Power Purchase Agreements. Our long-term PPAs have been evaluated under the accounting guidance for variable interest entities. We have determined that either we have no variable interest in the PPA or where we do have variable interests, we are not the primary beneficiary; therefore, consolidation is not required. These conclusions are based on the fact that we do not have both control over activities that are most significant to the entity and an obligation to absorb losses or receive benefits from the entity's performance. Our financial exposure relating to these PPAs is limited to our fixed capacity and energy payments.

Square Butte PPA. Minnesota Power has a PPA with Square Butte that extends through 2026 (Agreement). It provides a long-term supply of energy to customers in our electric service territory and enables Minnesota Power to meet power pool reserve requirements. Square Butte, a North Dakota cooperative corporation, owns a 455 MW coal-fired generating unit (Unit) near Center, North Dakota. The Unit is adjacent to a generating unit owned by Minnkota Power, a North Dakota cooperative corporation whose Class A members are also members of Square Butte. Minnkota Power serves as the operator of the Unit and also purchases power from Square Butte.

Minnesota Power is obligated to pay its pro rata share of Square Butte's costs based on Minnesota Power's entitlement to Unit output. Our output entitlement under the Agreement is 50 percent for the remainder of the contract, subject to the provisions of the Minnkota Power sales agreement described below. Minnesota Power's payment obligation will be suspended if Square Butte fails to deliver any power, whether produced or purchased, for a period of one year. Square Butte's costs consist primarily of debt service, operating and maintenance, depreciation and fuel expenses. We expect debt service, operating and maintenance and depreciation expenses for Square Butte to increase in 2011 due to environmental compliance obligations. As of June 30, 2011, Square Butte had total debt outstanding of $424.1 million. Annual debt service for Square Butte is expected to be approximately $39 million in each of the five years, 2011 through 2015, of which Minnesota Power's obligation is 50 percent. Fuel expenses are recoverable through our fuel adjustment clause and include the cost of coal purchased from BNI Coal, our subsidiary, under a long-term contract.

Minnkota Power Sales Agreement. In conjunction with the purchase of the existing 250 kV DC transmission line from Square Butte in December 2009, Minnesota Power entered into a power sales agreement with Minnkota Power. Under the power sales agreement, Minnesota Power will sell a portion of its output from Square Butte to Minnkota Power, resulting in Minnkota Power's net entitlement increasing and Minnesota Power's net entitlement decreasing until Minnesota Power's share is eliminated at the end of 2025.

No power will be sold under this agreement until Minnkota Power has placed in service a new AC transmission line, which is anticipated to occur in 2013. This new AC transmission line will allow Minnkota Power to transmit its entitlement from Square Butte directly to its customers, which, in turn, will enable Minnesota Power to transmit new wind generation on the DC transmission line.

Wind PPAs. In 2006 and 2007, Minnesota Power entered into two long-term wind PPAs with an affiliate of NextEra Energy, Inc., to purchase the output from Oliver Wind I (50 MW) and Oliver Wind II (48 MW) - wind facilities located near Center, North Dakota. Each agreement is for 25 years and provides for the purchase of all output from the facilities at fixed prices. There are no fixed capacity charges and we only pay for energy as it is delivered to us.

Hydro PPAs. Minnesota Power has a PPA with Manitoba Hydro that expires in April 2015. Under this agreement Minnesota Power is purchasing 50 MW of capacity and the energy associated with that capacity. Both the capacity price and the energy price are adjusted annually by the change in a governmental inflationary index.

Minnesota Power has a separate PPA with Manitoba Hydro to purchase surplus energy beginning in May 2011 through April 2022. This energy-only transaction primarily consists of surplus hydro energy on Manitoba Hydro's system that is delivered to Minnesota Power on a non-firm basis. The pricing is based on forward market prices. Under this agreement Minnesota Power will be purchasing at least one million MWh of energy over the contract term. On March 11, 2011, the MPUC approved this PPA with Manitoba Hydro.

North Dakota Wind Development. In December 2009, we purchased an existing 250 kV DC transmission line from Square Butte. The 465-mile transmission line runs from Center, North Dakota, to Duluth, Minnesota. We use this line to transport increasing amounts of wind energy from North Dakota, while gradually phasing out coal-based electricity currently being delivered to our system over this transmission line from Square Butte's coal-fired generating unit.

Bison 1 is a two phase, 82 MW wind project in North Dakota. All permitting has been received and the first phase was completed in 2010. Phase one included the construction of a 22-mile, 230 kV transmission line and the installation of sixteen 2.3-MW wind turbines. Phase two is expected to be completed in late 2011 and consists of the installation of fifteen 3.0-MW wind turbines. Bison 1 is expected to have a total capital cost of approximately $177 million, of which $137.4 million was spent through June 30, 2011. In 2009, the MPUC approved Minnesota Power's petition seeking current cost recovery for investments and expenditures related to Bison 1 and in July 2010, the MPUC approved our petition establishing rates effective August 1, 2010. On March 31, 2011, Minnesota Power petitioned the MPUC to update the rates for additional investments and expenditures related to Bison 1.

Bison 2 and Bison 3 are both 105 MW wind projects in North Dakota which, if approved by the MPUC, are expected to be completed by the end of 2012. Total project costs for Bison 2 and Bison 3 are estimated to be approximately $160 million each. Construction would begin upon the receipt of appropriate regulatory and permitting approvals. Requests for approval of Bison 2 and Bison 3 were filed with the MPUC on March 24, 2011, and June 21, 2011, respectively. Site permit applications were submitted to the NDPSC on April 6, 2011, and July 7, 2011, respectively. Approvals of the site permit applications are expected in the third quarter of 2011. We will file for current cost recovery for Bison 2 and Bison 3 with the MPUC once the projects and related permitting have been approved.

Coal, Rail and Shipping Contracts. We have coal supply agreements and transportation agreements providing for the purchase and delivery of a significant portion of our coal requirements. These coal and transportation agreements, including option terms, expire in various years between late 2011 and 2015. Our minimum annual payment obligation is $31.8 million in 2011, $15.8 million in 2012 and $16.3 million in 2013. Our minimum annual payment obligations will increase when annual nominations are made for coal deliveries in future years. The delivered costs of fuel for Minnesota Power's generation are recoverable from Minnesota Power's utility customers through the fuel adjustment clause.

Leasing Agreements. BNI Coal is obligated to make lease payments for a dragline totaling $2.8 million annually for the lease term which expires in 2027. BNI Coal has the option at the end of the lease term to renew the lease at fair market value, purchase the dragline at fair market value or surrender the dragline and pay a $3.0 million termination fee. We lease other properties and equipment under operating lease agreements with terms expiring through 2016. The aggregate amount of minimum lease payments for all operating leases is $8.1 million in 2011, $8.4 million in 2012, $8.5 million in 2013, $8.7 million in 2014, $8.4 million in 2015 and $44.7 million thereafter.

Transmission Investments. We have an approved cost recovery rider in place for certain transmission expenditures and the continued use of our 2009 billing factor was approved by the MPUC on May 11, 2011. The billing factor allows us to charge our retail customers on a current basis for the costs of constructing certain transmission facilities plus a return on the capital invested. On June 29, 2011, we filed an updated billing factor that includes additional transmission projects and expenses, which we expect to be approved in late 2011.

CapX2020. Minnesota Power is a participant in the CapX2020 initiative which represents an effort to ensure electric transmission and distribution reliability in Minnesota and the surrounding region for the future. CapX2020, which consists of electric cooperatives, municipals and investor-owned utilities, including Minnesota's largest transmission owners, has assessed the transmission system and projected growth in customer demand for electricity through 2020. Studies show that the region's transmission system will require major upgrades and expansion to accommodate increased electricity demand as well as support renewable energy expansion through 2020.

Minnesota Power is currently participating in three CapX2020 projects: the Fargo to St. Cloud project, the Monticello to St. Cloud project, which together total a 238-mile, 345 kV line from Fargo to Monticello, and the 70-mile, 230 kV line between Bemidji and Minnesota Power's Boswell Energy Center near Grand Rapids, Minnesota. Based on projected costs of the three transmission lines and the percentage agreements among participating utilities, Minnesota Power plans to invest between $100 million and $125 million in the CapX2020 initiative through 2015, of which $17.5 million was spent through June 30, 2011. As future CapX2020 projects are identified, Minnesota Power may elect to participate on a project-by-project basis.

In July 2010, the MPUC granted a route permit for the 28-mile, 345 kV line between Monticello and St. Cloud. Construction of the project is expected to be completed in late 2011. On June 10, 2011, the MPUC approved the route permit for the Minnesota portion of the St. Cloud to Fargo project. The North Dakota permitting process is underway. The entire 238-mile, 345 kV line from St. Cloud to Fargo is expected to be in service by 2015. Construction for the Bemidji to Grand Rapids 230 kV line project commenced in January 2011.

In November 2010, the MPUC approved a route permit for the Bemidji to Grand Rapids line. The Leech Lake Band of Ojibwe (LLBO) subsequently requested that the MPUC suspend or revoke the route permit and also served the CapX2020 utilities with a tribal court complaint asserting adjudicatory and regulatory authority over the project. The CapX2020 utilities filed a request for declaratory judgment in federal court that the project does not require the LLBO consent to the line crossing non-tribal land within the Leech Lake reservation. In response, the LLBO filed a motion to dismiss at the federal court scheduled for hearing on September 16, 2011. The MPUC has taken no action in the matter in light of ongoing litigation in federal and tribal court. On June 22, 2011, the Federal Judge issued a preliminary injunction directing the LLBO to cease and desist its claims of tribal court jurisdiction or from taking other actions to interfere with regulatory review, approval or project construction. The CapX2020 utilities are vigorously defending against the LLBO actions.

Our businesses are subject to regulation of environmental matters by various federal, state and local authorities. Currently, a number of regulatory changes to the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act and various waste management requirements are under consideration by both Congress and the EPA. Minnesota Power's fossil fuel facilities will likely be subject to regulation under these proposals. Our intention is to reduce our exposure to these requirements by reshaping our generation portfolio over time to reduce our reliance on coal.

We consider our businesses to be in substantial compliance with currently applicable environmental regulations and believe all necessary permits to conduct such operations have been obtained. Due to future restrictive environmental requirements through legislation and/or rulemaking, we anticipate that potential expenditures for environmental matters will be material and will require significant capital investments.

We review environmental matters on a quarterly basis. Accruals for environmental matters are recorded when it is probable that a liability has been incurred and the amount of the liability can be reasonably estimated, based on current law and existing technologies. Accruals are adjusted as assessment and remediation efforts progress or as additional technical or legal information become available. Accruals for environmental liabilities are included in the consolidated balance sheet at undiscounted amounts and exclude claims for recoveries from insurance or other third parties. Costs related to environmental contamination treatment and cleanup are charged to expense unless recoverable in rates from customers.

Air. The electric utility industry is heavily regulated both at the federal and state level to address air emissions. Minnesota Power's generating facilities mainly burn low-sulfur western sub-bituminous coal. Square Butte, located in North Dakota, burns lignite coal. All of Minnesota Power's generating facilities are equipped with pollution control equipment such as scrubbers, bag houses and low NOx technologies. At this time, these facilities are substantially compliant with applicable emission requirements.

New Source Review. In August 2008, Minnesota Power received a Notice of Violation (NOV) from the EPA asserting violations of the New Source Review (NSR) requirements of the Clean Air Act at Boswell Units 1-4 and Laskin Unit 2. The NOV asserts that seven projects undertaken at these coal-fired plants between the years 1981 and 2000 should have been reviewed under the NSR requirements and that the Boswell Unit 4 Title V permit was violated. In April 2011, Minnesota Power received a NOV alleging that two projects undertaken at Rapids Energy Center in 2004 and 2005 should have been reviewed under the NSR requirements and that the Rapids Energy Center's Title V permit was violated. Minnesota Power believes the projects in both NOVs were in full compliance with the Clean Air Act, NSR requirements and applicable permits. We are engaged in discussions with the EPA regarding resolution of these matters, but we are unable to predict the outcome of these discussions.

The resolution could result in civil penalties and the installation of control technology, some of which is already planned or completed for other regulatory requirements. Any costs of installing pollution control technology would likely be eligible for recovery in rates over time subject to MPUC and FERC approval in a rate proceeding. Since 2006, Minnesota Power has significantly reduced emissions at Laskin and Boswell and continues to reduce emissions at Boswell.

Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR). On July 6, 2011, the EPA finalized the CSAPR; however, it has not yet been published in the Federal Register. The CSAPR requires 27 states to significantly improve air quality by reducing power plant emissions that contribute to ozone and/or fine particle pollution in other states. This final rule, referred to as the Transport Rule during the proposal stage, replaces the EPA's 2005 Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR). Minnesota participation in the CAIR was stayed by EPA administrative action while the EPA completed review of air quality modeling issues in conjunction with development of a final, replacement rule. In their final determination, the EPA has listed Minnesota as a CSAPR-affected state based on new, 24-hour fine particulate NAAQS analysis. The CSAPR-related emission restrictions become effective for Minnesota utilities in 2012.

Since 2006, we have made substantial investments in pollution control equipment at our Laskin, Taconite Harbor and Boswell generating units which have significantly reduced emissions. Ongoing analysis of the CSAPR preliminarily indicates our recent emission reductions may satisfy Minnesota Power's SO2 and NOx emission compliance obligations with respect to the CSAPR requirements. We are unable to predict any additional CSAPR compliance costs we might incur at this time.

Minnesota Regional Haze. The federal regional haze rule requires states to submit state implementation plans (SIPs) to the EPA to address regional haze visibility impairment in 156 federally-protected parks and wilderness areas. Under the regional haze rule, certain large stationary sources, put in place between 1962 and 1977, with emissions contributing to visibility impairment are required to install emission controls, known as Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART). We have two steam units, Boswell Unit 3 and Taconite Harbor Unit 3, which are subject to BART requirements.

Pursuant to the regional haze rule, Minnesota was required to develop its SIP by December 2007. As a mechanism for demonstrating progress towards meeting the long-term regional haze goal, in April 2007, the MPCA advanced a draft conceptual SIP which relied on the implementation of CAIR. However, a formal SIP was not filed at that time due to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit's remand of CAIR. Subsequently, the MPCA requested that companies with BART eligible units complete and submit a BART emissions control retrofit study, which was completed for Taconite Harbor Unit 3 in November 2008. The retrofit work completed in 2009 at Boswell Unit 3 meets the BART requirements for that unit. In December 2009, the MPCA approved the Minnesota SIP for submittal to the EPA for its review and approval. The Minnesota SIP incorporates information from the BART emissions control retrofit studies that were completed as requested by the MPCA. A decision by the EPA is pending on whether to approve the Minnesota SIP. If approved, Minnesota Power will have up to five years to bring Taconite Harbor Unit 3 into compliance. It is uncertain what controls will ultimately be required at Taconite Harbor Unit 3 in connection with the regional haze rule.

EPA National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPs) for Coal- and Oil-fired Electric Utility Steam Generating Units (EUSGU). Under Section 112 of the Clean Air Act, the EPA is required to set emission standards for hazardous air pollutants for certain source categories. The EPA released their proposed EUSGU NESHAPs rule on March 16, 2011. As part of the NESHAPs rulemaking, the EPA will develop Maximum Achievable Control Technology standards for utilities. The final rule is expected to be issued in November 2011. Costs for complying with potential future mercury and other hazardous air pollutant regulations under the Clean Air Act cannot be estimated at this time.

EPA National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Major Sources: Industrial, Commercial and Institutional Boilers and Process Heaters. In March 2011, the final rules were published in the Federal Register. The rule was stayed by the EPA on May 16, 2011, to allow the EPA time to consider additional comments received. The EPA currently plans to re-propose the rule, with a final rule expected in April 2012. Major sources have three years to achieve compliance with the final rules. These rules may result in additional control measures being required at Rapids Energy Center and Hibbard. Costs for complying with these proposed rules cannot be estimated at this time.

Minnesota Mercury Emission Reduction Act. Under Minnesota law, a mercury emissions reduction plan for Boswell Unit 4 is required to be submitted by July 1, 2015, with implementation no later than December 31, 2018. The statute also calls for an evaluation of a mercury control alternative which provides for environmental and public health benefits without imposing excessive costs on the utility's customers. Costs for the Boswell Unit 4 emission reduction plan cannot be estimated at this time. Until Minnesota Power files its mercury emission reduction plan for Boswell 4, it must file an annual report updating the MPUC and other stakeholders on the status of emission reduction planning for Boswell 4. The first such update was filed with the MPUC on June 30, 2011.

Proposed and Finalized National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). The EPA is required to review the NAAQS every five years. If the EPA determines that a state's air quality is not in compliance with a NAAQS, the state is required to adopt plans describing how they will reduce emissions to attain the NAAQS. These state plans often include more stringent air emission limitations on sources of air pollutants. Four NAAQS have either recently been revised or are currently proposed for revision, as described below.

Ozone NAAQS. The EPA is proposing to more stringently control emissions that result in ground level ozone. In January 2010, the EPA proposed to reduce the eight-hour ozone standard and to adopt a secondary standard for the protection of sensitive vegetation from ozone-related damage. The EPA was scheduled to decide upon the standard at the end of July 2011, however the decision has been delayed. As proposed, states have until early 2014 to submit plans outlining how they will meet the standards.

Particulate Matter NAAQS. The EPA finalized the NAAQS Particulate Matter standards in September 2006. The EPA established a more stringent 24-hour average fine particulate (PM2.5) standard and kept the annual average fine particulate matter standard and the 24-hour coarse particulate matter standard unchanged. The District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals has remanded the PM2.5 standard to the EPA, requiring consideration of lower annual average standard values. The EPA plans to finalize the new PM2.5 standards in 2011 and state attainment status determination will likely not occur prior to 2013. As early as late 2014, affected sources would have to take additional control measures if modeling demonstrates non-compliance at the property boundary. The EPA has indicated that ambient air quality monitoring for 2008 through 2010 will be used as a basis for states to characterize their attainment status.

SO2 and NO2 NAAQS. During 2010, the EPA finalized a new one-hour NAAQS for SO2 and NO2. Monitoring data indicates that Minnesota will likely be in compliance with these new standards; however, the SO2 NAAQS also requires the EPA to evaluate modeling data to determine attainment. MPCA intends to have this modeling effort completed by the end of 2011, using facility data Minnesota Power provides for all of our steam generating facilities. It is unclear what the outcome of this evaluation will be. These NAAQS could also result in more stringent emission limits on our steam generating facilities, possibly resulting in additional control measures on some of our units.

The scientific community generally accepts that emissions of GHGs are linked to global climate change. Climate change creates physical and financial risk. These physical risks could include, but are not limited to, increased or decreased precipitation and water levels in lakes and rivers; increased temperatures; and the intensity and frequency of extreme weather events. These all have the potential to affect the Company's business and operations.

EPA Regulation of GHG Emissions. In May 2010, the EPA issued the final Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) and Title V Greenhouse Gas Tailoring Rule (Tailoring Rule). The PSD/Tailoring Rule establishes permitting thresholds required to address GHG emissions for new facilities, at existing facilities that undergo major modifications and at other facilities characterized as major sources under the Clean Air Act's Title V program.

For our existing facilities, the rule does not require amending our existing Title V Operating Permits to include GHG requirements. Implementation of the requirement to add GHG provisions to permits will be completed at the state level in Minnesota by the MPCA when the Title V permits are renewed. However, installation of new units or modification of existing units resulting in a significant increase in GHG emissions will require obtaining PSD permits and amending our operating permits to demonstrate that Best Available Control Technology (BACT) is being used at the facility to control GHG emissions. The EPA has defined significant emissions increase for existing sources as a GHG increase of 75,000 tons or more per year of total GHG on a CO2 equivalent basis.

In late 2010, the EPA issued guidance to permitting authorities and affected sources to facilitate incorporation of the Tailoring Rule permitting requirements into the Title V and PSD permitting programs. The guidance stated that the project-specific top-down BACT determination process used for other pollutants will also be used to determine BACT for GHG emissions. Through sector-specific white papers, the EPA also provided examples and technical summaries of GHG emission control technologies and techniques the EPA considers available or likely to be available to sources. It is possible these control technologies could be determined to be BACT on a project-by-project basis. In the near term, one option appears to be energy efficiency maximization.

Legal challenges to the EPA's regulation of GHG emissions, including the Tailoring Rule, have been filed by others and are awaiting judicial determination. Comments to the permitting guidance were also submitted by Minnesota Power and others and may be addressed by the EPA in the form of revised guidance documents.

Water. The Clean Water Act requires NPDES permits to be obtained from the EPA (or, when delegated, from individual state pollution control agencies) for any wastewater discharged into navigable waters. We have obtained all necessary NPDES permits, including NPDES storm water permits for applicable facilities, to conduct our operations. We are in substantial compliance with these permits.

Clean Water Act - Aquatic Organisms. On April 20, 2011, the EPA published in the Federal Register proposed regulations under section 316(b) of the Clean Water Act that set standards applicable to cooling water intake structures for the protection of aquatic organisms. The proposed regulations would require existing large power plants and manufacturing facilities that withdraw greater than 25 percent of water from adjacent water bodies for cooling purposes to limit the number of aquatic organisms that are killed when they are pinned against the facility's intake structure or that are drawn into the facility's cooling system. The section 316(b) standards would be implemented through NPDES permits issued to the covered facilities. The EPA has re-opened the comment period and is accepting public comments on the proposed rule through August 18, 2011. The EPA is obligated to finalize the rule by July 27, 2012. Minnesota Power is in the process of evaluating the potential impacts the proposed rule may have on its facilities. We are unable to predict the compliance costs we might incur; however, the costs could have a material impact on our financial results.

Coal Ash Management Facilities. Minnesota Power generates coal ash at all five of its steam electric generating facilities. Two facilities store ash in onsite impoundments (ash ponds) with engineered liners and containment dikes. Another facility stores dry ash in a landfill with an engineered liner and leachate collection system. Two facilities generate a combined wood and coal ash that is either land applied as an approved beneficial use or trucked to state permitted landfills. In June 2010, the EPA proposed regulations for coal combustion residuals generated by the electric utility sector. The proposal sought comments on three general regulatory schemes for coal ash. Comments on the proposed rule were due in November 2010. It is estimated that the final rule will be published in late 2012 or early 2013. We are unable to predict the compliance costs we might incur; however, the costs could have a material impact on our financial results.

Manufactured Gas Plant Site. We are reviewing and addressing environmental conditions at a former manufactured gas plant site in the City of Superior, Wisconsin, and formerly operated by SWL&P. We have been working with the WDNR to determine the extent of contamination and the remediation of contaminated locations. As of June 30, 2011, we have a $0.5 million liability for this site and a corresponding regulatory asset as we expect recovery of remediation costs to be allowed by the PSCW.

BNI Coal. As of June 30, 2011, BNI Coal had surety bonds outstanding of $29.7 million related to the reclamation liability for closing costs associated with its mine and mine facilities which meet the requirements for BNI Coal's total reclamation liability. BNI Coal does not believe it is likely that any of these outstanding bonds will be drawn upon.

ALLETE Properties. As of June 30, 2011, ALLETE Properties, through its subsidiaries, had surety bonds outstanding of $10.2 million primarily related to performance and maintenance obligations to governmental entities to construct improvements in the Company's various projects. The cost of the remaining work to be completed on these improvements is estimated to be approximately $8.0 million and ALLETE Properties does not believe it is likely that any of these outstanding bonds will be drawn upon.

Community Development District Obligations. In March 2005, the Town Center District issued $26.4 million of tax-exempt, 6 percent capital improvement revenue bonds and in May 2006, the Palm Coast Park District issued $31.8 million of tax-exempt, 5.7 percent special assessment bonds. The capital improvement revenue bonds and the special assessment bonds are payable over 31 years (by May 1, 2036 and 2037, respectively) and secured by special assessments on the benefitted land. The bond proceeds were used to pay for the construction of a portion of the major infrastructure improvements in each district and to mitigate traffic and environmental impacts. The assessments were billed to the landowners beginning in November 2006 for Town Center and November 2007 for Palm Coast Park. To the extent that we still own land at the time of the assessment, we will incur the cost of our portion of these assessments, based upon our ownership of benefited property. At June 30, 2011, we owned 73 percent of the assessable land in the Town Center District (69 percent at December 31, 2010) and 93 percent of the assessable land in the Palm Coast Park District (93 percent at December 31, 2010). At these ownership levels, our annual assessments are approximately $1.5 million for Town Center and $2.2 million for Palm Coast Park. As we sell property, the obligation to pay special assessments will pass to the new landowners. Under current accounting rules, these bonds are not reflected as debt on our consolidated balance sheet.

Legal Proceedings. In January 2011, the Company was named as a defendant in a lawsuit in the Sixth Judicial District for the State of Minnesota by one of our customer's, United Taconite, LLC, property and business interruption insurers. In October 2006, United Taconite experienced a fire as a result of the failure of certain electrical protective equipment. The equipment at issue in the incident was not owned, designed or installed by Minnesota Power, but Minnesota Power had provided testing and calibration services related to the equipment. The lawsuit alleges approximately $20 million in damages related to the fire. The Company believes that it has strong defenses to the lawsuit and intends to vigorously assert such defenses. An expense related to any damages that may result from the lawsuit has not been recorded as of June 30, 2011, because a potential loss is not currently probable or reasonably estimable; however, the Company believes it has adequate insurance coverage for any potential loss.

Other. We are involved in litigation arising in the normal course of business. Also in the normal course of business, we are involved in tax, regulatory and other governmental audits, inspections, investigations and other proceedings that involve state and federal taxes, safety, compliance with regulations, rate base and cost of service issues, among other things. While the resolution of such matters could have a material affect on earnings and cash flows in the year of resolution, none of these matters are expected to materially change our present liquidity position or have a material adverse affect on our financial condition.