Commitments, Guarantees and Contingencies

9 Months Ended

Sep. 30, 2013

Commitments, Guarantees and Contingencies [Abstract]

Commitments, Guarantees and Contingencies [Text Block]

COMMITMENTS, GUARANTEES AND CONTINGENCIES

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 PPAs 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 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 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. As of September 30, 2013, Square Butte had total debt outstanding of $404.4 million. Annual debt service for Square Butte is expected to be approximately $44 million in each of the years 2013 through 2017, 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, under a long-term contract.

NOTE 14.  COMMITMENTS, GUARANTEES AND CONTINGENCIES (Continued)

Power Purchase Agreements (Continued)

Minnesota Power’s cost of power purchased from Square Butte during the nine months ended September 30, 2013, was $51.3 million ($48.7 million for the nine months ended September 30, 2012). This reflects Minnesota Power’s pro rata share of total Square Butte costs based on the 50 percent output entitlement. Included in this amount was Minnesota Power’s pro rata share of interest expense of $7.9 million during the nine months ended September 30, 2013 ($8.3 million for the nine months ended September 30, 2012). Minnesota Power’s payments to Square Butte are approved as a purchased power expense for ratemaking purposes by both the MPUC and the FERC.

Minnkota Power Sales Agreement. 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 the 2009 agreement until Minnkota Power has placed in service a new AC transmission line, which is expected to occur in the first quarter of 2014. 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 additional wind generation on the existing DC transmission line.

Minnkota Power PPA. In December 2012, Minnesota Power entered into a long-term PPA with Minnkota Power. Under this agreement, Minnesota Power will purchase 50 MW of capacity and the energy associated with that capacity over the term June 1, 2016, through May 31, 2020. The agreement includes a fixed capacity charge and energy pricing that escalates at a fixed rate annually over the term.

Oliver Wind I and II 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 energy prices. There are no fixed capacity charges and we only pay for energy as it is delivered to us.

Manitoba Hydro PPAs. Minnesota Power has a long-term 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 long-term PPA with Manitoba Hydro to purchase surplus energy through April 2022. This energy-only agreement 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 purchase at least one million MWh of energy over the contract term.

In May 2011, Minnesota Power and Manitoba Hydro signed an additional long-term PPA. The PPA provides for Manitoba Hydro to sell 250 MW of capacity and energy to Minnesota Power for 15 years beginning in 2020 and is subject to construction of additional transmission capacity between Manitoba and Minnesota’s Iron Range, along with construction of new hydroelectric generating capacity in Manitoba. The capacity price is adjusted annually until 2020 by a change in a governmental inflationary index. The energy price is based on a formula that includes an annual fixed price component adjusted for changes in a governmental inflationary index, a natural gas index, and market prices.

North Dakota Wind Development. Minnesota Power uses the 465-mile, 250 kV DC transmission line that runs from Center, North Dakota, to Duluth, Minnesota to transport increasing amounts of wind energy from North Dakota while gradually phasing out coal-based electricity delivered to our system over this transmission line from Square Butte’s lignite coal-fired generating unit.

Our 292 MW Bison Wind Energy Center, located in North Dakota, was completed in various phases through 2012. On September 25, 2013, the NDPSC approved the site permit for Bison 4, a 205 MW wind project in North Dakota. As a result, construction has commenced and is expected to be completed by the end of 2014. The total project investment for Bison 4 is estimated to be approximately $345 million, of which $7.7 million was spent through September 30, 2013. On September 27, 2013, Minnesota Power filed its petition with the MPUC seeking current cost recovery for investments and expenditures related to Bison 4.

NOTE 14.  COMMITMENTS, GUARANTEES AND CONTINGENCIES (Continued)

Coal, Rail and Shipping Contracts. We have coal supply agreements providing for the purchase of a significant portion of our coal requirements with expiration dates through 2015. We also have coal transportation agreements in place for the delivery of a significant portion of our coal requirements with expiration dates through 2015. Our minimum annual payment obligation under these supply and transportation agreements is $12.1 million for the remainder of 2013, $6.9 million for 2014 and $2.2 million for 2015. Our minimum annual payment obligation 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, to purchase the dragline at fair market value, or to surrender the dragline and pay a $3.0 million termination fee. We also 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$11.5 million in 2013, $11.7 million in 2014, $11.4 million in 2015, $9.3 million in 2016, $8.5 million in 2017 and $35.0 million thereafter.

Transmission. We continue to make investments in Upper Midwest transmission opportunities that strengthen or enhance the regional transmission grid. These include the Great Northern Transmission Line, the CapX2020 initiative, investments in our own transmission assets, investments in other regional transmission assets (individually or in combination with others), and our investment in ATC.

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, municipal 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 participating in three CapX2020 projects: the Fargo, North Dakota to St. Cloud, Minnesota project, the Monticello, Minnesota to St. Cloud, Minnesota project, which together total a 238-mile, 345 kV line from Fargo, North Dakota to Monticello, Minnesota, and the 70-mile, 230 kV line between Bemidji, Minnesota and Minnesota Power’s Boswell Energy Center near Grand Rapids, Minnesota. The 28-mile 345 kV line between Monticello and St. Cloud was placed into service in December 2011 and the 70-mile 230 kV line between Bemidji, Minnesota and Minnesota Power’s Boswell Energy Center near Grand Rapids, Minnesota was placed into service in September 2012. In June 2011, the MPUC approved the route permit for the Minnesota portion of the Fargo to St. Cloud project. The North Dakota permitting process was completed in August 2012. The entire 238-mile, 345 kV line from Fargo to Monticello is expected to be in service by 2015.

Based on projected costs of the three transmission lines and the allocation agreements among participating utilities, Minnesota Power plans to invest between $100 million and $110 million in the CapX2020 initiative through 2015. A total of $70.9 million was spent through September 30, 2013, of which $60.0 million related to the Fargo, North Dakota to Monticello, Minnesota projects and $10.9 million related to the Bemidji, Minnesota to Minnesota Power’s Boswell Energy Center project ($48.2 million as of December 31, 2012 of which $37.3 million related to the Fargo, North Dakota to Monticello, Minnesota projects and $10.9 million related to the Bemidji, Minnesota to Minnesota Power’s Boswell Energy Center project). As future CapX2020 projects are identified, Minnesota Power may elect to participate on a project-by-project basis.

Great Northern Transmission Line (GNTL). As a condition of the long-term PPA signed in May 2011 with Manitoba Hydro, construction of additional transmission capacity is required. As a result, Minnesota Power and Manitoba Hydro proposed construction of the GNTL, an approximately 240-mile 500 kV transmission line between Manitoba and Minnesota’s Iron Range in order to strengthen the electric grid, enhance regional reliability and promote a greater exchange of sustainable energy.

The GNTL is subject to various federal and state regulatory approvals. Before a large energy facility can be sited or constructed in Minnesota, the MPUC requires a Certificate of Need, which was filed on October 21, 2013. Manitoba Hydro must also obtain regulatory and governmental approvals related to new transmission lines and hydroelectric generation development in Canada. Upon receipt of all applicable permits and approvals, Minnesota Power anticipates construction to begin in 2016, and to be completed in 2020. Minnesota Power will own 51 percent of the GNTL, while a subsidiary of Manitoba Hydro will own 49 percent. At this time, we expect our portion of capital expenditures for the project to range between $200 million and $300 million depending on the final route of the line.

NOTE 14.  COMMITMENTS, GUARANTEES AND CONTINGENCIES (Continued)

Environmental Matters

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 expected future restrictive environmental requirements imposed through legislation and/or rulemaking, we anticipate that potential expenditures for environmental matters will be material and will require significant capital investments. Minnesota Power has evaluated various environmental compliance scenarios using possible ranges of future environmental regulations to project power supply trends and impacts on customers.

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 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. All of Minnesota Power’s coal-fired generating facilities are equipped with pollution control equipment such as scrubbers, bag houses and low NO_X technologies. Under currently applicable environmental regulations, these facilities are substantially compliant with applicable emission requirements.

New Source Review (NSR). In August 2008, Minnesota Power received a Notice of Violation (NOV) from the EPA asserting violations of the NSR requirements of the Clean Air Act at Boswell Units 1, 2, 3 and 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’s 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 specified in the NOVs were in full compliance with the Clean Air Act, NSR requirements and applicable permits. Resolution of the NOVs could result in civil penalties, which we do not believe will be material to our results of operations, and the installation of additional pollution control equipment, some of which is already planned or which has been completed to comply with other regulatory requirements. We are engaged in discussions with the EPA regarding resolution of these matters, but we are unable to estimate the expenditures, or range of expenditures, that may be required upon resolution. Any costs of installing additional pollution control equipment would likely be eligible for recovery in rates over time subject to regulatory approval in a rate proceeding.

Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR). In July 2011, the EPA issued the CSAPR, which replaced the EPA’s 2005 CAIR. However, in August 2012, a three-judge panel of the District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals vacated the CSAPR, ordering that the CAIR remain in effect while a CSAPR replacement rule is promulgated. On March 29, 2013, the EPA petitioned the Supreme Court to review the District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals ruling. The Supreme Court decided to grant review on June 24, 2013, and is likely to issue its decision by June 2014. If reinstated after Supreme Court review, the CSAPR would require states in the CSAPR region, including Minnesota, to significantly improve air quality by reducing power plant emissions that contribute to ozone and/or fine particle pollution in other states. The CSAPR would not directly require the installation of controls. Instead, the rule would require facilities to have sufficient emission allowances to cover their emissions on an annual basis. These allowances would be allocated to facilities from each state’s annual budget and could be bought and sold.

The CAIR regulations similarly require certain states to improve air quality by reducing power plant emissions that contribute to ozone and/or fine particle pollution in other states. The CAIR also created an allowance allocation and trading program rather than specifying pollution controls. Minnesota participation in the CAIR was stayed by EPA administrative action while the EPA completed a review of air quality modeling issues in conjunction with the development of a final replacement rule. While the CAIR remains in effect, Minnesota participation in the CAIR will continue to be stayed. It remains uncertain if emission restrictions similar to those contained in the CSAPR will become effective for Minnesota utilities as a result of the August 2012 District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals decision.

NOTE 14. COMMITMENTS, GUARANTEES AND CONTINGENCIES (Continued)

Environmental Matters (Continued)

Since 2006, we have significantly reduced emissions at our Laskin, Taconite Harbor and Boswell generating units. Based on our expected generation, these emission reductions would have satisfied Minnesota Power’s SO₂ and NO_X emission compliance obligations with respect to the EPA-allocated CSAPR allowances for 2013. We are unable to predict any additional compliance costs we might incur if the CSAPR is reinstated or if a CSAPR replacement rule is promulgated.

Regional Haze. The federal Regional Haze Rule requires states to submit SIPs to the EPA to address regional haze visibility impairment in 156 federally-protected parks and wilderness areas. Under the first phase of 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, subject to BART requirements.

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.

In December 2011, the EPA published in the Federal Register a proposal to approve a trading program in the CSAPR as an alternative to determining BART. However, as a result of the August 2012 District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals decision to vacate the CSAPR (See Cross-State Air Pollution Rule), Minnesota Power is now evaluating whether significant additional expenditures at Taconite Harbor Unit 3 will be required to comply with BART requirements under the Regional Haze Rule. If additional regional haze related controls are ultimately required, Minnesota Power will have up to five years from the final rule promulgation date to bring Taconite Harbor Unit 3 into compliance with the Regional Haze Rule requirements. As part of our 2013 Integrated Resource Plan, which was approved by the MPUC at a hearing held on September 25, 2013, we plan to retire Taconite Harbor Unit 3 in 2015.

Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (MATS) Rule (formerly known as the Electric Generating Unit Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) Rule). Under Section 112 of the Clean Air Act, the EPA is required to set emission standards for hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) for certain source categories. The EPA published the final MATS rule in the Federal Register in February 2012, addressing such emissions from coal-fired utility units greater than 25 MW. There are currently 187 listed HAPs that the EPA is required to evaluate for establishment of MACT standards. In the final MATS rule, the EPA established categories of HAPs, including mercury, trace metals other than mercury, acid gases, dioxin/furans, and organics other than dioxin/furans. The EPA also established emission limits for the first three categories of HAPs, and work practice standards for the remaining categories. Affected sources must be in compliance with the rule by April 2015. States have the authority to grant sources a one-year extension. Minnesota Power was notified by the MPCA that it has approved Minnesota Power’s request for an additional year extending the date of compliance for the Boswell Unit 4 retrofit to April 1, 2016. Compliance at Boswell Unit 4 to address the final MATS rule is expected to result in capital expenditures of approximately $350 million through 2016. Our “EnergyForward” plan, which was approved as part of our 2013 Integrated Resource Plan by the MPUC at a hearing on September 25, 2013, also includes the conversion of Laskin Units 1 and 2 to natural gas in 2015, to position the Company for MATS compliance.

EPA National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Major Sources: Industrial, Commercial and Institutional Boilers and Process Heaters. In March 2011, a final rule was published in the Federal Register for Industrial Boiler Maximum Achievable Control Technology (Industrial Boiler MACT). The rule was stayed by the EPA in May 2011, to allow the EPA time to consider additional comments received. The EPA re-proposed the rule in December 2011. In January 2012, the United States District Court for the District of Columbia ruled that the EPA stay of the Industrial Boiler MACT was unlawful, effectively reinstating the March 2011 rule and associated compliance deadlines. A final rule based on the December 2011 proposal, which supersedes the March 2011 rule, was released in December 2012. Major existing sources have until January 31, 2016, to achieve compliance with the final rule. Minnesota Power is in the process of assessing the impact of this rule on our affected units, Hibbard Renewable Energy Center and Rapids Energy Center. We expect compliance to consist largely of adjustments to our operating practices; therefore costs for complying with the final rule are not expected to be material at this time.

NOTE 14. COMMITMENTS, GUARANTEES AND CONTINGENCIES (Continued)

Environmental Matters (Continued)

Minnesota Mercury Emissions Reduction Act. Under the 2006 Minnesota Mercury Emissions Reduction Act, Minnesota Power is required to implement a mercury emissions reduction project for Boswell Unit 4 by December 31, 2018. In August 2012, Minnesota Power filed its mercury emissions reduction plan for Boswell Unit 4 with the MPUC and the MPCA. The plan proposes that Minnesota Power install pollution controls to address both the Minnesota mercury emissions reduction requirements and the MATS rule, which also regulates mercury emissions. Minnesota Power’s request of an additional year extending the date of compliance for the Boswell Unit 4 retrofit to April 1, 2016, was approved by the MPCA. Costs to implement the Boswell Unit 4 mercury emissions reduction plan are included in the estimated capital expenditures required for compliance with the MATS rule discussed (see Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (MATS) Rule).

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 NAAQS, the state is required to adopt plans describing how it will reduce emissions to attain the NAAQS. These state plans often include more stringent air emission limitations on sources of air pollutants than the NAAQS. Four NAAQS have either recently been revised or are currently proposed for revision, as described below.

Ozone NAAQS. The EPA has proposed to more stringently control emissions that result in ground level ozone. In January 2010, the EPA proposed to revise the 2008 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 2008 eight-hour ozone standard in July 2011, but has since announced that it is deferring revision of this standard until 2014 or later. Consequently, the costs for complying with the final ozone NAAQS cannot be estimated at this time.

Particulate Matter NAAQS.The EPA finalized the NAAQS Particulate Matter standards in September 2006. Since then, the EPA has established a more stringent 24-hour average fine particulate matter (PM_2.5) standard; the annual PM_2.5 standard and the 24‑hour coarse particulate matter standard have remained unchanged. The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit remanded the annual PM_2.5 standard to the EPA, requiring consideration of lower annual standard values. The EPA proposed new PM_2.5 standards in June 2012.

In December 2012, the EPA issued a final rule implementing a more stringent annual PM_2.5 standard, while retaining the current 24-hour PM_2.5 standard. To implement the new more stringent annual PM_2.5 standard, the EPA is also revising aspects of relevant monitoring, designations and permitting requirements. New projects and permits must comply with the new more stringent standard, and compliance with the NAAQS at the facility level is generally demonstrated by modeling.

Under the final rule, states will be responsible for additional PM_2.5 monitoring, which will likely be accomplished by relocating or repurposing existing monitors. States are expected to propose attainment designations by December 2013, based on already available monitoring data. The EPA believes that most U.S. counties currently already meet the new standard and plans to finalize designations of attainment by December 2014. For those counties that the EPA does not designate as having already met the requirements of the new standard, specific dates for required attainment will depend on technology availability, state permitting goals, potential legal challenges and other factors. Minnesota is anticipating that it will retain attainment status; however, Minnesota sources may ultimately be required to reduce their emissions to assist with attainment in neighboring states. Accordingly, the costs for complying with the final Particulate Matter NAAQS cannot be estimated at this time.

SO₂ and NO₂ NAAQS. During 2010, the EPA finalized one-hour NAAQS for SO₂ and NO₂. Ambient monitoring data indicates that Minnesota will likely be in compliance with these new standards; however, the one-hour SO₂ NAAQS also may require the EPA to evaluate modeling data to determine attainment. The EPA notified states that their infrastructure SIPs for maintaining attainment of the standard were required to be submitted to the EPA for approval by June 2013. However, the State of Minnesota has delayed completing the documents pending receipt of EPA guidance to states for preparing the SIP submittal. Guidance was expected earlier in 2013 and has been delayed.

NOTE 14. COMMITMENTS, GUARANTEES AND CONTINGENCIES (Continued)

Environmental Matters (Continued)

In late 2011, the MPCA initiated modeling activities that included approximately 65 sources within Minnesota that emit greater than 100 tons of SO₂ per year. However, in April 2012, the MPCA notified Minnesota Power that such modeling had been suspended as a result of the EPA’s announcement that the June 2013 SIP submittals would no longer require modeling demonstrations for states, such as Minnesota, where ambient monitors indicate compliance with the new standard. The MPCA is awaiting updated EPA guidance and will communicate with affected sources once the MPCA has more information on how the state will meet the EPA’s SIP requirements. Currently, compliance with these new NAAQS is expected to be required as early as 2017. The costs for complying with the final standards cannot be estimated at this time.

Climate Change. The scientific community generally accepts that emissions of GHGs are linked to global climate change. Climate change creates physical and financial risks. Physical risks could include, but are not limited to: increased or decreased precipitation and water levels in lakes and rivers; increased temperatures; and changes in the intensity and frequency of extreme weather events. These all have the potential to affect the Company’s business and operations. We are addressing climate change by taking the following steps that also ensure reliable and environmentally compliant generation resources to meet our customers’ requirements:

• Expanding our renewable energy supply;

• Providing energy conservation initiatives for our customers and engaging in other demand side efforts;

• Supporting research of technologies to reduce carbon emissions from generation facilities and carbon sequestration efforts; and

• Evaluating and developing less carbon intensive future generating assets such as efficient and flexible natural gas generating facilities.

President Obama’s Climate Action Plan. On June 25, 2013, President Obama announced a Climate Action Plan (CAP) that calls for implementation of measures that reduce GHG emissions in the U.S., emphasizing means such as expanded deployment of renewable energy resources, energy and resource conservation, energy efficiency improvements and a shift to fuel sources that have lower emissions. Certain portions of the CAP directly address electric utility GHG emissions, as further described below.

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 Tailoring Rule establishes permitting thresholds required to address GHG emissions for new facilities, existing facilities that undergo major modifications and 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. However, GHG requirements are likely to be added to our existing Title V operating permits by the MPCA as these permits are renewed or amended.

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 Best Available Control Technology (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 that these control technologies could be determined to be BACT on a project-by-project basis.

In March 2012, the EPA announced a proposed rule to apply CO₂ emission New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) to new fossil fuel-fired electric generating units. The proposed NSPS would have applied only to new or re-powered units. Based on the volume of comments received, the EPA announced its intent to re-propose the rule.

On September 20, 2013, the EPA retracted its March 2012 proposal and announced the release of a revised NSPS for utility CO₂ emissions. The EPA also reaffirmed its plans to propose NSPS or regulatory guidelines for existing fossil fuel-fired electric generating units by June 1, 2014, and to finalize such rules by June 1, 2015. The EPA is soliciting feedback as to the approaches the EPA should consider for regulation of CO₂ under the NSPS provisions of the Clean Air Act. Under the CAP, an approach was described where the EPA will issue regulatory guidelines and objectives to the states, which in turn will submit SIPs for EPA approval that demonstrate how the state will meet or surpass achievement of the EPA targeted objectives. The CAP directs the EPA to require states to submit such SIPs by June 30, 2016.

NOTE 14. COMMITMENTS, GUARANTEES AND CONTINGENCIES (Continued)

Environmental Matters (Continued)

Minnesota has already initiated several measures consistent with those called for under the CAP. Minnesota Power has also announced its “EnergyForward” strategy that provides for significant emission reductions and diversifying our electricity generation mix to include more renewable and natural gas energy.

Legal challenges have been filed with respect to the EPA’s regulation of GHG emissions, including the Tailoring Rule. In June 2012, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit upheld most of the EPA’s proposed regulations, including the Tailoring Rule criteria, finding that the Clean Air Act compels the EPA to regulate in the manner the EPA proposed. In October 15, 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court announced that it would grant review of the Circuit Court’s decision, with such review limited to the question of whether EPA’s regulation of GHGs under the PSD provisions of the Clean Air Act and the Tailoring Rule was permissible. The Supreme Court’s decision is not expected to affect EPA’s authority to regulate CO₂ from fossil fuel-fired electric generating units under the NSPS provisions of the Clean Air Act, but may affect the timing of such regulations.

We are unable to predict the GHG emission compliance costs we might incur; however, the costs could be material. We would seek recovery of any additional costs through cost recovery riders or in a general rate case.

Water. The Clean Water Act requires NPDES permits 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.

Clean Water Act - Aquatic Organisms. In April 2011, the EPA announced 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, and have a design intake flow of greater than 2 million gallons per day, 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 Section 316(b) proposed rule comment period ended in August 2011, and the EPA is now expected to issue a final rule in November 2013. We are unable to predict the compliance costs we might incur under the final rule; however, the costs could be material. We would seek recovery of any additional costs through cost recovery riders or in a general rate case.

Steam Electric Power Generating Effluent Guidelines. On April 19, 2013, the EPA announced proposed revisions to the federal effluent guidelines for steam electric power generating stations under the Clean Water Act. Instead of proposing a single rule, the EPA proposed eight “options,” of which four are “preferred”. The proposed revisions would set limits on the level of toxic materials in wastewater discharged from seven waste streams: flue gas desulfurization wastewater, fly ash transport water, bottom ash transport water, combustion residual leachate, non-chemical metal cleaning wastes, coal gasification wastewater, and wastewater from flue gas mercury control systems. As part of this proposed rulemaking, the EPA is considering imposing rules to address “legacy” wastewater currently residing in ponds as well as rules to impose stringent best management practices for discharges from active coal combustion residual surface impoundments. The EPA’s proposed rulemaking would base effluent limitations on what can be achieved by available technologies. The proposed rule was published in the Federal Register on June 7, 2013, and public comments were submitted on September 20, 2013. It is expected that the EPA will issue a final rule in 2014. Compliance with the final rule would be required no later than July 1, 2022. We are reviewing the proposed rule and evaluating its potential impacts on our operations. We are unable to predict the compliance costs we might incur related to these or other potential future water discharge regulations; however, the costs could be material, including costs associated with retrofits for bottom ash handling, pond dewatering, pond closure, and wastewater treatment and/or reuse. We would seek recovery of any additional costs through cost recovery riders or in a general rate case.

Solid and Hazardous Waste. The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 regulates the management and disposal of solid and hazardous wastes. We are required to notify the EPA of hazardous waste activity and, consequently, routinely submit the necessary reports to the EPA.

NOTE 14. COMMITMENTS, GUARANTEES AND CONTINGENCIES (Continued)

Environmental Matters (Continued)

Coal Ash Management Facilities. Minnesota Power generates coal ash at all five of its coal-fired 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. It is expected that the final rule will be published in 2014. We are unable to predict the compliance costs we might incur; however, the costs could be material. We would seek recovery of any additional costs through cost recovery riders or in a general rate case.

Other Matters

BNI Coal. As of September 30, 2013, 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. Although the coal supply agreements obligate the customers to provide for the closing costs, additional assurance is required by federal and state regulations. In addition to the surety bonds, BNI Coal has secured a letter of credit with CoBANK ACB for an additional $2.6 million to provide for BNI Coal’s total reclamation liability, which is currently estimated at $32.3 million. BNI Coal does not believe it is likely that any of these outstanding surety bonds or the letter of credit will be drawn upon.

ALLETE Properties. As of September 30, 2013, ALLETE Properties, through its subsidiaries, had surety bonds outstanding and letters of credit to governmental entities totaling $10.2 million primarily related to development and maintenance obligations for various projects. The estimated cost of the remaining development work is approximately $7.4 million. ALLETE Properties does not believe it is likely that any of these outstanding surety bonds or letters of credit 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 are secured by special assessments on the benefited 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 September 30, 2013, we owned 73 percent of the assessable land in the Town Center District (73 percent at December 31, 2012) and 93 percent of the assessable land in the Palm Coast Park District (93 percent at December 31, 2012). At these ownership levels, our annual assessments are approximately $1.4 million for Town Center and $2.1 million for Palm Coast Park. As we sell property, the obligation to pay special assessments will pass to the new landowners. In accordance with accounting guidance, these bonds are not reflected as debt on our Consolidated Balance Sheet.

Legal Proceedings.

United Taconite Lawsuit. 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 $20.0 million in damages related to the fire. In response to a Motion for Summary Judgment by Minnesota Power, the Court dismissed all of plaintiffs’ claims in an Order dated August 21, 2013. The Order may be appealed to the Minnesota Court of Appeals through November 25, 2013.

Notice of Potential Clean Air Act Citizen Lawsuit. In July 2013, the Sierra Club submitted to Minnesota Power a notice of intent to file a citizen suit under the Clean Air Act. This notice of intent alleged violations of opacity and other permit requirements at our Boswell, Laskin, and Taconite Harbor energy centers. Minnesota Power intends to vigorously defend any lawsuit that may be filed by the Sierra Club. We are unable to predict the outcome of this matter. Accordingly, an accrual related to any damages that may result from the notice of intent has not been recorded as of September 30, 2013, because a potential loss is not currently probable or reasonably estimable.

NOTE 14. COMMITMENTS, GUARANTEES AND CONTINGENCIES (Continued)

Other Matters (Continued)

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, and compliance with regulations, rate base and cost of service issues, among other things. While the resolution of such matters could have a material effect on our results of operations 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 effect on our financial condition.