XML 54 R25.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT
v2.4.0.8

Regulatory and Rate Matters | 12 Months Ended
--- | ---
Dec. 31, 2013
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.” Prior to December 2012, the diversity requirements were 20% from wind energy, 20% from solar energy, 10% from other renewable technologies, and 1.5% from distributed generation with the distributed generation component increasing to 3% in 2015. In December 2012, the NMPRC issued an order that amended the diversity requirements to 30% wind, 20% solar, 5% other, and 1.5% distributed generation, increasing to 3% in 2015, and adopted other changes to its renewable energy rule, including the increase in the RCT discussed below. In December 2013, the NMPRC modified the RCT calculation to establish a two to one REC weighting for renewable energy from the non-wind/non-solar category, such as geothermal resources. This weighting applies to future procurement approved and brought into service after December 18, 2013. The NMPRC has granted motions for rehearing of amendments in order to address the merits of the motions. The REA provides for streamlined proceedings for approval of utilities’ renewable energy procurement plans, assures utilities that they recover costs incurred consistent with approved procurement plans, and requires the NMPRC to establish a RCT for the procurement of renewable resources to prevent excessive costs being added to rates. The NMPRC established a RCT for 2011 of 2% of all customers’ aggregated overall annual electric charges that increased by 0.25% annually until reaching 3% in 2015. 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. 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. The NMPRC rejected PNM’s proposed REC-only purchase and ordered PNM to acquire actual renewable energy and the associated RECs. An appeal of the order was dismissed by the New Mexico Supreme Court. PNM made the required renewable energy procurement and is recovering those costs through the renewable rider discussed below. 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 is recovering the costs of the supplemental procurements through the renewable rider discussed below. The NMPRC 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 PPA for the output of the new 10 MW Lightning Dock Geothermal facility. The plan also included an additional procurement of 2 MW of PNM-owned solar PV facilities at an estimated cost of $4.5 million to supply the energy sold under PNM’s voluntary renewable energy tariff. The plan would enable PNM to comply with the statutory RPS in 2013, but required a variance from the NMPRC’s diversity requirements in 2013 while the proposed geothermal facilities were being constructed. The NMPRC approved the plan in December 2012, but reduced the additional solar PV procurement from 2 MW to 1.5 MW. In 2013, PNM made renewable procurements consistent with the 2013 plan approved by the NMPRC. Construction of the solar PV facilities was completed in 2013 at a cost of $48.9 million. The geothermal facility began providing power to PNM in January 2014. The current output of the facility is 4 MW and future expansion may result in up to 10 MW of generation capacity. PNM does not believe this delay will affect its ability to comply with its 2014 non-wind/non-solar diversity requirements, as amended in December 2012. PNM filed its 2014 renewable energy procurement plan on July 1, 2013. The plan meets RPS and diversity requirements within the RCT in 2014 and 2015. PNM’s proposed procurements include 50,000 MWh of wind generated RECs in 2014, the construction by December 31, 2014 of 23 MW of PNM-owned solar PV facilities at a cost of $46.7 million, a 20-year PPA for the output of Red Mesa Wind, an existing wind facility having an aggregate capacity of 102 MW beginning January 1, 2015 at a first year cost estimated to be $5.8 million, and the purchase of 120,000 MWh of wind RECs in 2015. The NMPRC approved the plan on December 18, 2013. PNM is recovering certain renewable procurement costs from customers through a rate rider. See Renewable Energy Rider below. Renewable Energy Rider On August 14, 2012, the NMPRC authorized PNM to recover certain renewable procurement costs through a rate rider billed on a per KWh basis. The approved rates were $0.0022335 per KWh in 2012 and $0.0028371 per KWh in 2013. The order disapproved the recovery of the cost of a supplemental REC 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. The NMPRC subsequently approved the supplemental REC procurement, but ordered that a hearing be held prior to inclusion of the costs in the rider. Upon NMPRC approval, PNM implemented the rider on August 20, 2012. The rider will terminate upon a final order in PNM’s next general rate case unless the NMPRC authorizes PNM to continue it. Amounts collected under the rider were capped at $18.0 million in 2012 and $24.6 million in 2013, which amounts were not exceeded. 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, exceeded 10.5%, which did not occur, PNM would have been required to refund the amount over 10.5% to customers during May through December 2014. In compliance with the NMPRC’s rate rider order, PNM filed a notice to implement an increase in the current rider rate effective with May 2013 bills. On May 15, 2013, the NMPRC approved the requested increase. PNM implemented the new rate of $0.0030468 per KWh on May 28, 2013. In its 2014 renewable energy procurement plan described above, PNM proposed to increase the rider rate to $0.0044391 effective January 1, 2014. This increase was approved by the NMPRC on December 18, 2013. 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 programs. Costs to implement approved programs are recovered through a rate rider. In 2013, this act was amended to set an annual program budget equal to 3% of an electric utility’s annual revenue. 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. After a hearing, the NMPRC issued an order in November 2011 that authorized recovery of substantially all of the $2.6 million in 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 subsequently revised its proposed profit incentive to $2.9 million. The NMPRC approved PNM’s program application and an annual profit incentive of $1.7 million on November 6, 2013. Disincentives/Incentives 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. In 2010 PNM began implementing a NMPRC rule that authorized electric utilities to collect rate adders to remove disincentives and to provide incentives for energy and demand savings related to energy efficiency and demand response programs. In July 2011, the New Mexico 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 incentives for savings due to programs implemented in 2011. PNM collected approximately $1.3 million, on an annual basis, in incentive revenues through November 2013 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 PNM-specific incentives and to refund such revenues collected since December 2010. In November 2011, the NMPRC issued orders that PNM was not required to refund any incentive revenues and is authorized to continue collecting the incentives. However, in an order on rehearing, which it subsequently rescinded, the NMPRC reduced the amount of the PNM-specific incentives. In March 2012, the Supreme Court granted PNM’s motion to vacate the rehearing order and dismissed PNM’s appeal. In a separate appeal and writ proceeding in the Supreme Court, NMIEC and the NMAG sought to overturn the NMPRC order allowing PNM to continue to collect incentives in light of the 2011 Supreme Court decision. On May 21, 2012, the Supreme Court dismissed the writ proceeding. On September 20, 2013, the Supreme Court affirmed the NMPRC’s decision authorizing the PNM-specific incentives and remanded the case to the NMPRC. On October 2, 2013, the NMPRC closed the docket. On March 27, 2013, PNM filed its reconciliation for actual energy efficiency program costs, associated incentives, and actual collections for calendar year 2012. The reconciliation filing showed a net over-recovery of $0.2 million, composed of an over-recovery of $1.0 million of program costs and an under-recovery of incentives of $0.8 million. PNM subsequently revised the estimated incentive under-recovery to $0.5 million. PNM and the NMPRC staff filed a motion seeking to substitute the new reconciliation filing with a proposed effective date of May 28, 2013. On April 24, 2013, the NMPRC issued an order granting the motion. PNM implemented the new rate on May 28, 2013. Energy Efficiency Rulemaking On May 17, 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 as the mechanism for removal of disincentives associated with the implementation of energy efficiency programs. 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. On October 2, 2013, the NMPRC issued a NOPR and a proposed rule to implement amendments to the New Mexico Efficient Use of Energy Act. Included in the proposed rule is a provision that would limit incentive awards to an amount equal to the product (expressed in dollars) of the utility’s WACC (expressed as a percent) and its approved annual program costs. The NMPRC received comments and a public hearing was held on November 20, 2013. 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 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 fuel cost 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 $48.6 million of FPPAC costs being deferred for future collection at June 30, 2014. This amount reflects the pending settlement in the FPPAC Continuation Application case discussed below. The portion of the costs and insurance recovery attributable to customers covered by the FPPAC resulting from the mine fire incident discussed in Note 16 are included 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. FPPAC Continuation Application Pursuant to the rules of the NMPRC, public utilities are required to file an application to continue using their FPPAC every four years. On May 28, 2013, PNM filed the required continuation application and requested that its current FPPAC be modified to increase the reset frequency of the fuel factor from annually to quarterly, to allow PNM to retain 10% of its off-system sales margin, and to apply the same carrying charge rate to both over and under collections in the balancing account. On December 20, 2013, a stipulated agreement was filed that would resolve this case. The settlement would allow PNM to retain 10% of off-system sales margin from July 1, 2013 through December 31, 2016, would resolve all costs related to the San Juan Coal mine fire discussed in Note 16, resolve the ratemaking treatment for the coal pre-treatment at SJGS until the next rate case, require PNM to write-off $10.5 million of the under-collected balance in its FPPAC balancing account, and require PNM to extend the recovery of the remaining under-collected balance over 18 months beginning July 1, 2014. PNM recorded the $10.5 million write-off as a regulatory disallowance in 2013. A public hearing on the stipulation was held on February 25, 2014. The hearing examiner stated at the hearing’s conclusion that he would recommend approval of the settlement in its entirety to the NMPRC. PNM is unable to predict the outcome of this proceeding. 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. 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. On September 18, 2013, the NMPRC issued an order that closed the docket on the 2011 IRP. PNM has initiated the process to prepare its 2014 IRP. Public participation meetings have been held. The 2014 IRP is scheduled to be filed at the NMPRC by June 30, 2014. 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 opposed that request. Although the NMPRC has not acted on the joint request, the NMPRC electronic docket shows the docket closed. 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 required approvals by the NMPRC and FERC. On June 26, 2013, the NMPRC granted PNM’s CCN application and approved PNM’s proposed ratemaking treatment. FERC approved the purchase on February 26, 2013. Closing on the purchase will occur once certain environmental issues are resolved. Application for Approval of La Luz Generating Station On May 17, 2013, PNM filed an application with the NMPRC for a CCN to construct, own, and operate a 40 MW gas-fired generating facility near Belen, New Mexico. The application also requested a determination of related ratemaking principles and treatment. The facility is expected to cost approximately $63.2 million and go into service in the first quarter of 2016. PNM has entered into a contract for purchase of the turbine to be used for this project and a separate contract for the construction of the facility on a turn-key basis. Both contracts allow PNM to cancel if NMPRC approval is not obtained. On February 20, 2014, a stipulated agreement was filed that would resolve the case. The parties to the stipulation are PNM, the NMPRC staff, and another intervenor. The parties to the stipulation agree that a CCN should be granted and establishes a rate base value of up to $56 million for the facility. PNM is unable to predict the outcome of this matter. San Juan Generating Station Units 2 and 3 Retirement As discussed in Note 16, on December 20, 2013, PNM filed an application at the NMPRC to retire SJGS Units 2 and 3 on December 31, 2016. In that application, PNM also seeks approval to recover the net book value of SJGS Units 2 and 3 at the date of retirement, for a CCN to include PNM’s share of PVNGS Unit 3 as a resource to serve New Mexico consumers, authority to install SNCRs on SJGS Units 1 and 4, and a CCN to exchange 78 MW in SJGS for the same amount of capacity in SJGS Unit 4. PNM will also make an application at FERC to seek approval of the restructured SJGS participation agreements. PNM requested the NMPRC issue its final ruling on the application no later than December 2014. A public hearing on the application has been scheduled to commence on August 19, 2014. 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 sought to revise certain Open Access Transmission Tariff provisions and bi-lateral contractual terms. 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. The rate increase applied 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 rate increase did not impact PNM’s retail customers. On January 2, 2013, FERC approved an unopposed settlement agreement, which increases transmission service revenues by $2.9 million annually. In addition, the parties agreed that if PNM files for a formula based rate change within one year from FERC’s approval of the settlement agreement, no party will oppose the general principle of a formula rate, although the parties may still object to particular aspects of the formula. PNM refunded amounts collected in excess of the settled rates in January 2013 concluding this matter. Formula Transmission Rate Case On December 31, 2012, PNM filed an application with FERC for authorization to move from charging stated rates for wholesale electric transmission service to a formula rate mechanism pursuant to which rates for wholesale transmission service are calculated annually in accordance with an approved formula. The proposed formula includes updating cost of service components, including investment in plant and operating expenses, based on information contained in PNM’s annual financial report filed with FERC, as well as including projected large transmission capital projects to be placed into service in the following year. The projections included are subject to true-up in the following year formula rate. Certain items, including changes to return on equity and depreciation rates, require a separate filing to be made with FERC before being included in the formula rate. The rates resulting from PNM’s application are intended to replace the rates approved by the FERC on January 2, 2013 in the transmission rate case discussed above. As filed, PNM’s request would result in a $3.2 million wholesale electric transmission rate increase, based on PNM’s 2011 data and 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 would be in addition to the $2.9 million rate increase approved by the FERC on January 2, 2013. On March 1, 2013, FERC issued an order (1) accepting PNM’s revisions to its rates for filing and suspending the proposed revisions to become effective August 2, 2013, subject to refund; (2) directing PNM to submit a compliance filing to establish its return-on-equity (“ROE”) using the median, rather than the mid-point, of the ROEs from a proxy group of companies; (3) directing PNM to submit a compliance filing to remove from its rate proposal the acquisition adjustment related to PNM’s 60% ownership of the EIP transmission line, which was acquired in 2003 ; and (4) setting the proceeding for hearing and settlement judge procedures. PNM would be allowed to make a separate filing related to recovery of the EIP acquisition adjustment. On April 1, 2013, PNM made the required compliance filing. In addition, PNM filed for rehearing of FERC’s order regarding the ROE. On June 3, 2013, PNM made additional filings incorporating final 2012 data into the formula rate request. The updated formula rate would result in a $1.3 million rate increase over the rates approved by FERC on January 2, 2013. The new rates will apply to all of PNM’s wholesale electric transmission service customers. The new rates will not apply to PNM’s retail customers. On June 10, 2013, FERC denied PNM’s motion for rehearing regarding FERC’s order requiring PNM to use the median, instead of the midpoint, to calculate its ROE for the formula rate case. On August 2, 2013, the new rates went into effect, subject to refund. Settlement negotiations are ongoing concerning issues in this proceeding. PNM is unable to predict the outcome of this proceeding. Firm-Requirements Wholesale Customers Navopache Electric Cooperative, Inc. Rate Case In September 2011, PNM filed an unexecuted amended sales agreement between PNM and NEC with FERC. The agreement proposed 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 to be effective April 14, 2012, subject to refund, and set the proceeding for settlement. The parties finalized a settlement agreement and PNM filed for the necessary FERC approval on December 6, 2012. The settlement agreement provided for 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 April 5, 2013, FERC approved the settlement agreement. PNM has refunded the amounts collected in excess of the settled rates concluding this matter. City of Gallup, New Mexico Contract PNM provides both energy and power services to Gallup, PNM’s second largest firm-requirements wholesale customer, under an electric service agreement that was to expire on June 30, 2013. On May 1, 2013, PNM and Gallup agreed to extend the term of the agreement to June 30, 2014 and to increase the demand and energy rates under the agreement. On May 1, 2013, PNM requested FERC approval of the amended agreement to be effective July 1, 2013. On June 21, 2013, FERC approved the amended agreement. Revenue from Gallup will have increased by $3.1 million during the term of the amended agreement. On September 26, 2013, Gallup issued a request for proposals for long-term power supply. PNM submitted a proposal in November 2013. On January 13, 2014, PNM was notified that its proposal was not the highest ranked. Gallup has stated that a contract is being negotiated with the top-ranked bidder. If those negotiations do not result in the execution of a contract, Gallup could enter into negotiations with PNM or others. If a contract is executed with the top-ranked bidder, PNM’s contract with Gallup would expire on June 30, 2014. PNM’s 2013 revenues for power sold under the Gallup contract were $11.7 million. PNM is unable to predict the outcome of this matter. 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 target 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 In July 2011, the PUCT approved a settlement and authorized an AMS 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. 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. On February 21, 2013, the PUCT filed a proposed rule to permit customers to opt-out of the AMS deployment. The PUCT adopted a rule on August 15, 2013 creating a non-standard metering service for retail customers choosing to decline standard metering service via an advanced meter. The cost of providing non-standard metering service will be borne by opt-out customers through an initial fee and ongoing monthly charge. All transmission and distribution utilities in ERCOT are required to initiate proceedings to establish these charges. On September 30, 2013, TNMP filed an application to set the initial fee and monthly charges to be assessed for non-standard metering service provided to those retail customers who choose to decline the advanced meter necessary for standard metering service. TNMP’s filing seeks recovery of $0.2 million through proposed initial fees ranging from $142.84 to $247.48. An additional $0.5 million in ongoing expenses would be recovered via a proposed monthly charge of $38.99. A hearing on this matter is scheduled for April 8, 2014. TNMP cannot predict the outcome of this proceeding although TNMP does not expect it to have a material impact on its financial position, results of operations, or cash flows. 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 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. TNMP’s new rates were effective January 1, 2013. On May 15, 2013, TNMP filed its 2014 energy efficiency cost recovery factor application with the PUCT. The application seeks approval to collect $5.6 million, which includes $4.7 million in estimated program expenses for 2014, a $0.7 million performance bonus for 2012, a refund of $0.1 million over collection of energy savings expenses for the 2012 program year, and case expenses. In July 2013, the parties filed a settlement to permit TNMP to collect the substantially all of the requested $5.6 million beginning March 1, 2014. The settlement was approved by the PUCT on October 25, 2013. 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. 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 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 PUCT ALJ approved TNMP’s interim transmission cost of service filing and rates went into effect with bills rendered on March 20, 2013. On August 1, 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 $18.1 million, which would increase revenues by $2.8 million annually. The PUCT ALJ approved TNMP’s interim transmission cost of service filing and rates went into effect with bills rendered on September 17, 2013. On January 21, 2014, TNMP filed an application to further update its transmission rates resulting from changes in its invested capital. The requested increase in total rate base is $18.2 million, which would increase revenues by $2.9 million annually. TNMP has requested approval by March 23, 2014. 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 and 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. Consolidated Tax Savings Adjustment On June 14, 2013, the Governor of Texas signed into law a bill eliminating the consolidated tax savings adjustment (“CTSA”) from electric utility ratemaking in Texas. Previously, the CTSA required electric utilities to artificially reduce their respective tax expenses due to the losses incurred by their affiliates. The bill became effective on September 1, 2013.

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