XML 39 R21.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT
v3.8.0.1

Commitments, Guarantees and Contingencies | 3 Months Ended
--- | ---
Mar. 31, 2018
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [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. Our PPAs are summarized in Note 11. Commitments, Guarantees and Contingencies to our Consolidated Financial Statements in our 2017 Form 10-K, with additional disclosure provided in the following paragraphs. Square Butte PPA. Minnesota Power has a PPA with Square Butte that extends through 2026 (Agreement). Minnesota Power is obligated to pay its pro rata share of Square Butte’s costs based on its entitlement to the output of Square Butte’s 455 MW coal‑fired generating unit. Minnesota Power’s output entitlement under the Agreement is 50 percent for the remainder of the Agreement, subject to the provisions of the Minnkota Power PSA. (See Minnkota Power PSA.) Square Butte’s costs consist primarily of debt service, operating and maintenance, depreciation and fuel expenses. As of March 31, 2018, Square Butte had total debt outstanding of $314.5 million. Fuel expenses are recoverable through Minnesota Power’s fuel adjustment clause and include the cost of coal purchased from BNI Energy under a long-term contract. Minnesota Power’s cost of power purchased from Square Butte during the three months ended March 31, 2018, was $17.3 million ($20.3 million for the three months ended March 31, 2017). 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 $2.3 million ($2.3 million for the same period in 2017). 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 PSA. Minnesota Power has a PSA with Minnkota Power, which commenced in 2014. Under the PSA, Minnesota Power is selling a portion of its entitlement 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. Of Minnesota Power’s 50 percent output entitlement, it sold to Minnkota Power approximately 28 percent in 2018 and in 2017. Oconto Electric Cooperative PSA. On March 6, 2018, Minnesota Power entered into a PSA with Oconto Electric Cooperative. The contract begins in January 2019 and is effective through May 2026. Under the PSA, Minnesota Power expects to provide approximately 25 MW of energy and capacity at fixed prices. Coal, Rail and Shipping Contracts. Minnesota Power has coal supply agreements providing for the purchase of a significant portion of its coal requirements through December 2018 and a portion of its coal requirements through December 2021. Minnesota Power also has coal transportation agreements in place for the delivery of a significant portion of its coal requirements through December 2018. The estimated minimum payments under these supply and transportation agreements is $21.5 million for the remainder of 2018, $1.8 million in 2019, and none thereafter. The costs of fuel and related transportation costs for Minnesota Power’s generation are recoverable from Minnesota Power’s utility customers through the fuel adjustment clause. Leasing Agreements. BNI Energy is obligated to make lease payments for a dragline totaling $2.8 million annually during the lease term, which expires in 2027. BNI Energy 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 a majority of terms expiring through 2024. The aggregate amount of minimum lease payments for all operating leases is $3.6 million for the remainder of 2018, $12.8 million in 2019, $9.5 million in 2020, $7.3 million in 2021, $6.1 million in 2022 and $30.0 million thereafter. Transmission. We continue to make investments in transmission opportunities that strengthen or enhance the transmission grid or take advantage of our geographical location between sources of renewable energy and end users. These include the GNTL, investments to enhance our own transmission facilities, investments in other transmission assets (individually or in combination with others) and our investment in ATC. NOTE 13. COMMITMENTS, GUARANTEES AND CONTINGENCIES (Continued) Transmission (Continued) Great Northern Transmission Line. As a condition of the 250-MW long-term PPA entered into with Manitoba Hydro, construction of additional transmission capacity is required. As a result, Minnesota Power is constructing the GNTL, an approximately 220‑mile 500-kV transmission line between Manitoba and Minnesota’s Iron Range that was proposed by Minnesota Power and Manitoba Hydro in order to strengthen the electric grid, enhance regional reliability and promote a greater exchange of sustainable energy. In 2015, a certificate of need was approved by the MPUC. Based on this approval, Minnesota Power’s portion of the investments and expenditures for the project are eligible for cost recovery under its existing transmission cost recovery rider and are anticipated to be included in future transmission cost recovery filings. (See Note 6. Regulatory Matters.) Also in 2015, the FERC approved our request to recover on construction work in progress related to the GNTL from Minnesota Power’s wholesale customers. In a 2016 order, the MPUC approved the route permit for the GNTL which largely follows Minnesota Power’s preferred route, including the international border crossing, and in 2016, the U.S. Department of Energy issued a presidential permit to cross the U.S.‑Canadian border, which was the final major regulatory approval needed before construction in the U.S. could begin. Site clearing and pre‑construction activities commenced in the first quarter of 2017 with construction expected to be completed in 2020. To date, most of the right-of-way has been cleared, foundation installation and transmission tower assembly have commenced and tower construction is expected to begin in 2018. Total project cost in the U.S., including substation work, is estimated to be between $560 million and $710 million, of which Minnesota Power’s portion is expected to be between $300 million and $350 million; the difference will be recovered from a subsidiary of Manitoba Hydro as contributions in aid of construction. Total project costs of $211.4 million have been incurred through March 31, 2018, of which $110.0 million has been recovered from a subsidiary of Manitoba Hydro. Manitoba Hydro must obtain regulatory and governmental approvals related to a new transmission line in Canada known as the Manitoba-Minnesota Transmission Project (MMTP) that will connect with the GNTL. In 2015, Manitoba Hydro submitted the final preferred route and EIS for the MMTP to the Manitoba Conservation and Water Stewardship for siting and environmental approval, which remains pending. In 2016, Manitoba Hydro filed an application with the Canadian National Energy Board (NEB) requesting authorization to construct and operate the MMTP. The NEB determined that Manitoba Hydro’s application was complete in December 2017, and scheduled public hearings for this summer. The NEB is required to make a decision on the MMTP by March 2019 but is not precluded from making a decision prior to that date. Approval of the Canadian federal cabinet is also required. The MMTP is subject to legal and regulatory challenges which Minnesota Power is actively monitoring. Manitoba Hydro has informed Minnesota Power that it continues to work towards completing the MMTP on schedule. In order to meet the transmission in-service requirements in PPAs with Minnesota Power, Manitoba Hydro has indicated that it would need to start construction of the MMTP in December 2018. We are unable to predict the outcome of the Canadian regulatory review process, including the timing thereof or whether any onerous conditions may be imposed, or the timing of the completion of the MMTP, including the impact of any delays that may result in construction schedule adjustments. Any significant delays in the MMTP construction schedule may result in Minnesota Power adjusting the GNTL construction schedule and impact the timing of capital expenditures and associated cost recovery under our transmission cost recovery rider. Construction of Manitoba Hydro’s Keeyask hydroelectric generation facility, which will provide the power to be sold under PPAs with Minnesota Power that is to be transmitted on the MMTP and the GNTL, commenced in 2014 and is anticipated to be in service by early 2021. 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 been promulgated by both the EPA and state authorities over the past several years. Minnesota Power’s facilities are subject to additional requirements under many of 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 and requirements finalized, or to be finalized in the near future, potential expenditures for future environmental matters may be material and 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. NOTE 13. COMMITMENTS, GUARANTEES AND CONTINGENCIES (Continued) Environmental Matters (Continued) 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, retrofitting or retiring 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 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 but does require 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. Based on our review of the NO x and SO 2 allowances issued and pending issuance, we currently expect generation levels and emission rates will result in continued compliance with the CSAPR. 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 final MATS rule addressed such emissions from coal-fired utility units greater than 25 MW and established categories of HAPs, including mercury, trace metals other than mercury, and acid gases. The EPA established emission limits for these categories of HAPs and work practice standards for the remaining categories. Construction on the project to implement the Boswell Unit 4 mercury emissions reduction plan to position the unit for MATS compliance 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 operate on natural gas in 2015 positioned those units for MATS compliance. Minnesota Mercury Emissions Reduction Act/Rule. 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. 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. Four NAAQS have either recently been revised or are currently proposed for revision, as described below.
• | Ozone NAAQS. 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 ground-level ozone continue in the state. No additional costs for compliance are anticipated at this time.
NOTE 13. COMMITMENTS, GUARANTEES AND CONTINGENCIES (Continued) Environmental Matters (Continued)
• | Particulate Matter NAAQS. The EPA has 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 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 2.5 standards in certain states, including Minnesota, by not enforcing states’ submittals of required infrastructure implementation plans for the 2012 PM 2.5 NAAQS. 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.
• | NO 2 NAAQS. Ambient monitoring data indicates that Minnesota is likely in compliance with the one-hour NAAQS standard for NO 2. In July 2017, the EPA proposed retaining the current one-hour and annual NO 2 NAAQS. Additional compliance costs for the one-hour NO 2 NAAQS are not expected at this time.
• | SO 2 NAAQS. In 2015, the EPA finalized the SO 2 data requirements rule (DRR) for the 2010 one-hour NAAQS to assist the states in implementing the standard. The MPCA initially informed Minnesota Power that compliant SO 2 modeling completed at Minnesota Power's Boswell and Taconite Harbor facilities would satisfy the DRR obligations and no further modeling would be required; however, the DRR also require facilities have federally-enforceable permit limits at which the one-hour SO 2 NAAQS compliance was modeled by January 2017. Taconite Harbor was issued an amended air permit in 2016, containing the new modeling limits at that facility. The MPCA did not meet the January 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. In August 2017, the EPA proposed retaining the current primary SO 2 one-hour NAAQS. Compliance costs for the one-hour SO 2 NAAQS are not expected to be material.
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 power supply;
• | Providing energy conservation initiatives for our customers and engaging in other demand side management 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.
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 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 best available control technology (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. In 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. 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. In 2016, the U.S. Supreme Court issued an order staying the effectiveness of the rule until after the appellate court process is complete. In 2016, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia heard oral arguments and is currently deliberating. If the CPP is upheld at the completion of the appellate process, all of the CPP regulatory deadlines are expected to be reset based on the length of time that the appeals process takes. 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 CO 2 emission performance rates for existing fossil fuel-fired and natural gas-fired combined cycle generating units, setting state-specific goals for CO 2 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 filed a motion with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit to hold CPP-related litigation in suspension while the EPA is reviewing the rule. In October 2017, the EPA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking, proposing to repeal the CPP. In December 2017, an Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) for a CPP replacement rule was published in the Federal Register. Minnesota Power is currently evaluating the CPP rescission and recently proposed ANPRM for a CPP replacement rule as it relates to the State of Minnesota as well as its potential impact on the Company. Minnesota has already initiated several measures consistent with those called for under the 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 National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (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 2014, EPA regulations under Section 316(b) of the Clean Water Act setting standards applicable to cooling water intake structures for the protection of aquatic organisms became effective. The regulations 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 will be implemented through NPDES permits issued to covered facilities. No NPDES permits for Minnesota Power facilities have been re-issued containing Section 316(b) requirements since the final rule became effective. Should the MPCA require significant modifications to Minnesota Power’s intake structures, a preliminary assessment indicates that Minnesota Power could incur costs of compliance up to $15 million over the next five years. Minnesota Power would seek recovery of additional costs through a rate proceeding. 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 set effluent limits and prescribed BACT for several wastewater streams, including flue gas desulphurization (FGD) water, bottom ash transport water and coal combustion landfill leachate. In September 2017, the EPA announced a two-year postponement of the ELG compliance date of November 1, 2018, to November 1, 2020, while the agency reconsiders bottom ash transport water and FGD wastewater provisions. The final ELG rule’s potential impact on Minnesota Power operations is 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 discharge, but may do so in the future. Under the existing ELG rule, bottom ash transport water discharge must cease no later than December 31, 2023. Bottom ash contact water will either need to be re-used in a closed-loop process, routed to a FGD scrubber, or the bottom ash handling system will need to be converted to a dry process. If FGD wastewater is discharged in the future, it will require additional wastewater treatment. The ELG rule provision regarding these two waste-streams are being reconsidered and may change prior to November 1, 2020. 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. NOTE 13. COMMITMENTS, GUARANTEES AND CONTINGENCIES (Continued) Environmental Matters (Continued) 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 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. Coal Combustion Residuals from Electric Utilities (CCR). In 2015, the EPA published the final rule regulating CCR as nonhazardous waste under Subtitle D of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) in the Federal Register. 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. 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. In September 2017, the EPA announced its intention to formally reconsider the CCR rule under Subtitle D of the RCRA and on March 15, 2018, published the first phase of the proposed rule revisions in the federal register. 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. Other Environmental Matters Manufactured Gas Plant Site. We are reviewing and addressing environmental conditions at a former manufactured gas plant site located in Superior, Wisconsin, and formerly operated by SWL&P. SWL&P has been working with the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WDNR) in determining the extent and location of contamination at the site and surrounding properties. In December 2017, the WDNR authorized SWL&P to transition from site investigation into the remedial design process. As of March 31, 2018, we have recorded a liability of approximately $7 million for remediation costs at this site (approximately $8 million as of December 31, 2017), and a corresponding regulatory asset as we expect recovery of these remediation costs to be allowed by the PSCW. We expect to incur these costs over the next four years. Other Matters. ALLETE Clean Energy. ALLETE Clean Energy’s wind energy facilities have PSAs in place for their entire output and expire in various years between 2018 and 2032. As of March 31, 2018, ALLETE Clean Energy has $16.2 million outstanding in standby letters of credit. U.S. Water Services. As of March 31, 2018, U.S. Water Services has $0.8 million outstanding in standby letters of credit. BNI Energy. As of March 31, 2018, BNI Energy had surety bonds outstanding of $49.9 million and a letter of credit for an additional $0.6 million related to the reclamation liability for closing costs associated with its mine and mine facilities. Although its coal supply agreements obligate the customers to provide for the closing costs, additional assurance is required by federal and state regulations. BNI Energy’s total reclamation liability is currently estimated at $47.5 million. BNI Energy 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 March 31, 2018, ALLETE Properties had surety bonds outstanding and letters of credit to governmental entities totaling $8.6 million primarily related to development and maintenance obligations for various projects. The estimated cost of the remaining development work is $6.1 million. ALLETE Properties does not believe it is likely that any of these outstanding surety bonds or letters of credit will be drawn upon. NOTE 13. COMMITMENTS, GUARANTEES AND CONTINGENCIES (Continued) Other Matters (Continued) Community Development District Obligations. At March 31, 2018, we owned 70 percent of the assessable land in the Town Center District (70 percent at December 31, 2017) and 27 percent of the assessable land in the Palm Coast Park District (33 percent at December 31, 2017). At March 31, 2018, ownership levels, our annual assessments related to capital improvement and special assessment bonds for the ALLETE Properties projects within these districts are approximately $1.4 million for Town Center at Palm Coast and $0.6 million for Palm Coast Park. As we sell property at these projects, 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. 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. We do not expect the outcome of these matters to have a material effect on our financial position, results of operations or cash flows.

X
- References No definition available. + Details
Name: | us-gaap_CommitmentsAndContingenciesDisclosureAbstract
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | xbrli:stringItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration

X
- Definition The entire disclosure for commitments, contingencies, and guarantees. + References Reference 1: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 450 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/topic&trid=2127136 Reference 2: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 440 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/topic&trid=2144648 Reference 3: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 460 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/topic&trid=2155896 + Details
Name: | us-gaap_CommitmentsContingenciesAndGuaranteesTextBlock
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | nonnum:textBlockItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration