XML 23 R17.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT ﻿
v2.3.0.11

Commitments and Contingencies | 6 Months Ended
--- | ---
Jun. 30, 2011
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract] |
Commitments and Contingencies | Commitments and Contingencies Overview There are various claims and lawsuits pending against the Company. The Company is also subject to federal, state, and local environmental laws and regulations, and is currently participating in the investigation and remediation of numerous sites. In addition, the Company periodically enters into financial commitments in connection with its business operations. The Company is also involved in various legal proceedings in the normal course of its business. It is not possible at this time for the Company to determine fully the effect of all litigation and other legal proceedings on its results of operations or financial position. It is the Company's policy to accrue for expected liabilities in accordance with GAAP when it is probable that a liability has been incurred and the amount to be incurred is reasonably estimable. The Company cannot make any assurances that the amount of reserves or potential insurance coverage will be sufficient to cover the cash obligations that might be incurred as a result of litigation or regulatory proceedings. The Company does not expect that any known lawsuits, environmental costs, and commitments will have a material adverse effect on its financial condition, results of operations, or cash flows, although the outcome of litigation, investigations, and other legal proceedings is inherently uncertain. With respect to some of the items listed below, the Company has determined that a loss is not probable or that, to the extent probable, is not reasonably estimable. In some cases, the Company is not able to predict with any degree of certainty the range of possible loss that could be incurred. Notwithstanding these facts, the Company has assessed these matters based on current information and made judgments concerning their potential outcome, giving due consideration to the nature of the claim, the amount and nature of damages sought, and the probability of success. Such judgments are made subject to the known uncertainty of litigation. The Company has established appropriate reserves for matters where it is probable a loss has been incurred and the amount of loss is reasonably estimable. The actual outcomes of the items listed below could ultimately differ from the judgments made and the differences could be material. Additional information concerning commitments and contingencies is contained in Note 16 of Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements in the 2010 Annual Reports on Form 10-K. Commitments and Contingencies Related to the Environment Nuclear Spent Fuel and Waste Disposal Nuclear power plant operators are required to enter into spent fuel disposal contracts with the DOE, and the DOE is required to accept and dispose of all spent nuclear fuel and other high-level radioactive wastes generated by domestic power reactors. Although the Nuclear Waste Policy Act required the DOE to develop a permanent repository for the storage and disposal of spent nuclear fuel by 1998, the DOE announced that it would not be able to open the repository by 1998 and sought to excuse its performance under the contract. PNM estimates that it will incur approximately $42.8 million (in 2010 dollars) for its share of the costs related to the on-site interim storage of spent nuclear fuel at PVNGS. Such estimate reflects the impact of the extension of the PVNGS operating licenses discussed in Note 13 below. PNM accrues these costs as a component of fuel expense, meaning that the charges are accrued as the fuel is consumed. At June 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010, PNM recorded interim storage costs of $15.1 million and $14.8 million in other deferred credits. The Clean Air Act Regional Haze The EPA has established rules addressing regional haze and guidelines for BART determinations. The rules call for all states to establish goals and emission reduction strategies for improving visibility in national parks and wilderness areas. In particular, the rules define how an SO 2 emissions trading program developed by the Western Regional Air Partnership, a voluntary organization of western states, tribes, and federal agencies, can be used by western states. New Mexico will be participating in the SO 2 program, which is a trading program that will be implemented if SO 2 reduction milestones are not met. SJGS In November 2006, the NMED requested a BART analysis for NOx and particulates for each of the four units at SJGS. PNM submitted its analysis to the NMED in June 2007, recommending against installing additional pollution control equipment on any of the SJGS units beyond those planned at that time, the installation of which was completed in March 2009. PNM subsequently provided additional data in response to requests from the NMED. On June 21, 2010, the NMED filed its proposed regional haze SIP with the EIB. The NMED filing included a finding by the NMED that BART for NOx at SJGS is a technology known as “selective catalytic reduction” (“SCR”) plus “sorbent injection.” PNM disagreed with this proposed BART determination. As part of its 2007 submission, PNM identified additional control technology alternatives, including SCR, to already planned pollution control equipment upgrades and evaluated the feasibility of these technologies for the purpose of reducing visibility impacts in accordance with EPA's "Guidelines for BART Determinations under the Regional Haze Rules" (“BART Guidelines”). PNM concluded that SCR was not appropriate as BART. Using the EPA's BART Guidelines, PNM estimated the installation of SCR technology at SJGS would cost approximately $750 million to $1 billion for the entire station, of which PNM's share would be 46.3% based on its SJGS ownership percentage. The SCR technology would also increase operating costs at SJGS. PNM recently contracted with an independent engineering design firm to prepare a detailed conceptual design and cost estimate for installation of SCR at SJGS. That analysis utilized scaled vendor estimates and was submitted to the EPA on July 20, 2011. Although there are certain differences between the two analyses, the new cost estimate is consistent with PNM's earlier BART analysis cost estimate range and continues to support PNM's contention that EPA's SCR cost estimates are unrealistically low. Under a consent decree it signed with WildEarth Guardians in 2010, the EPA was required to issue a proposed FIP regarding interstate transport for certain states, including New Mexico, by November 11, 2010, which was later extended to December 22, 2010, if no proposed SIP had been submitted. Interstate transport requires states to have adequate provisions to prohibit emissions from adversely affecting air quality in other states. EPA