This opinion will be unpublished and

may not be cited except as provided by

Minn. Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3 (2012).

STATE OF MINNESOTA

IN COURT OF APPEALS

A14-0253

In the Matter of Minnesota Power's Petitions for 

Approval of its Boswell Energy Center Unit 4 

Environmental Retrofit Project and 

Boswell 4 Environmental Improvement Rider.

Filed November 3, 2014

Affirmed

Bjorkman, Judge

Minnesota Public Utilities Commission

File No. E015/M-12-0920

Leigh K. Currie, Minnesota Center for Environmental Advocacy, St. Paul, Minnesota (for 

relators Minnesota Center for Environmental Advocacy, Izaak Walton League of 

America – Midwest Office, Fresh Energy, and Sierra Club)

Lori Swanson, Attorney General, Lisa A. Crum, Kathryn Fodness, Assistant Attorneys

General, St. Paul, Minnesota (for respondent Minnesota Public Utilities Commission)

Michael C. Krikava, Elizabeth M. Brama, Briggs and Morgan, P.A., Minneapolis, 

Minnesota; and

David R. Moeller, Minnesota Power, Duluth, Minnesota (for respondent Minnesota 

Power)

Andrew Moratzka, Sarah Elizabeth Johnson Phillips, Stoel Rives LLP, Minneapolis, 

Minnesota (for respondent Large Power Intervenors)

Considered and decided by Smith, Presiding Judge; Larkin, Judge; and Bjorkman, 

Judge. 
2

U N P U B L I S H E D O P I N I O N

BJORKMAN, Judge

Relators challenge respondent commission’s approval of respondent power 

company’s mercury-emissions-reduction plan, arguing that the commission erred by 

approving the plan without the required environmental analysis. We affirm.

FACTS

Under the Mercury Emissions Reduction Act (MERA), Minn. Stat. §§ 216B.68-

.688 (2012), a public utility that owns a large coal-fired power plant in Minnesota must 

prepare a plan for reducing the plant’s mercury emissions and submit the plan to 

respondent Minnesota Public Utilities Commission (MPUC) for approval. There are six 

such existing plants, including respondent Minnesota Power’s Boswell 4 facility.

On August 31, 2012, Minnesota Power filed a petition under Minn. Stat. 

§ 216B.6851, seeking approval of its mercury-emissions-reduction plan for Boswell 4. 

Minnesota Power proposed a four-year project to retrofit Boswell 4 with a semi-dry fluegas desulfurization system, fabric filter, and powder-activated carbon-injection system, 

asserting that these measures would reduce the plant’s mercury emissions by 90%, reduce 

the output of multiple other pollutants, and reduce plant wastewater. Minnesota Power 

also detailed its process of identifying and evaluating various approaches to reducing 

emissions of mercury and other pollutants, from a range of carbon-injection retrofit 

options to retiring Boswell 4 in favor of a natural-gas replacement. 

The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) reviewed Minnesota Power’s 

retrofit plan. The MPCA determined that the plan presents a technically feasible, cost-
3

effective means of providing multiple environmental and public-health benefits, 

including 90% reduction in mercury emissions. The MPCA also observed that 

Minnesota Power described “alternatives to mercury controls that included replacing the 

entire unit with natural gas-fired generation,” but it did not evaluate the environmental 

effects of a natural-gas replacement. The MPCA recommended that the MPUC approve

the retrofit plan.

After two rounds of comments on the plan—including joint comments from

relators Minnesota Center for Environmental Advocacy, Izaak Walton League of 

America–Midwest Office, Fresh Energy, and Sierra Club—and a public hearing, the 

MPUC approved Minnesota Power’s retrofit plan. Relators petitioned for 

reconsideration, which the MPUC denied. Relators appeal.

D E C I S I O N

The MPUC’s approval of a mercury-emissions-reduction plan is subject to appeal 

under the Minnesota Administrative Procedure Act. See Minn. Stat. § 216B.52, subd. 1 

(2012); In re N. States Power Co., 775 N.W.2d 652, 655-56 (Minn. App. 2009). Under 

the act, we may affirm the MPUC’s decision, remand the case for further proceedings, or 

reverse or modify the decision if the petitioner’s substantial rights have been prejudiced 

because the findings, inferences, conclusions, or decision are affected by an error of law, 

unsupported by substantial evidence, or are arbitrary and capricious. Minn. Stat. § 14.69 

(2012).

Relators argue that the MPUC committed legal error by approving Minnesota 

Power’s retrofit plan in the absence of the full environmental assessment MERA requires. 
4

This argument presents a question of statutory interpretation. While we defer to an 

administrative agency on matters within its field of expertise, we do not defer to an 

agency’s statutory interpretation when statutory language “is clear and capable of 

understanding.” In re Annandale NPDES/SDS Permit Issuance, 731 N.W.2d 502, 511, 

513 (Minn. 2007). Instead, we effectuate the intent of the legislature by interpreting the 

text of the statute according to its plain language. Minn. Transitions Charter Sch. v. 

