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint the same day. Plaintiffs request that the court declare the Defendants in violation of the RPA and enjoin IDOT from continuing to spend public funds on the proposed highway project. On May 28, 2014, IDOT removed the case to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. On June 16, 2014, ELPC moved to remand the case to state court. On August 6, 2014, the judge of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois issued an order remanding the case to the Circuit Court of Cook County. ELPC filed a Motion for Summary Judgment on August 18, 2014. The judge allowed limited factual discovery, which is ongoing. |
| 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 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 governing documents and financial statements are available upon request for the same period of disclosure as set forth in IRC Section 6104(d). |
| Form 990, Part XI, line 9: | Transfer of Net Assets 11,674. |
| Software ID: | |
| Software Version: |