Attach to Form 990 or Form 990-EZ.
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 listed in your governing document? | (v) Amount of monetary support (see instructions) | (vi) Amount of other support (see instructions) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yes | No | |||||
| Total | ||||||
Calendar year (or fiscal year beginning in) ![]() |
(a) 2010 | (b) 2011 | (c) 2012 | (d) 2013 | (e) 2014 | (f) Total | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Gifts, grants, contributions, and membership fees received. (Do not include any "unusual grants.") .... | 6,102,769 | 4,178,358 | 6,028,641 | 6,512,271 | 6,373,003 | 29,195,042 |
| 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 | 6,102,769 | 4,178,358 | 6,028,641 | 6,512,271 | 6,373,003 | 29,195,042 |
| 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).. | 6,798,005 | |||||
| 6 | Public support. Subtract line 5 from line 4. | 22,397,037 | |||||
Calendar year
(or fiscal year beginning in) ![]() |
(a) 2010 | (b) 2011 | (c) 2012 | (d) 2013 | (e) 2014 | (f) Total | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 7 | Amounts from line 4.. | 6,102,769 | 4,178,358 | 6,028,641 | 6,512,271 | 6,373,003 | 29,195,042 |
| 8 | Gross income from interest, dividends, payments received on securities loans, rents, royalties and income from similar sources... | 174,329 | 151,458 | 225,794 | 233,367 | 261,860 | 1,046,808 |
| 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 VI.).. | 7,589 | 7,589 | ||||
| 11 | Total support Add lines 7 through 10. | 30,249,439 | |||||
Calendar year (or fiscal year beginning in) ![]() |
(a) 2010 | (b) 2011 | (c) 2012 | (d) 2013 | (e) 2014 | (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) 2010 | (b) 2011 | (c) 2012 | (d) 2013 | (e) 2014 | (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 VI.) .. | ||||||
| 13 | Total support. (Add lines 9, 10c, 11, and 12.).. | ||||||
| Section A - Adjusted Net Income | (A) Prior Year |
(B) Current Year (optional) |
||||
| 1 | Net short-term capital gain | 1 | ||||
| 2 | Recoveries of prior-year distributions | 2 | ||||
| 3 | Other gross income (see instructions) | 3 | ||||
| 4 | Add lines 1 through 3 | 4 | ||||
| 5 | Depreciation and depletion | 5 | ||||
| 6 | Portion of operating expenses paid or incurred for production or collection of gross income or for management, conservation, or maintenance of property held for production of income (see instructions) | 6 | ||||
| 7 | Other expenses (see instructions) | 7 | ||||
| 8 | Adjusted Net Income (subtract lines 5, 6 and 7 from line 4) | 8 | ||||
| Section B - Minimum Asset Amount | (A) Prior Year |
(B) Current Year (optional) |
||||
| 1 | Aggregate fair market value of all non-exempt-use assets (see instructions for short tax year or assets held for part of year): | 1 | ||||
| a | Average monthly value of securities | 1a | ||||
| b | Average monthly cash balances | 1b | ||||
| c | Fair market value of other non-exempt-use assets | 1c | ||||
| d | Total (add lines 1a, 1b, and 1c) | 1d | ||||
| e | Discount claimed for blockage or other factors (explain in detail in Part VI): | |||||
| 2 | Acquisition indebtedness applicable to non-exempt use assets | 2 | ||||
| 3 | Subtract line 2 from line 1d | 3 | ||||
| 4 | Cash deemed held for exempt use. Enter 1-1/2% of line 3 (for greater amount, see instructions). | 4 | ||||
| 5 | Net value of non-exempt-use assets (subtract line 4 from line 3) | 5 | ||||
| 6 | Multiply line 5 by .035 | 6 | ||||
| 7 | Recoveries of prior-year distributions | 7 | ||||
| 8 | Minimum Asset Amount (add line 7 to line 6) | 8 | ||||
| Section C - Distributable Amount | Current Year | |||||
| 1 | Adjusted net income for prior year (from Section A, line 8, Column A) | 1 | ||||
| 2 | Enter 85% of line 1 | 2 | ||||
| 3 | Minimum asset amount for prior year (from Section B, line 8, Column A) | 3 | ||||
| 4 | Enter greater of line 2 or line 3 | 4 | ||||
| 5 | Income tax imposed in prior year | 5 | ||||
| 6 | Distributable Amount. Subtract line 5 from line 4, unless subject to emergency temporary reduction (see instructions) | 6 | ||||
| 7 | Check here if the current year is the organization's first as a non-functionally-integrated Type III supporting organization (see instructions) | |||||
| Section D - Distributions | Current Year | |
|---|---|---|
| 1 Amounts paid to supported organizations to accomplish exempt purposes | ||
|
2
Amounts paid to perform activity that directly furthers exempt purposes of supported organizations, in excess of income from activity |
