Environmental Matters.

Our businesses are subject to regulation of environmental matters by various federal, state and local authorities. A number of regulatory changes to the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act and various waste management requirements have recently been promulgated by both the EPA and state authorities. Minnesota Power’s facilities are subject to additional regulation under many of these regulations. In response to these regulations, Minnesota Power is reshaping its generation portfolio over time to reduce its reliance on coal, has installed cost-effective emission control technology, and advocates for sound science and policy during rulemaking implementation.

We consider our businesses to be in substantial compliance with currently applicable environmental regulations and believe all necessary permits have been obtained. We anticipate that with many state and federal environmental regulations finalized, or to be finalized in the near future, potential expenditures for future environmental matters may be material and may require significant capital investments. Minnesota Power has evaluated various environmental compliance scenarios using possible outcomes of 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 becomes 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 expensed 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, baghouses and low NO_X technologies. Under currently applicable environmental regulations, these facilities are substantially compliant with emission requirements.

New Source Review (NSR). In 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 and Laskin Unit 2 between the years of 1981 and 2001. Minnesota Power received an additional NOV in 2011 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 reached a settlement with the EPA regarding these NOVs and entered into a Consent Decree which was approved by the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota in 2014. The Consent Decree provided for, among other requirements, more stringent emissions limits at all affected units, the option of refueling, retrofits or retirements at certain small coal units, and the addition of 200 MW of wind energy. Provisions of the Consent Decree require that, by no later than December 31, 2018, Boswell Units 1 and 2 must be retired, refueled, repowered, or emissions rerouted through existing emission control technology at Boswell. In October 2016, Minnesota Power announced that Boswell Units 1 and 2 will be retired in 2018 as part of its EnergyForward strategic plan. We believe that costs to retire Boswell Units 1 and 2 will be eligible for recovery in rates over time, subject to regulatory approval in a rate proceeding.

Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR). The CSAPR requires certain states in the eastern half of the U.S., including Minnesota, to reduce power plant emissions that contribute to ozone or fine particulate pollution in other states. The CSAPR does not require installation of controls; rather it requires facilities have sufficient allowances to cover their emissions on an annual basis. These allowances are allocated to facilities from each state’s annual budget, and can be bought and sold.

Minnesota Power’s generation levels and emission rates in 2015 and 2016 were below its allowances. Allowances for 2017 and 2018 were distributed in June 2016. Based on our review of the NO_x and SO₂ allowances issued and pending issuance, we currently expect generation levels and emission rates will result in compliance with the CSAPR.

NOTE 13. COMMITMENTS, GUARANTEES AND CONTINGENCIES (Continued)

Environmental Matters (Continued)

Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (MATS) 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 2012, addressing such emissions from coal-fired utility units greater than 25 MW. 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 were required to be in compliance with the rule by April 2015, or April 2016 if granted an extension. Construction on the project to implement the Boswell Unit 4 mercury emissions reduction plan was completed in 2015. Investments and compliance work previously completed at Boswell Unit 3, including emission reduction investments completed in 2009, meet the requirements of the MATS rule. The conversion of Laskin Units 1 and 2 to natural gas in 2015 positioned those units for MATS compliance.

In 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court reversed and remanded an earlier U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit decision on the MATS rule. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that it was unreasonable for the EPA to deem cost of compliance irrelevant in determining that regulation of emissions of hazardous air pollutants from power plants was “appropriate and necessary” under Section 112 of the Clean Air Act. The MATS rule remains in effect until the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit acts on the remand. In 2015, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit rejected a motion by utilities and states to vacate the MATS rule, instead ordering the rule to remain in effect while the EPA completes its review. In April 2016, the EPA announced its determination that the MATS rule is appropriate and necessary, when also considering cost of compliance. The outcome of these proceedings is not expected to have a material impact on Minnesota Power generation due to emission reduction obligations under the Minnesota Mercury Emissions Reduction Act and the Consent Decree. (See New Source Review.)

Minnesota Mercury Emissions Reduction Act/Rule. In order to comply with the Minnesota Mercury Emissions Reduction Act, which was incorporated into rules promulgated by the MPCA in September 2014, Minnesota Power was required to implement a mercury emissions reduction project for Boswell Unit 4 by December 31, 2018. The Boswell Unit 4 environmental upgrade discussed above (see Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (MATS) Rule) fulfills the requirements of the Minnesota Mercury Emissions Reduction Act.

EPA National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Major Sources: Industrial, Commercial and Institutional Boilers and Process Heaters. A final rule issued by the EPA for Industrial Boiler MACT became effective in 2012. Major existing sources had until January 2016, to achieve compliance with the final rule and July 2016, to perform initial compliance demonstrations. Minnesota Power’s Hibbard Renewable Energy Center and Rapids Energy Center are subject to this rule and are currently in compliance. Compliance consisted largely of adjustments to our operating practices; therefore, the costs for complying with the final rule were not material.

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 the 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 more stringent control related to emissions that result in ground level ozone. In 2010, the EPA proposed to revise the 2008 eight-hour ozone standard of 75 parts per billion (ppb) and to adopt a secondary standard for the protection of sensitive vegetation from ozone-related damage. In 2015, the EPA published the final rule in the Federal Register revising the eight-hour ozone standard to 70 ppb with a secondary standard also set at 70 ppb. All areas of Minnesota currently meet the new standard based on the most recent available ambient monitoring data; however, some areas in the metropolitan Twin Cities and southwest portion of the state are close to exceeding the standard. As a result, voluntary efforts to reduce ozone continue in the state. No additional costs for compliance are anticipated at this time.

Particulate Matter NAAQS. The EPA finalized the Particulate Matter NAAQS in 2006. Since then, the EPA has established more stringent 24-hour and annual average fine particulate matter (PM_2.5) standards; the 24-hour coarse particulate matter standard has remained unchanged. In 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 annual PM_2.5 standard, the EPA is revising aspects of relevant monitoring, designation and permitting requirements. New projects and permits must comply with the new standard, which is generally demonstrated by modeling at the facility level.

NOTE 13. COMMITMENTS, GUARANTEES AND CONTINGENCIES (Continued)

Environmental Matters (Continued)

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. The EPA asked states to submit attainment designations by 2013, based on already available monitoring data, and issued designations of the 2012 revised primary annual fine particulate attainment status in 2014. The EPA designated the entire state of Minnesota as unclassifiable/attainment; however, Minnesota sources may ultimately be required to reduce their emissions to assist with attainment in neighboring states. In September 2016, environmental groups filed a lawsuit against the EPA in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California alleging the EPA had failed to fully implement the PM_2.5standards in certain states, including Minnesota, by not enforcing states’ submittals of required infrastructure SIPs for the 2012 PM_2.5NAAQS. The outcome of this litigation is uncertain, and as such, any 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 is likely in compliance with these standards; however, the one-hour SO₂ NAAQS also requires the EPA to evaluate additional modeling and monitoring considerations to determine attainment. In 2012, the MPCA notified Minnesota Power that modeling had been suspended as a result of the EPA’s announcement that the SIP submittals would not require modeling demonstrations for states, such as Minnesota, where ambient monitors indicate compliance with the standard.

In 2013, the EPA provided guidance to states regarding implementation of the one-hour NO₂ NAAQS and in 2014, as clarified in 2015, the MPCA submitted a SIP revision to the EPA addressing the infrastructure requirements of Sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) of the Clean Air Act in regards to the one-hour NO₂ and SO₂ NAAQS, among other standards. In 2015, the EPA published in the Federal Register an approval and partial disapproval of the 2014 SIP revision. According to the MPCA, the partial disapproval is regarding state delegation of a program unrelated to the one-hour NAAQS for SO₂ and NO_2,and is not expected to require further action. On July 16, 2017, the EPA proposed retaining the current one-hour and annual NO₂NAAQS. Additional compliance costs for the one-hour NO₂ NAAQS are not expected at this time.

In 2015, the EPA finalized the SO₂ data requirements rule (DRR) for the 2010 one-hour NAAQS to assist the states in implementing the standard. The rule sets emissions thresholds and exemptions for facilities that trigger modeling requirements. In January 2016, the MPCA informed the EPA of the Minnesota sources subject to the rule, confirming that Boswell and Taconite Harbor are the only Minnesota Power generating facilities subject to the DRR. Compliance options include ambient monitoring, modeling existing enforceable emission limits, or modeling actual emissions. The MPCA initially informed Minnesota Power that compliant SO₂ modeling recently completed at these facilities would satisfy the DRR obligations and no further modeling would be required; however, the DRR also requires facilities have federally-enforceable permit limits at which the one-hour SO₂NAAQS compliance was modeled by January 13, 2017. Taconite Harbor was issued an amended air permit in September 2016, containing the new modeling limits at that facility. The MPCA did not meet the January 13, 2017, deadline to amend the Boswell permit. The MPCA is in discussions with the EPA on alternate compliance pathways to use existing completed modeling at current limits. On August 21, 2017, the EPA proposed retaining the current primary SO₂one-hour NAAQS. Compliance costs for the one-hour SO₂ NAAQS are not expected to be material.

Class I Air Quality Petitions and Requests. In 2014, the Fond du Lac Band of Lake Superior Chippewa (Fond du Lac Band) announced its intent to petition the EPA to redesignate its reservation air shed from Class II to Class I air quality pursuant to Section 164(c) of the Clean Air Act. The Fond du Lac Band does not currently possess authority to directly regulate air quality. Class I air shed status, if granted, would allow the Fond du Lac Band to impose more stringent Clean Air Act protections within the boundaries of the Fond du Lac reservation, including the reservation air shed, near Cloquet, Minnesota. A public hearing was held by the Fond du Lac Band and the public comment period on the petition expired in 2014.

In 2013, the Bad River Band of Lake Superior Chippewa (Bad River Band) announced its intent to petition the EPA to redesignate its reservation air shed from Class II to Class I air quality pursuant to Section 164(c) of the Clean Air Act. The Class I analysis report was issued by the Bad River Band followed by public hearings and a public comment period ending in 2015.

The next step for the Fond du Lac Band and the Bad River Band would be to make a formal submittal request to the EPA. There is no deadline for the approval, denial, or modification of these requests by the EPA. We are unable to determine the impact of potential Class I status on the Company’s operations at this time.

NOTE 13. COMMITMENTS, GUARANTEES AND CONTINGENCIES (Continued)

Environmental Matters (Continued)

Climate Change. The scientific community generally accepts that emissions of GHG are linked to global climate change which 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;


•	Improving efficiency of our generating facilities;


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


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

Climate Action Plan (CAP). In 2015, the Federal government announced an updated 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. On March 28, 2017, President Trump signed an Executive Order titled Promoting Energy Independence and Economic Growth that rescinded the CAP.

EPA Regulation of GHG Emissions. In 2010, the EPA issued the 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 may 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 2014, the U.S. Supreme Court invalidated the aspect of the Tailoring Rule that established higher permitting thresholds for GHG than for other pollutants subject to PSD; however, the court also upheld the EPA’s ability to require BACT for GHG from sources already subject to regulation under PSD. Minnesota Power’s coal-fired generating facilities are already subject to regulation under PSD, so we anticipate that ultimately PSD for GHG will apply to our facilities, but the timing of the promulgation of a replacement for the Tailoring Rule is uncertain. The PSD applies to existing facilities only when they undertake a major modification that increases emissions. At this time, we are unable to predict the compliance costs that we might incur.

