Counterpoint: Attacks On Advocates Of Minnesota Power Sale Were Unfair, Untrue

By Matt Schuerger, Minnesota Reformer

October 13, 2025

Across the country and around the world, the ways that we produce and use energy are rapidly evolving.

As our energy system transitions to a cleaner future, careful oversight of our utilities and their decisions will continue to be an urgent need. Fortunately, Minnesota is home to one of the most robust utility oversight frameworks in the country, with comprehensive planning requirements, transparent regulatory processes, and a deep bench of talented advocates working in support of the public interest.

That’s why I was especially dismayed to read Alissa Jean Schafer’s recent guest commentary in the Minnesota Reformer, which was riddled with inaccuracies about Minnesota’s nation-leading approach to utility planning as it discussed the now-approved acquisition of ALLETE, Inc., by a partnership consisting of Global Infrastructure Partners, a subsidiary of BlackRock, and the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board.

Based in Duluth, ALLETE is the parent company of Minnesota Power, an electric utility serving approximately 150,000 residents in northern and central Minnesota. Like all electric utilities, Minnesota Power is under immense public and market pressure to produce electricity from cleaner sources of generation. Clean energy has enormous economic benefits, from local job creation to avoided fuel costs. However, transitioning our entire energy system from one primarily based on the combustion of fossil fuels to one based on clean renewable sources is inherently a capital-intensive process. This is a real challenge for smaller utilities like Minnesota Power, and deeply complicated context for utility regulators to assess as they evaluate various utility proposals.

Against this backdrop, a wide array of advocates, stakeholders, and public agencies have worked to analyze the proposed acquisition of ALLETE/Minnesota Power and assess the likely impacts on the customers and communities that the utility serves. This culminated with the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission approving the sale on Oct. 3, contingent on a number of conditions.

Schafer’s published opposition to the acquisition is not my concern, and I will refrain from offering a personal position on the acquisition itself. However, I do take significant issue with many of the statements and inferences made about institutions and organizations working in Minnesota that I know to be highly credible, ethical, and fully committed to the public interest. This includes Fresh Energy, a Minnesota-based clean energy nonprofit for whom I serve as a volunteer board member.

Recklessly undermining Minnesota’s regulatory institutions and advocacy community, as the author does throughout her article, is the opposite of looking out for the public’s interest.

A particularly egregious example is the claim that Minnesota’s 100% by 2040 clean energy requirement would somehow be undermined because “there’s no requirement that BlackRock advance this clean energy vision.” This is factually incorrect. Minnesota’s 100% law is the same for all investor-owned utilities and enforced by the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission through a rigorous process known as Integrated Resource Planning. Minnesota Power’s clean energy obligations under law will not change as a result of the acquisition.

Another example is the claim that Minnesota Power would “no longer be owned by the people it serves.” Minnesota Power is currently a publicly-traded company on the New York Stock Exchange, with the vast majority of the company owned by institutional investors with no direct connection to Minnesota. In fact, BlackRock itself currently owns approximately 12% of ALLETE; already the largest shareholder. Minnesota Power is not a cooperative. It’s not a municipal utility. It is, currently, a for-profit corporation predominantly owned by institutional investors and subject to regulatory oversight by the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission. That will not change as a result of the acquisition.

To play this loose with the facts is fundamentally reckless. At a time when the public’s faith in public institutions is at an all-time low, it isn’t surprising that “piling on” in this manner might be a tempting strategy from any number of perspectives — driving clicks on news sites, driving fundraising for advocacy organizations, etc. But I believe that anyone who purports to work in the public interest has an obligation to seek truth, to strive for accuracy and to hold themselves accountable for the outcomes of their decisions and actions.

The proposed sale of Minnesota Power is incredibly complex, and reasonable minds can reach differing conclusions. But facts are facts, and Minnesotans are best served when hard decisions are based on careful analysis, hard data and thoughtful debate. I’m proud that Minnesota’s Public Utilities Commission continues to meet that standard. Guest editorials in the Reformer and beyond should do so as well.

Editor’s note: Alissa Jean Schafer gave the following response.

Matt Schuerger’s defense of BlackRock’s ALLETE acquisition ignores the concerns raised by Minnesota’s own administrative law judge who recommended against the deal.

After reviewing written and verbal testimony — including “highly confidential” materials not released to the public — the ALJ found that “the Petitioners did not prove by a preponderance of evidence that they will be unable to meet the Carbon Free Standard absent the acquisition, nor did they guarantee or present sufficient evidence showing that the standard will be met as a result of the acquisition.”

A key reason: Private equity firms often only hold companies for a few years before selling, which raises the possibility that BlackRock would do nothing to move Minnesota Power toward the 2040 obligation before another sale. The ALJ highlighted this risk: “(A)n early exit would likely be uneconomic and inefficient, and the record demonstrates that such an exit by the Partners is highly plausible.”

Even more troubling, the ALJ noted that “the Petitioner’s agreements and private discussions do not comport with their public statements.” That finding should raise alarm for anyone who cares about transparency. Schuerger also downplays what this sale really means for Minnesotans when noting that Minnesota Power is already investor-owned. That misses the point. Private-equity ownership is not the same as being publicly traded. As the name “private” implies, firms like BlackRock’s Global Infrastructure Partners rely on opaque structures, high debt, and short-term profit extraction.

As the ALJ stated “The nonpublic evidence reveals the Partner’s intent to do what private equity is expected to do — pursue profit in excess of public markets through company control.”

The Minnesota Reformer is an independent, nonprofit news organization dedicated to keeping Minnesotans informed and unearthing stories other outlets can’t or won’t tell..