Qaasid News

Download Our App

Author: admin

Continue Reading

  • Minnesota utility says it won’t buy from planned $1B power plant in Wisconsin

    Minnesota utility says it won’t buy from planned $1B power plant in Wisconsin

    Northern Minnesota’s largest power company is backing away from plans to develop a proposed $1 billion gas-fired power plant in northern Wisconsin as a result of legal challenges and permitting delays.

    In a filing on Friday to Minnesota utility regulators, Duluth-based Minnesota Power said it will no longer buy power or capacity from the planned plant in Superior. On Wednesday, the company terminated an agreement with subsidiary South Shore Energy, which holds a 20-percent share of the project.

    The utility was working with La Crosse-based Dairyland Power Cooperative and a subsidiary of Basin Electric Power Cooperative in North Dakota to build the Nemadji Trail Energy Center, or NTEC. Owners of the natural gas plant, which would produce between 550 and 625 megawatts, said it would provide reliable power as they shift away from coal and invest in renewable energy.

    News with a little more humanity

    WPR’s “Wisconsin Today” newsletter keeps you connected to the state you love without feeling overwhelmed. No paywall. No agenda. No corporate filter.

    Minnesota Power and other owners worked diligently to develop the plant, said vice president of public policy Jennifer Cady in the filing, but delays as a result of litigation and permitting have made it no longer viable.

    “Minnesota Power must aggressively pursue procuring dispatchable generation to bring online to ensure reliability of the grid as it intends to meet its cease coal dates of 2030 and 2035,” Cady wrote.

    Cady wrote that in Wisconsin, air, wetland and construction stormwater permits have expired due to delays despite more than a dozen permits obtained for the project.

    The city of Superior previously denied local approvals. Superior Mayor Jim Paine said the utility’s decision is not surprising.

    “It’s been dead for a while,” Paine said of NTEC. “It really did not have a functional path forward after the city opposed it.”

    Dairyland Cooperative owns 50 percent of the plant. A Dairyland spokesperson said the cooperative and NTEC partners are evaluating next steps for the project.

    Paine argued that Dairyland is unlikely to build a plant outside its service territory on land owned by Minnesota Power. In a statement, Minnesota Power said it’s exploring other locations for gas-fired plants, saying its need for natural gas remains unchanged.

    Concerns over the project have been mounting in recent years among residents, tribes and environmental groups. They have raised issues with the plant’s contribution to heat-trapping greenhouse gas emissions, air pollution and effects on wetlands.

    Jadine Sonoda, campaign coordinator for the Sierra Club Wisconsin Chapter, said the decision is a step in the right direction.

    “We would love to see (Dairyland) talk more about their future investments in transitioning to clean energy and making the electric sector, climate and world that we’re living in safer,” Sonoda said.

    In its filing, Minnesota Power said South Shore Energy will continue to work with the projects’ owners to examine a path forward that “balances economic, community and environmental considerations” while addressing the concerns of other stakeholders and tribes.

    Lee Sandok Baker lives within two miles of the proposed plant. She’s with the citizens group Neighbors Against NTEC.

    “Not only do we not want to see additional fossil fuel plants be built anywhere, we just believe that the spot that they chose here was definitely not the right place for that,” Sandok Baker said.

    The proposed plant would be built near a Superior cemetery that contains the remains of roughly 200 ancestors of the Fond du Lac Band of Lake Superior Chippewa.

    The plant’s supporters touted the 350 construction jobs and 25 full-time jobs that would be created with the project along with the contribution of $1 million annually in tax revenues.

    The project has faced multiple legal challenges from Indigenous and environmental groups. Last year, Clean Wisconsin and the Sierra Club asked the Wisconsin Supreme Court to review its lawsuit challenging the state’s Public Service Commission’s decision to approve the plant. Wisconsin’s highest court declined to hear the case.

