XML 56 R18.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT
v2.4.0.6

Regulatory and Rate Matters | 6 Months Ended
--- | ---
Jun. 30, 2012
Regulatory and Rate Matters |
Regulatory and Rate Matters | Regulatory and Rate Matters Information concerning regulatory and rate matters is contained in Note 17 of the Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements in the 2011 Annual Reports on Form 10-K. PNM Emergency FPPAC In 2008, the NMPRC authorized PNM to implement an Emergency FPPAC from June 2, 2008 through June 30, 2009. The NMPRC order approving the Emergency FPPAC also provided that if PNM's base load generating units did not operate at or above a specified capacity factor and PNM was required to obtain replacement power to serve jurisdictional customers, PNM would be required to make a filing with the NMPRC seeking approval of the replacement power costs. In its required filing, PNM stated that the costs of the replacement power amounting to $8.0 million were prudently incurred and made a motion that they be approved. The NMPRC staff opposed PNM's motion and recommended that PNM be required to refund the amount collected. Auditors selected by the NMPRC found that PNM was prudent in operating its base load units and in securing replacement power but had not obtained prior NMPRC approval in the manner required by the NMPRC order. PNM continues to assert that its recovery of replacement power costs was proper and did not violate the NMPRC's order. The NMPRC has not ruled on this matter. Under the terms of the approved stipulation in the 2010 Electric Rate Case, the parties to the stipulation, including the NMPRC staff, jointly requested that the NMPRC take no further action in this matter and close the docket. No party has opposed that request. PNM is unable to predict the outcome of this matter. Renewable Portfolio Standard The REA establishes a mandatory RPS requiring a utility to acquire a renewable energy portfolio equal to 5% of retail electric sales by January 1, 2006, increasing to 10% by 2011, 15% by 2015, and 20% by 2020. The NMPRC requires renewable energy portfolios to be “fully diversified” beginning in 2011, with at least 20% from wind energy, 20% from solar energy, 10% from other renewable technologies, and 1.5% from distributed generation. The REA provides for streamlined proceedings for approval of utilities' renewable energy procurement plans, assures utilities recovery of costs incurred consistent with approved procurement plans, and requires the NMPRC to establish a RCT for the procurement of renewable resources to prevent excessive costs being added to rates. The NMPRC has established a RCT for 2011 of 2% of all customers' aggregated overall annual electric charges that increases by 0.25% annually until reaching 3% in 2015. The NMPRC has docketed a new rulemaking to determine the appropriate calculation methodology of the RCT. The rulemaking also proposes changes to the RPS diversity requirements. In July 2010, PNM filed its renewable energy procurement plan for 2011. The NMPRC ultimately rejected PNM's proposal to satisfy its 2011 RPS requirement through the purchase of wind RECs and ordered PNM to procure actual wind energy in 2011. While the rejection of RECs was under appeal at the New Mexico Supreme Court, PNM procured the wind energy as ordered in 2011. PNM requested a variance from the diversity requirements for solar and certain “other resources” for 2011 based on the RCT and availability constraints, which the NMPRC granted conditioned upon PNM including in its 2012 procurement plan a proposal that would meet the diversity requirements by April 5, 2013. On June 7, 2012, the New Mexico Supreme Court dismissed the appeal as moot because the energy had been procured. In July 2011, PNM filed its renewable energy procurement plan for 2012. The plan requested a variance from the RPS due to RCT limitations. The plan was diversity-compliant based on the reduced RPS, except for non-wind/non-solar resources, which were not currently available. In December 2011, the NMPRC approved PNM's 2012 plan with modifications. Under the modified plan, PNM must spend $0.9 million more on renewable procurements in 2012 than it originally proposed. If PNM's proposed additional procurements are approved by the NMPRC, the resulting portfolio of renewable resources will constitute approximately 7.3% of PNM's energy sales in 2012, which is less than the statutory RPS of 10% due to the RCT. The NMPRC also required PNM to file a supplemental plan by April 30, 2012, within which PNM was authorized to include an early filing of its 2013 renewable energy procurement plan proposing procurements to meet the 10% RPS by 2014 or sooner. PNM made the required filing on April 30, 2012, which included its renewable energy procurement plan for 2013. The 2013 plan proposes procurements for 2013 and 2014 of new PNM-owned solar facilities, wind and solar REC purchases in 2013, and a purchased power agreement for the output of