XML 45 R25.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT
v2.4.0.6

Regulatory and Rate Matters | 12 Months Ended
--- | ---
Dec. 31, 2012
Regulated Operations [Abstract] |
Regulatory and Rate Matters | Regulatory and Rate Matters The Company is involved in various regulatory matters, some of which contain contingencies that are subject to the same uncertainties as those described in Note 16. PNM Renewable Portfolio Standard The REA establishes a mandatory RPS requiring a utility to acquire a renewable energy portfolio equal to 10% of retail electric sales by 2011, 15% by 2015, and 20% by 2020. The NMPRC requires renewable energy portfolios to be “fully diversified.” As amended in December 2012, the diversity requirements are 30% wind, 20% solar, 5% other, and 1.5% distributed generation, increasing to 3% in 2015. The REA provides for streamlined proceedings for approval of utilities' renewable energy procurement plans, assures utilities recovery of costs incurred consistent with approved procurement plans, and requires the NMPRC to establish a RCT for the procurement of renewable resources to prevent excessive costs being added to rates. In December 2012, the NMPRC approved an amended RCT set at 3% of customers' annual electric charges beginning in 2013 and continuing thereafter. In August 2010, the NMPRC partially approved PNM's revised 2010 procurement plan, including PNM's investment in 22 MW of solar PV facilities at various PNM sites and the construction of a solar-storage demonstration project. The NMPRC approved the estimated costs of $107.7 million. Under the REA, actual costs incurred pursuant to and consistent with an approved procurement plan are deemed to be reasonable and recoverable in the ratemaking process. Construction of these facilities was completed in 2011 at a total cost of approximately $95 million. In July 2010, PNM filed its renewable energy procurement plan for 2011. PNM requested a variance from the diversity requirements for solar and certain “other resources” for 2011 based on the RCT and availability constraints, which the NMPRC granted. The NMPRC ultimately rejected a portion of PNM's proposal in an order that was appealed to the New Mexico Supreme Court. On June 7, 2012, the New Mexico Supreme Court dismissed the appeal. In July 2011, PNM filed its renewable energy procurement plan for 2012. The plan requested a variance from the RPS due to RCT limitations. The plan was diversity-compliant based on the reduced RPS, except for non-wind/non-solar resources, which were not available. In December 2011, the NMPRC approved PNM's 2012 plan, but ordered PNM to spend an additional $0.9 million on renewable procurements in 2012. PNM intends to recover the costs of the supplemental procurements in 2013 through the renewable rider discussed below. This order also required PNM to file its 2013 renewable energy procurement plan by April 30, 2012. The 2013 plan proposed procurements for 2013 and 2014 of 20 MW of PNM-owned solar PV facilities, at an estimated cost of $45.5 million, wind and solar REC purchases in 2013, and a purchased power agreement for the output of a new geothermal facility. The plan also included a supplemental procurement of 2 MW of PNM-owned solar PV facilities at a estimated cost of $4.5 million to supply the energy sold under PNM's voluntary renewable energy tariff. The plan will enable PNM to comply with the statutory RPS amount in 2013, but requires a variance from the NMPRC's diversity requirements in 2013 while the proposed geothermal facilities are being constructed. This plan is expected to achieve full RPS quantity and diversity compliance by 2014 without exceeding the RCT. The NMPRC approved the plan in December 2012, but reduced the supplemental solar PV procurement to 1.5 MW. PNM is recovering certain renewable procurement costs from customers through a rate rider. See Renewable Energy Rider below. Renewable Energy Rider In January 2012, PNM filed an application for a rate rider that PNM proposed would go into effect in August 2012 to collect costs for renewable energy procurements incurred after December 31, 2010 that are not otherwise being collected in rates. These costs include the procurement of solar RECs from customers, wind resource procurements during November and December 2011 as ordered by the NMPRC, and the revenue requirements for PNM-owned solar PV facilities and a solar battery storage demonstration project that went into service during 2011. The 2012 rider rate would be reset as of January 1, 2013 to reflect unrecovered costs from 2012 and projected costs to be incurred in 2013. The rider would terminate upon a final order in PNM's next general rate case unless that order authorized a continuation of the rider. Amounts collected under the rider are capped at $18.0 million in 2012 and $24.6 million in 2013 under the stipulation in PNM's 2010 Electric Rate Case. Any amounts above the caps are deferred for future recovery without carrying costs. As a separate component of the rider, if PNM's earned return on jurisdictional equity in 2013, adjusted for weather and other items not representative of normal operations, exceeds 10.5%, it must refund to customers during May through December 2014 the amount over 10.5%. On August 14, 2012, the NMPRC approved collection of renewable procurement costs through the rider on a per KWh basis. The approved rate is $0.0022335 per KWh in 2012 and $0.0028371 per KWh in 2013. The order disapproved the recovery of the cost of the supplemental procurement ordered by the NMPRC in the 2012 procurement plan case because the NMPRC had not yet acted on the specific $0.9 million procurement proposed by PNM, which is discussed under Renewable Portfolio Standard above. The NMPRC subsequently approved the supplemental procurement, but ordered that a hearing must be held on its inclusion in the rider. In October 2012, the NMPRC issued an order to clarify that no separate hearing is required prior to increasing the rider rate for new procurements if a legally appropriate hearing on the increase was conducted as part of the hearing on the procurement plan. PNM implemented the rider on August 20, 2012. Energy Efficiency and Load Management Program Costs Public utilities are required by the Efficient Use of Energy Act to achieve specified levels of energy savings and to obtain NMPRC approval to implement energy efficiency and load management. Costs to implement approved programs are recovered through a rate rider. In September 2010, PNM filed an energy efficiency program application for programs to be offered beginning July 1, 2011. The NMPRC issued an order in June 2011 that approved a rider recovery amount of $17.1 million in program costs. The new rider rate was effective with bills rendered July 27, 2011. In April 2011, PNM filed a reconciliation of energy efficiency program costs and collections as of December 31, 2010. Included in this filing was an adjustment of the adder amount to reflect the measured and verified savings for 2010 program participation in its 2010 Annual Electric Energy Efficiency Report, also filed in April 2011. PNM proposed an adjustment to the energy efficiency rider to recover an under-collected balance of $2.6 million. After an evidentiary hearing, the NMPRC issued an order in November 2011 that approved recovery of substantially all of the under-collected program costs. In October 2012, PNM filed an energy efficiency program application for programs to be offered beginning in May 2013. The filing included proposed program costs of $22.5 million plus a proposed profit incentive of $4.2 million. PNM requested that the NMPRC issue an order by April 1, 2013. Portions of the program plan and proposed profit incentive are opposed by other parties to the case. PNM subsequently revised its proposed profit incentive to $2.9 million. A hearing on the application was held in February 2013. PNM is not able to predict the outcome of this matter. Disincentives/Incentives Adder The Efficient Use of Energy Act requires the NMPRC to remove utility disincentives to implementing energy efficiency and load management programs and to provide incentives for such programs. A rule approved by the NMPRC authorized electric utilities to collect rate adders of $0.01 per KWh for lifetime energy savings and $10 per KW for demand savings related to energy efficiency and demand response programs beginning in 2010. The NMAG and NMIEC appealed the NMPRC order adopting this rule to the New Mexico Supreme Court. PNM began implementing a rate rider under the rule to collect adders related to its 2010 program savings in December 2010 while the appeal of the rule was pending. In July 2011, the Supreme Court annulled and vacated the order adopting the rule and remanded the matter to the NMPRC. As a result of the Supreme Court decision, PNM filed revised tariffs and ceased collecting this adder for 2010 program savings on August 21, 2011. Of the $4.2 million authorized for recovery, $2.6 million was collected through August 20, 2011. In June 2011, prior to the Supreme Court decision, the NMPRC approved PNM-specific adders of $0.002 per KWh and $4 per KW for savings due to programs implemented in 2011. PNM is presently collecting $1.3 million in adder revenues consistent with this order. After the Supreme Court decision vacating the rule, the NMPRC initiated a proceeding to determine whether PNM should be required to cease collecting the adders and to refund all adder revenues collected since December 2010. In November 2011, the NMPRC issued orders that PNM is not required to refund any adder revenues and is authorized to continue collecting the adders. However, in an order on rehearing, which it subsequently rescinded, the NMPRC further reduced the amount of the authorized adders. Prior to the rescission, PNM appealed the rehearing order to the Supreme Court. In March 2012, the Supreme Court granted PNM's motion to vacate the rehearing order and dismiss PNM's appeal. In a separate appeal and writ proceeding in the Supreme Court, NMIEC and the NMAG seek to overturn the NMPRC order allowing PNM to continue to collect adders in light of the 2011 Supreme Court decision. On May 21, 2012 the Supreme Court dismissed the writ proceeding. Oral argument in the appeal was held in December 2012 and a decision in the appeal is expected in 2013. PNM is unable to predict the outcome of the appeal. Decoupling Rulemaking On May 15, 2012, the NMPRC issued a NOPR that would have amended the NMPRC's energy efficiency rule to authorize use of a decoupling mechanism to recover certain fixed costs of providing retail electric service from the rates charged on a per KWh of consumption, as the mechanism for removal of disincentives associated with the implementation of energy efficiency programs. The proposed mechanism was generally consistent with the decoupling proposal that PNM included, and subsequently agreed to withdraw, in its 2010 Electric Rate Case. The proposed rule also addressed incentives associated with energy efficiency. On July 26, 2012, the NMPRC closed the proposed rulemaking and opened a new energy efficiency rulemaking docket that may address decoupling and incentives. Workshops to develop a proposed rule have been held, but no order proposing a rule has been issued. PNM is unable to predict the outcome of this matter. 2010 Electric Rate Case PNM filed its 2010 Electric Rate Case application with the NMPRC in June 2010 for rate increases totaling $165.2 million for all PNM retail customers to be effective April 1, 2011. The application proposed separate rate increases for customers served by TNMP prior to its acquisition by PNMR (“PNM South”) and other customers of PNM (“PNM North”). PNM also proposed to implement a FPPAC for PNM South. The filed revenue requirements were based on a future test period ending December 31, 2011. On August 21, 2011, PNM implemented a $72.1 million annual increase in rates as authorized by an order of the NMPRC, which modified a stipulation agreed to by PNM and several other parties. The amended stipulation allows PNM to file a new general rate case for rates to become effective on or after July 1, 2013 and limits the amount that can be recovered on an annual basis for fuel costs, renewable energy costs, and energy efficiency costs during certain years. Costs in excess of the limits are deferred, without carrying costs, for recovery in future periods. The caps are $38.8 million for the FPPAC year beginning July 1, 2012, which PNM began collecting at that time, and $36.2 million for the FPPAC year beginning July 1, 2013. PNM estimates that the caps will result in approximately $41.0 million of FPPAC costs being deferred for future collection at June 30, 2014. Costs attributed to the mine fire incident discussed in Note 16 are included in the FPPAC amounts. Possible recovery of costs through SJCC's insurance, also discussed in Note 16, is not reflected in the FPPAC amounts. As a result of the modified stipulation, PNM recorded pre-tax losses for the $10.0 million of fuel costs that will not be recovered through the FPPAC and $7.5 million for other costs that will not be recovered in rates. These amounts were recorded as of June 30, 2011 and are reflected as regulatory disallowances on PNM's Consolidated Statement of Earnings. 2011 Integrated Resource Plan NMPRC rules require that investor owned utilities file an IRP every three years. The IRP is required to cover a 20-year planning period and contain an action plan covering the first four years of that period. In its most recent IRP, which was filed in July 2011, PNM indicated that it planned to meet its anticipated load growth through a combination of new natural gas-fired generating plants, renewable energy resources, load management, and energy efficiency programs. However, PNM has not entered into any commitments regarding these plans beyond what is otherwise described herein. As required by NMPRC rules, PNM utilized a public advisory group process during the development of the 2011 IRP. Two protests were filed to the IRP requesting rejection of the plan. The NMPRC assigned the case to a Hearing Examiner and designated a mediator to facilitate negotiations. The NMPRC staff filed a motion in December 2011 to dismiss the protests and terminate the proceeding on the ground that PNM's IRP fully complies with NMPRC rules. PNM is unable to predict the outcome of this matter. 2008 Electric Rate Case In September 2008, PNM filed its 2008 Electric Rate Case requesting the NMPRC to approve an increase in electric service rates to all PNM retail customers except those formerly served by TNMP. In June 2009, the NMPRC approved a stipulation providing for an increase in annual non-fuel revenues of $77.1 million, of which 65% was implemented on July 1, 2009 and the remaining 35% was implemented on April 1, 2010. As an offset to the increase, PNM implemented a credit to customers totaling $26.3 million, representing past sales of SO 2 allowances. This amount was credited to ratepayers over 21 months beginning July 1, 2009. The stipulation also provided for a traditional FPPAC with 100% of off-systems sales margins being credited against costs in the FPPAC. The FPPAC factor is set annually. Under NMPRC rules, PNM must file an application for continued use of its FPPAC at least every four years. PNM anticipates making this continuation filing in May 2013. Emergency FPPAC In 2008, the NMPRC authorized PNM to implement an Emergency FPPAC from June 2, 2008 through June 30, 2009. The NMPRC order approving the Emergency FPPAC also provided that if PNM's base load generating units did not operate at or above a specified capacity factor and PNM was required to obtain replacement power to serve jurisdictional customers, PNM would be required to make a filing with the NMPRC seeking approval of the replacement power costs. In its required filing, PNM stated that the costs of the replacement power amounting to $8.0 million were prudently incurred and made a motion that they be approved. The NMPRC staff opposed PNM's motion and recommended that PNM be required to refund the amount collected. Auditors selected by the NMPRC found that PNM was prudent in operating its base load units and in securing replacement power but had not obtained prior NMPRC approval in the manner required by the NMPRC order. PNM continues to assert that its recovery of replacement power costs was proper and did not violate the NMPRC's order. The NMPRC has not ruled on this matter. Under the terms of the approved stipulation in the 2010 Electric Rate Case, the parties to the stipulation, including the NMPRC staff, jointly requested that the NMPRC take no further action in this matter and close the docket. No party has opposed that request. PNM is unable to predict the outcome of this matter. Applications for Approvals to Purchase Delta As discussed in Note 9, PNM has entered in to an agreement to purchase Delta, a 132 MW natural gas peaking unit from which PNM currently acquires energy and capacity under a PPA. The agreement to purchase Delta is subject to approvals by the NMPRC and FERC. On January 3, 2013, PNM filed an application with the NMPRC for a Certificate of Convenience and Necessity to own and operate Delta and for a determination of related ratemaking principles and treatment. PNM requested expedited consideration of the application so that a final order could be issued by May 31, 2013. The NMPRC has assigned the matter to a hearing examiner. A hearing on the application is scheduled to begin on May 13, 2013. PNM filed an application for approval of the Delta acquisition at FERC on January 24, 2013. FERC approved the purchase on February 26, 2013. PNM is unable to predict the outcome of this matter. Transmission Rate Case In October 2010, PNM filed a notice with FERC to increase its wholesale electric transmission revenues by $11.1 million annually, based on a return on equity of 12.25%. The filing also seeks to revise certain Open Access Transmission Tariff provisions and bi-lateral contractual terms. If approved, the rate increase would apply to all of PNM's wholesale electric transmission service customers, which include other utilities, electric cooperatives, and entities that use PNM's transmission system to transmit power at the wholesale level. The proposed rate increase would not impact PNM's retail customers. In December 2010, FERC issued an order accepting PNM's filing and suspending the proposed tariff revisions for five months. The proposed rates were implemented on June 1, 2011, subject to refund. On July 3, 2012, PNM filed an unopposed settlement agreement with the FERC. Under the settlement agreement, PNM would increase transmission service revenues by $2.9 million annually and would refund amounts collected in excess of the settled rates. In addition, the parties agreed that if PNM files for a formula based rate change within one year from FERC's approval of the settlement agreement, no party will oppose the general principle of a formula rate, although the parties may still object to particular aspects of the formula. On January 2, 2013, FERC approved the settlement agreement. PNM refunded amounts collected in excess of the settled rates in January 2013. Formula Transmission Rate Case On December 31, 2012, PNM filed a request with FERC for a $3.2 million wholesale electric transmission rate increase, based on a 10.81% return on equity and authority to adjust transmission rates annually based on an approved formula. The proposed $3.2 million rate increase is in addition to the $2.9 million rate increase approved by the FERC on January 2, 2013 in the transmission rate case discussed above. If approved, the request would apply to all of PNM's wholesale electric transmission service customers, which include other utilities, electric cooperatives, and entities that use PNM's transmission system to transmit power at the wholesale level. The request would not impact PNM's retail customers. PNM has requested FERC approval by March 2013. PNM anticipates that FERC will allow rates to go into effect, subject to refund, in the third quarter of 2013. Firm-Requirements Wholesale Customer Rate Case In September 2011, PNM filed an unexecuted amended sales agreement between PNM and NEC with FERC. The agreement proposes a cost of service based rate for the electric service and ancillary services PNM provides to NEC, which would result in an annual increase of $8.7 million or a 39.8% increase over existing rates. PNM also requested a FPPAC and full recovery of certain third-party transmission charges PNM incurs to serve NEC. NEC filed a protest to PNM's filing with FERC. In November 2011, FERC issued an order accepting the filing, suspending the effective date for a five-month period, to be effective April 14, 2012, subject to refund, and set the proceeding for settlement. The parties have finalized a settlement agreement and PNM filed for the necessary FERC approval on December 6, 2012. The settlement agreement would result in an annual increase of $5.3 million, an extension of the contract for 10 years, and an agreement that PNM will be able to file an application for formula based rates to be effective in 2015. On January 23, 2013, the FERC settlement judge certified the settlement agreement and approval is pending before FERC. PNM is unable to predict the outcome of this proceeding. TNMP Interest Rate Compliance Tariff Following a revision of the interest rate on TNMP's CTC, TNMP filed a compliance tariff to implement the new lower 8.31% rate. Intervenors asserted objections and, after regulatory proceedings, the PUCT issued an order making the new rate retroactive to July 20, 2006. Ultimately, the Texas 3 rd Court of Appeals reaffirmed the PUCT's decision. Due to the new retroactive ratemaking theory contained in the Texas 3 rd Court of Appeals opinion, TNMP recorded a pre-tax regulatory disallowance of $3.9 million in 2011 to reflect the impact of applying the 8.31% rate retroactively. In June 2012, the Texas Supreme Court denied TNMP's petition for review. TNMP filed a motion for rehearing, which was denied in August 2012 concluding this matter. 2010 Rate Case In August 2010, TNMP filed with the PUCT for a $20.1 million increase in revenues. In January 2011, the PUCT approved a settlement that provided for a revenue increase of $10.25 million, a return on equity of 10.125%, and a hypothetical 55%/45% debt-equity capital structure. The PUCT approved the settlement in January 2011. TNMP implemented the new rates on February 1, 2011. 2010 Rate Case Expense Proceeding The determination of the amount of reasonable rate case expenses incurred by TNMP and other parties in TNMP's 2010 Rate Case was severed into a separate proceeding. The parties agreed to a settlement of the case, which was approved by the PUCT in May 2011. TNMP began collecting $2.8 million over three years on July 1, 2011. Advanced Meter System Deployment and Surcharge Request In July 2011, the PUCT approved a settlement and authorized an advanced meter deployment plan that permits TNMP to collect $113.3 million in deployment costs through a surcharge over a 12-year period. TNMP began collecting the surcharge on August 11, 2011. Deployment of advanced meters began in September 2011 and is scheduled to be completed over a 5-year period. In February 2012, the PUCT opened a proceeding to consider the feasibility of an “opt-out” program for retail consumers that wish to decline receipt of an advanced meter. The PUCT has requested comments and convened a public meeting to hear various issues. No proposal or decision has yet been announced by the PUCT. However, various individuals filed a petition with the PUCT seeking a moratorium on any advanced meter deployment. The PUCT denied the petition and an appeal was filed with the Texas District Court on September 28, 2012. Any opt-out program would apply to all transmission and distribution utilities in ERCOT. TNMP cannot predict the outcome or effect of this proceeding. Remand of ERCOT Transmission Rates for 1999 and 2000 Following a variety of appeals, the ERCOT transmission rates approved in 1999 and 2000 were remanded back to the PUCT. These dockets concern the recalculation of rates for the fourth quarter of 1999 and all of 2000. In October 2011, TNMP joined in a non-unanimous settlement of the issues relating to resettlement of the last four months of 1999. In January 2012, the PUCT approved the non-unanimous settlement. TNMP received $1.6 million under the settlement. In June 2012, TNMP filed its transmission cost recovery factor filing (“TCRF") seeking $3.2 million in additional transmission costs. The PUCT staff requested a hearing asserting the settlement proceeds from the 1999 remand settlement need to be credited against the costs TNMP requested in its TCRF. TNMP maintains that the settlement proceeds should not be passed on to customers since TNMP was unable to recover those costs in 1999. Subsequently, the PUCT staff agreed to interim rate relief permitting TNMP to add $1.6 million in uncontested costs to its existing TCRF and add $1.6 million in costs in a subsequent TCRF if TNMP is successful in the contested case. The ALJ approved the interim relief on July 16, 2012. TNMP implemented the interim rates on September 1, 2012. On September 26, 2012, the contested portion of the case was remanded back to the PUCT pursuant to an agreed resolution that permits the $1.6 million in interim rates to become final and authorizes TNMP to institute a surcharge in March 2013 to collect the additional $1.6 million in initially disputed costs plus interest at the PUCT under-billing rate. The PUCT approved the joint resolution on November 19, 2012. Energy Efficiency TNMP recovers the costs of its energy efficiency programs through an energy efficiency cost recovery factor. The PUCT approved TNMP's collection of its 2010 energy efficiency program costs of $2.6 million over 11 months beginning February 1, 2010. Recovery of the 2011 program costs of $2.7 million were approved for collection beginning January 1, 2011. In September 2011, the PUCT approved a settlement that allows TNMP to collect the estimated 2012 energy efficiency program costs of $3.4 million and a $0.3 million bonus for 2010. TNMP's new rates were effective January 1, 2012. On August 28, 2012, the PUCT approved a settlement that permits TNMP to collect estimated 2013 program costs of $4.8 million, plus recovery of an aggregate of $0.4 million in under-collected costs from prior years, case expenses, and a performance bonus for 2011. Transmission Cost of Service Rates TNMP can update its transmission rates twice per year to reflect changes in its invested capital. Updated rates reflect the addition and retirement of transmission facilities, including appropriate depreciation, federal income tax and other associated taxes, and the approved rate of return on such facilities. In March 2010, TNMP filed an application to update its transmission rates to reflect changes in its invested capital. The requested increase in total rate base is $33.8 million, with a total revenue requirement increase of $5.5 million. The PUCT approved the interim adjustment on May 14, 2010. On August 23, 2012, TNMP filed an application to update its transmission rates to reflect changes in its invested capital. The application reflected an increase in total rate base of $26.4 million and requested an increase in revenues of $2.5 million annually. The application reflected the addition and retirement of transmission facilities, including depreciation, federal income tax, and other associated taxes, and the approved rate of return on such facilities. The PUCT approved the interim adjustment and TNMP implemented it on September 27, 2012. On January 31, 2013, TNMP filed an application to further update its transmission rates to reflect changes in its invested capital. The requested increase in total rate base is $21.9 million, which will increase revenues $2.9 million annually. The proposed rates reflect the addition and retirement of transmission facilities, including depreciation, federal income tax, and other associated taxes, and the approved rate of return on such facilities. The application is pending before the PUCT and TNMP cannot predict the outcome of this matter. Periodic Distribution Rate Adjustment In September 2011, the PUCT approved a new rule permitting interim rate adjustments to reflect changes in investments in distribution assets. The rule permits distribution utilities to file for a periodic rate adjustment between April 1 through April 8 of each year as long as the electric utility is not earning more than its authorized rate of return using weather-normalized data.

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

X
- Details
Name: | us-gaap_RegulatedOperationsAbstract
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | xbrli:stringItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration