Attach to Form 990 or Form 990-EZ.
Go to
www.irs.gov/Form990 for instructions and the latest information.
| (i) Name of supported organization | (ii) EIN | (iii) Type of organization (described on lines 1- 10 above (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) 2015 | (b) 2016 | (c) 2017 | (d) 2018 | (e) 2019 | (f) Total | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Gifts, grants, contributions, and membership fees received. (Do not include any "unusual grant.") .. | 210,257 | 206,468 | 170,824 | 149,935 | 188,653 | 926,137 |
| 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 | 210,257 | 206,468 | 170,824 | 149,935 | 188,653 | 926,137 |
| 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 | Public support. Subtract line 5 from line 4. | 926,137 | |||||
Calendar year
(or fiscal year beginning in) ![]() |
(a) 2015 | (b) 2016 | (c) 2017 | (d) 2018 | (e) 2019 | (f) Total | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 7 | Amounts from line 4.. | 210,257 | 206,468 | 170,824 | 149,935 | 188,653 | 926,137 |
| 8 | Gross income from interest, dividends, payments received on securities loans, rents, royalties and income from similar sources... | 39,345 | 43,328 | 85,650 | 52,674 | 43,173 | 264,170 |
| 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.).. | ||||||
| 11 | Total support. Add lines 7 through 10 | 1,190,307 | |||||
Calendar year (or fiscal year beginning in) ![]() |
(a) 2015 | (b) 2016 | (c) 2017 | (d) 2018 | (e) 2019 | (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) 2015 | (b) 2016 | (c) 2017 | (d) 2018 | (e) 2019 | (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 | ||||
| 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 2019 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-2019 |
(iii) Distributable Amount for 2019 |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 Distributable amount for 2019 from Section C, line 6 | ||||
|
2
Underdistributions, if any, for years prior to 2019 (reasonable cause required-- explain in Part VI). See instructions. |
||||
| 3 Excess distributions carryover, if any, to 2019: | ||||
| a From 2014....... | ||||
| b From 2015....... | ||||
| c From 2016....... | ||||
| d From 2017....... | ||||
| e From 2018....... | ||||
| fTotal of lines 3a through e | ||||
| g Applied to underdistributions of prior years | ||||
| h Applied to 2019 distributable amount | ||||
|
i
Carryover from 2014 not applied (see instructions) |
||||
| j Remainder. Subtract lines 3g, 3h, and 3i from 3f. | ||||
| 4Distributions for 2019 from Section D, line 7: | ||||
| $ | ||||
| a Applied to underdistributions of prior years | ||||
| b Applied to 2019 distributable amount | ||||
| c Remainder. Subtract lines 4a and 4b from 4. | ||||
|
5
Remaining underdistributions for years prior to 2019, if any. Subtract lines 3g and 4a from line 2. If the amount is greater than zero, explain in Part VI. See instructions. |
||||
|
6
Remaining underdistributions for 2019. Subtract lines 3h and 4b from line 1. If the amount is greater than zero, explain in Part VI. See instructions. |
||||
|
7 Excess distributions carryover to 2020. Add lines 3j and 4c. |
||||
| 8 Breakdown of line 7: | ||||
| a Excess from 2015..... | ||||
| b Excess from 2016..... | ||||
| c Excess from 2017..... | ||||
| d Excess from 2018..... | ||||
| e Excess from 2019..... | ||||
| Facts And Circumstances Test |
|---|
| Return Reference | Explanation |
|---|
| Software ID: | |
| Software Version: |
Attach to Form 990 or 990-EZ.
Go to www.irs.gov/Form990 for the latest information.
| Return Reference | Explanation |
|---|---|
| FORM 990, PART VI, SECTION A, LINE 8B | THERE WERE NO SUCH COMMITTEES WITHIN THE ORGANIZATION DURING FISCAL YEAR 2020. |
| FORM 990, PART VI, SECTION B, LINE 11B | THE FORM 990 IS PREPARED BY AN INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTING FIRM AND REVIEWED BY STAFF PRIOR TO ITS FILING. THE BOARD RECEIVES A COPY OF THE FORM 990 TO REVIEW AND RAISE ANY QUESTIONS WITH THE ORGANIZATION'S STAFF AND ACCOUNTANTS. |
| FORM 990, PART VI, SECTION B, LINE 12C | 1. ANY OFFICER, DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT HEAD OR OTHER SENIOR MANAGEMENT WITH SUBSTANTIAL INFLUENCE OVER THE ORGANIZATION MUST DISCLOSE TO THE ORGANIZATION ANY FINANCIAL INTEREST, DIRECT OR INDIRECT, THAT HE/SHE WOULD GAIN FROM ANY TRANSACTION, CONTRACT, OR POLICY THE ORGANIZATION IS CONSIDERING ENTERING INTO OR ADOPTING. 2. IN INSTANCES WHERE ANY OFFICER, DIRECTOR, OR INDIVIDUAL WITH SUBSTANTIAL INFLUENCE OVER THE ORGANIZATION WOULD OBTAIN A DIRECT OR INDIRECT FINANCIAL INTEREST FROM A TRANSACTION OR CONTRACT ENTERED INTO WITH THE ORGANIZATION OR FROM A POLICY ADOPTED BY THE ORGANIZATION, THE FOLLOWING PROCEDURES SHALL APPLY: (A) A MEETING (EITHER IN PERSON OR VIA TELEPHONE) OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE ORGANIZATION SHALL BE CONVENED; (B) THE INTERESTED PERSON WILL RELATE THE NATURE OF THE PROPOSED TRANSACTION, CONTRACT, OR POLICY AND SHALL DISCLOSE HIS/HER FINANCIAL INTEREST TO THE BOARD, AND THEN SHALL ABSENT HIMSELF/HERSELF FROM THE MEETING; (C) THE BOARD SHALL UNDERTAKE CONSIDERATION AND DISCUSSION OF THE PROPOSED TRANSACTION, CONTRACT, OR POLICY IN THE ABSENCE OF THE INTERESTED PERSON; (D) THE BOARD SHALL OBTAIN DATA CONCERNING ALTERNATIVES TO ENTERING INTO SAID CONTRACT OR TRANSACTION, OR ADOPTING SAID POLICY AND COMPARE THE ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED TRANSACTION, CONTRACT OR POLICY; (E) THE BOARD SHALL VOTE TO APPROVE THE PROPOSED TRANSACTION, CONTRACT, OR POLICY ONLY AFTER HAVING ARRIVED AT A DETERMINATION THAT SUCH IS FAIR IN RELATION TO THE FEASIBLE ALTERNATIVES AND IS IN THE BEST INTERESTS OF THE ORGANIZATION; (F) ONLY A TWO-THIRDS (2/3) VOTE OF THE DISINTERESTED MEMBERS OF THE BOARD SHALL BE SUFFICIENT TO APPROVE SUCH AN INTERESTED TRANSACTION, CONTRACT, OR POLICY. THE INTERESTED PERSON SHALL NOT BE PRESENT FOR OR PARTICIPATE IN THE VOTE; (G) MINUTES SHALL BE PREPARED AND MAINTAINED CONCERNING THE BOARD'S REVIEW, DISCUSSION, AND VOTE REGARDING THE PROPOSED TRANSACTION, CONTRACT, OR POLICY. 3. THE ORGANIZATION SHALL MAINTAIN A LIST OF EVERY TRANSACTION, CONTRACT, OR POLICY FROM WHICH ANY OFFICER, DIRECTOR, OR INDIVIDUAL WHO EXERCISES SUBSTANTIAL INFLUENCE OVER THE CORPORATION GAINS ANY FINANCIAL BENEFIT, WHETHER DIRECT OR INDIRECT. |
| FORM 990, PART VI, SECTION B, LINE 15 | THE INDEPENDENT COMPENSATION COMMITTEE WILL ESTABLISH ACCEPTABLE COMPENSATION PACKAGES AFTER REVIEWING AT LEAST ONE OF THE FOLLOWING: 1) INFORMATION ABOUT COMPENSATION PAID BY SIMILARLY SITUATED TAX-EXEMPT ORGANIZATIONS FOR SIMILAR SERVICES; 2) CURRENT COMPENSATION SURVEYS COMPILED BY INDEPENDENT FIRMS;3) ACTUAL WRITTEN OFFERS FROM SIMILARLY SITUATED ORGANIZATIONS. THE COMPENSATION COMMITTEE MAINTAINS CONTEMPORANEOUS WRITTEN DOCUMENTATION OF THE DECISION MAKING PROCESS. |
| FORM 990, PART VI, SECTION C, LINE 19 | NO DOCUMENTS AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC EXCEPT THOSE REQUIRED BY IRS REGULATIONS. |
| FORM 990, PART IX, LINE 11G | OTHER CONSULTANTS: PROGRAM SERVICE EXPENSES 83,395. MANAGEMENT AND GENERAL EXPENSES 22,587. FUNDRAISING EXPENSES 20,677. TOTAL EXPENSES 126,659. PAYROLL PROCESSING FEES: PROGRAM SERVICE EXPENSES 0. MANAGEMENT AND GENERAL EXPENSES 856. FUNDRAISING EXPENSES 0. TOTAL EXPENSES 856. |
| FORM 990, PART III, PUBLIC INTEREST LAW FIRM CASE LIST | I. FEDERAL ENVIRONMENTAL "CITIZEN SUIT" ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF CASES: A NUMBER OF FEDERAL ENVIRONMENTAL STATUTES AUTHORIZE AFFECTED CITIZENS TO BRING ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS DIRECTLY AGAINST PARTIES WHO VIOLATE CERTAIN ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARDS. TO BRING SUCH ACTION, THE CITIZEN MUST FIRST GIVE A FORMAL NOTICE OF THE INTENT TO BRING SUCH A LAWSUIT (DETAILING THE ALLEGED VIOLATIONS) TO THE VIOLATING PARTY, THE FEDERAL ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY ("EPA"), AND THE APPROPRIATE STATE ENVIRONMENTAL AGENCY, AND USUALLY CANNOT FILE SUIT THEREAFTER UNTIL THE EXPIRATION OF A NOTICE PERIOD (USUALLY 60 DAYS) PRESCRIBED BY THE STATUTE. IF THE STATE OR FEDERAL GOVERNMENT FILES SUIT FIRST AGAINST THE ALLEGED VIOLATOR FOR THE SAME VIOLATIONS, THE CITIZEN IS BARRED FROM FILING SUIT IF THE GOVERNMENT DILIGENTLY PROSECUTES ITS SUIT. THE CITIZEN LAWSUIT, WHEN AND IF FILED, IS BROUGHT IN THE APPROPRIATE FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT. NELC REPRESENTS INDIVIDUAL CITIZENS AND NON-PROFIT ORGANIZATIONS IN SUCH LAWSUITS. PUBLIC BENEFIT: THE PUBLIC WILL BENEFIT FROM A DECREASE IN POLLUTION AND/OR AN INCREASE IN ENVIRONMENTAL OR PUBLIC HEALTH AMENITIES.FEE SOUGHT: FEES AND COSTS ARE SOUGHT, AS PROVIDED BY STATUTE, IN APPROPRIATE CASES. CASES FILED OR ONGOING IN FY 2020 CASES WERE FILED UNDER THE CLEAN WATER ACT, 33 U.S.C. SECTION 1251, ET SEQ., UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED.(1) CITY OF NEWPORT AND EARTH TECH, INC. (NEWPORT, RI)NOTICE LETTER SENT MARCH 12, 2008; COMPLAINT FILED JULY 16, 2008, ON BEHALF OF ENVIRONMENT RHODE ISLAND AND FOUR NEWPORT RESIDENTS ("THE CITIZEN PLAINTIFFS"). EARTH TECH HAD BEEN A CONTRACT OPERATOR OF THE CITY'S SEWER AND STORM WATER SYSTEMS, BUT CEASED THIS WORK SHORTLY AFTER THE COMPLAINT WAS FILED. ON APRIL 15, 2010, THE COURT DISMISSED EARTH TECH (AND ITS SUCCESSOR, AECOM TECHNICAL SERVICES, INC.) FROM THE ACTION IN ACCORDANCE WITH A SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE PLAINTIFFS AND EARTH TECH/AECOM. UNDER THE TERMS OF THAT AGREEMENT, AECOM PAID: (A) $99,000 TO THE CITY TO HELP FUND A SURFACE WATER QUALITY MONITORING PROGRAM TO ADDRESS SEWAGE OVERFLOWS AND/OR STORM WATER DISCHARGES; AND (B) $180,000 TO PLAINTIFFS' ATTORNEYS ($130,000 TO NELC AND $50,000 TO CO-COUNSEL) FOR ALL ATTORNEY FEES, EXPERT WITNESS FEES, AND OTHER COURT COSTS INCURRED THROUGH THAT DATE. ON SEPTEMBER 2, 2010, THE COURT GRANTED THE (UNOPPOSED) MOTION BY THE UNITED STATES AND THE STATE OF RHODE ISLAND TO INTERVENE IN THE CASE AS CO-PLAINTIFFS. AFTER EXTENSIVE NEGOTIATIONS, ALL PARTIES AGREED TO THE WORDING OF A CONSENT DECREE, WHICH WAS ENTERED BY THE COURT ON OCTOBER 18, 2011. UNDER THE DECREE, THE CITY: (A) MUST IMPLEMENT A DETAILED SET OF REMEDIAL MEASURES (INCLUDING STORM SEWER SEPARATION; REDUCTION OF INFLOW AND INFILTRATION; TREATMENT PLANT OPTIMIZATION; AND SEWER LINE UPGRADES) ACCORDING TO A SPECIFIED SCHEDULE, WITH FULL COMPLIANCE (WITH A PREFERENCE FOR THE ELIMINATION OF ALL OVERFLOWS) TO BE ACHIEVED BY JUNE 30, 2018; (B) MUST ENCOURAGE LOW IMPACT DEVELOPMENT AS A MEANS OF MEETING THESE REQUIREMENTS; (C) MUST COMPLY WITH THE RHODE ISLAND STORMWATER DESIGN AND INSTALLATION STANDARDS MANUAL, AND GIVE PREFERENCE TO LOW IMPACT DEVELOPMENT AS SPECIFIED THEREIN; (D) MUST INSTALL AND OPERATE A TREATMENT SYSTEM FOR STORM WATER DISCHARGED FROM THE CITY'S STORM WATER MOAT TO EASTON'S BAY, AND MEET SPECIFIED WATER QUALITY TARGETS WITH SUCH DISCHARGE; (E) MUST PURCHASE AND DISTRIBUTE A MINIMUM OF 500 RAIN BARRELS FOR USE AS A MEANS OF COLLECTING RAIN WATER FOR USE IN PUBLIC AND/OR PRIVATE BUILDINGS AND DWELLINGS, AND CONDUCT AN EDUCATIONAL CAMPAIGN PROMOTING THE USE OF RAIN BARRELS TO REDUCE STORM WATER RUNOFF; (F) CREATED A CITIZEN ADVISORY BOARD TO TRACK COMPLIANCE WITH THE CONSENT DECREE; (G) PAID A $170,000 CIVIL PENALTY ($85,000 TO THE UNITED STATES AND $85,000 TO THE STATE OF RHODE ISLAND); AND (H) PAID $70,000 TO CITIZEN PLAINTIFFS' ATTORNEYS ($52,698.38 TO NELC AND $17,301.62 TO CO-COUNSEL) FOR ATTORNEY FEES, EXPERT WITNESS FEES, AND OTHER COURT COSTS INCURRED AFTER APRIL 15, 2010. AFTER PERFORMING AND SUBMITTING FOR EPA AND RHODE ISLAND DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT (DEM) REVIEW A SERIES OF STUDIES EVALUATING THE STEPS NECESSARY TO SEPARATE ITS STORM WATER AND SEWER SYSTEM AND UPGRADE ITS WASTEWATER TREATMENT SYSTEM, THE CITY PRESENTED A SET OF OPTIONS TO A CITIZEN REVIEW PANEL (WHICH INCLUDED ONE OF THE CITIZEN PLAINTIFFS FROM THIS CASE), AND THE CITIZEN PANEL RECOMMENDED AN OPTION THAT WOULD EVENTUALLY END ALMOST ALL SEWAGE OVERFLOWS, BUT WOULD (FOR A COMBINATION OF COST-RELATED AND ENGINEERING CONSIDERATIONS) EXTEND THE DATE FOR FULL COMPLIANCE BY 15 YEARS, TO 2033. AFTER ALMOST TWO YEARS OF NEGOTIATIONS, IN WHICH THE CITIZEN PLAINTIFFS INSISTED ON INTERIM COMPLIANCE BENCHMARKS AND INCREASED EMPHASIS ON STORM WATER CONTROL, THE PARTIES AGREED TO A CONSENT DECREE REVISION, ENTERED AS AN ORDER OF THE COURT IN APRIL 2016, THAT (A) EXTENDS THE FINAL COMPLIANCE DATE UNTIL 2033; (B) SETS A COMPLIANCE GOAL OF ELIMINATING 100% OF SEWAGE OVERFLOWS AT THE CITY'S WELLINGTON AVENUE OUTFALL, AND 98% OF THE OVERFLOWS AT THE WASHINGTON STREET OUTFALL, FOR ALL STORMS UP TO AND INCLUDING A 10-YEAR, 6-HOUR STORM EVENT; (C) REQUIRES SIGNIFICANT UPGRADES TO THE CITY'S WASTEWATER TREATMENT SYSTEM AND SEWAGE PUMPING SYSTEM BY 2019; (D) SETS INTERIM BENCHMARKS OF AN APPROXIMATELY 95% REDUCTION IN SEWAGE OVERFLOW BY 2019; (E) REQUIRES THE USE OF GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE AND WATER QUALITY MONITORING TO IDENTIFY AND ADDRESS STORM WATER ISSUES THAT ARISE BECAUSE OF THE SEPARATION OF THE STORM WATER SYSTEM; AND (F) REQUIRED THE CITY TO PAY $10,000 IN ATTORNEYS' FEES TO NELC FOR REPRESENTING THE CITIZEN PLAINTIFFS IN THE NEGOTIATIONS. NELC IS MONITORING PERFORMANCE UNDER THE REVISED DECREE. (2) EXXON/MOBIL CORPORATION (BAYTOWN, TX) (CLEAN AIR ACT)-NOTICE LETTER SENT NOVEMBER 30, 2009, ON BEHALF OF ENVIRONMENT TEXAS AND SIERRA CLUB; SUPPLEMENTAL NOTICE LETTER SENT JULY 2, 2010; COMPLAINT FILED DECEMBER 2010; MOTION TO DISMISS DENIED IN JUNE 2011. DISCOVERY WAS TAKEN IN THE SPRING OF 2012; CROSS MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND TO EXCLUDE CERTAIN EXPERT TESTIMONY WERE FILED ON AUGUST 10, 2012; PLAINTIFFS' SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION WAS DENIED IN FULL IN NOVEMBER 2012; THE BULK OF EXXON'S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION WAS DENIED IN MAY AND JUNE 2013; A THREE-WEEK TRIAL WAS HELD IN FEBRUARY 2014; THE DISTRICT COURT ISSUED A RULING IN DECEMBER 2014, FINDING THAT ONLY 94 OF THE THOUSANDS OF ALLEGED CLEAN AIR ACT VIOLATIONS WERE "ACTIONABLE" UNDER THE ACT'S CITIZEN SUIT PROVISION, AND DECLINING TO ORDER A PENALTY, AN INJUNCTION, OR A DECLARATORY JUDGMENT; THE PLAINTIFFS APPEALED BOTH THE LIABILITY AND REMEDY JUDGMENT TO FIFTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS IN JANUARY 2015; BRIEFING WAS COMPLETED IN 2015 (WITH THE CITY OF HOUSTON, HARRIS COUNTY, TX, AND AIR ALLIANCE HOUSTON FILING AN AMICUS ON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFFS, AND INDUSTRY GROUPS AND THE CITY OF BAYTOWN FILING AMICI ON BEHALF OF EXXON). A THREE-JUDGE PANEL OF THE FIFTH CIRCUIT HEARD ORAL ARGUMENTS ON THE APPEAL IN FEBRUARY 2016, AND ISSUED A UNANIMOUS OPINION IN MAY 2016 REVERSING MAJOR PORTIONS OF THE TRIAL JUDGE'S OPINION, VACATING THE JUDGMENT, AND REMANDING THE CASE BACK TO THE TRIAL JUDGE FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS, HOLDING THAT THE JUDGE HAD "ERRED IN [HIS] ANALYSIS OF EXXON'S LIABILITY AND "ABUSED [HIS] DISCRETION" BY FAILING TO PROPERLY ASSESS A CIVIL PENALTY FOR EXXON'S THOUSANDS OF ADMITTED VIOLATIONS OF THE LAW AND FAILING TO PROPERLY DETERMINE WHETHER EXXON EARNED AN ECONOMIC BENEFIT BY NOT SPENDING MONEY TO AVOID OR MINIMIZE THOSE VIOLATIONS. EXXON'S MOTION FOR AN EN BANC REHEARING BEFORE ALL OF THE JUDGES OF THE FIFTH CIRCUIT WAS SUBSEQUENTLY DENIED; THE CASE WAS FORMALLY TRANSFERRED BACK TO THE DISTRICT COURT; AND, PURSUANT TO THE DISTRICT JUDGE'S ORDER, THE PARTIES FILED DETAILED REVISED PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, TOGETHER WITH SUPPORTIVE BRIEFING, IN THE FALL OF 2016. THE DISTRICT COURT ISSUED A REVISED OPINION ON APRIL 26, 2017. IN THE REVISED OPINION, THE DISTRICT COURT: (1) FOUND THAT EXXON COMMITTED THOUSANDS OF VIOLATIONS OF ITS CLEAN AIR ACT PERMITS, THUS UNLAWFULLY RELEASING APPROXIMATELY 10 MILLION POUNDS OF AIR POLLUTION; (2) LEVIED A CIVIL PENALTY ON EXXON OF $19.95 MILLION, PAYABLE TO THE U.S. TREASURY; AND (C) GRANTED FEES AND COSTS TO PLAINTIFFS' ATTORNEYS IN AN AMOUNT TO BE DETERMINED. EXXON APPEALED THE JUDGMENT TO THE US COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT. THAT COURT HEARD ORAL ARGUMENT ON THE APPEAL IN NOVEMBER 2018, AND ISSUED ITS (2 TO 1) OPINION IN JULY 2020. THE FIFTH CIRCUIT (1) ENUNCIATED A STANDARD FOR DETERMINING THE "TRACEABILITY" ELEMENT OF THE ARTICLE III STANDING INQUIRY IN CASES, SUCH AS THIS ONE, WITH A LARGE NUMBER OF DISPARATE VIOLATIONS INVOLVING DIFFERENT POLLUTANTS AND DIFFERENT CAUSES, (2) FOUND THAT PLAINTIFFS HAD MET THIS STANDARD FOR "A SUBSTANTIAL NUMBER OF EXXON'S VIOLATIONS, AND |
| FORM 990, PART III, PUBLIC INTEREST LAW FIRM CASE LIST (CONTINUED) | (3) REMANDED THE CASE TO THE DISTRICT COURT TO DETERMINE THE NUMBER OF "TRACEABLE" VIOLATIONS AND TO DETERMINE WHETHER ANY ADJUSTMENT TO THE PENALTY IS WARRANTED BY THIS NUMBER. THE PARTIES HAVE SUBMITTED ADDITIONAL BRIEFING TO THE DISTRICT COURT, AND ARE AWAITING THE DISTRICT COURT'S REVISED OPINION, AFTER WHICH THE CASE WILL AUTOMATICALLY GO BACK BEFORE THE SAME PANEL OF THE FIFTH CIRCUIT. (3) ARCELORMITTAL (MONESSEN, PA) (CLEAN AIR ACT) NOTICE LETTER SENT AUGUST 4, 2015, ON BEHALF OF PENNENVIRONMENT; COMPLAINT FILED OCTOBER 8, 2015; UPON THE JOINT MOTION OF THE PARTIES, THE CASE WAS STAYED TO ALLOW TIME FOR SETTLEMENT NEGOTIATIONS, AND THE PARTIES, JOINED BY EPA AND THE PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION, NEGOTIATED A COMPREHENSIVE SETTLEMENT THAT WAS ENTERED AS A CONSENT DECREE ON FEBRUARY 2, 2018. THE DECREE IMPOSES A PENALTY OF $1.8 MILLION, $1.5 MILLION OF WHICH WAS PAID TO THE FEDERAL AND STATE GOVERNMENTS, AND $300,000 OF WHICH WAS PAID TO ESTABLISH A LOCAL CLEAN VEHICLES PROJECT, ADMINISTERED BY THE COMMUNITY FOUNDATION OF WESTMORELAND COUNTY, DESIGNED TO IMPROVE LOCAL AIR QUALITY. THE DECREE ALSO REQUIRED THE DEFENDANT TO BRING ITS COAL COKE PLANT INTO COMPLIANCE WITH THE CLEAN AIR ACT, AND TO PAY STIPULATED PENALTIES FOR FUTURE VIOLATIONS. NELC RECEIVED $277,276 UNDER THE DECREE FOR REASONABLE FEES AND COSTS. THE COMPANY DEMONSTRATED COMPLIANCE WITH ALL THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE DECREE, AND THE DECREE HAS BEEN TERMINATED. (4) CONNECTICUT GALVANIZING CORPORATION, HIGHWAY SAFETY CORPORATION, AND HIGHWAY SAFETY DESIGN AND FABRICATION CORPORATION (GLASTONBURY, CT) NOTICE LETTER SENT OCTOBER 21, 2015, ON BEHALF OF ENVIRONMENT CONNECTICUT AND TOXICS ACTION CENTER; COMPLAINT FILED JANUARY 14, 2016; CONSENT DECREE WAS NEGOTIATED BY THE PARTIES IN THE SUMMER OF 2016, AND ENTERED BY THE U.S. DISTRICT COURT ON OCTOBER 18, 2016. UNDER THE TERMS OF THE DECREE, THE DEFENDANTS MUST: (A) INSTALL AND OPERATE A SYSTEM TO REMOVE HEAVY METALS FROM ITS STORM WATER BEFORE IT IS DISCHARGED TO LOCAL WATERS; (B) IMPLEMENT BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES DESIGNED TO KEEP HEAVY METALS OUT OF ITS STORM WATER; (C) MEET EFFLUENT DISCHARGE LIMITS OR PAY STIPULATED PENALTIES; (D) PAY A $188,000 PENALTY ($40,000 TO THE U.S. TREASURY, AND $148,000 TO THE FARMINGTON RIVER WATERSHED ASS'N FOR MEASURES TO RESTORE AND MAINTAIN THE QUALITY OF LOCAL WATERS); (E) PAY $180,000 IN ATTORNEYS' FEES AND COSTS ($22,723 TO CO-COUNSEL AND $157,277 TO NELC). THE DEFENDANTS DEMONSTRATED COMPLIANCE WITH ALL THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE DECREE, AND THE DECREE HAS BEEN TERMINATED. (5) PASADENA REFINING SYSTEM, INC. (PASADENA, TX) (CLEAN AIR ACT) NOTICE LETTER SENT DECEMBER 22, 2016, ON BEHALF OF ENVIRONMENT TEXAS AND SIERRA CLUB; COMPLAINT FILED MARCH 2, 2017; THE COMPANY FILED A MOTION TO DISMISS ON MAY 12, 2017, WHICH WAS DENIED ON JANUARY 11, 2018. EXTENSIVE SETTLEMENT NEGOTIATIONS LED TO THE ENTRY OF A COMPREHENSIVE CONSENT DECREE ON SEPTEMBER 14, 2018. UNDER THE DECREE, THE DEFENDANT WAS REQUIRED TO (A) MAKE EXTENSIVE UPGRADES AT ITS REFINERY, (B) ATTAIN COMPLIANCE WITH THE CLEAN AIR ACT; (C) PAY STIPULATED PENALTIES, WHICH INCREASE IN SEVERITY WITH THE NUMBER OF VIOLATIONS, FOR FUTURE VIOLATIONS AND FOR FAILURE TO MEET PROJECT DEADLINES, (D) PAY A $3.525 MILLION PENALTY ($350,000 TO THE U.S. TREASURY AND $3,175,000 TO FUND A VEHICLE EMISSIONS REDUCTION FUND, TO BE ADMINISTERED BY A NON-PROFIT CORPORATION CREATED BY THE HOUSTON-GALVESTON AREA COUNCIL, WHICH WILL DISBURSE GRANTS TO LOCAL SCHOOL DISTRICTS AND GOVERNMENTS FOR THE PURPOSE OF REDUCING AIR POLLUTION THROUGH THE REDUCTION OF VEHICLE EMISSIONS), AND (E) PAY $547,000 IN FEES AND COSTS ($164,710 TO CO-COUNSEL AND $382,290 TO NELC). NELC IS MONITORING COMPLIANCE WITH THE DECREE. (6) PILGRIM'S PRIDE CORPORATION (LIVE OAK, FL) NOTICE LETTER SENT DECEMBER 30, 2016, ON BEHALF OF ENVIRONMENT FLORIDA; SECOND NOTICE, ADDING SIERRA CLUB AS A PROSPECTIVE PLAINTIFF, SENT JANUARY 31, 2017; COMPLAINT FILED ON BEHALF OF ENVIRONMENT FLORIDA ON MARCH 9, 2017; AMENDED COMPLAINT, ADDING SIERRA CLUB AS A PLAINTIFF AND ADDING SUBSEQUENTLY AVAILABLE MONITORING DATA, FILED APRIL 5, 2017; THE COMPANY FILED A MOTION TO DISMISS ON MAY 11, 2017, WHICH NELC ATTORNEYS OPPOSED, AND THE PARTIES ENTERED INTO COMPREHENSIVE SETTLEMENT NEGOTIATIONS AT THE DIRECTION OF THE COURT. UNDER THE RESULTANT CONSENT DECREE, ENTERED ON JANUARY 16, 2018, THE DEFENDANT WAS DIRECTED TO: (A) INVESTIGATE ALTERNATIVES TO DISCHARGING WASTES TO THE SUWANNEE RIVER AND PROPOSE ADOPTION OF SUCH AN ALTERNATIVE IF FEASIBLE. (B) IF NO SUCH ALTERNATIVE IS FORTHCOMING BY A SPECIFIED DEADLINE, TO MAKE A NUMBER OF SPECIFIC UPGRADES TO ITS WASTEWATER TREATMENT SYSTEM BEFORE DISCHARGING TO THE SUWANNEE RIVER; (C) PERFORM A TOXICITY IDENTIFICATION EVALUATION OF ITS PROCESSES, ACCORDING TO EPA PROTOCOL, (D) PAY STIPULATED PENALTIES FOR VIOLATIONS OF ITS CLEAN WATER ACT DISCHARGE PERMIT, (E) CONDUCT A WATER USE AUDIT TO DETERMINE WAYS TO REDUCE WATER USE AND REUSE/RECYCLE WATER DURING POULTRY PROCESSING AND THROUGHOUT THE PLANT, (F) PAY $1.43 MILLION IN PENALTIES, $130,000 TO THE US TREASURY AND $1.13 MILLION TO STETSON UNIVERSITY FOR THE CREATION OF THE SUSTAINABLE FARMING FUND, WHICH WILL SOLICIT APPLICATIONS FROM, AND DISBURSE GRANTS TO, INDEPENDENT FARMERS LOCATED IN THE SUWANNEE RIVER BASIN WITHIN THE STATE OF FLORIDA, AS DEFINED BY USGS, FOR ON-FARM PROJECTS DESIGNED PRIMARILY TO IMPROVE SURFACE WATER QUALITY, GROUNDWATER QUALITY, AND SOIL QUALITY SO AS TO REDUCE THE FARM'S ENVIRONN1ENTAL IMPACT, AND (G) PAY $295,000 IN ATTORNEYS' FEES AND COSTS ($89,750 TO CO-COUNSEL AND $205,250 TO NELC). NELC IS MONITORING COMPLIANCE WITH THE DECREE. THE SUSTAINABLE FARMING FUND HAS ISSUED ITS FINAL REPORT, AND HAS DOCUMENTED A NUMBER OF PROJECTS THAT SHOULD HELP TO PROMOTE THE CONDUCT OF ENVIRONMENTALLY SUSTAINABLE AGRICULTURE. (7) CASELLA WASTE SYSTEMS, INC., SOUTHBRIDGE RECYCLING & DISPOSAL PARK, INC., AND THE TOWN OF SOUTHBRIDGE (SOUTHBRIDGE, MA) (CLEAN WATER ACT AND THE RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND RECOVERY ACT) NOTICE LETTER SENT FEBRUARY 13, 2017, ON BEHALF OF TOXICS ACTION CENTER ("TAC") AND ENVIRONMENT MASSACHUSETTS ("ENV MA"); COMPLAINT FILED JUNE 9, 2017, WITH CWA AND RCRA CLAIMS BROUGHT BY TAC AND ENV MA, REPRESENTED BY NELC ATTORNEYS, AND SEPARATE STATE LAW CLAIMS FILED BY NUMEROUS LOCAL LANDOWNERS, REPRESENTED BY SEPARATE COUNSEL; MOTIONS TO DISMISS FILED AUGUST 10 AND 11, 2017; AMENDED COMPLAINT FILED NOVEMBER 14, 2017; RENEWED MOTIONS TO DISMISS FILED DECEMBER 19 AND 21, 2017; MOTION TO DISMISS THE CWA AND RCRA CLAIMS GRANTED ON OCTOBER 3, 2018, WHILE THE COURT RETAINED JURISDICTION OF THE STATE LAW CLAIMS; TC AND ENV MA'S MOTION FOR CERTIFICATION OF APPEAL UNDER FRCP 54(B) OR 28 U.S.C. 1292(B), FILED ON OCTOBER 30, 2018, WAS DENIED ON MARCH 14, 2019; ALTHOUGH TAC AND ENV. MA HAD ORIGINALLY PLANNED TO APPEAL THE COURT'S RULING ON THE FEDERAL CLAIMS ONCE THE STATE LAW CLAIMS WERE RESOLVED, THEY AGREED TO GIVE UP THE RIGHT TO APPEAL IN ORDER TO ACHIEVE A COMPREHENSIVE SETTLEMENT OF THE ENTIRE CASE. UNDER THE PRESSURE OF THE LAWSUIT AND FROM THE MASSACHUSETTS DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION, THE DEFENDANTS HAD ALREADY STOPPED RECEIVING WASTE AT THE LANDFILL, BEGUN INSTALLING A PERMANENT "CAP" ON THE LANDFILL, AND FUNDED A $10 MILLION WATERLINE THAT PROVIDES MUNICIPAL WATER TO HOMES WHOSE WELLS WERE CONTAMINATED BY - OR WERE AT RISK OF CONTAMINATION BY - LANDFILL POLLUTANTS. WITH THE SETTLEMENT OF THE LAWSUIT, THE PLAINTIFFS FORMALLY DISMISSED THEIR CLAIMS ON NOVEMBER 1, 2020, THE INDIVIDUAL FAMILIES RECEIVED A SUBSTANTIAL FINANCIAL PAYMENT FROM CASELLA AND THE TOWN AS COMPENSATION FOR THE CONTAMINATION OF THEIR DRINKING WATER AQUIFER, AND ON OCTOBER 31, 2020, THE DISTRICT COURT GRANTED A MOTION FROM NELC ATTORNEYS SEEKING TO VACATE (SET ASIDE) ITS PREVIOUS OPINION DISMISSING THE FEDERAL ENVIRONMENTAL LAW CLAIMS FROM THE LAWSUIT. AS PAT OF THE SETTLEMENT, NELC RECEIVED $100,000 IN ATTORNEYS' FEES ($10,000 OF WHICH WENT TO CO-COUNSEL). (8) CASELLA WASTE SYSTEMS, INC., AND NORTH COUNTRY ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC., (BETHLEHEM, NH) NOTICE LETTER SENT MARCH 8, 2018, ON BEHALF OF TOXICS ACTION CENTER AND CONSERVATION LAW FOUNDATION; COMPLAINT FILED MAY 14, 2018; MOTION TO DISMISS FILED JUNE 15, 2018; MOTION TO DISMISS DENIED SEPTEMBER 25, 2018; DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO STAY PENDING THE DECISION OF THE SUPREME COURT IN THE COUNTY OF MAUI CWA CASE WAS GRANTED IN PART ON MAY 3, 2019; IN APRIL 2020, THE SUPREME COURT ISSUED AN OPINION IN MAUI HOLDING THAT POINT SOURCE DISCHARGES OF POLLUTANTS THROUGH GROUNDWATER TO SURFACE WATERS REQUIRE AN NPDES PERMIT WHERE THEY ARE THE "FUNCTIONAL EQUIVALENT" OF DIRECT DISCHARGES TO THE SURFACE WATERS; OVER THE DEFENDANTS' OBJECTIONS, THE DISTRICT COURT SUBSEQUENTLY GRANTED A MOTION BY NELC'S ATTORNEYS FOR LEAVE TO FILE AN AMENDED COMPLAINT ADDING SUCH A CLAIM FOR DISCHARGES FROM THE DEFENDANTS' LANDFILL |
| FORM 990, PART III, PUBLIC INTEREST LAW FIRM CASE LIST (CONTINUED) | CROSS MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT WERE FILED IN DECEMBER 2020 AND FEBRUARY 2021. (9) DETROIT RENEWABLE POWER (DETROIT, MI) (CLEAN AIR ACT) NOTICE LETTER SENT JANUARY 29, 2019; ON MARCH 27, 2019, JUST BEFORE THE EXPIRATION OF THE STATUTORY 60-DAY NOTICE PERIOD, THE COMPANY ANNOUNCED THAT IT WAS SHUTTING DOWN THE SOLID WASTE INCINERATOR THAT WAS THE FOCUS OF THE NOTICE; NELC ATTORNEYS ARE NOW NEGOTIATING A CONSENT DECREE THAT WOULD ENSURE THAT THE SHUTDOWN IS PERMANENT. (10) UNITED STATES STEEL (PITTSBURG, PA) (CLEAN AIR ACT) NOTICE LETTER SENT FEBRUARY 13, 2019, ON BEHALF OF PENNENVIRONMENT AND THE CLEAN AIR COUNCIL; COMPLAINT FILED APRIL 25, 2019; THE ALLEGHENY COUNTY HEALTH DEPARTMENT MOVED FOR LEAVE TO INTERVENE AS A CO-PLAINTIFF ON MAY 3, 2019; THAT MOTION WAS GRANTED, AND THE COUNTY FILED A COMPLAINT IN INTERVENTION ON JUNE 17, 2019; MEDIATION IN DECEMBER 2019 WAS UNSUCCESSFUL; DISCOVERY IS ONGOING; PLAINTIFFS HAVE DESIGNATED THEIR EXPERTS AND US STEEL HAS TAKEN THE DEPOSITIONS OF THOSE EXPERTS. II. ADMINISTRATIVE LAW CASES NONE FILED IN FY2020. III. AMICUS CURIAE BRIEFS (1) BLACKSTONE HEADWATERS ASSOCIATION V. GALLO BUILDERS (BOSTON, MA) ON MARCH 3, 2020, NELC FILED AN AMICUS CURIAE (FRIEND OF THE COURT) BRIEF WITH THE FIRST CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS, ON BEHALF OF ENVIRONMENT MAINE, ENVIRONMENT MASSACHUSETTS, AND ENVIRONMENT RHODE ISLAND, ASKING THAT COURT TO REVERSE ITS 1991 DECISION IN NORTH AND SOUTH RIVERS WATERSHED ASS'N V. TOWN OF SCITUATE, WHICH IMPOSES A GREATER BAN ON CLEAN WATER ACT CITIZEN SUITS THAN IS IMPOSED BY THE LANGUAGE OF THE STATUTE ITSELF. THE CLEAN WATER ACT BARS THE IMPOSITION BY FEDERAL COURTS OF CIVIL PENALTIES FOR VIOLATIONS THAT HAVE ALREADY BEEN THE SUBJECT OF DILIGENTLY PROSECUTED ADMINISTRATIVE PENALTIES BY THE GOVERNMENT. IN ITS SCITUATE OPINION, HOWEVER, THE FIRST CIRCUIT HELD THAT EVEN ADMINISTRATIVE ACTIONS THAT IMPOSE NO PENALTIES BAR ALL ASPECTS OF A CITIZEN ENFORCEMENT SUIT - EVEN WHERE THE DEFENDANT REMAINS OUT OF COMPLIANCE WITH THE ACT AND THE CITIZEN PLAINTIFF SEEKS COURT-ORDERED POLLUTION REDUCTION. THE NELC BRIEF ARGUES THAT THE FIRST CIRCUIT HAD WRONGLY SUBSTITUTED ITS OWN VIEW OF PROPER REGULATORY POLICY FOR THE POLICIES ARTICULATED BY CONGRESS IN THE STATUTE. |
| Software ID: | |
| Software Version: |