ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
December 28,
1983
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS,
Petitioner,
v.
)
PCB 83—187
)
PCB 83—188
CITIZENS UTILITIES COMPANY
)
PCB 83—189
OF ILLINOIS,
)
PCB 83—201
PCB 83—202
Respondent.
•
.
•
.
•
S
•
•
S
Se
•
•
•
S
C
•
S
S
S
S
S
•
S
S
SSSSSSSSSS••Ss
.)
)
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS
)
PCB 83—206
)
PCB 83—207
Petitioner,
)
(Consolidated)
)
v.
)
PRESThICK UTILITIES COMPANY,
)
)
Respondent.
)
Revocation of Tax Certifications.
JOHN
VAN
VRANKEN
AND
BARBARA
A.
CHASNOFF,
ASSISTANT
ATTORNEYS
GENERAL,
APPEARED
ON
BEHALF
OF
PETITIONER;
AND
DANIEL
J. KUCERA
AND
RAYMOND
A.
FYLSTRA
(CHAPMAN
&
CUTLER)
APPEARED ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT.
OPINION
AND
ORDER
OF THE BOARD
(by 3.
Anderson):
These
matters
come
before
the
Board
upon
a
Proposal
to
Revoke
Tax
Certification
adopted
by
the
Board
on
December
6,
1983.
Recently enacted Public Act (P.A.) 83—883,
which
became
effective on September 9, 1983, amends the definition of
~pollution Control Facility
as contained in Section 21a—2 of the
Illinois Revenue Act of 1939
(Ill.
Rev. Stat.
Ch.
120, par.
502a—2) in the following manner:
55-377
d
0
-,
h
(
~
I
q
ner~
I-
~983,
1
i
iowever,
appliance
c
c
rtami~
~oduc
~n
remove
F
lear
orw~r~
teto,
o
nifent,
b
undaries
1J~l
2~
)
a
for
Cer
~i
Envi
1 ar quo
to re
Co
pa
Pr
C
1er this
proposed
~lities
s held
by
C
a
to
xresent
nO
acm.
r~
ore
ni~q
and
a
r
no
later
~ e~t~ick made
:actual
a
~atwjck
~
ntothe
~
t
oner~s
L
~
t
toese
in~y
order
a
)rder,
~
An
Act
~)
702,
111
2
tthe
at
C
schci
SITO
t
than
I
~ar
St
~Lt
~nad
arc
~
Fe
~OC
Dccc
ac
:10
thee
-3.-
Rev.Stat..h
~1—23sec.l
t
c.
p
ides water and
sanitary seter service to pot
i-
?
ret opolitan Chicago
area wider certificates of
r°
I’
...
r
c.i
e and necessity
granted by the tllinoi~Co”ae:ca
‘~..‘..
s..’
These proceedings
concern
four
waste
water
treats
t
r
a t°
i
ict
Citizens
owns
and
operate.),
located
a
DuPage
mi
1..
~
Ml
tie
and which
are
certified
pollution control
La
i11..ie.
undet aection 21a—l et
seq.
of
the
Revenue
Act
of
19sf
~
t.~z
pints
and
their
corresponding
cert.ticate
•tuarber
£
...‘~
.umbers
are
as
follows:
West Subtrb,r.
‘Li.
1
West
Suburban
No
2
Santa
Fe
Val
ev
~
~..
~
ca-
-
‘PC
21fl
...
WPC
1
1
—t
Case Woe.
P0 83—lU
PCB
83—201
P0 83—188
PCB
83—189
PCB
83—202
Prestvicr also
-
I
.
,,
o
aes water and
sanitary
oe~e
se.
ice
•r
a
ic
.
t
under
certifi-
cates
ci
r
*1.
c.
n
~
i.e
ce
a
-
ed
3y
the
Illinois
Commerce Coa.sssnr.
these ir
e.1. a
a con
two
waste
water
treatment plart, shich fleet jUt o
an
perates and which are
certified poliutton control faci
ttte
a- follows:
F
a ikfo
‘ub’
&
e
zisrt
,
1~
‘
tbfl’
C°’’i
.
‘-~
I
C
‘8
-
-
9
Case
Roe.
PCB
83—206
P0
83—207
At
teang,
Cttizcns
Prestn
made
a
j
.
t
‘
uls’-i
n
~1
-
governme ital
ni t:
t
tat
e
v
-
involvaa
is
used
~
“sewage
t
oa~_
t
di.
the
meaning o
-le
ten
‘seway
t
Adm. Coe
3
V
°r1y
F
1°
Pollw-in
&
.
‘-a4-~reca
soure
it
-
ftads
ti
e
2
~..
it..
~cv--
-
(Resp.
Ex.
a
.
ci l.a
subo
-
of
the
I
linoi
Rnesuo
Act
o.
)
anti
that
.Me
B
iL
~
Lerely
-
I
z.r c
‘he
tttorney
General
•
i
arenot
cL
equipment
Oct
(sic),
and
that
‘ained
in
35
Ill.
to
3
later
.e
.1
wastes
from
any
a
1,
the
Board
u-re
involved
C
~a
agraph
502a—2
e
by
P.A.
83—883,
--
each
of
them.
Ct
e~
tid
re:
i
~c0
1
3
cgrounds
that
P.A.
83-’
83
~
-ai
‘ntstutz~T-l
I
.
t
ct.
nd
as
applied
to their
Za iii ~.e.,.Rciorder
a’
..,c
.
at
A.
83—883 violates
federal and state guarantees or
...
-1 pro...ectior, due process of
law and anifornity in taxation
‘Sr etl~ bit
rore
specifically,
respondents assert that the rec.t.
a.. rot ert to the Revenue Act
Plant
“—4
79—8
-6
71
—
55-rø
creates
a dccc t~rrcatior.~1i~
r
ca
r
hi~h
is not
reasonably
related to
the
purpose
of,
and
‘~U.
~
po
cy behind,
section
21a—l
of the Revenue Act
the
?~.
rigs
oU of
installation
of
pollution
control
facilities by piovUing
ax benefits
to
business~ Cit~zensand Presf~’ik
urtlcr argue that P~A~
83—883
constitutes ‘~invidiousdiscriri:
at~
fl
beccuce
it arbitrarily
singles out fot loss
of Lax ber~it sewage treatment
facilities
a) not
perated
ly qovernmert~
eUtC~,
a~db) treating
domesti
as o~po0cd L
iidus~
a
t
r
tT.~pesof wastes~
Citizers ard P~c:Lwicksuppor
C
UrLins
by citation
to
various
legal
arti
ritiec,
ard
v
rio eice to documents
generated by Ui. De~artn
~i
o
c
r
~t~ng the small
number of cerritrcatiois
at
~cU
y
P
~8~3
(Resp.
Ex~7—8),
In hi0
~rief
s respoise
the
poUutio
co
o
~ac
in
P,A.
8 ~‘33
a)oraITi
differor
3
tIc
i
andi’
I
I
Section
adjudi
atu
c
c
consico~edtnaL 3ucotlor
C
PCB 76~8’,
o
temiTer
23
IU:
constitut
r~it1
f P~A I~
Erivirormenta~
rotccCion Act
The Boa
Ii
law tha
e
3
CO~TSi’
t
tode
~n’
Admu
no
au h ri y
~.
L
Board
eiUo:
Ia he
held
t
eL
dci
~:
ucilcati
becore
Giv~
hr.
~nderi
~n~tigc
0:
is
ci
~
as ~
~:~i
b~l
gcneril
a
ii
~Ja
iiaoical
~
establirted
ii
th~Enri
(sUp
o~
at
ernpha0i
U
I
:nc’
~enera1
argues that
(ati)is affected by
a
ard substantial
or
cn
is reasonable
e~t wed
under
Icther
it
should
e
the
Board
it
~e~kE~~rises,
cC
v
ed the
Lec
ion
25 of the
Stat
ci
U1½,
¶1025.
a
tatter
of
hornbook
c
a
encace that
power
cr
iting Davis,
t ~ujh there
is
~
o~that the
H wever, the Board
oi
y
rile
Jo
as
a
C
0
1li~
hr
e
~i
~ut~
10 i
The Board does not find this to he an appropriate case for
adjudication by the Board of the constitutionality of this
legislative
enactments
The arguments accepted by the Board in
Santa Fe supporting
its resolution of a constitutional challenge
to an enactment altering the enforcement mechanism of the
Environmental Protection Act are inapplicable here~
They do not
persuade the Board that
it should enter the arena of taxation
law
to consider the constitutionality
of a tax benefit provision of
the
Revenue Act~
Finding that the
7 tax certifications here involved
fail
within paragraph 502 a~2(c) of the Revenue
Act, and that the
Board
is not an appropriate forum for consideration of the
constitutional questions raised, each tax certificate
is
hereby
revoked
This Opinion constitutes the Board.!s findings
of fact and
conclusions of
law in this matter~
Pursuant to IlL
Rev.
Stat.
Ch,
120,
par,
5O2a~2,each of
the following Pollution Control Facility Tax Certifications
is
hereby revoked:
a)
Certificates issued
Company of
Illinois
to
Citizens
Utilities
Case Nos.
West Suburban No~
West Suburban No.
Santa Fe
Valley View
21RA—Ill—WPC—79-~4
2lRA—ILL~~’WPC~79—8
2iRA~-ILL—WPC~74—6
2iRA—lLL~WPC~74~7
21RA~ILL—WPC—77~4
PCB 83—187
PCB
83—201
PCB 83-188
PCB
83-189
PCB
83—202
b)
Certificates
Company
Case Nos,
Frankfort Square
Subdivision
Prestwick Subdivision
21RA—Ill—WPC~80~l8
21RA~II I“~WPC
80 19
PCB 83-206
PCB 83-207
IT
IS
SO ORDERED,
I, Christan L.
Moffett,
Clerk of the Illinois
Pollution
control
Board,
hereby certify that the above Opinion
and Order
was
adopted
on the ~~~day
of
~
~
,
1983 by
a
vote of
()
I
Christan
L. Mo~fet~,
~k
‘~‘
Illinois Pollution
Cont~ol
55~382