||
| 3 Administrative expenses paid to accomplish exempt purposes of supported organizations | ||
| 4 Amounts paid to acquire exempt-use assets | ||
| 5 Qualified set-aside amounts (prior IRS approval required) | ||
| 6 Other distributions (describe in Part VI). See instructions | ||
| 7Total annual distributions. Add lines 1 through 6. | ||
|
8
Distributions to attentive supported organizations to which the organization is responsive (provide details in Part VI). See instructions |
||
| 9 Distributable amount for 2014 from Section C, line 6 | ||
| 10 Line 8 amount divided by Line 9 amount | ||
| Section E - Distribution Allocations (see instructions) |
(i) Excess Distributions |
(ii) Underdistributions Pre-2014 |
(iii) Distributable Amount for 2014 |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
1
Distributable amount for 2014 from Section C, line 6 |
||||
|
2
Underdistributions, if any, for years prior to 2014 (reasonable cause required--see instructions) |
||||
| 3 Excess distributions carryover, if any, to 2014: | ||||
| a From 2009.......X | ||||
| b From 2010.......X | ||||
| c From 2011.......X | ||||
| d From 2012.......X | ||||
| e From 2013....... | ||||
| fTotal of lines 3a through e | ||||
| g Applied to underdistributions of prior years | ||||
| h Applied to 2014 distributable amount | ||||
|
i
Carryover from 2009 not applied (see instructions) |
||||
| j Remainder. Subtract lines 3g, 3h, and 3i from 3f. | ||||
| 4Distributions for 2014 from Section D, line 7: | ||||
| $ | ||||
| a Applied to underdistributions of prior years | ||||
| b Applied to 2014 distributable amount | ||||
| c Remainder. Subtract lines 4a and 4b from 4. | ||||
|
5
Remaining underdistributions for years prior to 2014, if any. Subtract lines 3g and 4a from line 2 (if amount greater than zero, see instructions) |
||||
|
6
Remaining underdistributions for 2014. Subtract lines 3h and 4b from line 1 (if amount greater than zero, see instructions) |
||||
|
7 Excess distributions carryover to 2015. Add lines 3j and 4c. |
||||
| 8 Breakdown of line 7: | ||||
| a From 2010.......X | ||||
| b From 2011.......X | ||||
| c From 2012.......X | ||||
| d From 2013....... | ||||
| e From 2014....... | ||||
| Facts And Circumstances Test |
|---|
| Return Reference | Explanation |
|---|---|
| Schedule A, Part II, Line 10, Explanation of Other Income: | Miscellaneous Revenue - 2014 Amount: $ 7,589. |
| 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 2015 (July 1, 2014 - June 30, 2015). Unless otherwise noted, court-awarded fees were not recovered in any of these cases during FY 2015. CLEAN AIR 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 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 remains active. 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. On August 20, 2014, the Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court's decision. Fees in the amount of $100.10 were awarded to Defendants. 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. Briefing took place from June 2014 to January 2015, and oral argument was held on February 12, 2015. 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. The U.S. District Court 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. On April 7, 2015 the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit vacated the order of the district court and remanded the case for further proceedings in the district court. The case is pending before the district court. 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. No decision was issued in FY2015. 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. ELPC attorneys presented oral arguments before the Iowa Supreme Court on October 9, 2013. On July 11, 2014 the Iowa Supreme Court issued an order affirming the district court and dismissing the Farm Bureau's appeal. The case is now closed. 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. The case was briefed between July and October 2014. IPCB issued its decision granting summary judgment in favor of Respondents on December 18, 2014. The matter was subsequently appeale |
| Form 990, Additional Disclosure Continued: | 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 coalmine 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. Settlement discussions are ongoing, but short of an agreement penalties will be assessed following a penalty hearing in the future. 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. 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. ENERGY 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 2015, ELPC attorneys worked on the following cases: -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. -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. FEDERAL ENERGY CASES -Michigan Public Service Commission v. FERC; DC Circuit Court of Appeals Case No 15-1049 -Tilden Mining Company v. FERC; DC Circuit Court of Appeals Case No 15-1053 STATE COURT ENERGY 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. On July 11, 2014, the Iowa Supreme Court issued an order affirming the decision of the district court and dismissing the IUB's appeal. The case is now closed. 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. ELPC filed a merits brief in support of rules regarding accounting for savings from utility energy efficiency programs issued by the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio. 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 ELPC appealed a decision by the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio granting trade secret protection to information regarding FirstEnergy purchases of renewable energy credits. The Ohio Supreme Court has not yet set a date for oral argument or ruled on 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 2015, ELPC attorneys worked on the following cases: |
| Form 990, Additional Disclosure Continued: | Illinois Commerce Commission -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. 14-0135 -Application for an Order Granting Grain Belt Express Clean Line LLC a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity pursuant to Section 8-406.1 of the Public Utilities Act to Construct, Operate and Maintain a High Voltage Electric Service Transmission Line and to Conduct a Transmission Public Utility Business in Connection Therewith and Authorizing Grain Belt Express Clean Line Pursuant to Section 8-503 and 8-406.1(i) of the Public Utilities Act to Construct the High Voltage Electric Transmission Line; Docket No 15-0277 -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 -Petition for Approval of the 2015 IPA Procurement Plan pursuant to Section 16- 111.5(d)(4) of the Public Utilities Act; Docket 14-0588 -Petition for Approval of the IPA's Supplemental Procurement Plan pursuant to Section 1-56(i) of the Illinois Power Agency Act; Docket 14-0651 -Amendment of 83 Ill. Adm. Code 465; Docket 15-0273 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: 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. On January 16, 2015, the parties filed a joint settlement agreement. On March 23, 2015, the Board issued an order approving the settlement. The parties are currently moving forward with implementation of the settlement. -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. On January 8, 2015, the parties filed a joint settlement agreement. On March 12, 2015 the Board issued an order approving the settlement. The parties are currently moving forward with implementation of the settlement. -In re: Interstate Power & Light Company; Docket No. WRU-2014-0011-0150; ELPC intervened in Interstate Power & Light Company's (IPL) request for a waiver related to the Board's interconnection standards. On September 3, 2014, the Board granted the waiver. -Distributed Generation Inquiry; Docket No. NOI-2014-0001; ELPC intervened to defend net metering and promote other policies to support solar and distributed generation. Michigan Public Service Commission -In the matter of the application of Consumers Energy Company for authority to amend its renewable energy plan; Docket U-17752 -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 295 of 2008; Docket U-17792 -In the matter of the application of CONSUMERS ENERGY COMPANY for ex parte approval of a solar distributed generation pilot program; Docket U-17875 -In the matter of the application of DTE ELECTRIC COMPANY for authority to increase its rates, amend its rate schedules and rules governing the distribution and supply of electric energy, and for miscellaneous accounting authority; Docket U-17767 Minnesota Public Utilities Commission -In the Matter of Xcel Energy's Plan for a Community Solar Garden Program Pursuant to Minn. Stat. 216B.1641; Docket Number: E002/M-13-867 -In the Matter of the Further Investigation into Environmental and Socioeconomic Costs Under Minn. Stat. 216B.2422, subd. 3; Docket Number: E999/CI-14-643 -In the Matter of a Commission Inquiry into Fees Charged on Qualifying Facilities; Docket Number: E999/CI-15-755 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 this case, the PUCO approved an Electric Security Plan proposed by FirstEnergy. ELPC has a pending appeal of this case before the Ohio Supreme Court. -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 ELPC filed comments in opposition to an application by FirstEnergy to suspend most of its energy efficiency programs pursuant to Senate Bill 310. The PUCO granted FirstEnergy's application, and the docket remains open while FirstEnergy administers its remaining programs. -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 ELPC participated in Duke's proceeding for approval of its portfolio of energy efficiency programs. The portfolio was approved and the docket remains open while Duke administers its programs. -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 ELPC participated in Dayton Power & Light's proceeding for approval of its portfolio of energy efficiency programs. The portfolio was approved and the docket remains open while Dayton Power & Light administers its programs. -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 this case the PUCO reviewed renewable energy credit procurements by FirstEnergy. ELPC has a pending appeal of this case before the Ohio Supreme Court. -In the Matter of the Commission's Investigation of Ohio's Retail Electric Service Market; PUCO Case No. 12-3151-EL-COI This is a docket opened by the PUCO to investigate potential improvements to Ohio's competitive retail electricity market, in which ELPC offered comments. The final order in the case was issued in May 2014, but the docket remains open during implementation of certain aspects of the order. |
| Form 990, Additional Disclosure Continued: | -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. Ohio Power Siting Board Case No. 12-1981 Rulemaking docket seeking stakeholder input on potential revisions to Ohio Power Siting Board rules for approval of transmission projects, as well as siting of wind projects in the wake of amendments to state law requiring setbacks for wind turbines. ELPC offered comments regarding the transmission siting rules, which were incorporated in part in an OPSB order issued in February 2014. The issues regarding wind setbacks were still pending as of June 2015. -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 Rulemaking docket seeking stakeholder input on PUCO rules regarding utility energy efficiency programs and renewable energy requirements. ELPC offered comments proposing a number of revisions to the rules. The case is still pending in light of intervening revisions to Ohio's energy efficiency and renewable energy laws. -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 Docket regarding the report of the PUCO's independent evaluator on the 2011 Ohio utility energy efficiency programs. ELPC submitted comments about potential improvements to the report in future years. The PUCO has not yet issued an order approving the report. -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 Docket for the filing of FirstEnergy's annual report on its 2012 energy efficiency programs. ELPC filed comments criticizing certain aspects of the report. There has not been any final order in the case. -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 AEP application to continue deployment of smart grid technology in its service territory. ELPC submitted comments encouraging the implementation of cost-effective technologies such as Volt/VAR and expanded reporting by AEP on the results of its efforts. The case is still pending. -In the Matter of the Application of Ohio Power Company for Authority to Establish a Standard Service Offer Pursuant to 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 AEP application for an Electric Security Plan for 2015-2018. ELPC participated at hearing and submitted post-hearing briefing opposing PUCO approval of a power purchase agreement that would require customers to bear the costs of AEP's ownership stake in two Ohio Valley Electric Corporation coal plants. The PUCO rejected that portion of AEP's proposal in a February 25, 2015 order, but approved a placeholder rider allowing for such power purchase agreements to be proposed in the future. That decision is currently pending rehearing. -In the matter of the application of Duke Energy Ohio, Inc. for Recovery of Program Costs, Lost Distribution Revenue and Performance Incentives Related to its Energy Efficiency and Demand Response Programs; PUCO