Commitments and Contingencies	6 Months Ended
Jun. 30, 2012
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 periodically participates in the investigation and remediation of various sites. In addition, the Company occasionally 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 financial position, results of operations, or cash flows. 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, cannot be reasonably estimated. 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 with the understanding that the outcome of any litigation, investigation, and other legal proceeding is inherently uncertain. In accordance with GAAP, the Company records liabilities 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. 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 effect on its financial condition, results of operations, or cash flows. Additional information concerning commitments and contingencies is contained in Note 16 of the Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements in the 2011 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 that require the DOE 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. In November 1997, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit issued a decision preventing the DOE from excusing its own delay, but refused to order the DOE to begin accepting spent nuclear fuel. 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 during the term of the operating licenses. PNM accrues these costs as a component of fuel expense as the fuel is consumed. At June 30, 2012 and December 31, 2011, PNM had a liability for interim storage costs of $13.9 million and $14.5 million included in other deferred credits. On June 8, 2012, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (the “D.C. Circuit”) issued its decision on a challenge by several states and environmental groups of the NRC's rulemaking regarding temporary storage and permanent disposal of high-level nuclear waste and spent nuclear fuel. The petitioners had challenged the NRC's 2010 update to the agency's Waste Confidence Decision. Previous versions of the Waste Confidence Decision had expressed the NRC's confidence, in a generic fashion, that high level nuclear waste and spent nuclear fuel safe storage could be safely stored on the sites of the country's commercial nuclear power plants until a mined geologic repository becomes available. The Waste Confidence Decision is codified in NRC's regulations implementing the National Environmental Policy Act (“NEPA”). The D.C. Circuit found that the agency's 2010 Waste Confidence Decision update constituted a major federal action, which, consistent with NEPA, requires either an environmental impact statement or a finding of no significant impact from the agency's actions. The D.C. Circuit found that the NRC's evaluation of the environmental risks from spent nuclear was deficient, and therefore remanded the 2010 Waste Confidence Decision update for further action consistent with NEPA. The NRC has not announced its intentions regarding the D.C. Circuit's decision; therefore, PNM is unable to predict the impact that the decision may have on the operation of PVNGS. The Clean Air Act Regional Haze In 1999, EPA developed a regional haze program and regional haze rules under the CAA. The rule directs each of the 50 states to address regional haze. States are required to establish goals for improving visibility in national parks and wilderness areas (also known as Class I areas) and to develop long-term strategies for reducing emissions of air pollutants that cause visibility impairment in their own states and for preventing degradation in other states. States must establish a series of interim goals to ensure continued progress. The first planning period specifies setting reasonable progress goals for improving visibility in Class I areas by the year 2018. In July 2005, the EPA promulgated its final regional haze rule. A major provision of the rule included guidelines for states to conduct BART determinations for certain covered facilities. The BART requirements of the regional haze rule apply to facilities, including utility boilers, built between 1962 and 1977 that have the potential to emit more than 250 tons per year of visibility impairing pollution. If it is demonstrated that the emissions from these sources cause or contribute to visibility impairment in any Class I area, then BART must be installed. The regional haze rules require that BART controls must be installed on an eligible facility by 2018. SJGS Several provisions of the CAA aim to improve visibility in certain national parks and wilderness areas to natural conditions by the year 2064. SJGS is a source that is subject to these statutory obligations to reduce visibility impacts. Pursuant to the CAA, states have the primary role to regulate visibility requirements by promulgating SIPs. The State of New Mexico submitted its SIP on the two elements of the visibility rules - regional haze and interstate transport - for review by EPA in June 2011. The SIP found that BART to reduce NOx emissions from SJGS is selective non-catalytic reduction (“SNCR”) and requires SJGS to install SNCR on each of its four units. Nevertheless, on August 22, 2011, EPA published its FIP, stating that it was required to do so by virtue of a consent decree it had entered into with an environmental group in litigation concerning the interstate transport requirements of the CAA. The FIP included a regional haze BART determination for SJGS that requires installation of selective catalytic reduction (“SCR”) on all four units within five years of the rule's effective date of September 21, 2011. The FIP also requires stringent NOx emission limits. EPA stated that it would review and act on the SIP at some future date. PNM filed a Petition for Review in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit on September 16, 2011, challenging EPA's regional haze FIP decision as arbitrary, capricious, or otherwise not in accordance with law. Additionally, in October 2011, PNM asked EPA to reconsider the FIP and in May 2012 supplemented its request for reconsideration with cost information from actual bids received in response to an RFP to install SCR discussed below. On October 21, 2011, the Governor of New Mexico and NMED petitioned the Tenth Circuit to review EPA's decision on the same grounds as PNM's challenge and requested EPA to reconsider its decision. The Governor and NMED also joined PNM's supplemental request for reconsideration in May 2012. These three parties filed motions with the Tenth Circuit to stay the effective date of the rule, which were denied on March 1, 2012. The same three parties have also formally asked EPA to stay the effective date of the rule. WildEarth Guardians also filed an action to challenge EPA's rule in the Tenth Circuit, seeking to shorten its compliance period from five years to three years. WildEarth Guardians, Diné Citizens Against Ruining our Environment, National Parks Conservation Association, New Energy Economy, San Juan Citizens Alliance, and Sierra Club intervened in support of EPA in both PNM's challenge and in the case brought by the New Mexico Governor and NMED. PNM has intervened in support of the challenge brought by the New Mexico Governor and NMED. PNM has also intervened in the WildEarth Guardians' action advocating that the five-year compliance period in the FIP be maintained should the FIP stand. The Tenth Circuit entered an order in March 2012 scheduling briefing on the merits in the challenges to the FIP. Briefing is scheduled to be complete by late-September 2012 and oral argument is scheduled for October 23, 2012. In litigation with several environmental groups, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia entered a consent decree, which, as amended, required EPA to review and take action through a proposed rulemaking on New Mexico's regional haze SIP on or before May 31, 2012 and a final rulemaking on or before November 15, 2012. On May 31, 2012, EPA issued its proposed action on the regional haze SIP, which was published in the Federal Register on June 15, 2012. EPA proposed approval of all components of the SIP, except for the BART determination for SJGS. With respect to that element of the SIP, EPA determined that with the FIP in place, it had met its obligation under the consent decree, and stated that it would issue a separate proposal or would entertain the withdrawal of the SIP in favor of an alternative that may be developed through discussions with the State of New Mexico and PNM. On April 25, 2012, PNM received a copy of a letter from two of the five Commissioners of the NMPRC addressed to the Governor of New Mexico and the New Mexico congressional delegation. In the letter, the Commissioners ask that the parties to the litigation join to ask EPA to stay both the FIP and the litigation and to consider a “third alternative” to the FIP and the SIP. They suggest that the third alternative be retiring one or more of the existing coal-fired units at SJGS and replacing that capacity with gas-fired generation. On April 26, 2012, PNM received a copy of a letter from the Governor of New Mexico addressed to the EPA Administrator. In that communication, the Governor requested that EPA stay the FIP and respond to the SIP by approving it or explaining why it is not approvable. Furthermore, the Governor requested PNM to develop viable alternatives to the FIP, assuming that EPA stays the FIP and responds to the SIP. PNM has agreed to comply with the Governor's request. On July 2, 2012, the EPA Administrator replied to the Governor stating that she had signed a ninety day stay of the FIP. The “Stay of the Effectiveness of Requirements; Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; New Mexico; Federal Implementation Plan for Interstate Transport of Pollution Affecting Visibility and Best Available Retrofit Technology Determination” (the “Stay”) was published in the Federal Register on July 16, 2012. The Stay purports to stay the effectiveness of the FIP for a period of 90 days after publication. The Stay states that any FIP requirements during the 90-day period are stayed, but also acknowledges that there are no such requirements. The only mandate of the FIP is that PNM comply with its emission limit on its ultimate compliance date. Therefore, the Stay does not alter future compliance requirements of the FIP, including the compliance deadline in the FIP. The Stay provides that EPA “intends” to proceed to a rulemaking at some future time to either 1) extend the compliance date, or 2) provide for an alternative proposal that might be developed during the period of the Stay. Because the Stay is not effective to toll the compliance date absent a subsequent formal EPA rulemaking, the compliance date currently remains September 21, 2016. In accordance with the Governor's request, PNM will engage in discussions with NMED and EPA, with input from all stakeholders, regarding an alternative to the FIP and SIP. In her letter to the Governor, the EPA Administrator requested that NMED take the lead in working with the parties and stakeholders. During the period of these discussions, the Tenth Circuit litigation will continue. If these discussions do not lead to a resolution of this matter, PNM will continue to aggressively challenge the FIP in the Tenth Circuit litigation. Notwithstanding the fact that NMED's stakeholder process has commenced, the unchanged compliance deadline of the FIP requires PNM to continue to take steps to commence installation of SCR. In April 2012, PNM received bids for this project from several bidders pursuant to its RFP. The bids received estimated construction costs totaling between $750 million and $805 million, not including PNM's costs of managing the project, engineering, insurance, taxes, and AFUDC. Negotiations between PNM and the bidders are continuing. PNM previously estimated total installation cost of SCR at SJGS to be approximately $750 million to $1 billion, which included PNM's costs of managing the project, engineering, insurance, taxes, and AFUDC. Based on the bidding process to date, PNM believes it should be able to enter into contractual arrangements that would result in total installation costs within that range. Estimates for installation of SNCR at SJGS indicate a cost of about $77 million, although this estimate is not the result of a detailed conceptual design. PNM's share under either technology is 46.3% based upon its SJGS ownership interest. Operating costs would also increase with the installation of either SCR or SNCR. Because the challenges to the FIP are continuing and because PNM has agreed to discuss alternatives to the SIP and the FIP, PNM is working with the bidders to minimize the previously planned 2012 and 2013 total project expenditures. PNM previously estimated its share of the total project expenditures to be between $18 million and $27 million in 2012 and between $85 million and $115 million in 2013. PNM anticipates filing a request with the NMPRC in late 2012 or early 2013 for authority to install the SCR technology and to recover SCR costs in rates charged to customers. Furthermore, PNM will seek recovery from its ratepayers for all costs that may be incurred as a result of the CAA requirements. PNM is unable to predict the ultimate outcome of the matters referred to in this section or what, if any, additional pollution control equipment will be required at SJGS. If additional equipment is necessary and/or final requirements result in additional operating costs being incurred, PNM believes that its access to the capital markets is sufficient to be able to finance the installation. 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 On October 6, 2010, EPA issued its proposed regional haze determination of BART 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. PNM estimates its share of costs incurred by APS could be up to $69.0 million for post-combustion controls at Four Corners Units 4 and 5. Such amount does not include PNM's AFUDC and loads. PNM has no ownership interest in Four Corners Units 1, 2, and 3. PNM would seek recovery from its ratepayers of all costs that are ultimately incurred. Following EPA's issuance of its proposed BART, APS submitted a letter to EPA proposing to shut down 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 EPA agrees to a 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 CAA. The proposed shut down of Four Corners Units 1, 2, and 3 is also conditioned upon the completion of APS's acquisition of SCE's ownership interest in Four Corners Units 4 and 5. In response to APS's proposal, EPA issued a Supplemental Notice Requesting Comment in February 2011 and proposed to find that an alternative emission control strategy, largely based upon APS's proposal, would achieve more progress than EPA's October 2010 BART proposal. APS continues to work with EPA to resolve these issues. The Four Corners participants' obligations to comply with EPA's final BART determinations, coupled with the financial impact of possible future climate change regulation or legislation, other environmental regulations, 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 EPA issues its final determination to achieve compliance with the BART requirements. PNM is unable to predict the ultimate outcome of this matter. SJGS Operating Permit Challenge On February 16, 2012, EPA issued its response to a WildEarth Guardians petition objecting to SJGS's operating permit granted by the NMED in January 2011. In its order, EPA requires NMED to provide clarification on several of the matters raised by WildEarth Guardians. NMED has not yet responded to EPA's request, which was due 90 days after issuance. EPA's order in this matter does not constitute a finding that the plant has violated any provision of the CAA or that it has violated any emission limits. PNM believes the issues raised can be resolved because they are based either on incorrect information or on a perceived inadequacy in the permitting record. EPA's action does not impact PNM's ability to operate the plant. National Ambient Air Quality Standards (“NAAQS”) The CAA requires EPA to set NAAQS for pollutants considered harmful to public health and the environment. EPA has set NAAQS for certain pollutants, including NOx, SO₂,ozone, and particulate matter. In 2010, EPA updated the primary NOx and SO₂ NAAQS to include a 1-hour maximum standard while retaining the annual standards for NOx and SO₂and the 24-hour SO₂ standard. New Mexico is in attainment for the 1-hour NOx NAAQS. EPA has issued draft guidance on how to determine whether areas in a state comply with the new 1-hour SO₂ NAAQS. EPA conducted a stakeholder process, which concluded in June 2012, to discuss how to assess compliance with this standard. EPA announced that it will publish further guidance or initiate rulemaking on these matters after completion of that process. Although the process of determining compliance with the 1-hour SO₂ NAAQS has not been finalized, PNM believes that compliance with the 1-hour SO₂ standard may require operational changes and/or equipment modifications at SJGS. On April 6, 2012, PNM filed an application for an amendment to its air permit for SJGS, which would be required for the installation of either the SCR or SNCR technology described above. In addition, this application included a proposal by PNM to install equipment modifications for the purpose of reducing fugitive emissions, including NOx, SO₂, and particulate matter. These modifications would help SJGS meet the NAAQS. It is anticipated that this technology would be installed at the same time as the installation of regional haze BART controls, in order to most efficiently and cost effectively conduct construction activities at SJGS. The cost of this technology is dependent upon the type of control technology that is ultimately determined to be regional haze BART at SJGS, but initial estimates of the total project costs are up to $135 million. These amounts are included in the estimates that PNM received for installation of SCR discussed above. On June 14, 2012, EPA proposed to lower the standard for fine particulate matter. The proposed rule was published in the Federal Register on June 29, 2012. EPA is taking comments for nine weeks and a final rule is expected by December 14, 2012. PNM is currently evaluating the impact of the proposed standard on SJGS and its operations. In January 2010, EPA announced it would strengthen the 8-hour ozone standard by setting a new standard in a range of 0.060-0.070 parts per million. EPA had intended to establish the new standard by July 31, 2011. However, in September 2011, President Obama requested that the EPA administrator withdraw the agency's proposed rule that would have replaced the existing ozone NAAQS. In his release, the President stated that work is already underway to reconsider the ozone standard, with proposed revisions expected in the fall of 2013 and a final standard published by 2014. Depending upon where the standard for ozone is set, San Juan County, where SJGS is situated, could be designated as not attaining the standard for ozone. If that were to occur, NMED would have responsibility for bringing the county into compliance and would look at all sources of NOx and volatile organic compounds since these are the pollutants that form ground-level ozone. As a result, SJGS could be required to install further NOx controls to meet a new ozone NAAQS. In addition, other counties in New Mexico, including Bernalillo County, may be designated as non-attainment. PNM cannot predict the outcome of this matter, the impact of other potential environmental mitigations, 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 stipulated penalties 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. Over the past several years, PNM has also submitted reports addressing mercury and NOx emission controls for SJGS as required by the Consent Decree. Plaintiffs and NMED rejected PNM's reports. PNM disputes the validity of the rejection of the reports. In May 2011, PNM entered into an agreement with NMED and the plaintiffs to resolve the dispute over the applicable NOx emission limits under the Consent Decree. Under the agreement, so long as the NOx emissions limits imposed under the EPA FIP and the New Mexico SIP meet a specified emissions limit, and PNM does not challenge these limits, the parties' dispute is deemed settled. In May 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 additional mercury controls. PNM estimates the implementation would increase annual mercury control costs for the entire station, which are currently $0.6 million, to a total of $6.0 million. The court appointed a special master to evaluate the technical arguments in the case. The special master was asked to address the detection and determination limits of the mercury monitors at SJGS and the appropriate brominated activated carbon injection rate that maximizes the reduction of mercury emissions from SJGS. The special master was unable to make a determination on either of these issues based on the materials provided to him under the court's order. The parties have until August 22, 2012 to file responses to the special master's report. 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 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 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 May 2005, APS and the Navajo Nation signed an agreement resolving the dispute regarding the Navajo Nation's authority to adopt operating permit regulations under 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 CAA. 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 In April 2009, APS received a request from EPA under Section 114 of the CAA seeking detailed information regarding projects at and operations of Four Corners. EPA has taken the position that many utilities have made physical or operational changes at their plants that should have triggered additional regulatory requirements under the NSR provisions of the CAA. 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 EPA. APS has responded to 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 New Source Review Following two NOIs to sue, EarthJustice filed a lawsuit in October 2011 in the U.S. District Court for New Mexico against APS and the other Four Corners participants, except PNM, alleging violations of the PSD provisions of the CAA. EarthJustice filed suit against PNMR, which is not a Four Corners participant. In January 2012, following a third NOI to sue, EarthJustice filed its First Amended Complaint, naming PNM as a party instead of PNMR. In addition to the allegations of its original complaint, EarthJustice alleged NSPS violations. PNM was served with the amended complaint in January 2012. Among other things, the plaintiffs seek to have the court enjoin operations at Four Corners until it obtains any required PSD permits and complies with the NSPS. The plaintiffs further request the Court to order the payment of civil penalties, including a beneficial mitigation project. In April 2012, the Four Corners participants, including PNM, filed motions to dismiss the complaint. The Court has not ruled on the pending motions. PNM cannot currently predict the outcome of this matter or the range of its potential impact. Endangered Species Act In January 2011, the Center for Biological Diversity, Diné Citizens Against Ruining Our Environment, and San Juan Citizens Alliance filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado 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 requested 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. Neither PNM nor APS was a party to the lawsuit. On March 14, 2012, the Court entered an order dismissing the plaintiffs' lawsuit without prejudice. On May 14, 2012, the plaintiffs appealed the Court's order to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit. On March 19, 2012, Diné Citizens Against Ruining Our Environment, Black Mesa Water Coalition, Toh Nizhoni Ani, San Juan Citizens Alliance, and Center for Biological Diversity sent EPA a NOI threatening to file a lawsuit in federal district court on or after May 18, 2012 if EPA fails to take certain actions allegedly required under the ESA. These environmental groups allege that EPA has failed to meet its duties under the ESA to ensure that operations at Four Corners do not jeopardize the continued existence of endangered or threatened species or their critical habitat as required under the ESA. The environmental groups also allege that the EPA has violated the ESA by failing to carry out its programs for the conservation of listed species. APS is currently evaluating the NOI to determine its potential impact on Four Corners and will continue to monitor any developments. PNM cannot predict the outcome of this matter. Cooling Water Intake Structures EPA issued its proposed cooling water intake structures rule in April 2011, which would provide national standards for certain cooling water intake structures at existing power plants and other facilities under 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). 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 would require existing facilities to comply with the impingement mortality requirements as soon as possible, but no later than eight years after the effective date of the rule, and to comply with the entrainment requirements as soon as possible under a schedule of compliance established by the permitting authority. EPA is required to issue a final rule by June 27, 2013. PNM and APS continue to follow the rulemaking and are performing analyses to determine the potential 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 are parties to agreements under which PNM installed a remediation system to treat water from a City of Santa Fe municipal supply well, an extraction well, and monitoring wells to address gasoline contamination in the groundwater at the site of the former Santa Fe Generating Station and service center. PNM believes the observed groundwater contamination originated from off-site sources, but agreed to operate the remediation facilities until the groundwater meets applicable federal and state standards or until the NMED determines that additional remediation is not required, whichever is earlier. The municipal 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 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 Byproducts Waste Disposal Regulation CCBs consisting of fly ash, bottom ash, and gypsum from SJGS are currently disposed of 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 with federal oversight by the OSM. APS 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 Four Corners is regulated by EPA and the New Mexico State Engineer's Office. In June 2010, EPA published a proposed rule that includes two options for waste designation of coal ash. One option is to regulate CCBs as a hazardous waste, which would allow EPA to create a comprehensive federal program for waste management and disposal of CCBs. The other option is to regulate CCBs as a non-hazardous waste, which would provide 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. A final rule regarding waste designation for coal ash is not expected from EPA before the end of 2012. An OSM CCB rulemaking team has been formed to develop a proposed rule. On April 5, 2012, several environmental groups, including Sierra Club, filed a citizen suit in the D.C. Circuit Court claiming that EPA has failed to review and revise RCRA's regulations with respect to CCBs. The groups allege that EPA has already determined that revisions to the CCBs regulations are necessary. They also claim that EPA now has a non-discretionary duty to revise the regulations. The environmental groups asked the court to direct EPA to complete its review of the regulation of CCBs and a hazardous waste analytical procedure and to issue necessary revisions of such regulations as soon as possible. PNM and industry groups are evaluating the potential implications of the suit on EPA's rulemaking agenda for CCBs. PNM advocates for the non-hazardous regulation of CCBs. However, if CCBs are ultimately regulated as a hazardous waste, costs could increase significantly. PNM would seek recovery from its ratepayers of all costs that are ultimately incurred. PNM cannot predict the outcome of EPA's or OSM's proposed rulemaking regarding CCB regulation, including mine placement of CCBs, or whether these actions will have a material impact on its operations, financial position, or cash flows. Sierra Club Allegations In December 2009, PNM and PNMR received a NOI to sue under RCRA from the Sierra Club (“RCRA Notice”). 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. In April 2010, the Sierra Club filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico against PNM and PNMR. Also named in the lawsuit were SJCC and BHP. In the complaint, as amended, Sierra Club alleged that activities at SJGS and the San Juan Mine were 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 constituted "open dumping" in violation of RCRA. The suit also includes claims against SJCC and BHP under SMCRA. The complaint requested judgment for injunctive relief, payment of civil penalties, and an award of plaintiffs' attorney's fees and costs. On March 28, 2012, the parties filed an executed consent decree with the court, which was approved by the court on April 12, 2012, settling the litigation. Under the terms of the consent decree, the SJGS owners and SJCC will construct and operate a slurry wall and recovery trench, fund other environmental projects, and pay Sierra Club's attorneys' and experts' fees. The total estimated cost of the settlement is $10.2 million, of which about $4.5 million is PNM's share. Substantially all of the income statement impact related to this settlement was recorded in 2011. The consent decree also includes a release of claims and covenant not to sue by Sierra Club. Hazardous Air Pollutants (“HAPs”) Rulemaking In December 2011, the EPA issued its final Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (“MATS”). MATS is designed to reduce emissions of heavy metals, including mercury, arsenic, chromium and nickel, as well as acid gases, including hydrochloric and hydrofluoric gases, from coal and oil-fired electric generating units with a capacity of at least 25 MW. Existing facilities will generally have up to four years to demonstrate compliance with the new rule. PNM's assessment of MATS indicates that the control equipment currently used at SJGS allows the plant to meet the emission standards set forth in the rule although the plant may be required to install additional monitoring equipment. With regard to mercury, stack testing performed for EPA during the MATS rulemaking process showed that SJGS achieved a mercury removal rate of 99% or greater. APS will conduct testing to determine what additional controls, if any, will be required at Four Corners. If additional controls are required, the costs are not expected to be material. 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, 2012 and December 31, 2011, prepayments for coal, which are included in other current assets, amounted to $13.0 million and $14.6 million. These amounts reflect delivery of a portion of the prepaid coal and its utilization due to the mine fire incident described below. SJCC holds certain federal, state, and private coal leases and has an underground coal sales agreement to supply processed coal for operation of SJGS through 2017. Under the coal sales agreement, SJCC is reimbursed for all costs for mining and delivering the coal, including an allocated portion of administrative costs, and 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 coal that would supply substantially all the requirements of the SJGS through December 31, 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 July 6, 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, payments for mine reclamation, in future dollars, are estimated to be $51.9 million for the surface mines at both SJGS and Four Corners and $21.5 million for the underground mine at SJGS as of June 30, 2012. PNM made payments against the surface mine liability of $0.9 million and $2.3 million for the three and six months ended June 30, 2012 and $1.3 million and $2.6 million for the three and six months ended June 30, 2011. At June 30, 2012 and December 31, 2011, liabilities, in current dollars, of $25.2 million and $26.5 million for surface mine reclamation and $4.4 million and $4.2 million for underground mining activities were recorded in other deferred credits. On June 1, 2012, the SJGS owners entered into a trust funds agreement to provide funding to compensate SJCC for post-term reclamation obligations under the coal sales agreement. The trust funds agreement requires each owner to enter into an individual trust agreement with a financial institution as trustee, create an irrevocable trust, and deposit initial funding into the trust by August 30, 2012. Thereafter, deposits, which are based on funding curves, must be made on an annual basis. PNM estimates its initial funding requirement will be $2.6 million with an additional $0.8 million funded by December 31, 2012. PNM collects a provision for mine reclamation costs in its rates. The NMPRC has capped the amount that can be collected for final reclamation of the surface mines at $100.0 million. Previously, PNM recorded a regulatory asset for the amount of surface mine reclamation costs to be collected from ratepayers, limited by the amount of the cap. If future estimates increase the liability for surface mine reclamation, the excess would be expensed at that time. San Juan Underground Mine Fire Incident On September 9, 2011, a fire was discovered at the underground mine owned and operated by SJCC that provides coal for SJGS. The federal Mine Safety and Health Administration (“MSHA”) was notified of the incident. On September 12, 2011, SJCC informed PNM that the fire was extinguished. However, MSHA required sealing the incident area and confirmation of a noncombustible environment before allowing re-entry of the sealed area. SJCC regained entry into the sealed area of the mine in early March 2012. At that time, MSHA conducted a root cause analysis inspection of the incident area, but has not yet issued its report. SJCC has completed inspection of the mine equipment and reported no significant damage. SJCC removed the equipment from the impacted mine panel and reassembed it at a new panel face. On May 4, 2012, SJCC received approval from MSHA and resumed longwall mining operations. However, if further difficulties occur in the longwall mining operation, PNM and the other owners of SJGS would need to consider alternatives for operating SJGS, including running at less than full capacity or shutting down one or more units, the impacts of which cannot be determined at the current time. The costs of the mine recovery flow through the cost-reimbursable component of the coal supply agreement. PNM anticipates that it will recover through its FPPAC the portion of such costs attributable to its customers subject to New Mexico regulation. The staff of the NMPRC has requested that PNM provide information segregating the impacts of this incident on the FPPAC. PNM's filings with the NMPRC reflect a preliminary estimate that this incident increased the deferral under the FPPAC through April 30, 2012 by $17.3 million. Based on information PNM has received from SJCC to date, PNM does not expect the mine fire to have a material effect on its financial condition, results of operations, or cash flows. PVNGS Liability and Insurance Matters The PVNGS participants have insurance for public liability exposure for a nuclear incident totaling $12.6 billion per occurrence. Commercial insurance carriers provide $375 million and $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. Based on PNM's 10.2% interest in each of 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 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. These coverages are provided by Nuclear Electric Insurance Limited (“NEIL”). If NEIL's losses in any policy year exceed accumulated funds, PNM is subject to retrospective assessments of $4.3 million for each retrospective assessment declared by NEIL's Board of Directors. The insurance coverages discussed in this and the previous paragraph are 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. PNM, APS, and BHP have undertaken activities to secure additional water supplies for SJGS, Four Corners, and related mines to accommodate the possibility of inadequate precipitation in coming years. 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 and renewals are currently being negotiated. In addition, in the case of water shortage, PNM, APS, and BHP have reached agreement with the Jicarilla Apache Nation on a long-term supplemental contract relating to water for SJGS and Four Corners that runs through 2016. Although the Company does not believe that its operations will be materially affected by drought conditions at this time, it cannot forecast the weather 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 In 1986, an action commenced regarding the rights of APS and the other PVNGS participants to the use of groundwater and effluent at PVNGS. 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 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 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 in New Mexico District Court 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 SJGS. In 2005, the Navajo Nation and various parties announced a settlement of the Navajo Nation's surface water rights. In March 2009, President Obama signed legislation confirming the settlement with the Navajo Nation. 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 in an expedited proceeding. PNM's water rights in the San Juan Basin may be affected by the rights recognized in the settlement agreement as being owned by the Navajo Nation (which comprise a significant portion of water available from sources on the San Juan River and in the San Juan Basin). Therefore, PNM has elected to participate in this proceeding. 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. Complaint Against Southwestern Public Service Company In September 2005, PNM filed a complaint under the Federal Power Act against SPS. PNM argued that SPS had been overcharging PNM for deliveries of energy through its fuel cost adjustment clause practices. PNM also intervened in a proceeding brought by other customers raising similar arguments relating to SPS' fuel cost adjustment clause practices (the “Golden Spread proceeding”). In April 2008, FERC issued its order in the Golden Spread proceeding. FERC affirmed the decision of an 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 or the range of possible outcomes. Begay v. PNM et al A putative class action was filed against PNM and other utilities in February 2009 in the U.S. 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. In March 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. In May 2010, Plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal with the Bureau of Indian Affairs ("BIA"), which was denied by the BIA Regional Director. In May 2011, plaintiffs appealed the Regional Director's decision to the DOI Board of Appeals. On February 21, 2012, the DOI Board of Appeals ordered additional briefing on the merits of the appeal. PNM is participating in order to preserve its interests regarding any PNM-acquired rights-of-way implicated in the appeal. PNM cannot predict the outcome of the proceeding or the range of potential outcomes at this time. Transmission Issues Cargill Complaint In April 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. In July 2010, FERC issued an order establishing a schedule for hearing and settlement procedures. In its order, FERC determined that PNM had improperly invalidated a single Cargill transmission service request submitted in February 2008 and set the issue for hearing to determine an appropriate remedy. In August 2010, Cargill filed a motion for rehearing. In January 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 rehearing motion in place before FERC. One intervenor in the proceeding contested the settlement. In December 2011, FERC issued an order approving the settlement as filed but requiring a compliance filing to modify the standard of review for third parties and FERC. Pursuant to the December 2011 order, the settlement agreement has been modified to reflect the change to the standard of review and was filed with FERC in March 2012. On May 25, 2012, FERC issued an order accepting the modified settlement agreement. PNM paid the $0.2 million in July 2012. FERC has not ruled on Cargill's outstanding motion for rehearing. PNM is unable to predict the final outcome of this matter at FERC. TGP Complaint On March 2, 2012, TGP Granada, LLC and its affiliate (collectively, “TGP”) filed a complaint at FERC against PNM and Tortoise Capital Resources Corp. (“Tortoise”). PNM owns 60% of the EIP and leases the other 40% from Tortoise. TGP's filing requested FERC to direct PNM and Tortoise to identify the party that will immediately assume the obligation of making transmission capacity on the EIP available to customers for use after the April 1, 2015 expiration of the EIP lease agreement. TGP also requested a declaratory order or waiver regarding certain provisions of PNM's Open Access Transmission Tariff to allow its affiliate to change the point-of-receipt associated with a transmission service agreement related to the EIP without losing its transmission service priority. PNM's lease of the portion of the EIP owned by Tortoise expires on April 1, 2015. The lease provides PNM the options (“End-of-Lease Options”), with 24 months advance notice, of purchasing the leased assets at the end of the lease for fair market value, or purchasing the leased assets prior to the lease expiration at the greater of fair market value and stipulated values contained in the lease. The lease also allows PNM to renew the lease for a series of terms with lease payments at the fair market value rate and provides PNM the option, if certain conditions are met, to renew the lease at 50% of the current lease payments for a maximum term to be calculated at the end of the initial lease term. On April 2, 2012, PNM filed its response to TGP's complaint. PNM argued that the claims in the complaint are without legal merit, but took no position on the declaratory order or waiver request. On July 2, 2012, PNM notified Tortoise that PNM does not intend to invoke any of the End-of-Lease Options and that PNM is evaluating whether any NMPRC approvals are required in order to finalize its decision not to invoke any End-of-Lease Options. On July 3, 2012, PNM informed FERC that PNM had notified Tortoise of its election. On July 5, 2012, FERC issued an order denying TGP's requests for declaratory order and waiver. In addition, FERC directed PNM, in consultation with Tortoise, to identify the party that will provide long-term transmission service over the leased portion of the EIP within 30 days of the date of FERC's order. PNM and Tortoise are discussing compliance with the FERC order, as well as alternatives regarding the expiration of the lease. PNM cannot predict the outcome of this proceeding.

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 periodically participates in the investigation and remediation of various sites. In addition, the Company occasionally 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 financial position, results of operations, or cash flows.

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, cannot be reasonably estimated. 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 with the understanding that the outcome of any litigation, investigation, and other legal proceeding is inherently uncertain. In accordance with GAAP, the Company records liabilities 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. 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 effect on its financial condition, results of operations, or cash flows.

Additional information concerning commitments and contingencies is contained in Note 16 of the Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements in the 2011 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 that require the DOE 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. In November 1997, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit issued a decision preventing the DOE from excusing its own delay, but refused to order the DOE to begin accepting spent nuclear fuel. 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 during the term of the operating licenses. PNM accrues these costs as a component of fuel expense as the fuel is consumed. At June 30, 2012 and December 31, 2011, PNM had a liability for interim storage costs of $13.9 million and $14.5 million included in other deferred credits.

On June 8, 2012, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (the “D.C. Circuit”) issued its decision on a challenge by several states and environmental groups of the NRC's rulemaking regarding temporary storage and permanent disposal of high-level nuclear waste and spent nuclear fuel. The petitioners had challenged the NRC's 2010 update to the agency's Waste Confidence Decision. Previous versions of the Waste Confidence Decision had expressed the NRC's confidence, in a generic fashion, that high level nuclear waste and spent nuclear fuel safe storage could be safely stored on the sites of the country's commercial nuclear power plants until a mined geologic repository becomes available. The Waste Confidence Decision is codified in NRC's regulations implementing the National Environmental Policy Act (“NEPA”). The D.C. Circuit found that the agency's 2010 Waste Confidence Decision update constituted a major federal action, which, consistent with NEPA, requires either an environmental impact statement or a finding of no significant impact from the agency's actions. The D.C. Circuit found that the NRC's evaluation of the environmental risks from spent nuclear was deficient, and therefore remanded the 2010 Waste Confidence Decision update for further action consistent with NEPA. The NRC has not announced its intentions regarding the D.C. Circuit's decision; therefore, PNM is unable to predict the impact that the decision may have on the operation of PVNGS.

The Clean Air Act

Regional Haze

In 1999, EPA developed a regional haze program and regional haze rules under the CAA. The rule directs each of the 50 states to address regional haze. States are required to establish goals for improving visibility in national parks and wilderness areas (also known as Class I areas) and to develop long-term strategies for reducing emissions of air pollutants that cause visibility impairment in their own states and for preventing degradation in other states. States must establish a series of interim goals to ensure continued progress. The first planning period specifies setting reasonable progress goals for improving visibility in Class I areas by the year 2018. In July 2005, the EPA promulgated its final regional haze rule. A major provision of the rule included guidelines for states to conduct BART determinations for certain covered facilities. The BART requirements of the regional haze rule apply to facilities, including utility boilers, built between 1962 and 1977 that have the potential to emit more than 250 tons per year of visibility impairing pollution. If it is demonstrated that the emissions from these sources cause or contribute to visibility impairment in any Class I area, then BART must be installed. The regional haze rules require that BART controls must be installed on an eligible facility by 2018.

SJGS

Several provisions of the CAA aim to improve visibility in certain national parks and wilderness areas to natural conditions by the year 2064. SJGS is a source that is subject to these statutory obligations to reduce visibility impacts.

Pursuant to the CAA, states have the primary role to regulate visibility requirements by promulgating SIPs. The State of New Mexico submitted its SIP on the two elements of the visibility rules - regional haze and interstate transport - for review by EPA in June 2011. The SIP found that BART to reduce NOx emissions from SJGS is selective non-catalytic reduction (“SNCR”) and requires SJGS to install SNCR on each of its four units. Nevertheless, on August 22, 2011, EPA published its FIP, stating that it was required to do so by virtue of a consent decree it had entered into with an environmental group in litigation concerning the interstate transport requirements of the CAA. The FIP included a regional haze BART determination for SJGS that requires installation of selective catalytic reduction (“SCR”) on all four units within five years of the rule's effective date of September 21, 2011. The FIP also requires stringent NOx emission limits. EPA stated that it would review and act on the SIP at some future date.

PNM filed a Petition for Review in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit on September 16, 2011, challenging EPA's regional haze FIP decision as arbitrary, capricious, or otherwise not in accordance with law. Additionally, in October 2011, PNM asked EPA to reconsider the FIP and in May 2012 supplemented its request for reconsideration with cost information from actual bids received in response to an RFP to install SCR discussed below. On October 21, 2011, the Governor of New Mexico and NMED petitioned the Tenth Circuit to review EPA's decision on the same grounds as PNM's challenge and requested EPA to reconsider its decision. The Governor and NMED also joined PNM's supplemental request for reconsideration in May 2012. These three parties filed motions with the Tenth Circuit to stay the effective date of the rule, which were denied on March 1, 2012. The same three parties have also formally asked EPA to stay the effective date of the rule. WildEarth Guardians also filed an action to challenge EPA's rule in the Tenth Circuit, seeking to shorten its compliance period from five years to three years. WildEarth Guardians, Diné Citizens Against Ruining our Environment, National Parks Conservation Association, New Energy Economy, San Juan Citizens Alliance, and Sierra Club intervened in support of EPA in both PNM's challenge and in the case brought by the New Mexico Governor and NMED. PNM has intervened in support of the challenge brought by the New Mexico Governor and NMED. PNM has also intervened in the WildEarth Guardians' action advocating that the five-year compliance period in the FIP be maintained should the FIP stand. The Tenth Circuit entered an order in March 2012 scheduling briefing on the merits in the challenges to the FIP. Briefing is scheduled to be complete by late-September 2012 and oral argument is scheduled for October 23, 2012.

In litigation with several environmental groups, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia entered a consent decree, which, as amended, required EPA to review and take action through a proposed rulemaking on New Mexico's regional haze SIP on or before May 31, 2012 and a final rulemaking on or before November 15, 2012. On May 31, 2012, EPA issued its proposed action on the regional haze SIP, which was published in the Federal Register on June 15, 2012. EPA proposed approval of all components of the SIP, except for the BART determination for SJGS. With respect to that element of the SIP, EPA determined that with the FIP in place, it had met its obligation under the consent decree, and stated that it would issue a separate proposal or would entertain the withdrawal of the SIP in favor of an alternative that may be developed through discussions with the State of New Mexico and PNM.

On April 25, 2012, PNM received a copy of a letter from two of the five Commissioners of the NMPRC addressed to the Governor of New Mexico and the New Mexico congressional delegation. In the letter, the Commissioners ask that the parties to the litigation join to ask EPA to stay both the FIP and the litigation and to consider a “third alternative” to the FIP and the SIP. They suggest that the third alternative be retiring one or more of the existing coal-fired units at SJGS and replacing that capacity with gas-fired generation. On April 26, 2012, PNM received a copy of a letter from the Governor of New Mexico addressed to the EPA Administrator. In that communication, the Governor requested that EPA stay the FIP and respond to the SIP by approving it or explaining why it is not approvable. Furthermore, the Governor requested PNM to develop viable alternatives to the FIP, assuming that EPA stays the FIP and responds to the SIP. PNM has agreed to comply with the Governor's request.

On July 2, 2012, the EPA Administrator replied to the Governor stating that she had signed a ninety day stay of the FIP. The “Stay of the Effectiveness of Requirements; Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; New Mexico; Federal Implementation Plan for Interstate Transport of Pollution Affecting Visibility and Best Available Retrofit Technology Determination” (the “Stay”) was published in the Federal Register on July 16, 2012. The Stay purports to stay the effectiveness of the FIP for a period of 90 days after publication. The Stay states that any FIP requirements during the 90-day period are stayed, but also acknowledges that there are no such requirements. The only mandate of the FIP is that PNM comply with its emission limit on its ultimate compliance date. Therefore, the Stay does not alter future compliance requirements of the FIP, including the compliance deadline in the FIP. The Stay provides that EPA “intends” to proceed to a rulemaking at some future time to either 1) extend the compliance date, or 2) provide for an alternative proposal that might be developed during the period of the Stay. Because the Stay is not effective to toll the compliance date absent a subsequent formal EPA rulemaking, the compliance date currently remains September 21, 2016.

In accordance with the Governor's request, PNM will engage in discussions with NMED and EPA, with input from all stakeholders, regarding an alternative to the FIP and SIP. In her letter to the Governor, the EPA Administrator requested that NMED take the lead in working with the parties and stakeholders. During the period of these discussions, the Tenth Circuit litigation will continue. If these discussions do not lead to a resolution of this matter, PNM will continue to aggressively challenge the FIP in the Tenth Circuit litigation.

Notwithstanding the fact that NMED's stakeholder process has commenced, the unchanged compliance deadline of the FIP requires PNM to continue to take steps to commence installation of SCR. In April 2012, PNM received bids for this project from several bidders pursuant to its RFP. The bids received estimated construction costs totaling between $750 million and $805 million, not including PNM's costs of managing the project, engineering, insurance, taxes, and AFUDC. Negotiations between PNM and the bidders are continuing. PNM previously estimated total installation cost of SCR at SJGS to be approximately $750 million to $1 billion, which included PNM's costs of managing the project, engineering, insurance, taxes, and AFUDC. Based on the bidding process to date, PNM believes it should be able to enter into contractual arrangements that would result in total installation costs within that range. Estimates for installation of SNCR at SJGS indicate a cost of about $77 million, although this estimate is not the result of a detailed conceptual design. PNM's share under either technology is 46.3% based upon its SJGS ownership interest. Operating costs would also increase with the installation of either SCR or SNCR.

Because the challenges to the FIP are continuing and because PNM has agreed to discuss alternatives to the SIP and the FIP, PNM is working with the bidders to minimize the previously planned 2012 and 2013 total project expenditures. PNM previously estimated its share of the total project expenditures to be between $18 million and $27 million in 2012 and between $85 million and $115 million in 2013.

PNM anticipates filing a request with the NMPRC in late 2012 or early 2013 for authority to install the SCR technology and to recover SCR costs in rates charged to customers. Furthermore, PNM will seek recovery from its ratepayers for all costs that may be incurred as a result of the CAA requirements.

PNM is unable to predict the ultimate outcome of the matters referred to in this section or what, if any, additional pollution control equipment will be required at SJGS. If additional equipment is necessary and/or final requirements result in additional operating costs being incurred, PNM believes that its access to the capital markets is sufficient to be able to finance the installation. 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

On October 6, 2010, EPA issued its proposed regional haze determination of BART 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. PNM estimates its share of costs incurred by APS could be up to $69.0 million for post-combustion controls at Four Corners Units 4 and 5. Such amount does not include PNM's AFUDC and loads. PNM has no ownership interest in Four Corners Units 1, 2, and 3. PNM would seek recovery from its ratepayers of all costs that are ultimately incurred.

Following EPA's issuance of its proposed BART, APS submitted a letter to EPA proposing to shut down 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 EPA agrees to a 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 CAA. The proposed shut down of Four Corners Units 1, 2, and 3 is also conditioned upon the completion of APS's acquisition of SCE's ownership interest in Four Corners Units 4 and 5.

In response to APS's proposal, EPA issued a Supplemental Notice Requesting Comment in February 2011 and proposed to find that an alternative emission control strategy, largely based upon APS's proposal, would achieve more progress than EPA's October 2010 BART proposal.

APS continues to work with EPA to resolve these issues. The Four Corners participants' obligations to comply with EPA's final BART determinations, coupled with the financial impact of possible future climate change regulation or legislation, other environmental regulations, 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 EPA issues its final determination to achieve compliance with the BART requirements. PNM is unable to predict the ultimate outcome of this matter.

SJGS Operating Permit Challenge

On February 16, 2012, EPA issued its response to a WildEarth Guardians petition objecting to SJGS's operating permit granted by the NMED in January 2011. In its order, EPA requires NMED to provide clarification on several of the matters raised by WildEarth Guardians. NMED has not yet responded to EPA's request, which was due 90 days after issuance. EPA's order in this matter does not constitute a finding that the plant has violated any provision of the CAA or that it has violated any emission limits. PNM believes the issues raised can be resolved because they are based either on incorrect information or on a perceived inadequacy in the permitting record. EPA's action does not impact PNM's ability to operate the plant.

National Ambient Air Quality Standards (“NAAQS”)

The CAA requires EPA to set NAAQS for pollutants considered harmful to public health and the environment. EPA has set NAAQS for certain pollutants, including NOx, SO₂,ozone, and particulate matter. In 2010, EPA updated the primary NOx and SO₂ NAAQS to include a 1-hour maximum standard while retaining the annual standards for NOx and SO₂and the 24-hour SO₂ standard. New Mexico is in attainment for the 1-hour NOx NAAQS. EPA has issued draft guidance on how to determine whether areas in a state comply with the new 1-hour SO₂ NAAQS. EPA conducted a stakeholder process, which concluded in June 2012, to discuss how to assess compliance with this standard. EPA announced that it will publish further guidance or initiate rulemaking on these matters after completion of that process. Although the process of determining compliance with the 1-hour SO₂ NAAQS has not been finalized, PNM believes that compliance with the 1-hour SO₂ standard may require operational changes and/or equipment modifications at SJGS. On April 6, 2012, PNM filed an application for an amendment to its air permit for SJGS, which would be required for the installation of either the SCR or SNCR technology described above. In addition, this application included a proposal by PNM to install equipment modifications for the purpose of reducing fugitive emissions, including NOx, SO₂, and particulate matter. These modifications would help SJGS meet the NAAQS. It is anticipated that this technology would be installed at the same time as the installation of regional haze BART controls, in order to most efficiently and cost effectively conduct construction activities at SJGS. The cost of this technology is dependent upon the type of control technology that is ultimately determined to be regional haze BART at SJGS, but initial estimates of the total project costs are up to $135 million. These amounts are included in the estimates that PNM received for installation of SCR discussed above.

On June 14, 2012, EPA proposed to lower the standard for fine particulate matter. The proposed rule was published in the Federal Register on June 29, 2012. EPA is taking comments for nine weeks and a final rule is expected by December 14, 2012. PNM is currently evaluating the impact of the proposed standard on SJGS and its operations.

In January 2010, EPA announced it would strengthen the 8-hour ozone standard by setting a new standard in a range of 0.060-0.070 parts per million. EPA had intended to establish the new standard by July 31, 2011. However, in September 2011, President Obama requested that the EPA administrator withdraw the agency's proposed rule that would have replaced the existing ozone NAAQS. In his release, the President stated that work is already underway to reconsider the ozone standard, with proposed revisions expected in the fall of 2013 and a final standard published by 2014. Depending upon where the standard for ozone is set, San Juan County, where SJGS is situated, could be designated as not attaining the standard for ozone. If that were to occur, NMED would have responsibility for bringing the county into compliance and would look at all sources of NOx and volatile organic compounds since these are the pollutants that form ground-level ozone. As a result, SJGS could be required to install further NOx controls to meet a new ozone NAAQS. In addition, other counties in New Mexico, including Bernalillo County, may be designated as non-attainment. PNM cannot predict the outcome of this matter, the impact of other potential environmental mitigations, 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 stipulated penalties 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. Over the past several years, PNM has also submitted reports addressing mercury and NOx emission controls for SJGS as required by the Consent Decree. Plaintiffs and NMED rejected PNM's reports. PNM disputes the validity of the rejection of the reports. In May 2011, PNM entered into an agreement with NMED and the plaintiffs to resolve the dispute over the applicable NOx emission limits under the Consent Decree. Under the agreement, so long as the NOx emissions limits imposed under the EPA FIP and the New Mexico SIP meet a specified emissions limit, and PNM does not challenge these limits, the parties' dispute is deemed settled.

In May 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 additional mercury controls. PNM estimates the implementation would increase annual mercury control costs for the entire station, which are currently $0.6 million, to a total of $6.0 million. The court appointed a special master to evaluate the technical arguments in the case. The special master was asked to address the detection and determination limits of the mercury monitors at SJGS and the appropriate brominated activated carbon injection rate that maximizes the reduction of mercury emissions from SJGS. The special master was unable to make a determination on either of these issues based on the materials provided to him under the court's order. The parties have until August 22, 2012 to file responses to the special master's report. 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 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 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 May 2005, APS and the Navajo Nation signed an agreement resolving the dispute regarding the Navajo Nation's authority to adopt operating permit regulations under 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 CAA. 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

In April 2009, APS received a request from EPA under Section 114 of the CAA seeking detailed information regarding projects at and operations of Four Corners. EPA has taken the position that many utilities have made physical or operational changes at their plants that should have triggered additional regulatory requirements under the NSR provisions of the CAA. 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 EPA. APS has responded to 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 New Source Review

Following two NOIs to sue, EarthJustice filed a lawsuit in October 2011 in the U.S. District Court for New Mexico against APS and the other Four Corners participants, except PNM, alleging violations of the PSD provisions of the CAA. EarthJustice filed suit against PNMR, which is not a Four Corners participant. In January 2012, following a third NOI to sue, EarthJustice filed its First Amended Complaint, naming PNM as a party instead of PNMR. In addition to the allegations of its original complaint, EarthJustice alleged NSPS violations. PNM was served with the amended complaint in January 2012. Among other things, the plaintiffs seek to have the court enjoin operations at Four Corners until it obtains any required PSD permits and complies with the NSPS. The plaintiffs further request the Court to order the payment of civil penalties, including a beneficial mitigation project. In April 2012, the Four Corners participants, including PNM, filed motions to dismiss the complaint. The Court has not ruled on the pending motions. PNM cannot currently predict the outcome of this matter or the range of its potential impact.

Endangered Species Act

In January 2011, the Center for Biological Diversity, Diné Citizens Against Ruining Our Environment, and San Juan Citizens Alliance filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado 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 requested 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. Neither PNM nor APS was a party to the lawsuit. On March 14, 2012, the Court entered an order dismissing the plaintiffs' lawsuit without prejudice. On May 14, 2012, the plaintiffs appealed the Court's order to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.

On March 19, 2012, Diné Citizens Against Ruining Our Environment, Black Mesa Water Coalition, Toh Nizhoni Ani, San Juan Citizens Alliance, and Center for Biological Diversity sent EPA a NOI threatening to file a lawsuit in federal district court on or after May 18, 2012 if EPA fails to take certain actions allegedly required under the ESA. These environmental groups allege that EPA has failed to meet its duties under the ESA to ensure that operations at Four Corners do not jeopardize the continued existence of endangered or threatened species or their critical habitat as required under the ESA. The environmental groups also allege that the EPA has violated the ESA by failing to carry out its programs for the conservation of listed species. APS is currently evaluating the NOI to determine its potential impact on Four Corners and will continue to monitor any developments. PNM cannot predict the outcome of this matter.

Cooling Water Intake Structures

EPA issued its proposed cooling water intake structures rule in April 2011, which would provide national standards for certain cooling water intake structures at existing power plants and other facilities under 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). 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 would require existing facilities to comply with the impingement mortality requirements as soon as possible, but no later than eight years after the effective date of the rule, and to comply with the entrainment requirements as soon as possible under a schedule of compliance established by the permitting authority. EPA is required to issue a final rule by June 27, 2013. PNM and APS continue to follow the rulemaking and are performing analyses to determine the potential 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 are parties to agreements under which PNM installed a remediation system to treat water from a City of Santa Fe municipal supply well, an extraction well, and monitoring wells to address gasoline contamination in the groundwater at the site of the former Santa Fe Generating Station and service center. PNM believes the observed groundwater contamination originated from off-site sources, but agreed to operate the remediation facilities until the groundwater meets applicable federal and state standards or until the NMED determines that additional remediation is not required, whichever is earlier. The municipal 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 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 Byproducts Waste Disposal

Regulation

CCBs consisting of fly ash, bottom ash, and gypsum from SJGS are currently disposed of 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 with federal oversight by the OSM. APS 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 Four Corners is regulated by EPA and the New Mexico State Engineer's Office.

In June 2010, EPA published a proposed rule that includes two options for waste designation of coal ash. One option is to regulate CCBs as a hazardous waste, which would allow EPA to create a comprehensive federal program for waste management and disposal of CCBs. The other option is to regulate CCBs as a non-hazardous waste, which would provide 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. A final rule regarding waste designation for coal ash is not expected from EPA before the end of 2012. An OSM CCB rulemaking team has been formed to develop a proposed rule.

On April 5, 2012, several environmental groups, including Sierra Club, filed a citizen suit in the D.C. Circuit Court claiming that EPA has failed to review and revise RCRA's regulations with respect to CCBs. The groups allege that EPA has already determined that revisions to the CCBs regulations are necessary. They also claim that EPA now has a non-discretionary duty to revise the regulations. The environmental groups asked the court to direct EPA to complete its review of the regulation of CCBs and a hazardous waste analytical procedure and to issue necessary revisions of such regulations as soon as possible. PNM and industry groups are evaluating the potential implications of the suit on EPA's rulemaking agenda for CCBs.

PNM advocates for the non-hazardous regulation of CCBs. However, if CCBs are ultimately regulated as a hazardous waste, costs could increase significantly. PNM would seek recovery from its ratepayers of all costs that are ultimately incurred. PNM cannot predict the outcome of EPA's or OSM's proposed rulemaking regarding CCB regulation, including mine placement of CCBs, or whether these actions will have a material impact on its operations, financial position, or cash flows.

Sierra Club Allegations

In December 2009, PNM and PNMR received a NOI to sue under RCRA from the Sierra Club (“RCRA Notice”). 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. In April 2010, the Sierra Club filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico against PNM and PNMR. Also named in the lawsuit were SJCC and BHP. In the complaint, as amended, Sierra Club alleged that activities at SJGS and the San Juan Mine were 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 constituted "open dumping" in violation of RCRA. The suit also includes claims against SJCC and BHP under SMCRA. The complaint requested judgment for injunctive relief, payment of civil penalties, and an award of plaintiffs' attorney's fees and costs.

On March 28, 2012, the parties filed an executed consent decree with the court, which was approved by the court on April 12, 2012, settling the litigation. Under the terms of the consent decree, the SJGS owners and SJCC will construct and operate a slurry wall and recovery trench, fund other environmental projects, and pay Sierra Club's attorneys' and experts' fees. The total estimated cost of the settlement is $10.2 million, of which about $4.5 million is PNM's share. Substantially all of the income statement impact related to this settlement was recorded in 2011. The consent decree also includes a release of claims and covenant not to sue by Sierra Club.

Hazardous Air Pollutants (“HAPs”) Rulemaking

In December 2011, the EPA issued its final Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (“MATS”). MATS is designed to reduce emissions of heavy metals, including mercury, arsenic, chromium and nickel, as well as acid gases, including hydrochloric and hydrofluoric gases, from coal and oil-fired electric generating units with a capacity of at least 25 MW. Existing facilities will generally have up to four years to demonstrate compliance with the new rule. PNM's assessment of MATS indicates that the control equipment currently used at SJGS allows the plant to meet the emission standards set forth in the rule although the plant may be required to install additional monitoring equipment. With regard to mercury, stack testing performed for EPA during the MATS rulemaking process showed that SJGS achieved a mercury removal rate of 99% or greater. APS will conduct testing to determine what additional controls, if any, will be required at Four Corners. If additional controls are required, the costs are not expected to be material.

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, 2012 and December 31, 2011, prepayments for coal, which are included in other current assets, amounted to $13.0 million and $14.6 million. These amounts reflect delivery of a portion of the prepaid coal and its utilization due to the mine fire incident described below. SJCC holds certain federal, state, and private coal leases and has an underground coal sales agreement to supply processed coal for operation of SJGS through 2017. Under the coal sales agreement, SJCC is reimbursed for all costs for mining and delivering the coal, including an allocated portion of administrative costs, and 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 coal that would supply substantially all the requirements of the SJGS through December 31, 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 July 6, 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, payments for mine reclamation, in future dollars, are estimated to be $51.9 million for the surface mines at both SJGS and Four Corners and $21.5 million for the underground mine at SJGS as of June 30, 2012. PNM made payments against the surface mine liability of $0.9 million and $2.3 million for the three and six months ended June 30, 2012 and $1.3 million and $2.6 million for the three and six months ended June 30, 2011. At June 30, 2012 and December 31, 2011, liabilities, in current dollars, of $25.2 million and $26.5 million for surface mine reclamation and $4.4 million and $4.2 million for underground mining activities were recorded in other deferred credits. On June 1, 2012, the SJGS owners entered into a trust funds agreement to provide funding to compensate SJCC for post-term reclamation obligations under the coal sales agreement. The trust funds agreement requires each owner to enter into an individual trust agreement with a financial institution as trustee, create an irrevocable trust, and deposit initial funding into the trust by August 30, 2012. Thereafter, deposits, which are based on funding curves, must be made on an annual basis. PNM estimates its initial funding requirement will be $2.6 million with an additional $0.8 million funded by December 31, 2012.

PNM collects a provision for mine reclamation costs in its rates. The NMPRC has capped the amount that can be collected for final reclamation of the surface mines at $100.0 million. Previously, PNM recorded a regulatory asset for the amount of surface mine reclamation costs to be collected from ratepayers, limited by the amount of the cap. If future estimates increase the liability for surface mine reclamation, the excess would be expensed at that time.

San Juan Underground Mine Fire Incident

On September 9, 2011, a fire was discovered at the underground mine owned and operated by SJCC that provides coal for SJGS. The federal Mine Safety and Health Administration (“MSHA”) was notified of the incident. On September 12, 2011, SJCC informed PNM that the fire was extinguished. However, MSHA required sealing the incident area and confirmation of a noncombustible environment before allowing re-entry of the sealed area. SJCC regained entry into the sealed area of the mine in early March 2012. At that time, MSHA conducted a root cause analysis inspection of the incident area, but has not yet issued its report. SJCC has completed inspection of the mine equipment and reported no significant damage. SJCC removed the equipment from the impacted mine panel and reassembed it at a new panel face. On May 4, 2012, SJCC received approval from MSHA and resumed longwall mining operations. However, if further difficulties occur in the longwall mining operation, PNM and the other owners of SJGS would need to consider alternatives for operating SJGS, including running at less than full capacity or shutting down one or more units, the impacts of which cannot be determined at the current time.

The costs of the mine recovery flow through the cost-reimbursable component of the coal supply agreement. PNM anticipates that it will recover through its FPPAC the portion of such costs attributable to its customers subject to New Mexico regulation. The staff of the NMPRC has requested that PNM provide information segregating the impacts of this incident on the FPPAC. PNM's filings with the NMPRC reflect a preliminary estimate that this incident increased the deferral under the FPPAC through April 30, 2012 by $17.3 million. Based on information PNM has received from SJCC to date, PNM does not expect the mine fire to have a material effect on its financial condition, results of operations, or cash flows.

PVNGS Liability and Insurance Matters

The PVNGS participants have insurance for public liability exposure for a nuclear incident totaling $12.6 billion per occurrence. Commercial insurance carriers provide $375 million and $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. Based on PNM's 10.2% interest in each of 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 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. These coverages are provided by Nuclear Electric Insurance Limited (“NEIL”). If NEIL's losses in any policy year exceed accumulated funds, PNM is subject to retrospective assessments of $4.3 million for each retrospective assessment declared by NEIL's Board of Directors. The insurance coverages discussed in this and the previous paragraph are 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.

PNM, APS, and BHP have undertaken activities to secure additional water supplies for SJGS, Four Corners, and related mines to accommodate the possibility of inadequate precipitation in coming years. 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 and renewals are currently being negotiated. In addition, in the case of water shortage, PNM, APS, and BHP have reached agreement with the Jicarilla Apache Nation on a long-term supplemental contract relating to water for SJGS and Four Corners that runs through 2016. Although the Company does not believe that its operations will be materially affected by drought conditions at this time, it cannot forecast the weather 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

In 1986, an action commenced regarding the rights of APS and the other PVNGS participants to the use of groundwater and effluent at PVNGS. 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 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 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 in New Mexico District Court 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 SJGS. In 2005, the Navajo Nation and various parties announced a settlement of the Navajo Nation's surface water rights. In March 2009, President Obama signed legislation confirming the settlement with the Navajo Nation. 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 in an expedited proceeding.

PNM's water rights in the San Juan Basin may be affected by the rights recognized in the settlement agreement as being owned by the Navajo Nation (which comprise a significant portion of water available from sources on the San Juan River and in the San Juan Basin). Therefore, PNM has elected to participate in this proceeding. 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.

Complaint Against Southwestern Public Service Company

In September 2005, PNM filed a complaint under the Federal Power Act against SPS. PNM argued that SPS had been overcharging PNM for deliveries of energy through its fuel cost adjustment clause practices. PNM also intervened in a proceeding brought by other customers raising similar arguments relating to SPS' fuel cost adjustment clause practices (the “Golden Spread proceeding”). In April 2008, FERC issued its order in the Golden Spread proceeding. FERC affirmed the decision of an 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 or the range of possible outcomes.

Begay v. PNM et al

A putative class action was filed against PNM and other utilities in February 2009 in the U.S. 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. In March 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.

In May 2010, Plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal with the Bureau of Indian Affairs ("BIA"), which was denied by the BIA Regional Director. In May 2011, plaintiffs appealed the Regional Director's decision to the DOI Board of Appeals. On February 21, 2012, the DOI Board of Appeals ordered additional briefing on the merits of the appeal. PNM is participating in order to preserve its interests regarding any PNM-acquired rights-of-way implicated in the appeal. PNM cannot predict the outcome of the proceeding or the range of potential outcomes at this time.

Transmission Issues

Cargill Complaint

In April 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. In July 2010, FERC issued an order establishing a schedule for hearing and settlement procedures. In its order, FERC determined that PNM had improperly invalidated a single Cargill transmission service request submitted in February 2008 and set the issue for hearing to determine an appropriate remedy. In August 2010, Cargill filed a motion for rehearing. In January 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 rehearing motion in place before FERC. One intervenor in the proceeding contested the settlement. In December 2011, FERC issued an order approving the settlement as filed but requiring a compliance filing to modify the standard of review for third parties and FERC. Pursuant to the December 2011 order, the settlement agreement has been modified to reflect the change to the standard of review and was filed with FERC in March 2012. On May 25, 2012, FERC issued an order accepting the modified settlement agreement. PNM paid the $0.2 million in July 2012. FERC has not ruled on Cargill's outstanding motion for rehearing. PNM is unable to predict the final outcome of this matter at FERC.

TGP Complaint

On March 2, 2012, TGP Granada, LLC and its affiliate (collectively, “TGP”) filed a complaint at FERC against PNM and Tortoise Capital Resources Corp. (“Tortoise”). PNM owns 60% of the EIP and leases the other 40% from Tortoise. TGP's filing requested FERC to direct PNM and Tortoise to identify the party that will immediately assume the obligation of making transmission capacity on the EIP available to customers for use after the April 1, 2015 expiration of the EIP lease agreement. TGP also requested a declaratory order or waiver regarding certain provisions of PNM's Open Access Transmission Tariff to allow its affiliate to change the point-of-receipt associated with a transmission service agreement related to the EIP without losing its transmission service priority.

PNM's lease of the portion of the EIP owned by Tortoise expires on April 1, 2015. The lease provides PNM the options (“End-of-Lease Options”), with 24 months advance notice, of purchasing the leased assets at the end of the lease for fair market value, or purchasing the leased assets prior to the lease expiration at the greater of fair market value and stipulated values contained in the lease. The lease also allows PNM to renew the lease for a series of terms with lease payments at the fair market value rate and provides PNM the option, if certain conditions are met, to renew the lease at 50% of the current lease payments for a maximum term to be calculated at the end of the initial lease term.

On April 2, 2012, PNM filed its response to TGP's complaint. PNM argued that the claims in the complaint are without legal merit, but took no position on the declaratory order or waiver request. On July 2, 2012, PNM notified Tortoise that PNM does not intend to invoke any of the End-of-Lease Options and that PNM is evaluating whether any NMPRC approvals are required in order to finalize its decision not to invoke any End-of-Lease Options. On July 3, 2012, PNM informed FERC that PNM had notified Tortoise of its election. On July 5, 2012, FERC issued an order denying TGP's requests for declaratory order and waiver. In addition, FERC directed PNM, in consultation with Tortoise, to identify the party that will provide long-term transmission service over the leased portion of the EIP within 30 days of the date of FERC's order. PNM and Tortoise are discussing compliance with the FERC order, as well as alternatives regarding the expiration of the lease. PNM cannot predict the outcome of this proceeding.