Comm’r of Minn. Dep’t of Educ., 844 N.W.2d 223, 227 (Minn. App. 2014), review 

denied (Minn. May 28, 2014). This includes consideration of the statute “as a whole,” 

accounting for the context of the surrounding words and sentences. In re Minn. Power, 

838 N.W.2d 747, 754 (Minn. 2013).

When a public utility submits a mercury-emissions-reduction plan for approval 

under MERA, the MPCA is required to “evaluate” the plan and submit its evaluation to 

the MPUC. Minn. Stat. § 216B.684. In doing so, the MPCA must

(1) assess whether the utility’s plan meets the requirements of 

[Minn. Stat. § 216B.6851], (2) evaluate the environmental 

and public health benefits of each option proposed or 

considered by the utility, including benefits associated with 

reductions in pollutants other than mercury, (3) assess the 

technical feasibility and cost-effectiveness of technologies 

proposed or considered by the utility for achieving mercury 

emissions reduction, and (4) advise the commission of the

appropriateness of the utility’s plan.

Id. The MPCA may “request additional information from the utility, especially with 

regard to alternative technologies or configurations applicable to the specific unit, and the 

estimated costs of those alternatives.” Id.
5

Relators argue that the natural-gas-replacement alternative that Minnesota Power 

mentioned in its petition is an “option” that the MPCA was required to evaluate, and that 

the MPUC could not approve the retrofit plan without that evaluation. We disagree.

An “option” is something that is “available as a choice.” American Heritage 

Dictionary 1238 (5th ed. 2011). The broader context of MERA defines whether a

particular mercury-emissions-reduction measure is “available as a choice” and therefore 

requires MPCA assessment. MERA requires public utilities to reduce mercury emissions 

at existing coal-fired power plants. See Minn. Stat. § 216B.68, subd. 8 (defining a 

“targeted unit” as a “coal-fired electric generation unit”); see also Minn. Stat. 

§§ 216B.682, subd. 1(a) (requiring utility to file a plan “for mercury emissions reduction 

at each such unit”), .6851, subd. 3 (requiring plan “to achieve total mercury reduction at 

targeted and supplemental units”). It does not mention retiring or repowering those 

plants as a means of reducing their emissions of mercury or any other pollutant.1 Instead, 

MERA expressly anticipates that these reductions will be accomplished by installing 

pollution-control equipment at those plants. See Minn. Stat. §§ 216B.68, subd. 7 

(referring to “mercury-control equipment” being “installed at a targeted unit”), .686, 

subd. 1 (referring to “pollution control equipment” being “installed at facilities in 

 

1

The only mention in MERA of retiring or repowering coal-fired power plants is in the 

narrow provision (undisputedly applicable only to Minnesota Power) that permits a utility 

with two wet-scrubbed coal-fired power plants to stagger submission of mercuryemissions-reduction plans but requires multi-faceted annual reports on the second plant, 

including an assessment of whether state or federal pollution controls might warrant 

“retiring or repowering” that plant, rather than installing mercury-emissions-reduction 

technology. See Minn. Stat. § 216B.6851, subd. 5(b)(2)(iii).
6

Minnesota”). In short, the plain language of MERA indicates that the legislature 

intended to regulate, not replace, coal-fired power plants.

2

Replacing a coal-fired plant with a facility that uses a cleaner fuel source might be 

a viable pollution-control measure. But it is an alternative to regulation under MERA, 

not an “option” in a mercury-emissions-reduction plan that the MPCA is required to 

evaluate. Accordingly, we conclude that the MPCA did not violate its statutory duty 

under section 216B.684 by declining to substantively assess the prospect of retiring and 

replacing Boswell 4 with a natural-gas facility.

Moreover, any deficiency occasioned by the MPCA’s failure to evaluate the 

environmental effects of a natural-gas replacement is harmless. Under MERA, the 

MPUC’s authority to do anything other than approve a utility’s preferred plan is limited. 

The MPUC “shall approve a utility’s mercury emissions-reduction plan that [the MPUC] 

reasonably expects will come closest to achieving” the 90 percent goal “in a manner that 

provides for increased environmental and public health benefits without imposing 

excessive costs on the utility’s customers.” Minn. Stat. § 216B.6851, subd. 6(b). Only if 

the MPUC is “unable” to approve the utility’s preferred plan (the “90 percent reduction 

plan filed under subdivision 3”) may it order the utility to implement some other plan. Id.

The MPCA thoroughly evaluated Minnesota Power’s retrofit plan, including its 

environmental and public-health benefits, technical feasibility, and cost-effectiveness. 

The MPUC considered that evaluation and the substantial evidentiary record and 

 

2

Indeed, if a utility were to retire its coal-fired power plant, it would no longer be subject 

to MERA.
7

determined that the retrofit plan achieves MERA’s 90% goal, provides for increased 

environmental and public-health benefits, and does not impose excessive costs on 

Minnesota Power’s customers. Relators do not challenge the sufficiency of the MPCA’s 

review of the retrofit plan or any of the MPUC’s findings as to its effectiveness, benefits, 

or costs. Under these circumstances, the MPUC was not only permitted but required to 

approve the retrofit plan. Accordingly, we conclude that the MPUC did not commit legal 

error by approving Minnesota Power’s retrofit plan. 

Affirmed.