Case No. 14-457 Duke filing seeking cost recovery related to its energy efficiency and demand reduction programs. ELPC sought late intervention after the PUCO issued a May 2015 order disapproving Duke's method of calculating shared savings incentive payments, providing our view of the agreed upon incentive mechanism without taking a position on the issue. -In the matter of the application 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 Authority; PUCO Case No. 14-841; In the Matter of the Application of Duke Energy Ohio for or Authority to Amend its Certified Supplier Tariff, P.U.C.O. No. 20; PUCO Case No. 14-842 Duke application for an Electric Security Plan for 2015-2018. ELPC participated at hearing and submitted post-hearing briefing opposing PUCO approval of a power purchase agreement that would require customers to bear the costs of Duke's ownership stake in two Ohio Valley Electric Corporation coal plants. The PUCO rejected that portion of Duke's proposal in a February 25, 2015 decision, which is currently pending rehearing. -In the Matter of the Amendment of Chapters 4901:1-10 and 4901:1-21, Ohio Administrative Code, Regarding Electric Companies and Competitive Retail Electric Service, to Implement 2014 Sub.S.B. No. 310; PUCO Case No. 14-1411 Rulemaking docket to implement 2014 law requiring utilities to disclose the costs of compliance with state energy efficiency and renewable portfolio standards. ELPC coordinated with other environmental groups to provide comments seeking a full disclosure of the costs and benefits of the standards. The PUCO issued an order in December 2014 that required the disclosure only of the costs of the standards, which was pending rehearing as of June 2015. -In the Matter of the Application of Duke Energy Ohio, Inc. for Approval to Continue Cost Recovery Mechanism for Energy Efficiency Programs through 2016; PUCO Case No. 14-1580 Duke application pursuant to a prior stipulation to extend the shared savings cost recovery mechanism for its energy efficiency programs, set to expire at the end of 2015, through 2016. ELPC provided comments regarding the intent of the prior stipulation, to which ELPC was a signatory, but did not take a position regarding Duke's application. The PUCO scheduled a hearing on the issue for July 7, 2015. -In the Matter of the Application 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 R.C. 4928.143 in the Form of an Electric Security Plan; PUCO Case No. 14-1297 FirstEnergy application for approval of a 2016-2019 Electric Security Plan, including a proposal to purchase power at ratepayer expense from three coal plants and a nuclear plant owned by its unregulated generation affiliate. ELPC has participated as a party opposing the power purchase agreement and certain energy efficiency programs proposed by stipulation outside of the existing portfolio planning process. As of June 2015, hearing in the case was scheduled for July 2015. -In the Matter of the Application Seeking Approval of Ohio Power Company's Proposal to Enter into an Affiliate Power Purchase Agreement for Inclusion in the Power Purchase Agreement Rider; PUCO Case No. 14-1693; In the Matter of the Application of Ohio Power Company for Approval of Certain Accounting Authority; PUCO Case No. 14-1694 AEP application for approval of an agreement to purchase power from a number of coal plant units owned by its unregulated generation affiliate in Ohio at ratepayer expense, with similar treatment for its ownership interest in two Ohio Valley Electric Corporation plants. ELPC intervened in the case to oppose the agreement. A hearing date had not yet been set as of June 2015. -In the Matter of the Joint Application of Ohio Power Company and Solvay Specialty Polymers for Approval of a Special Arrangement Agreement; PUCO Case No. 14-2296; In the Matter of the Joint Application of Ohio Power Company and Kraton Polymers U.S. LLC for Approval of a Special Arrangement Agreement; PUCO Case No. 14-2304 Related AEP filings seeking PUCO approval of incentive payments for two combined heat and power projects under AEP's energy efficiency portfolio plan. ELPC coordinated with other environmental groups to file comments supporting the application but seeking certain modifications. The applications were still pending as of June 2015. -In the Matter of the Commission's Review of Chapter 4901:1-10, Ohio Administrative Code, Regarding Electric Companies; PUCO Case No. 12-2050 PUCO rulemaking docket reviewing certain rules, including net metering rules. ELPC offered comments in the initial rulemaking process, which resulted in final rule supportive of distributed generation. However, the PUCO withdrew that rule before it took effect and in March 2015 reopened the docket to revisit the net metering provisions. ELPC participated in a May 2015 workshop and offered comments in support of the original version of the rule. Public Service Commission of Wisconsin |
| Form 990, Additional Disclosure Continued: | -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 -Application of Wisconsin Public Service Corporation for Authority to Adjust Electric and Natural Gas Rates; PSCW Docket No. 6690-UR-124 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 by approving the Tier 1 Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) and Record of Decision (ROD). On June 16, 2015, the District Court granted Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment and declared that the Defendants violated the National Environmental Policy Act in approving its FEIS and ROD. The Court remanded the Tier 1 FEIS and ROD to the agencies for proceedings consistent with the judgment. The deadline for appeal is August 17, 2015. ELPC may request and receive attorney fees and costs. 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. Openlands, et al. v. U.S. Department of Transportation, et al., No. 1:15-cv-04529 (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 May 21, 2015, alleging that the Defendants violated the National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA) by approving the Tier 2 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. Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on June 24, 2015 to reflect the fact that the Northern District of Illinois declared the Tier 1 FEIS and ROD invalid. Defendants' Answers are due on August 10, 2015. Department of Transportation, et al. v. Association of American Railroads, U.S. Supreme Court, No. 13-1080, USDOT v. Assn. of Amer. Railroads, 2015 U.S. Lexis 1713 (U.S. March 9, 2015) In August 2014, the Solicitor General of the United States, on behalf of the Department of Transportation, sought Supreme Court review of the July 2, 2013 decision by the District Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, vacating Section 207 of the Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008, (PRIIA), 49 U.S.C. 24101, as unconstitutional. Section 207 of PRIIA involves metrics and standards of performance for passenger rail service promulgated by the Federal Railroad Administration. The Association of American Railroads brought the case against the Department of Transportation challenging the validity of those standards. In August 2014, attorneys representing ELPC, the National Association of Railroad Passengers, All Aboard Ohio and Virginians for High Speed Rail filed an amicus brief in the case supporting the constitutionality of Section 207. On March 9, 2015, the Supreme Court unanimously vacated the lower court decision finding that Section 207 was constitutional and remanded it back to the court of appeals for further proceedings. NATURAL RESOURCES Herr et al v. United States Forest Service et al., No. 2:14-cv-00105 (United States District Court, Western District of Michigan) ELPC represented interveners Sylvania Wilderness Cabins, Timothy Schmidt, Friends of Sylvania, and the Upper Peninsula Environmental Coalition in defending a challenge to Forest Service regulations prohibiting motorboat usage in the Sylvania Wilderness. ELPC filed a motion to intervene on July 25, 2014 and was granted intervention on August 14, 2014. On September 2, 2014, ELPC filed a responsive motion supporting the Forest Service's motion to dismiss the case and preserve the wilderness regulations and responding to Plaintiffs' arguments to the contrary. On September 24, 2014, the District Court granted the motion to dismiss. Plaintiffs appealed that decision on October 27, 2014. Herr et al. v United States Forest Service et al., No. 14-2381 (United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit) ELPC represents Sylvania Wilderness Cabins, Timothy Schmidt, Friends of Sylvania, and the Upper Peninsula Environmental Coalition in defending the district court's decision to dismiss the lower court case. ELPC filed an appellate brief on March 13, 2015. Oral argument is scheduled for August 4, 2015. |
| 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 140,900. |
| Software ID: | |
| Software Version: |