    Minnesota Power’s decision comes after the sale of its parent company Allete to a Canadian pension fund and a subsidiary of BlackRock, the world’s biggest asset manager. Opponents feared the $6.2 billion deal would increase utility bills for customers, but the utility argued it would help the company fund its transition to renewable energy. Minnesota mandates electric utilities provide 100 percent carbon-free electricity by 2040.

    Minnesota Power said it wouldn’t seek to recover the costs of developing the project from customers.

    Wisconsin Public Radio, © Copyright 2025, Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin System and Wisconsin Educational Communications Board.

    Continue Reading

  • Volleyball Ends Season Ranked 10th in Final AVCA Poll

    Volleyball Ends Season Ranked 10th in Final AVCA Poll

    OMAHA, Neb. — The Creighton Volleyball team was ranked a season-best No. 10 in the year-end poll by the American Volleyball Coaches Association announced on Monday, Dec. 22nd. It’s the 11th appearance in the year-end poll in program history,…

    Continue Reading

  • Respond to requests about unemployment claims as an employer

    Requests for more information about filed claims are sent to your Unemployment Services for Employers account. You need to respond online from your account.

    All employers will get a request for more information about a claimant’s application. When you respond, you will be able to say if you disagree with the claim or suspect fraud. You may get additional requests for information as the claim progresses.

    Continue Reading

  • CFTC Provides Interim Relief from Commodity Pool Operator Registration to Registered Investment Advisers of Private Funds | Insights

    CFTC Provides Interim Relief from Commodity Pool Operator Registration to Registered Investment Advisers of Private Funds | Insights

    On December 19, 2025, the Market Participants Division (“MPD”) of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (“CFTC”) issued relief (see CFTC Letter No. 25-50) on an interim basis permitting certain commodity pool operators (“CPOs”) registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) as investment advisers to claim relief from CPO and commodity trading advisor (“CTA”) registration while the CFTC considers further rulemaking.

    Background

    In 2012, the CFTC rescinded prior Rule 4.13(a)(4) (the “QEP Exemption”), which provided an exemption from registration as a CPO with respect to certain privately offered commodity pools whose investors were limited to qualified eligible persons (“QEPs”) (or alternatively, in the case of non-natural person investors, certain types of accredited investors). QEPs include (i) “qualified purchasers,” as defined in Section 2(a)(51)(A) of the Investment Company Act of 1940, as amended (the “1940 Act”), (ii) “knowledgeable employees” as defined in Rule 3c-5 under the 1940 Act, and (iii) certain other categories of investors.1 The CFTC is presently considering reinstating the QEP Exemption in some form.

    No-Action Relief Granted

    The relief granted provides that MPD will not recommend pursuing an enforcement action for failure to register against a CPO that is an SEC-registered investment adviser and currently either (i) is registered or would be required to register with the CFTC as a CPO or (ii) relies on an existing exemption from CPO registration pursuant to CFTC Rule 4.13, in each case, with respect to a pool:

    • in which interests are exempt from registration under the Securities Act of 1933 and are sold without marketing to the public in the United States;2
    • whose investors the CPO reasonably believes are limited to QEPs; and
    • with respect to which the CPO files a Form PF.

    In order to rely on this relief, CPOs must file a notice via email to the CFTC.

    The relief also provides that MPD will not recommend pursuing an enforcement action against a CPO relying on this relief if such CPO fails to register, or withdraws from registration, as a CTA, solely with respect to the relevant pools.

    The relief further states that CPOs that deregister solely due to this relief are not subject to the provisions of CFTC Rule 4.13(e)(2), which would otherwise require such CPOs to offer all participants in the relevant pools an automatic right to redeem their interests from the pools in connection with such deregistration.

    By its terms, the relief will remain available until the CFTC promulgates rules addressing the reinstatement of the QEP Exemption or publicly determines not to promulgate such rules.

    Please contact Leigh R. Fraser, Jeremy A. Liabo, Katherine J. Forrester-Quek or the Ropes & Gray attorney who usually advises you for further information or with any questions you may have.

    Continue Reading