a new geothermal facility. If the proposed projects develop as planned, PNM will comply with the statutory RPS amount in 2013, but will require a variance from the NMPRC's diversity requirements in 2013 while the proposed geothermal facilities are being constructed. This plan is expected to achieve full RPS quantity and diversity compliance by 2014 without exceeding the RCT. A hearing is scheduled for September 4, 2012 and a final order is expected by November 30, 2012. PNM has requested recovery of certain renewable procurement costs from customers through a rate rider. See Renewable Energy Rider below. PNM is unable to predict the outcome or impact of these matters. Energy Efficiency and Load Management Program Costs Public utilities are required to obtain NMPRC approval to implement energy efficiency and load management programs. Costs to implement approved programs are recovered through a rate rider. Additional information concerning the program costs is contained in Note 17 of the Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements in the 2011 Annual Reports on Form 10-K. Disincentives/Incentives Adder The Efficient Use of Energy Act requires the NMPRC to remove utility disincentives to implementing energy efficiency and load management programs and to provide incentives for such programs. A rule approved by the NMPRC authorized electric utilities to collect rate adders of $0.01 per KWh for lifetime energy savings and $10 per KW for demand savings related to energy efficiency and demand response programs beginning in 2010. The NMAG and NMIEC appealed the NMPRC order adopting this rule to the New Mexico Supreme Court. PNM began implementing a rate rider under the rule to collect adders related to its 2010 program savings in December 2010 while the appeal of the rule was pending. In July 2011, the Supreme Court annulled and vacated the order adopting the rule and remanded the matter to the NMPRC. As a result of the Supreme Court decision, PNM filed revised tariffs and ceased collecting this adder for 2010 program savings on August 21, 2011. Of the $4.2 million authorized for recovery, $2.6 million was collected through August 20, 2011. In June 2011, prior to the Supreme Court decision, the NMPRC approved PNM-specific adders of $0.002 per kWh and $4 per kW. PNM is presently collecting $1.3 million in adder revenues consistent with this order. After the Supreme Court decision vacating the rule, the NMPRC initiated a proceeding to determine whether PNM should be required to cease collecting the adders and to refund all adder revenues collected since December 2010. In November 2011, the NMPRC issued orders that PNM is not required to refund any adder revenues and is authorized to continue collecting the adders. However, in an order on rehearing, which it subsequently rescinded, the NMPRC further reduced the amount of the authorized adders. Prior to the rescission, PNM appealed the rehearing order to the Supreme Court. In March, 2012, the Supreme Court granted PNM's motion to vacate the rehearing order and dismiss PNM's appeal. In a separate appeal and writ proceeding in the Supreme Court, NMIEC and the NMAG seek to overturn the NMPRC order allowing PNM to continue to collect adders in light of the 2011 Supreme Court decision. On May 21, 2012 the Supreme Court dismissed the writ proceeding. PNM cannot predict the outcome of the appeal. Decoupling Rulemaking On May 15, 2012, the NMPRC issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking that would amend the NMPRC's energy efficiency rule to include decoupling the recovery of certain fixed costs of providing retail electric service from the rates charged on a per KWh of consumption, as the mechanism for removal of disincentives associated with the implementation of energy efficiency programs. The proposed mechanism is generally consistent with the decoupling proposal that PNM included, and subsequently agreed to withdraw, in its 2010 Electric Rate Case application. The proposed rule addresses both disincentives and incentives associated with energy efficiency. The NMPRC staff filed a motion to either dismiss the proceeding or to vacate the established procedural schedule and republish the proceeding's notice. On July 26, 2012, the NMPRC closed the proposed rulemaking and opened a new energy efficiency rulemaking that addresses decoupling and incentives. The first workshop on the proposed rule has been scheduled for August 24, 2012. 2010 Electric Rate Case PNM filed its 2010 Electric Rate Case application with the NMPRC in June 2010 to increase rates for its New Mexico retail customers. On August 21, 2011, PNM implemented a $72.1 million annual increase in rates as authorized by an order of the NMPRC, which modified a stipulation agreed to by PNM and several other parties. The amended stipulation allows PNM to file a new general rate case for rates to be effective as soon as July 1, 2013. In addition, the stipulation limits the amount that can be recovered on an annual basis for fuel costs, renewable energy costs, and energy efficiency costs during certain years as described in the stipulation. Recovery of costs in excess of the limits is to be deferred for recovery, without carrying costs, in future periods. The cap for the FPPAC year beginning July 1, 2012 is $38.8 million, which PNM began collecting at that time. PNM estimates that at June 30, 2013 approximately $22.2 million of FPPAC costs incurred will be deferred for future collection. Costs attributed to the mine fire incident discussed in Note 9 are included in the FPPAC amounts. Additional information concerning the 2010 Electric Rate Case is contained in Note 17 of the Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements in the 2011 Annual Reports on Form 10-K. Renewable Energy Rider In January 2012, PNM filed an application for a rate rider that PNM proposed would go into effect in August 2012 to collect costs for renewable energy procurements incurred after December 31, 2010 that are not otherwise being collected in rates. These costs include the procurement of solar RECs from customers, wind resource procurements during November and December 2011 as ordered by the NMPRC, and the revenue requirements for PNM-owned solar PV facilities and a solar battery storage demonstration project that went into service during 2011. The rider's rate for 2012 would be set at 2.081% of the retail customer's monthly bill. The rate would be reset to 2.695% as of January 1, 2013 to reflect unrecovered costs from 2012 and projected costs to be incurred in 2013. The rider would terminate upon a final order in PNM's next general rate case unless that order authorized a continuation of the rider. Amounts that can be collected under the proposed rider are capped at $18.0 million in 2012 and $24.6 million in 2013 under the stipulation in PNM's 2010 Electric Rate Case. Any amounts above the caps are deferred for future recovery without carrying costs. In that stipulation, signatories agreed not to oppose approval of the rider for collection of costs incurred consistent with PNM's approved annual renewable energy plans. As a separate component of the rider, PNM proposes that if its earned return on jurisdictional equity in 2013 exceeds 10.5%, it would refund to customers during May through December 2014 the amount over 10.5%. After a public hearing in May 2012, the Hearing Examiner recommended approval of the rider with a modification to how the costs would be recovered from customers. The NMPRC has not acted on the recommendation. PNM is unable to predict the outcome of this matter. 2011 Integrated Resource Plan NMPRC rules require that investor owned utilities file an IRP every three years. The IRP is required to cover a 20-year planning period and contain an action plan covering the first four years of that period. In its most recent IRP, which was filed in July 2011, PNM indicated that it planned to meet its anticipated load growth through a combination of new natural gas-fired generating plants, renewable energy resources, load management, and energy efficiency programs. However, PNM has not entered into any commitments regarding these plans beyond what is otherwise described herein. As required by NMPRC rules, PNM utilized a public advisory group process during the development of the 2011 IRP. Two protests were filed to the IRP requesting rejection of the plan. The NMPRC assigned the case to a Hearing Examiner and designated a mediator to facilitate negotiations. The NMPRC staff filed a motion in December 2011 to dismiss the protests and terminate the proceeding on the ground that PNM's IRP fully complies with NMPRC rules. PNM is unable to predict the outcome of this matter. Transmission Rate Case In October 2010, PNM filed a notice with FERC to increase its wholesale electric transmission revenues by $11.1 million annually, based on a return on equity of 12.25%. The filing also seeks to revise certain Open Access Transmission Tariff provisions and bi-lateral contractual terms. If approved, the rate increase would apply to all of PNM's wholesale electric transmission service customers, which include other utilities, electric cooperatives, and entities that use PNM's transmission system to transmit power at the wholesale level. The proposed rate increase would not impact PNM's retail customers. In December 2010, FERC issued an order accepting PNM's filing and suspending the proposed tariff revisions for five months. The proposed rates were implemented on June 1, 2011, subject to refund. On July 3, 2012, PNM filed an unopposed settlement agreement with the FERC. Under the settlement agreement, PNM would increase transmission service revenues by $2.9 million annually. In addition, the parties agreed that if PNM files for a formula based rate change within one year from FERC's approval of the settlement agreement, no party will oppose the general principle of a formula rate, although the parties may still object to particular aspects of the formula. The settlement agreement is subject to FERC approval. PNM is unable to predict the outcome of this proceeding. Firm-Requirements Wholesale Customer Rate Case In September 2011, PNM filed an unexecuted amended sales agreement between PNM and NEC with FERC. The agreement proposes a cost of service based rate for the electric service and ancillary services PNM provides to NEC, which would result in an annual increase of $8.7 million or a 39.8% increase over existing rates. PNM also requested a FPPAC and full recovery of certain third-party transmission charges PNM incurs to serve NEC. NEC filed a protest to PNM's filing with FERC. In November 2011, FERC issued an order accepting the agreement as filed, suspending the effective date for a five-month period, to be effective April 14, 2012, subject to refund, and set the proceeding for settlement. On June 25, 2012, the FERC settlement judge issued a settlement status report stating the parties had reached a settlement in principle and recommending that the settlement process be continued. The parties are currently working on finalizing the settlement. The finalized settlement would be subject to FERC approval. PNM is unable to predict the outcome of this proceeding. TNMP Interest Rate Compliance Tariff Following a revision of the interest rate on TNMP's CTC, TNMP filed a compliance tariff to implement the new lower 8.31% rate. Intervenors asserted objections and, after regulatory proceedings, the PUCT issued an order making the new rate retroactive to July 20, 2006. TNMP successfully appealed to the District Court in Austin, Texas for the new rate not to be effective prior to December 27, 2007. However, the Texas 3rd Court of Appeals reversed the District Court and reaffirmed the PUCT's decision. Due to the new retroactive ratemaking theory contained in the Texas 3 rd Court of Appeals opinion, TNMP recorded a pre-tax regulatory disallowance of $3.9 million in the three months ended June 30, 2011 to reflect the impact of applying the 8.31% rate retroactively. TNMP petitioned the Texas Supreme Court for review in July 2011. On June 8, 2012, the Texas Supreme Court denied TNMP's petition for review. TNMP filed a motion for rehearing on June 25, 2012. TNMP is unable to predict the ultimate outcome of this matter. Advanced Meter System Deployment and Surcharge Request In July 2011, the PUCT approved a settlement and authorized an advanced meter deployment plan that permits TNMP to collect $113.3 million in deployment costs through a surcharge over a 12-year period. TNMP began collecting the surcharge on August 11, 2011. Deployment of advanced meters began in September 2011 and is scheduled to be completed over a 5-year period. In February 2012, the PUCT opened a proceeding to consider the feasibility of an “opt-out” program for retail consumers that wish to decline receipt of an advanced meter. The opt-out program would apply to all transmission and distribution utilities in ERCOT. TNMP cannot predict the outcome or effect of this proceeding. Remand of ERCOT Transmission Rates for 1999 and 2000 Following a variety of appeals, the ERCOT transmission rates approved in 1999 and 2000 were remanded back to the PUCT. These dockets concern the recalculation of rates for the fourth quarter of 1999 and all of 2000. In October 2011, TNMP joined in a non-unanimous settlement of the issues relating to resettlement of the last four months of 1999. In January 2012, the PUCT approved the non-unanimous settlement. TNMP is scheduled to receive $1.6 million under the settlement, of which $1.3 million was received as of June 30, 2012. Whether such amounts have to be passed on to customers is being determined in TNMP's transmission cost recovery factor filings (“TCRF”). In June 2012, TNMP filed its TCRF seeking $3.2 million in additional transmission costs. The PUCT staff requested a hearing asserting the settlement proceeds from the 1999 remand settlement need to be credited against the costs TNMP requested in its TCRF. TNMP believes the settlement proceeds should not be passed on to customers since TNMP did not have a TCRF in 1999 that would have recovered those costs. Subsequently, the PUCT staff agreed to interim rate relief that will permit TNMP to add $1.6 million in uncontested costs to its existing TCRF and add $1.6 million in costs in a subsequent TCRF if TNMP is successful in the contested case. The ALJ approved the interim relief on July 16, 2012. TNMP will implement the interim rates on September 1, 2012. TNMP cannot predict the ultimate outcome of this matter.

X
- Details
Name: | pnm_RegulatoryAndRateMatters
Namespace Prefix: | pnm_
Data Type: | xbrli:stringItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration

X
- Definition Regulatory And Rate Matters [Text Block] + References No definition available. + Details
Name: | pnm_RegulatoryAndRateMattersTextBlock
Namespace Prefix: | pnm_
Data Type: | nonnum:textBlockItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration