2025-11-13T19:10:44-05:00 2024-12-31 860257194 WALKER & ARMSTRONG LLP 1850 N CENTRAL AVE STE 400 PHOENIX AZ 850044624 990 2024-01-01 860767692 ARIZONA CENTER FOR LAW IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST ARIZ 6022588850 352 EAST CAMELBACK ROAD SUITE 200 PHOENIX AZ 85012 JARED G KEENAN EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR 6022588850 2025-11-13 true true KIMBERLY ANN BOLLIGAR P01236721 6022301040 2025-11-13 2024 2025-03-06 01:10:19Z JARED G KEENAN 352 EAST CAMELBACK ROAD SUITE 200 PHOENIX AZ 85012 957512 false X WWW.ACLPI.ORG X 1974 AZ THE ARIZONA CENTER FOR LAW IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST IS A NON-PROFIT LAW FIRM DEDICATED TO ENSURING GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY AND PROTECTING THE LEGAL RIGHTS OF ARIZONANS. 27 27 6 27 0 503548 622760 75000 75000 11571 24450 34801 78356 624920 800566 0 0 747607 782307 0 35129 146802 157437 894409 939744 -269489 -139178 1921184 1779408 128888 91903 1792296 1687505 X THE ARIZONA CENTER FOR LAW IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST IS A NON-PROFIT LAW FIRM DEDICATED TO ENSURING GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY AND PROTECTING THE LEGAL RIGHTS OF ARIZONANS. false false 828040 75000 THE ARIZONA CENTER FOR LAW IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST ("ACLPI- OR "THE CENTER") ONLY LITIGATES CASES THAT SERVE THE PUBLIC INTEREST. IN 2024, OUR CASES ALL SERVED THE BROAD PUBLIC INTEREST. IN ALL OF THE CENTER'S CASES, WE DO NOT CHARGE OUR CLIENTS ATTORNEYS' FEES. ARIZONA RECOGNIZES THE PRIVATE ATTORNEY GENERAL DOCTRINE AND HAS SPECIFIC STATUTES THAT PROVIDE FOR AN AWARD OF FEES FOR THE SUCCESSFUL PARTY. UNDER THIS DOCTRINE, THE CENTER WILL SEEK ATTORNEYS' FEES FROM THE ADVERSE PARTY (THE STATE OF ARIZONA). 1. THE CENTER IS LITIGATING A CASE AGAINST THE STATE OF ARIZONA FOR ITS FAILURE TO ADEQUATELY FUND THE CAPITAL NEEDS OF ARIZONAS PUBLIC SCHOOLS. THIS CASE IS ACTUALLY A FOLLOW UP CASE TO ONE THAT THE CENTER SUCCESSFULLY LITIGATED 30 YEARS AGO. AS A RESULT OF THAT CASE, FUNDS WERE PROVIDED TO BRING ALL DILAPIDATED SCHOOLS UP TO STANDARD, AND MONEY WAS TO BE PROVIDED TO KEEP ALL SCHOOLS IN GOOD SHAPE. THE LEGISLATURE SUBSEQUENTLY DE-FUNDED MOST OF THE PROGRAMS THAT WERE ESTABLISHED AS PART OF THE RESOLUTION OF THE OLD CASE, AND ARIZONA IS ONCE AGAIN IN A SYSTEM UNDER WHICH A SCHOOL DISTRICTS ABILITY TO MEET ITS CAPITAL NEEDS DEPENDS TO A VERY LARGE EXTENT ON THE AMOUNT OF PROPERTY WEALTH IN THE DISTRICT. IN 2024 THE CASE FINALLY WENT TO TRIAL. THE CENTER THEN PARTICIPATED IN POST- TRIAL BRIEFING THROUGH THE END OF 2024. (IN 2025 WE RECEIVED A RULING AND WE PREVAILED, THOUGH LEGISLATORS HAVE STATED PUBLICLY THAT THEY WILL APPEAL.) IF THE CENTER IS ULTIMATELY SUCCESSFUL, THEN THE STATE WILL BE FORCED TO IMPLEMENT A SYSTEM THAT COMPLIES WITH THE GENERAL AND UNIFORM CLAUSE IN THE ARIZONA CONSTITUTION. THIS CASE WILL HELP THE APPROXIMATELY 900,000 TO 1,000,000 CHILDREN IN ARIZONAS PUBLIC SCHOOLS. THE CASE IS CAPTIONED, GLENDALE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL DISTRICT V. STATE OF ARIZONA. THE NAMED PLAINTIFFS ARE FOUR ARIZONA SCHOOL DISTRICTS AS WELL AS THE ARIZONA SCHOOL BOARDS ASSOCIATION, THE ARIZONA SCHOOL ADMINISTRATORS ASSOCIATION, THE ARIZONA EDUCATION ASSOCIATION, AND AN INDIVIDUAL TAXPAYER. THE CENTER HAS SUBMITTED A FEE APPLICATION ON SEPTEMBER 12, 2025 AND IS AWAITING A RULING FROM THE COURT. 2. THE CENTER SUCCESSFULLY LITIGATED A CASE AGAINST THE STATE OF ARIZONA ON BEHALF OF ALL OF ARIZONAS FOSTER CHILDREN. THIS CASE IS A CLASS ACTION, WHERE IN ADDITION TO THE GENERAL CLASS OF ALL FOSTER CHILDREN THERE ARE SUBCLASSES THAT PERTAIN TO SUBSETS OF CHILDREN (E.G., THOSE WHO RECEIVE MEDICAID SERVICES, AND THOSE WHO ARE PLACED IN NON-KINSHIP SETTINGS). THE CASE WAS BROUGHT BECAUSE THE STATE (1) FAILS TO PROVIDE REASONABLE AND APPROPRIATE SERVICES TO ARIZONA'S FOSTER CHILDREN; (2) FAILS TO ASSURE THAT FOSTER CHILDREN RECEIVE APPROPRIATE MEDICAL, DENTAL, AND BEHAVIORAL HEALTH CARE; (3) UNREASONABLY PLACES CHILDREN IN CONGREGATE CARE SETTINGS (WHICH NEGATIVELY IMPACT CHILDREN); (4) UNREASONABLY SEPARATES SIBLINGS; AND (5) FAILS TO TIMELY AND ADEQUATELY INVESTIGATE ALLEGATIONS OF ABUSE OF CHILDREN WHILE IN CARE; AND MANY OTHER DEFICIENT PRACTICES. THE STATE VIGOROUSLY CONTESTED WHETHER THIS CASE MAY PROCEED AS A CLASS ACTION. THE CENTER (AND CO-COUNSEL) HAVE ACHIEVED VICTORIES ON THIS QUESTION IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA, AND THAT RULING WAS LARGELY AFFIRMED ON APPEAL IN THE 9TH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS. THE CASE IS KNOWN AS B.K. V. MCKAY AND THE STATE OF ARIZONA. THE CASE SOUGHT BROAD RELIEF ON BEHALF OF ALL CURRENT AND FUTURE FOSTER CHILDREN, AND OBVIOUSLY SERVES A BROAD PUBLIC INTEREST. THE PARTIES ENTERED INTO A SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT THAT WAS APPROVED BY THE DISTRICT COURT IN EARLY 2021. THE CENTER WILL CONTINUE TO BE INVOLVED IN MONITORING COMPLIANCE WITH THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT. IN 2024, WE INITIATED A MEDIATION/DISPUTE RESOLUTION PROCESS DUE TO THE STATE'S FAILURE TO IMPLEMENT SOLUTIONS TO PROBLEMS AS REQUIRED BY THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT. MONITORING IS ONGOING. PURSUANT TO THE COURT-ORDERED SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT, ATTORNEY FEES FOR MONITORING RECEIVED DURING 2024 WERE 75,000. IN AUGUST 2024, THREE YEARS INTO THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT, THE PLAINTIFFS INVOKED THE DISPUTE RESOLUTION PROVISIONS OF THE AGREEMENT ALLEGING THAT THE STATE HAD NOT REDUCED PLACEMENT OF CHILDREN IN CONGREGATE CARE, NOR INCREASED FAMILY FOSTER HOME OPTIONS, NOR INCREASED TREATMENT FOSTER HOMES CAPACITY, NOR ENSURED CHILDREN RECEIVED THE BEHAVIORAL HEALTH SERVICES THEY NEED. JUDGE KEN FIELDS IS THE MEDIATOR APPOINTED BY THE COURT. HE ATTEMPTED THROUGH MEDIATION TO REMEDY THE DISPUTE. ULTIMATELY, MEDIATION WAS NOT SUCCESSFUL AND THE ISSUE OF THE STATE'S COMPLIANCE WITH THE AGREEMENT IS BEFORE JUDGE FIELDS. WE EXPECT A RULING BY DECEMBER 31, 2025. 3. THROUGHOUT 2024, THE CENTER CHALLENGED AN ILLEGALLY DISCRIMINATORY "GRID ACCESS CHARGE" CREATED IN THE LAST ARIZONA PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY ("APS") RATE CASE. IN 2022, APS FILED AN APPLICATION SEEKING AN INCREASE IN CONSUMER ELECTRIC RATES BEFORE THE ARIZONA CORPORATION COMMISSION ("ACC"). THE CENTER INTERVENED ON BEHALF OF MULTIPLE NON-PROFITS. AT THE END OF A SIX-WEEK HEARING, THE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE ISSUED A REOMMENDED OPINION AND ORDER THAT CONTAINED, FOR THE FIRST TIME, A "GRID ACCESS CHARGE" THAT WAS SPECIFIC ONLY TO ROOFTOP SOLAR CUSTOMERS (AND THUS ILLEGALLY DISCRIMINATORY UNDER FEDERAL AND STATE LAWS). OVER OBJECTIONS BY NUMEROUS PARTIES (INCLUDING THE CENTER'S CLIENT VOTE SOLAR), THE ACC APPROVED THE GRID ACCESS CHARGE IN DECEMBER 2023. VOTE SOLAR, ALONG WITH THE STATE OF ARIZONA AND ANOTHER INTERVENOR, FILED APPLICATIONS FOR REHEARING, CITING THE ILLEGALITY OF THE DISCRIMINATORY CHARGE UNDER FEDERAL AND STATE LAW, AS WELL AS THE VIOLATION OF DUE PROCESS RIGHTS BECAUSE THE GRID ACCESS CHARGE WAS NEVER LITIGATED IN THE HEARING. IN APRIL 2024, THE ACC GRANTED A LIMITED REHEARING ON THE LEGALITY OF THE GRID ACCESS CHARGE, AND 10 DAYS OF REHEARING WERE HELD IN OCTOBER-NOVEMBER 2024. THE ACC AGAIN APPROVED THE GRID ACCESS CHARGE IN DECEMBER 2024, AND THE PARTIES APPEALED IN JANUARY 2025. THE CENTER WAS ASSISTED IN THE REHEARING AND THE SUBSEQUENT APPEAL BY EARTHJUSTICE. THE APPEAL IS ONGOING, AND WE DO NOT HAVE AN ESTIMATE ON WHEN A RULING FROM THE COURT OF APPEALS WILL BE DELIVERED. THIS CASE REPRESENTS THE FIRST MAJOR LEGAL CHALLENGE AGAINST THE ACC IN A SERIES OF DECISIONS THAT ASSERT THE ACC IS FAILING IN ITS CONSTITUTIONAL DUTIES TO SET JUST AND REASONABLE AND NON-DISCRIMINATORY RATES IN ARIZONA AND THAT THE ACC IS UNFAIRLY BEHOLDEN TO CORPORATE INTERESTS OF THE UTILITIES. 4. IN APRIL 2024, THE CENTER REPRESENTED SWEEP ALONGSIDE MULTIPLE OTHER ALLIED PARTIES IN AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING BEFORE THE ARIZONA POWER PLANT AND LINE SITING COMMITTEE RELATED TO THE PROPOSED EXPANSION BY UNISOURCE ELECTRIC ("UNSE") OF THE BLACK MOUNTAIN GENERATING STATION, A GAS-FIRED POWER STATION IN MOHAVE COUNTY, ARIZONA. USING A NOVEL INTERPRETATION OF ARIZONA LAW, UNSE ARGUED THAT EACH INDIVIDUAL POWER GENERATOR WOULD BE UNDER THE 100 MW THRESHOLD REQUIRED TO OBTAIN A CERTIFICATE OF ENVIRONMENTAL COMPATIBILITY ("CEC"), AND EVEN THOUGH THE NET INCREASE ACROSS MULTIPLE PROPOSED GENERATORS WOULD BE OVER 100 MW, THE LINE SITING COMMITTEE (AND THE ARIZONA CORPORATION COMMISSION) DID NOT HAVE JURISDICTION. THE LINE SITING COMMITTEE VOTED 10-2 AGAINST UNSE AND FOUND THAT IT DID HAVE JURISDICTION AND THAT A CEC WAS NECESSARY. UNSE APPEALED THE DECISION TO THE ARIZONA CORPORATION COMMISSION ("ACC"), WHICH OVERTURNED THE LINE SITING COMMITTEE 4-1 IN JUNE 2024. SWEEP DID NOT APPEAL, BUT THE CENTER ASSISTED IN THE REPRESENTATION OF SIERRA CLUB IN THE SUBSEQUENT APPEAL TO MARICOPA SUPERIOR COURT, ALONGSIDE WESTERN RESOURCE ADVOCATES AND THE STATE OF ARIZONA. APPEALS IN THIS MATTER CONTINUE ONGOING IN 2025, AS DESPITE A POSITIVE RULING FROM THE SUPERIOR COURT IN OCTOBER 2025, THE ACC HAS FILED A NOTICE OF APPEAL TO THE ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS. THIS CASE REPRESENTS A SIGNIFICANT ISSUE REGARDING GOVERNMENTAL OVERSIGHT OF UTILITIES IN THE STATE WITH RELATION TO THERMAL ENERGY GENERATION (INCLUDING GAS AND NUCLEAR) AND COULD RESULT IN DANGEROUS PRECEDENT, SO IT IS EXPECTED TO BE APPEALED AS FAR AS THE COURTS WILL ALLOW IT. 5. THE CENTER REPRESENTED TWO NON-PROFITS, SWEEP AND WILDFIRE, IN THE MOST RECENT SOUTHWEST GAS RATE CASE. SOUTHWEST GAS SOUGHT AN INCREASE IN CONSUMER GAS RATES, AND A TWO-WEEK HEARING WAS HELD BEFORE AN ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE WITH THE ACC IN NOVEMBER 2024. THIS WAS PROCEEDED BY MULTIPLE ROUNDS OF WRITTEN EXPERT TESTIMONY AND AT LEAST ONE ATTEMPT AT SETTLEMENT. SWEEP ADVOCATED PRIMARILY AGAINST AN ADJUSTMENT MECHANISM KNOWN AS THE SYSTEM INTEGRITY MECHANISM ("SIM"), WHICH WOULD ALLOW SOUTHWEST GAS TO INCREASE RATES WITHOUT HEARING TO RECOVER SPECIFIC COSTS RELATED TO CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT. WILDFIRE PRIMARILY ADVOCATED FOR PROTECTIONS AND ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS FOR LOW-INCOME CONSUMERS, BUT IT ALSO OPPOSED THE SIM. THE SIM ISSUE WAS BIFURCATED FOLLOWING NEGOTIATIONS BETWEEN SOUTHWEST GAS AND THE MULTIPLE INTERVENORS, AND THE MAJORITY OF THE CASE WAS ADJUDICATED FOLLOWING THE NOVEMBER HEARING. THE ISSUE O 828040 true true false false false false false false false true true false false false true false true false false false false false false false true false false false false true false false false false false false false false false false false false false false false false false true 2 0 6 true false false false false false false false false false false false false false false X 27 27 false false false false false true false true true false false true true true true true false true true false X X THE ORGANIZATION 6022588850 352 EAST CAMELBACK ROAD SUITE 200 PHOENIX AZ 85012 DANIEL J ADELMAN EXECUTIVE DI 40.00 X 168465 0 0 ANNE C RONAN ATTORNEY 40.00 X 140209 0 0 CHANELE N REYES ATTORNEY 40.00 X 133962 0 0 MICHAEL AGUIRRE MEMBER 0.50 X 0 0 0 JENNIFER B ANDERSON PRESIDENT-EL 0.50 X X 0 0 0 ROBERT BARTELS MEMBER 0.50 X 0 0 0 DR IRENE MARQUEZ BIGGS MEMBER 0.50 X 0 0 0 JASON BLISS MEMBER 0.50 X 0 0 0 JENNA LAPRADE BOUCHARD SECRETARY 0.50 X X 0 0 0 REBECCA CAIN MEMBER 0.50 X 0 0 0 PETER S DAVIS MEMBER 0.50 X 0 0 0 BRYN K DEFUSCO MEMBER 0.50 X 0 0 0 JAMES DUFRESNE MEMBER 0.50 X 0 0 0 PAULA DURHAM MEMBER 0.50 X 0 0 0 STANLEY G FELDMAN MEMBER 0.50 X 0 0 0 LINDSAY FIORE PRESIDENT 0.50 X X 0 0 0 STACY GABRIEL MEMBER 0.50 X 0 0 0 ANDY GAONA MEMBER 0.50 X 0 0 0 JOY HERR-CARDILLO MEMBER 0.50 X 0 0 0 ADRIANE J HOFMEYER MEMBER 0.50 X 0 0 0 PATRICK W MAUSE TREASURER 0.50 X X 0 0 0 BRUCE MEYERSON MEMBER 0.50 X 0 0 0 JOEL NOMKIN MEMBER 0.50 X 0 0 0 TIFFANI LUCERO PASTOR MEMBER 0.50 X 0 0 0 SUSAN M ROTKIS MEMBER 0.50 X 0 0 0 BRUCE SAMUELS MEMBER 0.50 X 0 0 0 NICOLE STANTON MEMBER 0.50 X 0 0 0 LEE STEIN MEMBER 0.50 X 0 0 0 GEOFFREY STURR MEMBER 0.50 X 0 0 0 KAREN TREON MEMBER 0.50 X 0 0 0 442636 3 false true false 622760 622760 COURT AWARDED FEES 75000 75000 75000 24450 24450 235302 156946 