Region 6 issued a proposed interstate transport FIP, which was published in the Federal Register on January 5, 2011. The proposed FIP included a BART determination for NOx controls at SJGS that requires SCR installation on all four units within three years of the final order, rather than the five-year implementation schedule the regional haze rules generally allow and that EPA proposed for Four Corners. The proposed FIP did not require sorbent injection. The proposed FIP provided for a proposed emission limit for NOx at SJGS of 0.05 pounds per MMBTU, whereas the EPA's proposed emission limit for NOx at Four Corners is 0.098 pounds per MMBTU. The public comment period on the proposed FIP ended on April 4, 2011. The deadline for the final FIP was extended to August 5, 2011 pursuant to an agreement between EPA and WildEarth Guardians. NMED withdrew its June 21, 2010 proposed regional haze SIP on December 17, 2010. On February 28, 2011, the NMED filed a new petition with the EIB to consider an interstate transport SIP and a regional haze SIP. Among other things, the draft regional haze SIP concludes that selective non-catalytic reduction (“SNCR”) controls are BART for SJGS. SNCR controls meet EPA's presumptive NOx BART limit of 0.23 pounds per MMBTU for wall-fired boilers burning sub-bituminous coal. The proposed SIP would require installation of SNCR controls within five years. PNM estimates the installation of SNCR technology at SJGS would cost approximately $77 million for the entire station, of which PNM's share would be 46.3%. The EIB approved the NMED's proposed regional haze and interstate transport SIPs in June 2011 upon conclusion of public hearings and the Governor of New Mexico submitted the SIPs to the EPA on June 24, 2011. PNM filed extensive technical and legal comments on the proposed FIP with the EPA, including a statement in support of the then-draft SIP. Since the EIB had approved a SIP, PNM believed that the EPA must consider that SIP. Only the interstate transport rule was subject to the August 5, 2011 court-ordered deadline for a final FIP. In order to meet that deadline and at the same time give due consideration to the SIP, the Governor of New Mexico had requested that EPA finalize the FIP associated with the interstate transport rule by August 5, 2011 and stay any action on the proposed FIP for regional haze until New Mexico's SIP revisions had been fully considered and either approved or disapproved. On August 5, 2011, the EPA issued its final FIP which requires SCR technology and allows for a five-year implementation schedule. The final FIP provides for an emission limit for NOx at SJGS of 0.05 pounds per MMBTU. PNM will file an appeal with the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit within the required time frame, which is within 60 days after the final FIP is published in the Federal Register. The appeal would not stop the implementation timeframe unless a court issues a stay. As stated above, PNM believes that SCR technology is not appropriate for BART at SJGS and that the state's SIP which calls for SNCR provides reasonable progress toward visibility improvements required under the EPA rules. The EPA indicated on August 5, 2011, that it would continue to review the state's SIP but that the EPA had already evaluated SNCR as part of the FIP and had ruled SNCR out as BART for San Juan. PNM will seek recovery from its ratepayers of all costs that may ultimately be incurred as a result of the final FIP. While PNM cannot accurately predict the impact of these requirements on PNM's ratepayers until requirements, if any, are finalized, it estimates that the installation of SCR controls would cost the average residential PNM customer approximately $85 for the first year with slowly declining costs for an estimated 20 years and that costs to businesses would be higher. On January 19, 2011, multiple parties filed with the EPA a NOI to sue under the Clean Air Act for the EPA's failure to promulgate a FIP within two years of a finding that certain states, including New Mexico, had failed to make all or part of a required regional haze SIP submittal. The NOI alleges that the deadline for final promulgation of regional haze FIPs or full approval of regional haze SIPs was January 15, 2011. The same parties also filed a separate NOI to sue under the Clean Air Act for EPA's failure to take final action on SIP submissions by multiple states, including New Mexico, within 18 months of receipt of submission. PNM is unable to predict the ultimate outcome of these matters or what, if any, additional pollution control equipment will ultimately be required or approved for installation for SJGS. If additional equipment is required and/or final requirements result in additional operating costs to be incurred, PNM believes that its access to the capital markets are sufficient to be able to finance the installation and that equipment and financing costs should be recoverable through the ratemaking process and would seek recovery of them. However, PNM can provide no assurance that all such amounts will be recovered from ratepayers. It is possible that requirements to comply with the final BART determinations, combined with the financial impact of possible future climate change regulation or legislation, if any, other environmental regulations, the result of litigation, and other business considerations, could jeopardize the economic viability of SJGS or the ability of individual participants to continue participation in the plant. Four Corners EPA Region 9 previously requested that APS, as the operating agent for Four Corners, perform a BART analysis for Four Corners. APS submitted an analysis to the EPA concluding that certain combustion control equipment constitutes BART for Four Corners. Based on the analyses and comments received through EPA's rulemaking process, the EPA will determine what it believes constitutes BART for Four Corners. On October 6, 2010, the EPA issued its proposed BART determination for Four Corners. The rule, as proposed, would require the installation of SCR as post-combustion controls on each of Units 1-5 at Four Corners to reduce NOx emissions. As previously disclosed, PNM's total costs could be up to approximately $69.0 million for post-combustion controls at Four Corners Units 4 and 5. PNM would seek recovery from its ratepayers of all costs that are ultimately incurred. The EPA proposed a 10% stack opacity limitation for all five units and a 20% opacity limitation on certain fugitive dust emissions, although the proposed fugitive dust provision is unrelated to BART. SCE, a participant in Four Corners, has indicated that certain California legislation may prohibit it from making emission control expenditures at the coal-fired plant. On November 8, 2010, APS and SCE entered into an asset purchase agreement, providing for the purchase by APS of SCE's 48% interest in each of Units 4 and 5 of Four Corners. Completion of the purchase by APS, which is expected to occur in the second half of 2012, is subject to the receipt of various regulatory approvals. Closing is also conditioned on the execution of a new coal supply contract for the lease renewal period described under Coal Supply below and other conditions. Pursuant to an agreement among the Four Corners participants, the other participants had a right of first refusal to purchase shares of SCE's interests proportional to their current ownership percentages. The exercise of this purchase right expired on March 8, 2011 and neither PNM nor any of the other participants exercised this right. APS has announced that, if APS's purchase of SCE's interests in Units 4 and 5 at Four Corners is consummated, it will close Units 1, 2, and 3 at the plant (PNM has no ownership interest in Four Corners Units 1, 2, and 3). On November 24, 2010, APS submitted a letter to the EPA proposing an alternative to the EPA's October 2010 BART proposal. Specifically, APS proposed to close Four Corners Units 1, 2, and 3 by 2014 and to install post-combustion pollution controls for NOx on Units 4 and 5 by the end of 2018, provided that the EPA agrees to a contemporaneous resolution of Four Corners' obligations or liability, if any, under the regional haze and reasonably attributable visibility impairment programs, the NSR program, and NSPS programs of the Clean Air Act. On February 10, 2011, the EPA signed a Supplemental Notice Requesting Comment, related to the BART rulemaking for Four Corners. In the Supplemental Notice, the EPA proposed to find that a different alternative emission control strategy, based upon APS's November 2010 proposal, would achieve more progress than the EPA's October 2010 BART proposal. The Supplemental Notice proposes that Units 1, 2, and 3 would close by 2014, post-combustion pollution controls for NOx would be installed on Units 4 and 5 by July 31, 2018, and the NOx emission limitation for Units 4 and 5 would be 0.098 lbs/MMBtu, rather than the 0.11 lbs/MMBtu proposed by the EPA in October 2010. The EPA proposals are subject to public comment. On July 15, 2011, various environmental groups filed a NOI to sue EPA because it failed to promulgate regional haze FIPs for Four Corners and Navajo Generating Station. PNM is not an owner of Navajo Generating Station. The NOI states that the EPA has failed to fulfill its nondiscretionary duty under the Clean Air Act to submit a BART determination for the plants without unreasonable delay. The Clean Air Act requires parties to give EPA 180 days' notice before commencing a lawsuit based on allegations that the EPA unreasonably delayed performance of a nondiscretionary act. In addition, on February 16, 2010, a group of environmental organizations filed a petition with the DOI and DOA requesting those agencies to certify to the EPA that visibility impairment in sixteen national park and wilderness areas is reasonably attributable to emissions from Four Corners and other plants. If the agencies certify impairment, the EPA is required to evaluate and, if necessary, determine BART for Four Corners under a different haze program known as “Reasonably Attributable Visibility Impairment.” On January 19, 2011, a similar group of environmental organizations filed a lawsuit against the DOI and DOA, alleging among other things that the agencies failed to act on the February 2010 petition “without unreasonable delay” and requesting the court to order the agencies to act on the petition within 30 days. On June 30, 2011, the court issued its opinion dismissing the plaintiffs' claims explaining that because the DOI and DOA reached a “definitive decision” to deny the plaintiffs' petitions, the court is unable to grant further relief to the plaintiffs and, therefore, their claims must be dismissed as moot. The Four Corners participants' obligations to comply with the EPA's final BART determinations, coupled with the financial impact of possible future climate change regulation or legislation, other environmental regulations, the result of the lawsuit mentioned above, and other business considerations, could jeopardize the economic viability of Four Corners or the ability of individual participants to continue their participation in Four Corners. PNM is continuing to evaluate the impacts of EPA's proposed BART determination for Four Corners. As proposed, the participant owners of Four Corners will have five years after the EPA issues its final determination to achieve compliance with the BART requirements. PNM is unable to predict the ultimate outcome of this matter. Ozone Non-Attainment In March 2009, the NMED published its draft recommendation of area designations for the 2008 revised ozone national ambient air quality standard. The draft recommended that San Juan County, New Mexico be designated as non-attainment for ozone. SJGS is situated in San Juan County. However, the NMED subsequently determined that the monitor indicating high ozone levels was not reliable and did not recommend to the EPA that San Juan County be designated as non-attainment. On January 6, 2010, the EPA announced it would strengthen the 8-hour ozone standard by setting the standard in a range of 0.060-0.070 parts per million (“ppm”). The EPA had intended to establish a new ozone standard by July 31, 2011, but has delayed the announcement of its rule. Depending upon where the standard is set, San Juan County could be designated as not attaining the standard for ozone. If that were to occur, NMED would have responsibility for bringing the county back into compliance and would look at all sources of NOx and volatile organic compounds since these are the pollutants that form ground-level ozone in the presence of sunlight. As a result, SJGS could be required to put on additional NOx controls as early as 2014. In addition, other counties in New Mexico, including Bernalillo County, may be designated as non-attainment. A non-attainment designation for Bernalillo County could result in the requirement to reduce NOx emissions from Reeves Station as early as 2014. The Company cannot predict the outcome of this matter or if additional NOx controls would be required as a result of ozone non-attainment designation. Citizen Suit Under the Clean Air Act The operations of the SJGS are covered by a Consent Decree with the Grand Canyon Trust and Sierra Club and with the NMED that includes a provision whereby stipulated penalties are assessed for non-compliance with specified emissions limits. Stipulated penalty amounts are placed in escrow on a quarterly basis pending review of SJGS's emissions performance for each quarter. As required by the Consent Decree, PNM submitted reports addressing mercury and NOx emission controls for SJGS. Plaintiffs and NMED rejected PNM's reports. PNM disputes the validity of the rejection of the reports. On May 17, 2010, PNM filed a petition with the federal district court seeking a judicial determination on the dispute relating to PNM's mercury controls. NMED and plaintiffs seek to require PNM to implement mercury controls that PNM estimates would increase annual operating costs for the entire station by as much as $42 million. The court held a status conference on November 29, 2010 for purposes of establishing the appropriate process for resolution of the outstanding disputes related to this matter and to discuss other issues raised in PNM's petition. PNM cannot predict the outcome of this matter. Navajo Nation Environmental Issues Four Corners is located on the Navajo Reservation and is held under an easement granted by the federal government as well as a lease from the Navajo Nation. The Navajo Acts, enacted in 1995 by the Navajo Nation, purport to give the Navajo Nation Environmental Protection Agency authority to promulgate regulations covering air quality, drinking water, and pesticide activities, including those activities that occur at Four Corners. In October 1995, the Four Corners participants filed a lawsuit in the District Court of the Navajo Nation, Window Rock District, challenging the applicability of the Navajo Acts to Four Corners. The District Court stayed these proceedings pursuant to a request by the parties and the parties are seeking to negotiate a settlement. In 2000, the Navajo Tribal Council approved operating permit regulations under the Navajo Nation Air Pollution Prevention and Control Act. APS believes the Navajo Nation exceeded its authority when it adopted the operating permit regulations. Each of the Four Corners participants filed a petition with the Navajo Nation Supreme Court for review of the operating permit regulations. Those proceedings have been stayed, pending the outcome of the settlement negotiations mentioned above. In May 2005, APS and the Navajo Nation signed a Voluntary Compliance Agreement resolving the dispute regarding the Navajo Nation Air Pollution Prevention and Control Act. As a result of this agreement, APS sought, and the courts granted, dismissal of the pending litigation in the Navajo Nation Supreme Court and the Navajo Nation District Court, to the extent the claims relate to the Clean Air Act. The agreement does not address or resolve any dispute relating to other aspects of the Navajo Acts. The Company cannot currently predict the outcome of these matters or the range of their potential impacts. Section 114 Request On April 6, 2009, APS received a request from the EPA under Section 114 of the Clean Air Act seeking detailed information regarding projects at and operations of Four Corners. This request is part of an enforcement initiative that the EPA has undertaken under the Clean Air Act. The EPA has taken the position that many utilities have made certain physical or operational changes at their plants that should have triggered additional regulatory requirements under the NSR provisions of the Clean Air Act. Other electric utilities have received and responded to similar Section 114 requests, and several of them have been subject to notices of violation and lawsuits by the EPA. APS has responded to the EPA's request. PNM is currently unable to predict the timing or content of EPA's response, if any, or any resulting actions. Four Corners Notice of Intent to Sue On May 7, 2010, APS received a NOI to sue from Earthjustice, on behalf of several environmental organizations, related to alleged violations of the Clean Air Act at Four Corners. The NOI alleges NSR related violations and NSPS violations. Under the Clean Air Act, a citizens group is required to provide 60 days advance notice of its intent to file a lawsuit. Within that 60-day time period, the EPA may step in and file a lawsuit regarding the allegations. If the EPA does so, the citizens group is precluded from filing its own lawsuit, but it may still intervene in the EPA's lawsuit, if it so desires. The 60-day period lapsed in July 2010, and the EPA did not take any action. At this time, the Company cannot predict whether or when Earthjustice might file a lawsuit or, if filed, what the ultimate outcome would be. Review of New Sources and Modifications in Indian Country Pursuant to its authority under the Clean Air Act, in June 2011, the EPA finalized a FIP, which puts in place a pre-construction air permitting program for construction of new and modified small facilities and minor modifications of existing facilities in Indian country. The FIP will require a source owner or operator to apply for a permit before building a new facility or modifying an existing one if it is determined that the proposed project will increase emissions above any of the minor NSR thresholds included in the rule. Among other things, sources triggering the rule's source-specific permit requirements will be required to undergo a case-by-case control technology review and, potentially, an air impact quality analysis. APS and PNM are currently evaluating the potential impact of this rule on Four Corners, which is located on Indian lands. Endangered Species Act On January 30, 2011, the Center for Biological Diversity, Dine Citizens Against Ruining Our Environment, and San Juan Citizens Alliance filed a lawsuit against the OSM and the DOI, alleging that OSM failed to engage in mandatory Endangered Species Act (“ESA”) consultation with the Fish and Wildlife Service prior to authorizing the renewal of an operating permit for the mine that serves Four Corners. The lawsuit alleges that activities at the mine, including mining and the disposal of coal combustion residue, will adversely affect several endangered species and their critical habitats. The lawsuit requests the court to vacate and remand the mining permit and enjoin all activities carried out under the permit until OSM has complied with the ESA. PNM is not a party to the lawsuit. APS has intervened in the lawsuit and is evaluating the lawsuit to determine its potential impact on Four Corners operations. PNM is unable to predict the ultimate outcome of this matter. Cooling Water Intake Structures The EPA issued its proposed cooling water intake structures rule on April 20, 2011, which would provide national standards applicable to certain cooling water intake structures at existing power plants and other facilities pursuant to the Clean Water Act. The proposed standards are intended to protect fish and other aquatic organisms by minimizing impingement mortality (the capture of aquatic wildlife on intake structures or against screens) and entrainment mortality (the capture of fish or shellfish in water flow entering and passing through intake structures). To minimize impingement mortality, the proposed rule would require facilities such as Four Corners and SJGS to either demonstrate that impingement mortality at its cooling water intakes does not exceed a specified rate or reduce the flow at those structures to less than a specified velocity, and to take certain protective measures with respect to impinged fish. To minimize entrainment mortality, the proposed rule would also require these facilities to either meet the definition of a closed cycle recirculating cooling system or conduct a “structured site-specific analysis” to determine what site-specific controls, if any, should be required. The proposed rule is subject to a public comment period, which has been extended to August 18, 2011. The EPA is expected to issue a final rule by July 2012. As proposed, existing facilities subject to the rule would have to comply with the impingement mortality requirements as soon as possible, but in no event later than eight years after the effective date of the rule, and would have to comply with the entrainment requirements as soon as possible under a schedule of compliance established by the permitting authority. PNM and APS are performing analyses to determine the costs of compliance with the proposed rule. PNM is unable to predict the outcome of this matter or a range of the potential costs of compliance. Santa Fe Generating Station PNM and the NMED conducted investigations of gasoline and chlorinated solvent groundwater contamination detected beneath the site of the former Santa Fe Generating Station to determine the source of the contamination pursuant to a 1992 settlement agreement between PNM and the NMED. PNM believes that the data compiled indicates observed groundwater contamination originated from off-site sources. However, to avoid a prolonged legal dispute, PNM entered into settlement agreements with the NMED under which PNM agreed to install a remediation system to treat water from a City of Santa Fe municipal supply well and install an additional extraction well and two new monitoring wells to address gasoline contamination in the groundwater at and in the vicinity of the site. PNM will continue to operate the remediation facilities until the groundwater meets applicable federal and state standards or until such time as the NMED determines that additional remediation is not required, whichever is earlier. The well continues to operate and meets federal drinking water standards. PNM is not able to assess the duration of this project. The Superfund Oversight Section of the NMED has conducted multiple investigations into the chlorinated solvent plume in the vicinity of the site of the former Santa Fe Generating Station. In February 2008, a NMED site inspection report was submitted to the EPA, which states that neither the source nor extent of contamination has been determined and also states that the source may not be the former Santa Fe Generating Station. The NMED investigation is ongoing. The Company is unable to predict the outcome of this matter. Coal Combustion Waste Disposal Regulation SJCC currently disposes of CCBs consisting of fly ash, bottom ash, and gypsum from SJGS in the surface mine pits adjacent to the plant. SJGS does not operate any CCB impoundments. The Mining and Minerals Division of the New Mexico Energy, Minerals and Natural Resources Department currently regulates mine placement of ash at the mine with federal oversight by the OSM. APS currently disposes of CCBs in ash ponds and dry storage areas at Four Corners, and also sells a portion of its fly ash for beneficial uses, such as a constituent in concrete production. Ash management at the Four Corners plant is regulated by the EPA and the New Mexico State Engineer's Office. On May 4, 2010, the EPA issued a proposed rulemaking to regulate CCBs. The proposal asks for public comment on two approaches for regulating CCBs. One option is to regulate CCBs under Subtitle C of the RCRA as a hazardous waste which allows the EPA to create a comprehensive federal program for waste management and disposal of CCBs. The other option is to regulate CCBs under RCRA Subtitle D as a non-hazardous waste. This provides the EPA with the authority to develop performance standards for waste management facilities handling the CCBs and would be enforced primarily by state authorities or through citizen suits. Both options allow for continued use of CCBs in beneficial applications. EPA's proposal does not address the placement of CCBs in surface mine pits for reclamation. The EPA has indicated that it will work with the OSM to develop federal regulations for placement of CCBs in minefill operations. The proposed rule also states that the EPA and OSM will consider the recommendations of the National Research Council, which, at the direction of Congress, studied the health, safety, and environmental risks associated with the placement of CCBs in U.S. coal mines. The 2006 report concluded that the “placement of coal combustion residues in mines as part of coal mine reclamation may be an appropriate option for the disposal of this material.” On June 21, 2010, the EPA published the proposed rule in the Federal Register. The public comment period on the proposed rule ended November 19, 2010. A final rule regarding waste designation for coal ash is not expected from the EPA before mid to late 2012. The OSM had initially drafted a CCB mine placement rule in late summer 2008, but with the then-impending change in federal administration, the Office of Management and Budget at the White House returned the rule to OSM for re-submittal under the incoming administration. An OSM CCB rulemaking team has been formed to develop a proposed rule. OSM's draft rulemaking schedule targets an April 2012 publication in the Federal Register. PNM advocates for the non-hazardous regulation of CCBs under Subtitle D of RCRA. PNM is encouraged by the EPA's proposed decision to develop separate federal regulations in conjunction with the OSM's intent to develop regulations for mine placement of CCBs. PNM believes regulatory oversight for this matter should come from the OSM and state mining and mining reclamation agencies. In addition, PNM believes the decision by the EPA to consider the conclusions of the National Research Council study in the development of federal regulations regarding placement of CCBs in minefilling operations is a prudent one. PNM cannot predict the outcome of the EPA's or OSM's proposed rulemaking regarding CCB regulation, including mine placement of CCBs, or whether these actions will have a material adverse impact on its operations, financial position, or cash flows. Sierra Club Allegations In December 2009, PNM and PNMR received a NOI to sue (“RCRA Notice”) under RCRA from the Sierra Club. The RCRA Notice was also sent to all SJGS owners, to SJCC, which operates the San Juan Mine that supplies coal to SJGS, and to BHP. Additionally, PNM was informed that SJCC and BHP received a separate NOI to sue under the Surface Mine Control and Reclamation Act ("SMCRA") from the Sierra Club. On April 8, 2010, the Sierra Club filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico against PNM, PNMR, SJCC, and BHP. In the suit, the Sierra Club alleges that activities at SJGS and the San Juan Mine are causing imminent and substantial harm to the environment, including ground and surface water in the region, and that placement of CCBs at the San Juan Mine constitutes "open dumping" in violation of RCRA. The claims under RCRA are asserted with respect to PNM, PNMR, SJCC and BHP. The suit also includes claims under SMCRA, which are directed only against SJCC and BHP. The complaint requests judgment for the following relief: an injunction requiring the parties to undertake certain mitigation measures with respect to the placement of CCBs at the mine or to cease placement of CCBs at the mine; the imposition of civil penalties; and an award of plaintiff's attorney's fees and costs. On July 10, 2010, the Sierra Club filed an amended complaint that corrected some technical deficiencies in its original complaint. The factual allegations remained the same. The parties have agreed to a stay of the action, which the Court entered on August 27, 2010, to allow the parties to try to address Sierra Club's concerns. If the parties are unable to settle the matter, PNM is prepared to aggressively defend its position in the RCRA litigation. PNM and PNMR cannot predict the outcome of this matter or the range of potential outcomes at the present time. Gila River Indian Reservation Superfund Site In April 2008, the EPA informed PNM that it may be a PRP in the Gila River Indian Reservation Superfund Site in Maricopa County, Arizona. PNM, along with SRP, APS, and EPE, owns a parcel of property on which a transmission pole and a portion of a transmission line are located. The property abuts the Gila River Indian Community boundary and, at one time, may have been part of an airfield where crop dusting took place. The EPA has settled the matter with the PRPs for past cleanup-related costs involving contamination from the crop dusting. PNM's share of the settlement had no material adverse impact on PNM's financial position, results of operations, or cash flows. Other Commitments and Contingencies Coal Supply The coal requirements for SJGS are being supplied by SJCC, a wholly owned subsidiary of BHP. In addition to coal delivered to meet the current needs of SJGS, PNM prepays SJCC for certain coal mined but not yet delivered to the plant site. At June 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010, prepayments for coal, which are included in other current assets, amounted to $28.2 million and $30.9 million. SJCC holds certain federal, state, and private coal leases under an underground coal sales agreement pursuant to which it will supply processed coal for operation of the SJGS through 2017. The coal agreement is a cost plus contract. SJCC is reimbursed for all costs for mining and delivering the coal plus an allocated portion of administrative costs. In addition, SJCC receives a return on its investment. BHP Minerals International, Inc. has guaranteed the obligations of SJCC under the coal agreement. The coal agreement contemplates the delivery of approximately 44.2 million tons of coal during its remaining term, which would supply substantially all the requirements of the SJGS through approximately 2017. APS purchases all of Four Corners' coal requirements from a supplier with a long-term lease of coal reserves with the Navajo Nation. The Four Corners coal contract runs through 2016 with pricing determined using an escalating base-price. APS is currently in discussions with the coal supplier regarding post-2016 coal supply for Four Corners. In 2010, PNM updated its study of the final reclamation costs for both the surface mines that previously provided coal to SJGS and the current underground mine providing coal and revised its estimates of the final reclamation costs. The estimate for decommissioning the Four Corners mine was also revised in 2010. Based on the most recent estimates, the final costs of mine reclamation, net of contract buyout costs paid to SJCC and reclamation payments made through June 30, 2011, are estimated to be $54.5 million for the surface mines at both SJGS and Four Corners and $21.7 million for the underground mine at SJGS, in future dollars. PNM made payments against the surface mine liability of $1.3 million and $2.6 million during the three and six months ended June 30, 2011 and $0.9 million and $2.0 million during the three and six months ended June 30, 2010. As of June 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010, obligations of $24.2 million and $25.0 million for surface mine reclamation and $2.9 million and $2.8 million for underground mining activities were recorded in other deferred credits. PVNGS Liability and Insurance Matters The PVNGS participants have insurance for public liability exposure for a nuclear incident up to $12.6 billion per occurrence. As required by the Price Anderson Nuclear Industries Indemnity Act, the PVNGS participants maintain the maximum available nuclear liability insurance in the amount of $375 million, which is provided by commercial insurance carriers. The remaining balance of $12.2 billion is provided through a mandatory industry wide retrospective assessment program. If losses at any nuclear power plant covered by the program exceed the accumulated funds, PNM could be assessed retrospective premium adjustments. The maximum assessment per reactor under the program for each nuclear incident is $117.5 million, subject to an annual limit of $17.5 million per incident, to be periodically adjusted for inflation. Based on PNM's 10.2% interest in the three PVNGS units, PNM's maximum potential assessment per incident for all three units is $36.0 million, with an annual payment limitation of $5.4 million. The PVNGS participants maintain “all risk” (including nuclear hazards) insurance for property damage to, and decontamination of, property at PVNGS in the aggregate amount of $2.75 billion, a substantial portion of which must first be applied to stabilization and decontamination. The property damage and decontamination coverages are provided by Nuclear Electric Insurance Limited (“NEIL”). PNM is subject to retrospective assessments under all NEIL policies if NEIL's losses in any policy year exceed accumulated funds. The maximum amount PNM could incur under the current NEIL policies totals $5.80 million for each retrospective assessment declared by NEIL's Board of Directors due to losses. The insurance coverage discussed in this and the previous paragraph is subject to policy conditions and exclusions. Water Supply Because of New Mexico's arid climate and periodic drought conditions, there is concern in New Mexico about the use of water, including that used for power generation. PNM has secured groundwater rights in connection with the existing plants at Reeves Station, Delta, Valencia, Afton, Luna, and Lordsburg. Water availability does not appear to be an issue for these plants at this time. Severe drought, such as that which occurred during 2002 in the “four corners” region of New Mexico where SJGS and Four Corners are located, can affect the availability of these plants. In future years, if adequate precipitation is not