Amerenergy Medina Valley Cogen, LLC v. The Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
2021 IL App (4th) 210082-U
| Ill. App. Ct. | 2021Background
- Amerenenergy Medina Valley Cogen, LLC owns former coal-fired plants with ash ponds at Hutsonville and Meredosia that store coal combustion residuals (CCR).
- In June 2020 the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (IEPA) issued a “Final Determination” letter declaring five ash ponds are CCR surface impoundments and demanding initial fees under the Illinois Environmental Protection Act.
- After Ameren did not pay, the IEPA issued section 31(a) violation notices in July 2020 threatening potential enforcement and penalties.
- Ameren filed a declaratory-judgment action and sought a writ of certiorari in July 2020 asking the circuit court to declare the ponds not CCR surface impoundments and to quash the IEPA’s letter; IEPA moved to dismiss under section 2-619.1 for lack of ripeness and other defects.
- The circuit court dismissed with prejudice, finding no justiciable actual controversy because the IEPA letter was a preliminary notice, not a binding adjudication; the appellate court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ripeness / Justiciability | IEPA letter was a final agency decision fit for review now | Letter was preliminary; no final adjudication, so dispute is unripe | Court: Not ripe — letter is a preliminary notice, no final agency decision |
| Declaratory relief / Actual controversy | There is an immediate, concrete controversy because IEPA demanded fees and threatened enforcement | No concrete harm yet; potential penalties are speculative until enforcement | Court: No actual controversy; harm is speculative and withholding review causes no undue hardship |
| APA / Rulemaking challenge | IEPA applied fee provisions without adopting rules, violating APA rulemaking requirements | IEPA’s letter did not effectuate binding rulemaking and is not ripe for review | Court: Declined to reach APA merits because declaratory claim is premature |
| Writ of certiorari | IEPA acted quasi-judicially by issuing a “final determination” and writ is appropriate | Letter is not a quasi‑judicial, binding order subject to certiorari; enforcement proceedings would provide review | Court: Writ not considered; pre-enforcement certiorari inappropriate where letter is preliminary |
Key Cases Cited
- Alternate Fuels, Inc. v. Director of Illinois Environmental Protection Agency, 215 Ill. 2d 219 (2004) (permitted pre-enforcement review where agency notice produced concrete, adverse effects)
- National Marine, Inc. v. Illinois Environmental Protection Agency, 159 Ill. 2d 381 (1994) (agency investigatory/notice letters are preliminary and not final agency actions ripe for review)
- Smart Growth Sugar Grove, LLC v. Village of Sugar Grove, 375 Ill. App. 3d 780 (2007) (declaratory relief requires a ripe, actual controversy)
- Bartlow v. Shannon, 399 Ill. App. 3d 560 (2010) (courts should avoid premature adjudication of administrative policies)