78356 800566 75000 24450 168465 153303 8423 6739 481910 438539 24095 19276 131932 120058 6597 5277 28930 28930 18964 18964 12485 10438 1086 961 32690 29748 1635 1307 1579 1437 79 63 635 635 3913 3561 196 156 10625 9669 531 425 EQUIPMENT & TECHNOLOGY 16195 14737 810 648 BANK CHARGES 12980 12980 CONSULTING 6576 6379 197 MISCELLANEOUS 4570 4158 229 183 7295 7083 118 94 939744 828040 76575 35129 426981 364918 43781 30088 611219 523263 4931 5101 5597 37485 33085 8314 4400 724724 769995 101064 76216 1921184 1779408 25899 11474 102989 80429 128888 91903 X 421696 460769 1370600 1226736 1792296 1687505 1921184 1779408 X -139178 11887 22500 X false true X true false X 595436 425819 888051 503548 622760 3035614 595436 425819 888051 503548 622760 3035614 605358 2430256 831 332 1105 11571 24450 38289 100523 20338 53 689 121603 3195506 1534845 0.76050 0.77780 X PART II, LINE 10 OTHER INCOME 121,603 RESTRICTED RESTRICTED RESTRICTED RESTRICTED RESTRICTED RESTRICTED RESTRICTED RESTRICTED 243519 33000 14038 2779 287778 211082 32000 437 243519 165859 10000 35223 211082 97130 68510 219 165859 56543 40501 86 97130 1.00000 false false 37485 33085 4400 4400 NET LEASE LIABILITY 80429 80429 969399 11887 156946 168833 800566 800566 1096690 156946 156946 939744 939744 SCHEDULE D, PAGE 2, PART V, LINE 4 THE LEGACY IN LAW FUND WAS ESTABLISHED TO ENSURE ARIZONA CENTER FOR LAW IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST WILL BE THERE FOR FUTURE GENERATIONS. SCHEDULE D, PAGE 4, PART XI, LINE 2D DIRECT COSTS OF SPECIAL EVENT 156,946 SCHEDULE D, PAGE 4, PART XII, LINE 2D DIRECT COSTS OF SPECIAL EVENT 156,946 ANNUAL EVENT 235302 235302 156946 235302 235302 156946 156946 78356 X X false false false false false false false false false DANIEL J ADELMAN EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR 168465 168465 FORM 990, PAGE 2, PART III, LINE 4A THE ARIZONA CENTER FOR LAW IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST ("ACLPI- OR "THE CENTER") ONLY LITIGATES CASES THAT SERVE THE PUBLIC INTEREST. IN 2024, OUR CASES ALL SERVED THE BROAD PUBLIC INTEREST. IN ALL OF THE CENTER'S CASES, WE DO NOT CHARGE OUR CLIENTS ATTORNEYS' FEES. ARIZONA RECOGNIZES THE PRIVATE ATTORNEY GENERAL DOCTRINE AND HAS SPECIFIC STATUTES THAT PROVIDE FOR AN AWARD OF FEES FOR THE SUCCESSFUL PARTY. UNDER THIS DOCTRINE, THE CENTER WILL SEEK ATTORNEYS' FEES FROM THE ADVERSE PARTY (THE STATE OF ARIZONA). 1. THE CENTER IS LITIGATING A CASE AGAINST THE STATE OF ARIZONA FOR ITS FAILURE TO ADEQUATELY FUND THE CAPITAL NEEDS OF ARIZONAS PUBLIC SCHOOLS. THIS CASE IS ACTUALLY A FOLLOW UP CASE TO ONE THAT THE CENTER SUCCESSFULLY LITIGATED 30 YEARS AGO. AS A RESULT OF THAT CASE, FUNDS WERE PROVIDED TO BRING ALL DILAPIDATED SCHOOLS UP TO STANDARD, AND MONEY WAS TO BE PROVIDED TO KEEP ALL SCHOOLS IN GOOD SHAPE. THE LEGISLATURE SUBSEQUENTLY DE-FUNDED MOST OF THE PROGRAMS THAT WERE ESTABLISHED AS PART OF THE RESOLUTION OF THE OLD CASE, AND ARIZONA IS ONCE AGAIN IN A SYSTEM UNDER WHICH A SCHOOL DISTRICTS ABILITY TO MEET ITS CAPITAL NEEDS DEPENDS TO A VERY LARGE EXTENT ON THE AMOUNT OF PROPERTY WEALTH IN THE DISTRICT. IN 2024 THE CASE FINALLY WENT TO TRIAL. THE CENTER THEN PARTICIPATED IN POST- TRIAL BRIEFING THROUGH THE END OF 2024. (IN 2025 WE RECEIVED A RULING AND WE PREVAILED, THOUGH LEGISLATORS HAVE STATED PUBLICLY THAT THEY WILL APPEAL.) IF THE CENTER IS ULTIMATELY SUCCESSFUL, THEN THE STATE WILL BE FORCED TO IMPLEMENT A SYSTEM THAT COMPLIES WITH THE GENERAL AND UNIFORM CLAUSE IN THE ARIZONA CONSTITUTION. THIS CASE WILL HELP THE APPROXIMATELY 900,000 TO 1,000,000 CHILDREN IN ARIZONAS PUBLIC SCHOOLS. THE CASE IS CAPTIONED, GLENDALE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL DISTRICT V. STATE OF ARIZONA. THE NAMED PLAINTIFFS ARE FOUR ARIZONA SCHOOL DISTRICTS AS WELL AS THE ARIZONA SCHOOL BOARDS ASSOCIATION, THE ARIZONA SCHOOL ADMINISTRATORS ASSOCIATION, THE ARIZONA EDUCATION ASSOCIATION, AND AN INDIVIDUAL TAXPAYER. THE CENTER HAS SUBMITTED A FEE APPLICATION ON SEPTEMBER 12, 2025 AND IS AWAITING A RULING FROM THE COURT. 2. THE CENTER SUCCESSFULLY LITIGATED A CASE AGAINST THE STATE OF ARIZONA ON BEHALF OF ALL OF ARIZONAS FOSTER CHILDREN. THIS CASE IS A CLASS ACTION, WHERE IN ADDITION TO THE GENERAL CLASS OF ALL FOSTER CHILDREN THERE ARE SUBCLASSES THAT PERTAIN TO SUBSETS OF CHILDREN (E.G., THOSE WHO RECEIVE MEDICAID SERVICES, AND THOSE WHO ARE PLACED IN NON-KINSHIP SETTINGS). THE CASE WAS BROUGHT BECAUSE THE STATE (1) FAILS TO PROVIDE REASONABLE AND APPROPRIATE SERVICES TO ARIZONA'S FOSTER CHILDREN; (2) FAILS TO ASSURE THAT FOSTER CHILDREN RECEIVE APPROPRIATE MEDICAL, DENTAL, AND BEHAVIORAL HEALTH CARE; (3) UNREASONABLY PLACES CHILDREN IN CONGREGATE CARE SETTINGS (WHICH NEGATIVELY IMPACT CHILDREN); (4) UNREASONABLY SEPARATES SIBLINGS; AND (5) FAILS TO TIMELY AND ADEQUATELY INVESTIGATE ALLEGATIONS OF ABUSE OF CHILDREN WHILE IN CARE; AND MANY OTHER DEFICIENT PRACTICES. THE STATE VIGOROUSLY CONTESTED WHETHER THIS CASE MAY PROCEED AS A CLASS ACTION. THE CENTER (AND CO-COUNSEL) HAVE ACHIEVED VICTORIES ON THIS QUESTION IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA, AND THAT RULING WAS LARGELY AFFIRMED ON APPEAL IN THE 9TH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS. THE CASE IS KNOWN AS B.K. V. MCKAY AND THE STATE OF ARIZONA. THE CASE SOUGHT BROAD RELIEF ON BEHALF OF ALL CURRENT AND FUTURE FOSTER CHILDREN, AND OBVIOUSLY SERVES A BROAD PUBLIC INTEREST. THE PARTIES ENTERED INTO A SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT THAT WAS APPROVED BY THE DISTRICT COURT IN EARLY 2021. THE CENTER WILL CONTINUE TO BE INVOLVED IN MONITORING COMPLIANCE WITH THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT. IN 2024, WE INITIATED A MEDIATION/DISPUTE RESOLUTION PROCESS DUE TO THE STATE'S FAILURE TO IMPLEMENT SOLUTIONS TO PROBLEMS AS REQUIRED BY THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT. MONITORING IS ONGOING. PURSUANT TO THE COURT-ORDERED SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT, ATTORNEY FEES FOR MONITORING RECEIVED DURING 2024 WERE 75,000. IN AUGUST 2024, THREE YEARS INTO THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT, THE PLAINTIFFS INVOKED THE DISPUTE RESOLUTION PROVISIONS OF THE AGREEMENT ALLEGING THAT THE STATE HAD NOT REDUCED PLACEMENT OF CHILDREN IN CONGREGATE CARE, NOR INCREASED FAMILY FOSTER HOME OPTIONS, NOR INCREASED TREATMENT FOSTER HOMES CAPACITY, NOR ENSURED CHILDREN RECEIVED THE BEHAVIORAL HEALTH SERVICES THEY NEED. JUDGE KEN FIELDS IS THE MEDIATOR APPOINTED BY THE COURT. HE ATTEMPTED THROUGH MEDIATION TO REMEDY THE DISPUTE. ULTIMATELY, MEDIATION WAS NOT SUCCESSFUL AND THE ISSUE OF THE STATE'S COMPLIANCE WITH THE AGREEMENT IS BEFORE JUDGE FIELDS. WE EXPECT A RULING BY DECEMBER 31, 2025. 3. THROUGHOUT 2024, THE CENTER CHALLENGED AN ILLEGALLY DISCRIMINATORY "GRID ACCESS CHARGE" CREATED IN THE LAST ARIZONA PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY ("APS") RATE CASE. IN 2022, APS FILED AN APPLICATION SEEKING AN INCREASE IN CONSUMER ELECTRIC RATES BEFORE THE ARIZONA CORPORATION COMMISSION ("ACC"). THE CENTER INTERVENED ON BEHALF OF MULTIPLE NON-PROFITS. AT THE END OF A SIX-WEEK HEARING, THE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE ISSUED A REOMMENDED OPINION AND ORDER THAT CONTAINED, FOR THE FIRST TIME, A "GRID ACCESS CHARGE" THAT WAS SPECIFIC ONLY TO ROOFTOP SOLAR CUSTOMERS (AND THUS ILLEGALLY DISCRIMINATORY UNDER FEDERAL AND STATE LAWS). OVER OBJECTIONS BY NUMEROUS PARTIES (INCLUDING THE CENTER'S CLIENT VOTE SOLAR), THE ACC APPROVED THE GRID ACCESS CHARGE IN DECEMBER 2023. VOTE SOLAR, ALONG WITH THE STATE OF ARIZONA AND ANOTHER INTERVENOR, FILED APPLICATIONS FOR REHEARING, CITING THE ILLEGALITY OF THE DISCRIMINATORY CHARGE UNDER FEDERAL AND STATE LAW, AS WELL AS THE VIOLATION OF DUE PROCESS RIGHTS BECAUSE THE GRID ACCESS CHARGE WAS NEVER LITIGATED IN THE HEARING. IN APRIL 2024, THE ACC GRANTED A LIMITED REHEARING ON THE LEGALITY OF THE GRID ACCESS CHARGE, AND 10 DAYS OF REHEARING WERE HELD IN OCTOBER-NOVEMBER 2024. THE ACC AGAIN APPROVED THE GRID ACCESS CHARGE IN DECEMBER 2024, AND THE PARTIES APPEALED IN JANUARY 2025. THE CENTER WAS ASSISTED IN THE REHEARING AND THE SUBSEQUENT APPEAL BY EARTHJUSTICE. THE APPEAL IS ONGOING, AND WE DO NOT HAVE AN ESTIMATE ON WHEN A RULING FROM THE COURT OF APPEALS WILL BE DELIVERED. THIS CASE REPRESENTS THE FIRST MAJOR LEGAL CHALLENGE AGAINST THE ACC IN A SERIES OF DECISIONS THAT ASSERT THE ACC IS FAILING IN ITS CONSTITUTIONAL DUTIES TO SET JUST AND REASONABLE AND NON-DISCRIMINATORY RATES IN ARIZONA AND THAT THE ACC IS UNFAIRLY BEHOLDEN TO CORPORATE INTERESTS OF THE UTILITIES. 4. IN APRIL 2024, THE CENTER REPRESENTED SWEEP ALONGSIDE MULTIPLE OTHER ALLIED PARTIES IN AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING BEFORE THE ARIZONA POWER PLANT AND LINE SITING COMMITTEE RELATED TO THE PROPOSED EXPANSION BY UNISOURCE ELECTRIC ("UNSE") OF THE BLACK MOUNTAIN GENERATING STATION, A GAS-FIRED POWER STATION IN MOHAVE COUNTY, ARIZONA. USING A NOVEL INTERPRETATION OF ARIZONA LAW, UNSE ARGUED THAT EACH INDIVIDUAL POWER GENERATOR WOULD BE UNDER THE 100 MW THRESHOLD REQUIRED TO OBTAIN A CERTIFICATE OF ENVIRONMENTAL COMPATIBILITY ("CEC"), AND EVEN THOUGH THE NET INCREASE ACROSS MULTIPLE PROPOSED GENERATORS WOULD BE OVER 100 MW, THE LINE SITING COMMITTEE (AND THE ARIZONA CORPORATION COMMISSION) DID NOT HAVE JURISDICTION. THE LINE SITING COMMITTEE VOTED 10-2 AGAINST UNSE AND FOUND THAT IT DID HAVE JURISDICTION AND THAT A CEC WAS NECESSARY. UNSE APPEALED THE DECISION TO THE ARIZONA CORPORATION COMMISSION ("ACC"), WHICH OVERTURNED THE LINE SITING COMMITTEE 4-1 IN JUNE 2024. SWEEP DID NOT APPEAL, BUT THE CENTER ASSISTED IN THE REPRESENTATION OF SIERRA CLUB IN THE SUBSEQUENT APPEAL TO MARICOPA SUPERIOR COURT, ALONGSIDE WESTERN RESOURCE ADVOCATES AND THE STATE OF ARIZONA. APPEALS IN THIS MATTER CONTINUE ONGOING IN 2025, AS DESPITE A POSITIVE RULING FROM THE SUPERIOR COURT IN OCTOBER 2025, THE ACC HAS FILED A NOTICE OF APPEAL TO THE ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS. THIS CASE REPRESENTS A SIGNIFICANT ISSUE REGARDING GOVERNMENTAL OVERSIGHT OF UTILITIES IN THE STATE WITH RELATION TO THERMAL ENERGY GENERATION (INCLUDING GAS AND NUCLEAR) AND COULD RESULT IN DANGEROUS PRECEDENT, SO IT IS EXPECTED TO BE APPEALED AS FAR AS THE COURTS WILL ALLOW IT. 5. THE CENTER REPRESENTED TWO NON-PROFITS, SWEEP AND WILDFIRE, IN THE MOST RECENT SOUTHWEST GAS RATE CASE. SOUTHWEST GAS SOUGHT AN INCREASE IN CONSUMER GAS RATES, AND A TWO-WEEK HEARING WAS HELD BEFORE AN ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE WITH THE ACC IN NOVEMBER 2024. THIS WAS PROCEEDED BY MULTIPLE ROUNDS OF WRITTEN EXPERT TESTIMONY AND AT LEAST ONE ATTEMPT AT SETTLEMENT. SWEEP ADVOCATED PRIMARILY AGAINST AN ADJUSTMENT MECHANISM KNOWN AS THE SYSTEM INTEGRITY MECHANISM ("SIM"), WHICH WOULD ALLOW SOUTHWEST GAS TO INCREASE RATES WITHOUT HEARING TO RECOVER SPECIFIC COSTS RELATED TO CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT. WILDFIRE PRIMARILY ADVOCATED FOR PROTECTIONS AND ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS FOR LOW-INCOME CONSUMERS, BUT IT ALSO OPPOSED THE SIM. THE SIM ISSUE WAS BIFURCATED FOLLOWING NEGOTIATIONS BETWEEN SOUTHWEST GAS AND THE MULTIPLE INTERVENORS, AND THE MAJORITY OF THE CASE WAS ADJUDICATED FOLLOWING THE NOVEMBER HEARING. THE ISSUE O FORM 990, PAGE 6, PART VI, LINE 7A BOARD MEMBERS ELECT NEW BOARD MEMBERS. FORM 990, PAGE 6, PART VI, LINE 11B EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR AND TREASURER REVIEW AND DISTRIBUTE TO BOARD MEMBERS. FORM 990, PAGE 6, PART VI, LINE 12C THE ORGANIZATION REGULARLY AND CONSISTENTLY MONITORS AND ENFORCES COMPLIANCE WITH ITS CONFLICT OF INTEREST POLICY. FORM 990, PAGE 6, PART VI, LINE 15A THE BOARD TREASURER REVIEWED COMPENSATION SURVEYS FROM THE STATE BAR OF ARIZONA AND OTHER SOURCES TO DETERMINE THAT THE SALARY FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR IS REASONABLE. THAT INFORMATION WAS SHARED WITH, AND DISCUSSED BY, BOARD MEMBERS AT ONE OF THE BOARDS MEETINGS. THE REVIEW AND SUBSTANTIATION IS DOCUMENTED IN THE BOARDS RECORDS. FORM 990, PAGE 6, PART VI, LINE 15B THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR DETERMINES COMPENSATION FOR STAFF SUBJECT TO REVIEW BY THE BOARD. FORM 990, PAGE 6, PART VI, LINE 19 THEY ARE AVAILABLE FOR INSPECTION IN OUR OFFICE AND UPON REQUEST BY ANY MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC. FORM 990, PART XI, LINE 9 DIRECT COSTS OF SPECIAL EVENT 156,946 DIRECT COSTS OF SPECIAL EVENT -156,946