In October 2016, the EPA published a proposed rule in the Federal Register to revise its PSD and Title V regulatory provisions concerning GHG emissions. In this proposed rule, the EPA proposes to amend its regulations to clarify that a source’s obligation to obtain a PSD or Title V permit is triggered only by non-GHG pollutants. If the PSD or Title V permitting requirements are triggered by non-GHG, NSR pollutants, then these programs will also apply to the source’s GHG emissions. The proposed rule, as currently written, is not expected to have a material impact on the Title V permitting for current operations. It is uncertain how the Title V permitting requirements will be affected by the March 28, 2017, Executive Order titled Promoting Energy Independence and Economic Growth.

NOTE 13. COMMITMENTS, GUARANTEES AND CONTINGENCIES (Continued)

Environmental Matters (Continued)

In 2014, the EPA announced a proposed rule under Section 111(d) of the Clean Air Act for existing power plants entitled “Carbon Pollution Emission Guidelines for Existing Stationary Sources: Electric Generating Units”, also referred to as the Clean Power Plan (CPP). The EPA issued the final CPP in 2015, together with a proposed federal implementation plan and a model rule for emissions trading. Petitions for review of the rule were filed with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. In February 2016, the U.S. Supreme Court issued an order staying the effectiveness of the rule until after the appellate court process is complete. In September 2016, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia heard oral arguments and is currently deliberating. The EPA is precluded from enforcing the CPP while the U.S. Supreme Court stay is in force; however, the MPCA has been holding a series of meetings on the CPP for educational and planning purposes in the interim. Minnesota Power has been actively involved in these MPCA meetings, and is closely monitoring the appeals process.

If upheld, the CPP would establish uniform CO₂ emission performance rates for existing fossil fuel-fired and natural gas-fired combined cycle generating units, setting state-specific goals for CO₂ emissions from the power sector. State goals were determined based on CPP source-specific performance emission rates and each state’s mix of power plants. The EPA maintains such goals are achievable if a state undertakes a combination of measures across its power sector that constitutes the EPA’s guideline for a Best System of Emission Reductions (BSER). BSER is comprised of three building blocks: 1) improved fossil fuel power plant efficiency, 2) increased reliance on low-emitting power sources by generating more electricity from existing natural gas combined-cycle units, and 3) building more zero- and low-emitting power sources, including renewable energy. States may also choose to include avoided CO₂ emissions from customer energy efficiency measures for credit towards meeting state goals. The regulatory review initiated by the March 28, 2017, Executive Order titled Promoting Energy Independence and Economic Growth is directed to include Section 111(b) and 111(d) CPP provisions. In addition, the EPA has filed a motion with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit to hold CPP-related litigation in abeyance while the EPA is reviewing the rule. On October 10, 2017, the EPA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking, proposing to repeal the CPP. Minnesota Power continues to monitor the status of the CPP and related matters.

State goals under the CPP are expressed as both mass-based and rate-based, and include interim goals to be met over the years 2022 through 2029, as well as a final goal to be met in 2030 and thereafter. Under the original schedule for the CPP, each state would have been required to develop a SIP by September 2016, or by September 6, 2018, if granted an extension. Due to the U.S. Supreme Court order staying the effectiveness of the CPP, those SIP submittal dates are not currently in effect. If the CPP is upheld at the completion of the appellate court process, all of the CPP regulatory deadlines are expected to be reset based on the length of time that the appeals process takes.

In developing its plan, a state may choose to meet either the mass-based or the rate-based goals. Minnesota Power is currently evaluating the CPP as it relates to the State of Minnesota as well as its potential impact on the Company and is actively discussing potential compliance scenarios with regulatory agencies and in public stakeholder meetings. Minnesota has already initiated several measures consistent with those called for under the CAP and CPP. Minnesota Power is implementing its EnergyForward strategic plan that provides for significant emission reductions and diversifying its electricity generation mix to include more renewable and natural gas energy. (See Note 6. Regulatory Matters.)

We are unable to predict the GHG emission compliance costs we might incur; however, the costs could be material. Minnesota Power would seek recovery of additional costs through a rate proceeding.

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 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 impacted by the facility’s intake structure or cooling system. The Section 316(b) rule was effective in 2014. The Section 316(b) standards will be implemented through NPDES permits issued to the covered facilities with compliance timing dependent on individual NPDES renewal schedules. No NPDES permits for Minnesota Power generating facilities have been re-issued containing Section 316(b) requirements since the final rule was published, so at this time we are unable to determine the final cost of compliance. Should the MPCA require significant modifications to Minnesota Power’s intake structures, a preliminary assessment indicates costs of compliance up to $15 million over the next five years. Minnesota Power would seek recovery of additional costs through a rate proceeding.

NOTE 13. COMMITMENTS, GUARANTEES AND CONTINGENCIES (Continued)

Environmental Matters (Continued)

Steam Electric Power Generating Effluent Guidelines. In 2015, the EPA issued revised federal effluent limit guidelines (ELG) for steam electric power generating stations under the Clean Water Act. It sets effluent limits and prescribes BACT for several wastewater streams, including flue gas desulphurization (FGD) water and coal combustion landfill leachate. On April 12, 2017, the EPA published in the Federal Register the postponement of certain compliance deadlines and formally announced that it would reconsider the final ELG rule. Under the ELG rule schedule, required compliance activity deadlines could have been in place as soon as November 1, 2018. These deadlines could have included prescriptive wastewater treatment technology installation, as well as a ban on bottom ash contact water discharges. If the EPA’s reconsideration results in the rule being revised or rescinded, the authority to regulate bottom ash transport water and FGD wastewater would fall under existing Effluent Guidelines Limits and state resource agency purview. On September 13, 2017, the EPA formally announced a two-year postponement of the ELG compliance date to November 1, 2020, while the agency reconsiders bottom ash transport water and FGD wastewater provisions.

We are evaluating the final ELG rule’s potential impact on Minnesota Power’s operations, primarily at Boswell. Boswell currently discharges bottom ash contact water through its NPDES permit, and also has a closed-loop FGD system that does not currently discharge, but may do so in the future. Under the final ELG rule, bottom ash discharge would not be allowed and bottom ash contact water would either need to be re-used in a closed-loop process, routed to a FGD scrubber, or the bottom ash handling system would need to be converted to a dry process. If the FGD wastewater is discharged in the future, it would require additional wastewater treatment. Efforts have been underway at Boswell for several years to reduce the amount of water discharged and evaluate potential re-use options in its plant processes. Additional efforts are underway to determine if land application of certain wastewater streams under a state disposal system may be feasible.

At this time, we cannot estimate what 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 reuse. Minnesota Power would seek recovery of additional costs through a rate proceeding.

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.

Coal Ash Management Facilities. Minnesota Power stores or disposes coal ash at four of its electric generating facilities by the following methods: storing ash in lined onsite impoundments (ash ponds), disposing of dry ash in a lined dry ash landfill which has been idled and has a temporary landfill cover in place, applying ash to land as an approved beneficial use and trucking ash to state permitted landfills.

The EPA issued the final coal combustion residuals (CCR) rule in 2014 under Subtitle D (non-hazardous) of RCRA and it was published in the Federal Register in 2015. The rule includes additional requirements for new landfill and impoundment construction as well as closure activities related to certain existing impoundments. Costs of compliance for Boswell and Laskin are expected to occur primarily over the next 10 years and be between approximately $65 million and $100 million. Recently, the EPA has indicated to Minnesota Power that the Taconite Harbor landfill is a CCR unit, based on the EPA’s interpretation of the CCR rule language. Minnesota Power has agreed to post the required CCR information for the Taconite Harbor landfill on Minnesota Power’s website while the CCR issue is resolved. Minnesota Power continues to work on minimizing costs through evaluation of beneficial re-use and recycling of CCR and CCR-related waters. On September 13, 2017, the EPA announced its intention to formally reconsider the CCR rule. Compliance costs, if any, for CCR at Taconite Harbor cannot be estimated at this time. Minnesota Power would seek recovery of additional costs through a rate proceeding.