received in the watershed that supplies the four corners region, the plants could be impacted. Consequently, PNM, APS, and BHP have undertaken activities to secure additional water supplies for SJGS, Four Corners, and related mines. Since 2004, PNM has entered into agreements for voluntary sharing of the impacts of water shortages with tribes and other water users in the San Juan basin. The current agreements run through December 31, 2012. In addition, in the case of water shortage, PNM, APS, and BHP have reached agreement on a long-term supplemental contract relating to water for SJGS and Four Corners with the Jicarilla Apache Nation that runs through 2016. Although the Company does not believe that its operations will be materially affected by the drought conditions at this time, it cannot forecast the weather situation or its ramifications, or how policy, regulations, and legislation may impact the Company should water shortages occur in the future. In April 2010, APS signed an agreement on behalf of the PVNGS participants with five cities to provide cooling water essential to power production at PVNGS for the next forty years. PVNGS Water Supply Litigation A summons was served on APS in 1986 that required all water claimants in the Lower Gila River Watershed of Arizona to assert any claims to water on or before January 20, 1987, in an action pending in the Maricopa County Superior Court. PVNGS is located within the geographic area subject to the summons. APS' rights and the rights of the other PVNGS participants to the use of groundwater and effluent at PVNGS are potentially at issue in this action. APS filed claims that dispute the court's jurisdiction over PVNGS' groundwater rights and their contractual rights to effluent relating to PVNGS and, alternatively, seek confirmation of those rights. In 1999, the Arizona Supreme Court issued a decision finding that certain groundwater rights may be available to the federal government and Indian tribes. In addition, the Arizona Supreme Court issued a decision in 2000 affirming the lower court's criteria for resolving groundwater claims. Litigation on both of these issues has continued in the trial court. No trial dates have been set in these matters. PNM does not expect that this litigation will have a material adverse impact on its results of operation, financial position, or cash flows. San Juan River Adjudication In 1975, the State of New Mexico filed an action entitled “State of New Mexico v. United States, et al.”, in the District Court of San Juan County, New Mexico, to adjudicate all water rights in the San Juan River Stream System. PNM was made a defendant in the litigation in 1976. The action is expected to adjudicate water rights used at Four Corners and at SJGS. In 2005, the Navajo Nation and various parties announced a settlement of the Navajo Nation's surface water rights. On March 30, 2009, President Obama signed legislation confirming the settlement with the Navajo Nation. The United States, the State of New Mexico, and the Navajo Nation have entered into a water rights settlement agreement and the court recently announced the initiation of a new phase of this adjudication. Under the terms of the settlement agreement, the Navajo water rights would be settled and finally determined by entry by the court of two proposed adjudication decrees. The court has ordered that settlement of the Navajo Nation's claims under the settlement agreement and entry of the proposed decrees be heard first in an expedited inter se proceeding. The Court has set a deadline of September 16, 2011 for interested parties to file a NOI to participate, and a mandatory scheduling conference has been set for October 3, 2011. PNM's water rights in the San Juan Basin may be affected by the rights recognized as owned by the Navajo Nation in the settlement agreement, and PNM has elected to participate in this proceeding. It is unknown at the present time how PNM will respond to the claims made in the proposed decrees, although the claims recognized as owned by the Navajo Nation in the settlement agreement and the proposed decrees constitute a significant portion of the water available from sources on the San Juan River and in the San Juan Basin. The Company is unable to predict the ultimate outcome of this matter or estimate the amount or range of potential loss and cannot determine the effect, if any, of any water rights adjudication on the present arrangements for water at SJGS and Four Corners. Final resolution of the case cannot be expected for several years. An agreement reached with the Navajo Nation in 1985, however, provides that if Four Corners loses a portion of its rights in the adjudication, the Navajo Nation will provide, for an agreed upon cost, sufficient water from its allocation to offset the loss. Conflicts at San Juan Mine Involving Oil and Gas Leaseholders SJCC, through leases with the federal government and the State of New Mexico, owns coal interests with respect to the San Juan underground mine. Certain gas producers have leases in the area of the underground coal mine and have asserted claims against SJCC that its coal mining activities are interfering with gas production. SJCC has reached settlement with several gas leaseholders and has other claimants and potential claimants. PNM cannot predict the outcome of existing or future disputes between SJCC and gas leaseholders or the range of potential outcomes. Complaint Against Southwestern Public Service Company In September 2005, PNM filed a complaint under the Federal Power Act against SPS. PNM argued that SPS' rates for sale of interruptible energy were excessive and that SPS had been overcharging PNM for deliveries of energy through its fuel cost adjustment clause practices. PNM also intervened in a complaint proceeding brought by other customers raising similar arguments relating to SPS' fuel cost adjustment clause practices (the “Golden Spread complaint proceeding”). Additionally, in November 2005, SPS filed an electric rate case at FERC proposing to unbundle and raise rates charged to customers effective July 2006. PNM intervened in the case and objected to the proposed rate increase. In September 2006, PNM and SPS filed a settlement agreement providing for resolution of issues relating to rates for sales of interruptible energy, but not resolving the fuel clause issues. In September 2008, FERC issued its order approving the settlement between PNM and SPS. In April 2008, FERC issued its order in the Golden Spread complaint proceeding. FERC affirmed in part and reversed in part an ALJ's initial decision, which had, among other things, ordered SPS to pay refunds to PNM with respect to the fuel clause issues. FERC affirmed the decision of the ALJ that SPS violated its fuel cost adjustment clause tariffs. However, FERC shortened the refund period applicable to the violation of the fuel cost adjustment clause issues. PNM and SPS have filed petitions for rehearing and clarification of the scope of the remedies that were ordered and reversal of various rulings in the order. FERC has not yet acted upon the requests for rehearing or clarification and they remain pending further decision. PNM cannot predict the final outcome of the case at FERC. Begay v. PNM et al A putative class action was filed against PNM and other utilities on February 11, 2009 in the United States District Court in Albuquerque. Plaintiffs claim to be allottees, members of the Navajo Nation, who pursuant to the Dawes Act of 1887, were allotted ownership in land carved out of the Navajo Nation. Plaintiffs, including an allottee association, make broad, general assertions that defendants, including PNM, are rights-of-way grantees with rights-of-way across the allotted lands and are either in trespass or have paid insufficient fees for the grant of rights-of-way or both. The plaintiffs, who have sued the defendants for breach of fiduciary duty, seek a constructive trust. They have also included a breach of trust claim against the United States and its Secretary of the Interior. PNM and the other defendants filed motions to dismiss this action. On March 31, 2010, the court ordered that the entirety of the plaintiffs' case be dismissed. The court did not grant plaintiffs leave to amend their complaint, finding that they instead must pursue and exhaust their administrative remedies before seeking redress in federal court. On May 10, 2010, Plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal with the Bureau of Indian Affairs. PNM intends to participate in order to preserve its interests regarding any PNM-acquired rights-of-way implicated in the appeal. As the administrative appeal process is in its initial stages, PNM cannot predict the outcome of the proceeding at this time or the range of potential outcomes. Transmission Issues On November 24, 2009, FERC issued Order 729 approving two Modeling, Data, and Analysis Reliability Standards (“Reliability Standards”) submitted by NERC - MOD-001-1 (Available Transmission System Capability) and MOD-029-1 (Rated System Path Methodology). Both MOD-001-1 and MOD-029-1 require a consistent approach, provided for in the Reliability Standards, to measuring the total transmission capability (“TTC”) of a transmission path. The TTC level established using the two Reliability Standards could result in a reduction in the available transmission capacity currently used by PNM to deliver generation resources necessary for its jurisdictional load and for fulfilling its obligations to third-party users of the PNM transmission system. PNM continues to evaluate its transmission system under the provisions of the two Reliability Standards and consult with other transmission facility owners with whom PNM is interconnected to determine the impact on the capability of its transmission system. PNM is unable to predict the outcome of this matter. During the first quarter of 2011, at the request of PNM and other southwestern utilities, NERC advised all transmission owners and transmission service providers that have selected the MOD-029-1 methodology that, while they were still expected to be compliant with the standard on April 1, 2011, NERC has delayed the implementation for "Flow Limited" paths only, until such time as a modification to the standard can be developed that will mitigate the technical concerns identified by the transmission owners and transmission service providers. On April 20, 2010, Cargill Power Markets, LLC (“Cargill”) filed a complaint with FERC, asserting that PNM improperly processed its transmission service queue and unfairly invalidated a transmission service request by Cargill. On July 29, 2010, FERC issued an order and established a schedule for hearing and settlement procedures. In its order, FERC determined that PNM had improperly invalidated a single Cargill transmission service request submitted on February 21, 2008 and set the issue for hearing to determine an appropriate remedy. However, the hearing is being held in abeyance by FERC to provide time for settlement negotiations under the oversight of a FERC settlement judge. On September 27, 2010, FERC granted rehearing for further consideration. On January 13, 2011, PNM and Cargill filed a settlement agreement with FERC in which PNM agreed to pay Cargill $0.2 million and put Cargill's transmission service request back into the queue. The settlement also left Cargill's and PNM's rehearing requests in place before FERC. One intervenor in the proceeding has contested the settlement. The settlement judge reported to FERC that the settlement is contested. The settlement is before FERC for its consideration. FERC has not yet acted upon the requests for rehearing or settlement. PNM is unable to predict the final outcome of this matter at FERC.

X
- 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 and contingencies. + References Reference 1: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 450 -SubTopic 20 -Section 50 -Paragraph 4 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=6952336&loc=d3e14435-108349 Reference 2: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 460 -SubTopic 10 -Section 50 -Paragraph 8 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=6398077&loc=d3e12565-110249 Reference 3: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name FASB Interpretation (FIN) -Number 14 -Paragraph 3 -LegacyDoc This reference is SUPERSEDED by the Accounting Standards Codification effective for interim and annual periods ending after September 15, 2009. This reference is included to help users transition from the previous accounting hierarchy and will be removed from future versions of this taxonomy. Reference 4: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 440 -SubTopic 10 -Section 50 -Paragraph 2 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=6394976&loc=d3e25287-109308 Reference 5: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name Statement of Financial Accounting Standard (FAS) -Number 5 -Paragraph 9, 10, 11, 12 -LegacyDoc This reference is SUPERSEDED by the Accounting Standards Codification effective for interim and annual periods ending after September 15, 2009. This reference is included to help users transition from the previous accounting hierarchy and will be removed from future versions of this taxonomy. Reference 6: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 210 -SubTopic 10 -Section S99 -Paragraph 1 -Subparagraph (SX 210.5-02.25) -URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=6877327&loc=d3e13212-122682 Reference 7: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 825 -SubTopic 20 -Section 50 -Paragraph 1 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=6449706&loc=d3e16207-108621 + Details
Name: | us-gaap_CommitmentsAndContingenciesDisclosureTextBlock
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap
Data Type: | nonnum:textBlockItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration