XML 75 R19.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT
v2.4.1.9

Commitments and Contingencies | 3 Months Ended
--- | ---
Mar. 31, 2015
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract] |
Commitments and Contingencies | Commitments and Contingencies Overview There are various claims and lawsuits pending against the Company. The Company also is 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. Also, the Company is involved in various legal and regulatory (Note 12) 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 and regulatory 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. Nevertheless, the Company assesses legal and regulatory matters based on current information and makes 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. Except as otherwise disclosed, 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 2014 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 of these requirements. In November 1997, the D.C. Circuit issued a decision preventing the DOE from excusing its own delay, but refused to order the DOE to begin accepting spent nuclear fuel. Based on this decision and the DOE’s delay, a number of utilities, including APS (on behalf of itself and the other PVNGS owners, including PNM), filed damages actions against the DOE in the Court of Federal Claims. In 2010, the court ordered an award to the PVNGS owners for their damages claim for costs incurred through December 2006. APS filed a subsequent lawsuit, on behalf of itself and the other PVNGS owners, against DOE in the Court of Federal Claims on December 19, 2012. The lawsuit alleged that from January 1, 2007 through June 30, 2011, additional damages were incurred due to DOE’s continuing failure to remove spent nuclear fuel and high level waste from PVNGS. APS and DOE entered into a settlement agreement, and on October 7, 2014, APS received a settlement payment of $57.4 million for costs paid through June 30, 2011, for DOE’s failure to accept spent nuclear fuel generated at PVNGS. PNM’s share of the settlement is $5.9 million, substantially all of which is credited back to PNM’s customers. The settlement agreement also establishes a process for the payment of subsequent claims through December 31, 2016. Under the settlement agreement, APS must submit claims annually for payment of allowable costs. On October 31, 2014, APS submitted a claim for costs paid between July 1, 2011 and June 30, 2014 and agreed to a settlement amount of $42.0 million in March 2015. PNM’s share of the settlement, which amounted to $4.3 million, including $3.1 million credited back to PNM’s customers, was recorded in the three months ended March 31, 2015. The settlement agreement terminates upon payment of costs paid through December 31, 2016, unless extended by mutual written agreement. PNM estimates that it will incur approximately $58.0 million (in 2013 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 March 31, 2015 and December 31, 2014, PNM had a liability for interim storage costs of $12.4 million and $12.3 million included in other deferred credits. On June 8, 2012, 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 and temporary storage rule (the “Waste Confidence Decision”). The D.C. Circuit found that the 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 NRC’s actions. The D.C. Circuit found that the NRC’s evaluation of the environmental risks from spent nuclear fuel was deficient, and therefore remanded the Waste Confidence Decision update for further action consistent with NEPA. On September 6, 2012, the NRC commissioners issued a directive to the NRC staff to proceed with development of a generic EIS to support an updated Waste Confidence Decision. The NRC commissioners also directed the staff to establish a schedule to publish a final rule and environmental impact study within 24 months of September 6, 2012. In September 2013, the NRC issued its draft generic EIS to support an updated Waste Confidence Decision. On August 26, 2014, the NRC approved a final rule on the environmental effects of continued storage of spent nuclear fuel. The continued storage rule adopted the findings of the generic EIS regarding the environmental impacts of storing spent fuel at any reactor site after the reactor’s licensed period of operations. As a result, those generic impacts do not need to be re-analyzed in the environmental reviews for individual licenses. Although PVNGS had not been involved in any licensing actions affected by the D.C. Circuit’s June 8, 2012 decision, the NRC lifted its suspension on final licensing actions on all nuclear power plant licenses and renewals that went into effect when the D.C. Circuit issued its June 2012 decision. The August 2014 final rule has been subject to continuing legal challenges before the NRC and the United States Court of Appeals. PNM is unable to predict the outcome of this matter. PVNGS has sufficient capacity at its on-site ISFSI to store all of the nuclear fuel that will be irradiated during the initial operating license period, which ends in December 2027. Additionally, PVNGS has sufficient capacity at its on-site ISFSI to store a portion of the fuel that will be irradiated during the period of extended operation, which ends in November 2047. If uncertainties regarding the United States government’s obligation to accept and store spent fuel are not favorably resolved, APS will evaluate alternative storage solutions that may obviate the need to expand the ISFSI to accommodate all of the fuel that will be irradiated during the period of extended operation. In 2011, the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners and the Nuclear Energy Institute challenged DOE’s 2010 determination of the adequacy of the one tenth of a cent per KWh fee (the “one-mill fee”) paid by the nation’s commercial nuclear power plant owners pursuant to their individual contracts with the DOE. In June 2012, the D.C. Circuit held that DOE failed to conduct a sufficient fee analysis in making the 2010 determination. The D.C. Circuit remanded the 2010 determination to the DOE with instructions to conduct a new fee adequacy determination within six months. In February 2013, upon completion of DOE’s revised one-mill fee adequacy determination, the court reopened the proceedings. On November 19, 2013, the D.C. Circuit ordered the DOE to notify Congress of DOE’s intention to suspend collecting annual fees for nuclear waste disposal from nuclear power plant operators. On January 3, 2014, the DOE notified Congress of its intention to suspend collection of the one-mill fee, subject to Congress’ disapproval. On May 16, 2014, the DOE adjusted the fee to zero. PNM anticipates challenges to this action and is unable to predict its ultimate outcome. 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. Pursuant to the CAA, states have the primary role to regulate visibility requirements by promulgating SIPs. 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, EPA promulgated its final regional haze rule guidelines for states to conduct BART determinations for certain covered 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 by 2018. SJGS BART Determination Process – SJGS is a source that is subject to the statutory obligations of the CAA to reduce visibility impacts. The State of New Mexico submitted its SIP on the regional haze and interstate transport elements of the visibility rules for review by EPA in June 2011. The SIP found that BART to reduce NOx emissions from SJGS is selective non-catalytic reduction technology (“SNCR”). Nevertheless, in August 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 required installation of selective catalytic reduction technology (“SCR”) on all four units by September 21, 2016. In November 2012, EPA approved all components of the SIP, except for the NOx BART determination for SJGS, which continued to be subject to the FIP. PNM, the Governor of New Mexico, and NMED petitioned the Tenth Circuit to review EPA’s decision and requested EPA to reconsider its decision. The Tenth Circuit denied petitions to stay the effective date of the rule. These parties also formally asked EPA to stay the effective date of the rule. Several environmental groups intervened in support of EPA. The parties file periodic status reports with the Tenth Circuit, but proceedings are being held in abeyance as agreed to by the parties. During 2012 and early 2013, PNM, as the operating agent for SJGS, engaged in discussions with NMED and EPA regarding an alternative to the FIP and SIP. Following approval by a majority of the other SJGS owners, PNM, NMED, and EPA agreed on February 15, 2013 to pursue a revised BART path to comply with federal visibility rules at SJGS. The terms of the non-binding agreement would result in the retirement of SJGS Units 2 and 3 by the end of 2017 and the installation of SNCRs on Units 1 and 4 by the later of January 31, 2016 or 15 months after EPA approval of a revised SIP. In accordance with the revised plan, PNM submitted a new BART analysis to NMED on April 1, 2013 and NMED developed a RSIP, both of which reflect the terms of the non-binding agreement. The EIB approved the RSIP in September 2013 and it was submitted to EPA for approval in October 2013. Final rules approving the RSIP and withdrawing the FIP were published in the Federal Register on October 9, 2014 and became effective on November 10, 2014. Conversion of SJGS Units 1 and 4 to balanced draft technology (“BDT”) is included with the installation of SNCRs in the RSIP. The requirement to install BDT was made binding and enforceable in the NSR permit that accompanied the RSIP submitted to the EPA. EPA’s rule approving the RSIP specifically references the NSR permit by including a condition that requires “modification of the fan systems on Units 1 and 4 to achieve ‘balanced’ draft configuration ….” Implementation Activities – Due to the compliance deadline set forth in the FIP, PNM took steps to commence installation of SCRs at SJGS. In October 2012, PNM entered into a contract with an engineering, procurement, and construction contractor to install SCRs on behalf of the SJGS owners. At the time PNM entered into the contract, PNM estimated the total cost to install SCRs on all four units of SJGS to be between approximately $824 million and $910 million. The costs for the project to install SCRs would encompass installation of BDT equipment to comply with the NAAQS requirements described below. The construction contract was terminated in December 2014 following approval of the RSIP by EPA. Also, PNM had previously indicated it estimated the cost of SNCRs on all four units of SJGS to be between approximately $85 million and $90 million based on a conceptual design study. Along with the SNCR installation, additional BDT equipment would be required to be installed to meet the NAAQS requirements described below, the cost of which had been estimated to total between approximately $105 million and $110 million for all four units of SJGS. The above estimates include gross receipts taxes, AFUDC, and other PNM costs. Based upon its current SJGS ownership interest, PNM’s share of the costs described above would have been about 46.3%. Following the February 2013 development of the alternative BART compliance plan, PNM began taking steps to prepare for the potential installation of SNCR and BDT equipment on Units 1 and 4 due to the long lead times on certain equipment purchases. In May 2013, PNM entered into an equipment and related services contract with a technology provider. In July 2014, PNM entered into a contract for management of the construction and in September 2014 entered into a construction and procurement contract. Installation of SNCRs and BDT on SJGS Unit 1 was completed in April 2015 and PNM anticipates that installation of SNCRs and BDT on Unit 4 can be completed within the timeframe contained in the RSIP. NMPRC Filing – On December 20, 2013, PNM made a filing with the NMPRC requesting certain approvals necessary to effectuate the RSIP. In this filing, PNM requested:
• | Permission to retire SJGS Units 2 and 3 at December 31, 2017 and to recover over 20 years their net book value at that date along with a regulated return on those costs
• | A CCN to include PNM’s ownership of PVNGS Unit 3, amounting to 134 MW, as a resource to serve New Mexico retail customers at a proposed value of $2,500 per KW, effective January 1, 2018
• | An order allowing cost recovery for PNM’s share of the installation of SNCR and BDT equipment to comply with NAAQS requirements on SJGS Units 1 and 4, not to exceed a total cost of $82 million
• | A CCN for an exchange of capacity out of SJGS Unit 3 and into SJGS Unit 4, resulting in ownership of an additional 78 MW in Unit 4 for PNM; the net impact of this exchange and the retirement of Units 2 and 3 would have been a reduction of 340 MW in PNM’s ownership of SJGS
The December 20, 2013 NMPRC filing identified a new 177 MW natural gas fired generation source and 40 MW of new utility-scale solar PV generation to replace a portion of PNM’s share of the reduction in generating capacity due to the retirement of SJGS Units 2 and 3. PNM received approval to construct the 40 MW of solar PV facilities in its 2015 Renewable Energy Plan. See Note 12. Specific approvals to acquire the gas facility and the treatment of associated costs will be made in future filings. PNM estimates the cost of these identified resources would be approximately $212.5 million. These amounts are included in PNM’s current construction expenditure forecast although approval of the plan remains subject to numerous conditions. Although operating costs would be reduced due to the retirement of SJGS Units 2 and 3, the operating costs for SJGS Units 1 and 4 would increase with the installation of SNCR and BDT equipment. PNM’s requests in the December 20, 2013 NMPRC filing were based on the status of the negotiations among the SJGS owners at that time regarding ownership restructuring and other matters (see SJGS Ownership Restructuring Matters below). In July 2014, PNM filed a notice with the NMPRC regarding the status of the negotiations among the SJGS participants, including that the SJGS participants reached non-binding agreements in principle on the ownership restructuring of SJGS and that PNM was proposing to acquire 132 MW of SJGS Unit 4 effective December 31, 2017, rather than exchanging 78 MW of capacity in SJGS Unit 3 for 78 MW in SJGS Unit 4 as contemplated in the December 20, 2013 NMPRC filing. Those agreements are memorialized in the resolution and term sheet described below. On October 1, 2014, PNM, the staff of the NMPRC, the NMAG, New Mexico Independent Power Producers, Western Resource Advocates, and Renewable Energy Industries Association of New Mexico filed a stipulation with the NMPRC. NMIEC subsequently joined the agreement. New Mexico Independent Power Producers, Western Resource Advocates, and Renewable Energy Industries Association of New Mexico have since withdrawn support of the stipulation. Statements of opposition were filed by other intervenors. Under the terms of the stipulation, PNM:
• | Would be authorized to abandon SJGS Units 2 and 3 effective December 31, 2017
• | Would be granted a CCN for an additional 132 MW of SJGS Unit 4 capacity as of January 1, 2018 with a rate base value of $26 million plus any reasonable and prudent investments made in Unit 4 prior to that date; PNM would reduce its carrying value of SJGS Unit 3 by this $26 million
• | Would recover 50% of the estimated $231 million undepreciated value in SJGS Units 2 and 3 at December 31, 2017; recovery would be over a twenty year period and would include a return on the unrecovered amount at PNM’s WACC; at March 31, 2015, PNM’s net book value of its current ownership share of SJGS Units 2 and 3 was approximately $280 million
• | Would be granted a CCN for 134 MW of PVNGS Unit 3 at a January 1, 2018 value of $221.1 million ($1,650 per KW); PNM’s ownership share of PVNGS would also be subject to a capacity factor performance threshold of 75% for a seven year period beginning January 1, 2018; subject to certain exceptions, if the capacity factor is not achieved in any year, PNM would refund the cost of replacement power through its FPPAC; at March 31, 2015, PNM’s net book value of PVNGS Unit 3 was approximately $145 million
• | Would file for recovery of its reasonable and prudent costs of installation of the SNCR and BDT equipment requirements at SJGS Units 1 and 4 up to $90.6 million
• | Would not be allowed to recover a total of approximately $20 million of increased operations and maintenance costs associated with the agreement reached with the remaining SJGS participants, additional fuel handling expenses, and certain other costs incurred in efforts to comply with the CAA
A public hearing in the NMPRC case was held in January 2015. In connection with the hearing, PNM filed testimony indicating that:
• | PNM would not acquire the 65 MW of capacity in SJGS Unit 4 that was no longer anticipated to be acquired by the City of Farmington, as discussed under SJGS Ownership Restructuring Matters below
• | PNM would not enter into a coal supply agreement for SJGS that extends beyond 2022 without NMPRC approval
• | PNM would have an ownership restructuring agreement for SJGS in place by May 1, 2015
If the stipulation is approved as filed, PNM anticipates it would incur a regulatory disallowance that would include the write-off of 50% of the undepreciated investment in SJGS Units 2 and 3, an offset to the regulatory disallowance to reflect including the investment in PVNGS Unit 3 in the ratemaking process at the stipulated value, and other impacts of the stipulation. Although PNM would record the regulatory disallowance upon approval by the NMPRC, the amount of the disallowance would be dependent on the provisions of the NMPRC’s final order, as well as PNM’s projections of the December 31, 2017 net book values of SJGS Units 2 and 3 and PVNGS Unit 3. The amount initially recorded would be subject to adjustment to reflect changes in the projected December 31, 2017 net book values of the plants. Based on the provisions of the stipulation as filed and PNM’s current projection of December 31, 2017 book values, PNM estimates the net pre-tax regulatory disallowance would be between $60 million and $70 million. On April 8, 2015, the Hearing Examiner in the case issued a Certification of Stipulation, which recommends that the NMPRC reject the stipulation as proposed. The certification recommends that the abandonment of SJGS Units 2 and 3 be conditionally approved subject to PNM proposing adequate replacement capacity, approval of the CCN for PVNGS Unit 3 at a value of $143.5 million ($1,071/KW), approval of recovery of an estimated $128.5 million, representing 50% of the remaining undepreciated investment in SJGS Units 2 and 3 at December 31, 2017, and denial of the CCN for the additional 132 MW of Unit 4 of SJGS. The certification states that PNM may re-apply for a CCN for the 132 MW after it has presented final restructuring and post-2017 coal supply agreements for SJGS. On April 20, 2015, PNM filed exceptions to the certification. PNM argued that the proposed modifications to the stipulation do not balance customer and shareholder interests, upset the balance contained in the stipulation, that the schedule recommended by the Hearing Examiner for PNM to file a replacement plan would effectively preclude the inclusion of the 132 MW of additional SJGS Unit 4 capacity in the replacement plan thereby jeopardizing the restructuring agreement and the continued operation of SJGS to the detriment of customers, and that the Hearing Examiner erred in recommending a lower rate base value for PNM’s share of PVNGS Unit 3. If the NMPRC issues an order that modifies the stipulation, any stipulating party can void the stipulation. The certification recommends that the parties be given seven days to decide whether to accept any modifications after the NMPRC issues an order. The NMPRC can approve, reject, or modify the certification. If the NMPRC were to issue an order adopting all of the modifications to the stipulation recommended by the Hearing Examiner, PNM estimates the net pre-tax regulatory disallowance referenced above would become an amount between $145 million and $155 million. The NMPRC has not yet acted on the certification. Although PNM expects a decision from the NMPRC in the second or third quarter of 2015, PNM is unable to predict what action the NMPRC will take, whether any party will void the stipulation, or the ultimate outcome of this matter. On May 1, 2015, PNM filed with the NMPRC a notice of submittal of confidential, substantially final, unexecuted restructuring, coal supply, and related agreements for SJGS. See SJGS Ownership Restructuring Matters and Coal Supply below. SJGS Ownership Restructuring Matters – As discussed in the 2014 Annual Report on Form 10-K, SJGS is jointly owned by PNM and eight other entities, including three participants that operate in the State of California. Furthermore, each participant does not have the same ownership interest in each unit. The SJPPA that governs the operation of SJGS expires on July 1, 2022 and the contract with SJCC to supply the coal requirements of the plant expires on December 31, 2017. The California participants have indicated that, under California law, they may be prohibited from making significant capital improvements to SJGS. The California participants have stated they would be unable to fully fund the construction of either SCRs or SNCRs at SJGS and have expressed the intent to exit their ownership in SJGS no later than the expiration of the current SJPPA. One other participant also expressed a similar intent to exit ownership in the plant. The participants intending to exit ownership in SJGS currently own 50.0% of SJGS Unit 3 and 38.8% of SJGS Unit 4. PNM currently owns 50.0% of SJGS Unit 3 and 38.5% of SJGS Unit 4. The SJGS participants engaged in mediated negotiations concerning the implementation of the RSIP to address BART at SJGS. These negotiations initially included potential shifts in ownership among participants and between Units 3 and 4 that could have resulted in PNM acquiring additional ownership in Unit 4 prior to the shutdown of SJGS Units 2 and 3. The discussions among the SJGS participants regarding restructuring also included, among other matters, the treatment of plant decommissioning obligations, mine reclamation obligations, environmental matters, and certain ongoing operating costs. On June 26, 2014, a non-binding resolution (the “Resolution”) was unanimously approved by the SJGS Coordination Committee. The Resolution identifies the participants who would be exiting active participation in SJGS effective December 31, 2017 and participants, including PNM, who would retain an interest in the ongoing operation of one or more units of SJGS. The Resolution provides the essential terms of restructured ownership of SJGS between the exiting participants and the remaining participants and addresses other related matters. The Resolution includes provisions indicating that the exiting participants would remain obligated for their proportionate shares of environmental, mine reclamation, and certain other legacy liabilities that are attributable to activities that occurred prior to their exit, as well as outlining how their shares would be determined. Also, on June 26, 2014, a non-binding term sheet was approved by all of the remaining participants that provides the essential terms of restructured ownership of SJGS among the remaining participants. As part of the non-binding terms, PNM confirmed that it would acquire an additional 132 MW in SJGS Unit 4 effective December 31, 2017. There would be no initial cost for PNM to acquire the additional 132 MW although PNM’s share of capital improvements, including the costs of installing SNCR and BDT equipment, and operating expenses would increase to reflect the increased ownership. The acquisition of 132 MW of SJGS Unit 4 would result in PNM’s ownership share of SJGS Unit 4 being 64.5% and of SJGS Units 1 and 4 aggregating 58.7%. The Resolution and the non-binding term sheet recognize that prior to executing a binding restructuring agreement, the remaining participants would need to have greater certainty in regard to the economic cost and availability of fuel for SJGS for the period after December 31, 2017. As discussed under Coal Supply below, the remaining participants have negotiated substantially final, unexecuted agreements regarding coal supply for SJGS through June 30, 2022. On September 2, 2014, the SJGS Coordination Committee adopted a non-binding supplement to the Resolution, which provides for allocation of future costs of decommissioning among current SJGS owners using a time-based sliding scale and outlines indemnification obligations. In September 2014, the SJGS participants executed a binding Fuel and Capital Funding Agreement to implement certain provisions of the Resolution, including payment by the remaining participants of capital costs for the Unit 4 SNCR project starting July 1, 2014, and acquisition by PNM of the exiting participants’ coal inventory as of January 1, 2015. PNM filed the Fuel and Capital Funding Agreement with FERC on September 18, 2014, with a request for a retroactive effective date to July 1, 2014. FERC approved the request on November 13, 2014. On January 7, 2015, the City of Farmington, New Mexico, which has an ownership interest in Unit 4, notified the other participants that it will not acquire additional MWs in Unit 4, leaving 65 MWs in that unit unsubscribed. As discussed under NMPRC Filing above, PNM has indicated that it will not acquire any of the unsubscribed MWs. However, PNMR currently anticipates that PNMR Development would acquire the 65 MWs. The City of Farmington’s action was taken under the Fuel and Capital Funding Agreement and has the impact of negating certain provisions of that agreement, including the payment arrangement related to SNCRs and PNM’s acquisition of the exiting participants’ coal inventory described above, and reinstating the voting and capital improvement cost allocations under the current SJPPA. Accordingly, on February 3, 2015, PNM informed the participants in the Fuel and Capital Funding Agreement that the agreement would terminate by its terms no later than February 6, 2015. The City of Farmington and the other continuing participants in SJGS have indicated that they remain committed to on-going ownership in SJGS. It is anticipated that PNMR, PNM, PNMR Development, and the California owners of SJGS Unit 4 would enter into a Capacity Option and Funding Agreement (“COFA”), which would provide PNM and PNMR Development options to acquire 132 MW and 65 MW of the Unit 4 capacity currently owned by the California entities in exchange for PNM and PNMR Development funding the capital improvements related to Unit 4 effective as of January 1, 2015. PNMR’s current projection of capital expenditures includes those of PNMR Development for the 65 MW. PNMR would guarantee the obligations of PNMR Development under the COFA. The COFA would terminate on the earliest of January 1, 2016, the effective date of a SJGS restructuring agreement, the date PNM notifies the other parties that it has failed to receive required regulatory approvals for the SJGS restructuring, the date any California owner opposes PNM’s application before the NMPRC, or the date PNM elects to terminate because another SJGS owner has given notice that it will no longer participate in the restructuring process. If the COFA is terminated, the California owners would not be obligated to repay amounts funded by PNM and PNMR Development. On May 1, 2015, PNM filed with the NMPRC a notice of submittal of a confidential, substantially final, unexecuted copy of the San Juan Project Restructuring Agreement (“RA”). The RA sets forth the agreement among the SJGS owners regarding ownership restructuring and contains many of the provisions of the Resolution. PNMR Development would also be a party to the RA and would acquire an ownership interest in SJGS Unit 4 when the California owners exit, but would have obligations related to Unit 4 before then. On December 31, 2017, PNM would acquire 132 MW of the capacity in SJGS Unit 4 from the California owners and PNMR Development would acquire 65 MW of such capacity, as contemplated by the COFA. The RA is dependent on and would become effective upon the last of the approval by NMPRC, the approval by FERC, the approval of each participant’s board or other decision-making body, and the effective date of a new coal supply agreement for SJGS. The new coal supply agreement is currently anticipated to be effective on January 1, 2016. It is currently anticipated that the coal supply agreement and the RA would become effective contemporaneously on January 1, 2016. The RA sets forth the terms under which PNM would acquire the coal inventory of the exiting SJGS participants on January 1, 2016 and provide coal supply to the exiting participants during the period from January 1, 2016 and December 31, 2017, which arrangement PNM believes will provide economic benefits that will be passed on to PNM’s customers. The RA also includes provisions whereby the exiting owners will make payments to certain of the remaining participants, not including PNM, related to the restructuring. PNM’s notice also included submittal of confidential, substantially final, unexecuted copies of documents related to coal supply for SJGS beginning January 1, 2016 (see “Coal Supply” below). The participants continue to negotiate agreements for reclamation of the mines supplying coal to SJGS, decommissioning obligations and funding for the SJGS plant, and related amendments to the SJPPA. PNM and the other SJGS owners are working toward finalizing the reclamation agreement by June 1, 2015 and the decommissioning agreement by July 1, 2015 and to have final execution of all the restructuring agreements completed by August 31, 2015. PNM is unable to predict whether all required approvals will be obtained and other conditions satisfied in order for the agreements discussed above to become effective and restructuring to be consummated. Other SJGS Matters – The SJPPA requires PNM, as operating agent, to obtain approval of capital improvement project expenditures from participants who have an ownership interest in the relevant unit or property common to more than one unit. As provided in the SJPPA, specified percentages of both the outstanding participant shares, based on MW ownership, and the number of participants in the unit or common property must be obtained in order for a capital improvement project to be approved. PNM presented the SNCR project, including BDT requirements described above, to the SJGS participants in Unit 1 and Unit 4 for approval in late October 2013. The project was approved for Unit 1, but the Unit 4 project, which includes some of the California participants, did not obtain the required percentage of votes for approval. In addition, other capital projects related to Unit 4 were not approved by the participants. PNM subsequently requested that the owners of Unit 4 approve the expenditure of costs critical to being able to comply with the time frame in the RSIP with respect to the Unit 4 project of $1.9 million on March 10, 2014, $6.4 million on June 27, 2014, and total project expenses of $76.6 million (including the two prior requests) on January 22, 2015. The Unit 4 owners did not approve these requests. PNM, in its capacity as operating agent of SJGS, is authorized and obligated under the SJPPA to take reasonable and prudent actions necessary for the successful and proper operation of SJGS pending the resolution, by arbitration or otherwise, of any inability or failure to agree by the participants. PNM must evaluate its responsibilities and obligations as operating agent under the SJPPA regarding the SJGS Unit 4 capital projects that were not approved by the participants and take reasonable and prudent actions as it deems necessary. Therefore, on March 10, 2014, July 14, 2014, and March 20, 2015, PNM, as operating agent for SJGS, issued “Prudent Utility Practice” notices under the SJPPA indicating PNM was undertaking certain critical activities to keep the Unit 4 SNCR project on schedule. As discussed above, EPA approved the RSIP and withdrew the FIP on October 9, 2014 and those approvals became effective on November 10, 2014. PNM believes significant progress is being made towards implementation of the RSIP. However, the final implementation of the RSIP is still dependent upon PNM obtaining NMPRC approval to retire San Juan Units 2 and 3 and the agreements for restructuring and a new coal supply becoming effective. PNM can provide no assurance that these requirements will be accomplished. If the RSIP requirements ultimately are not implemented due to adverse or alternative regulatory, legislative, legal, or restructuring developments or other factors, PNM would need to pursue other alternatives to address compliance with the CAA. Failure to implement the RSIP or an agreed to alternative could jeopardize the economic viability of SJGS. PNM will seek recovery from its ratepayers for costs that may be incurred as a result of the CAA requirements. PNM is unable to predict the ultimate outcome of these matters. Although the additional equipment and other final requirements will result in additional capital and operating costs being incurred, PNM believes that its access to the capital markets is sufficient to be able to finance its share of the installation. It is possible that requirements to comply with the CAA, 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 or willingness of individual participants to continue participation in the plant. Four Corners On August 6, 2012, EPA issued its final BART determination for Four Corners. The rule included two compliance alternatives. On December 30, 2013, APS notified EPA that the Four Corners participants selected the alternative that required APS to permanently close Units 1-3 by January 1, 2014 and install SCR post-combustion NOx controls on each of Units 4 and 5 by July 31, 2018. PNM owns a 13% interest in Units 4 and 5, but had no ownership interest in Units 1, 2, and 3, which were shut down by APS on December 30, 2013. For particulate matter emissions, EPA is requiring Units 4 and 5 to meet an emission limit of 0.015 lb/MMBTU and the plant to meet a 20% opacity limit, both of which are achievable through operation of the existing baghouses. Although unrelated to BART, the final BART rule also imposes a 20% opacity limitation on certain fugitive dust emissions from Four Corners’ coal and material handling operations. On December 30, 2013, APS announced the closing of its purchase of SCE’s 48% interest in each of Units 4 and 5 of Four Corners. Concurrently with the closing of the SCE transaction, the ownership of the coal supplier and operator of the mine that serves Four Corners was transferred to a company formed by the Navajo Nation to own the mine and develop other energy projects. Also occurring concurrently, the Four Corners co-owners executed a long term agreement for the supply of coal to Four Corners from July 2016, when the current coal supply agreement expires, through 2031. APS, on behalf of the Four Corners participants, negotiated amendments to an existing facility lease with the Navajo Nation, which extends the Four Corners leasehold interest from 2016 to 2041. The Navajo Nation approved these amendments in March 2011. The effectiveness of the amendments also requires the approval of the DOI, as does a related federal rights-of-way grant, which the Four Corners participants are pursuing. A federal environmental review is underway as part of the DOI review process. In March 2014, APS received a draft of the EIS in connection with the DOI review process. On June 19, 2014, PNM submitted comments on the draft EIS as owner and operator of two electric transmission lines that are part of the connected action for the EIS. In addition, installation of SCR control technology at Four Corners requires a PSD permit, which APS received in December 2014. PNM cannot predict whether the federal approvals will be granted, and if so on a timely basis, or whether any conditions that may be attached to them will be acceptable to the Four Corners participants. 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 BART determination for Four Corners. PNM estimates its share of costs, including PNM’s AFUDC, to be up to $83.9 million for post-combustion controls at Four Corners Units 4 and 5. PNM would seek recovery from its ratepayers of all costs that are ultimately incurred. PNM is unable to predict the ultimate outcome of this matter. 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, SO 2, ozone, and particulate matter. In 2010, EPA updated the primary NOx and SO 2 NAAQS to include a 1-hour maximum standard while retaining the annual standards for NOx and SO 2 and the 24-hour SO 2 standard. New Mexico is in attainment for the 1-hour NOx NAAQS. On May 13, 2014, EPA released the draft data requirements rule for the 1-hour SO 2 NAAQS, which directs state and tribal air agencies to characterize current air quality in areas with large SO 2 sources to identify maximum 1-hour SO 2 concentrations. The proposed rule also describes the process and timetable by which air regulatory agencies would characterize air quality around large SO 2 sources through ambient monitoring or modeling. This characterization will result in these areas being designated as attainment, nonattainment, or unclassified for compliance with the 1-hour SO 2 NAAQS. On March 2, 2015, the United States District Court for the Northern District of California approved a settlement that imposes deadlines for EPA to identify areas that violate the NAAQS standards for 1-hour SO 2 emissions. The settlement results from a lawsuit brought by Earthjustice on behalf of the Sierra Club and the Natural Resources Defense Council under the CAA. The consent decree requires the following: 1) within 16 months of the consent decree entry, EPA must issue area designations for areas containing non-retiring facilities that either emitted more than 16,000 tons of SO 2 in 2012 or emitted more than 2,600 tons with an emission rate of 0.45 lbs/MMBTU or higher in 2012; 2) by December 2017, EPA must issue designations for areas for which states have not adopted a new monitoring network under the proposed data requirements rule; and (3) by December 2020, EPA must issue designations for areas for which states have adopted a new monitoring network under the proposed data requirements rule. SJGS and Four Corners SO 2 emissions are below the tonnages set forth in 1) above. EPA regions sent out letters to state environmental agencies explaining how EPA plans to implement the consent decree. The letters outline the schedule that EPA expects states to follow in moving forward with new SO 2 non-attainment designations. To date, NMED has not received a letter. Although the determination process has not been finalized, PNM believes that compliance with the 1-hour SO 2 standard may require operational changes and/or equipment modifications at SJGS. On November 8, 2013, PNM received an amendment to its NSR air permit for SJGS, which would be required for the installation of either SCRs or SNCRs described above. The revised permit requires the reduction of SO 2 emissions to 0.10 pound per MMBTU on SJGS Units 1 and 4 and continues to require the installation of BDT equipment modifications for the purpose of reducing fugitive emissions, including NOx, SO 2, and particulate matter. These reductions will help SJGS meet the NAAQS. The BDT equipment modifications are to 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. See Regional Haze – SJGS above. EPA finalized revisions to its NAAQS for fine particulate matter on December 14, 2012. PNM believes the equipment modifications discussed above will assist the plant in complying with the particulate matter NAAQS. In January 2010, EPA announced it would strengthen the 8-hour ozone standard by setting a new standard in a range of 60-70 parts per billion (“ppb”). On December 17, 2014, EPA published a proposed rule that would revise the NAAQS for ground level ozone. The rule would reduce the current primary 8-hour ozone NAAQS from 75 ppb to between 70 and 65 ppb. EPA is proposing a secondary standard to provide protection against cumulative exposures that can damage plants and trees. To achieve this level of protection, EPA is proposing to set an 8-hour secondary standard at a level within the range of 65 to 70 ppb. According to EPA, 2011-2013 ozone ambient air monitoring data indicates that Bernalillo, Dona Ana, Eddy, and San Juan counties in New Mexico exceed a 70 ppb ozone concentration. In addition, Lea, Luna Santa Fe, and Valencia counties exceed the 65 ppb ozone concentration. Counties that exceed the ozone NAAQS would be designated as nonattainment for ozone. NMED would have responsibility for bringing those counties 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 controls to meet a new ozone NAAQS. PNM cannot predict the outcome of this matter, the impact of other potential environmental mitigations, or if additional controls would be required at any of its affected facilities as a result of ozone non-attainment designation. EPA is under a court order to finalize the ozone standard by October 1, 2015. Citizen Suit Under the Clean Air Act The operations of 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. In May 2011, PNM entered into an agreement with NMED and the plaintiffs to resolve a 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 a dispute relating to PNM’s mercury controls. NMED and plaintiffs sought 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 $0.7 million, to a total of $6.6 million. On March 23, 2014, the court entered a stipulated order reflecting an agreement reached by the parties. Under the stipulated order, PNM was required to repeat the mercury study required under the Consent Decree using sorbent traps instead of the continuous emissions monitoring system used in the initial study. The results of the mercury study would establish the activated carbon injection rate that maximizes mercury removal at SJGS, as required under the Consent Decree. PNM completed stack testing and submitted the study report to NMED and the plaintiffs in December 2014. Based on PNM’s cost/benefit analysis, PNM recommended that the carbon injection not be increased from its current level. On March 18, 2015, NMED and the plaintiffs approved PNM’s recommendation for the activated carbon injection rate. PNM has applied for the necessary modifications to the SJGS air quality permit to include this operational parameter as a permit condition. 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. 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 Clean Air Act Lawsuit In October 2011, Earthjustice, on behalf of several environmental organizations, filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of New Mexico against APS and the other Four Corners participants alleging violations of the NSR provisions of the CAA and NSPS violations. The parties have recently agreed on terms of a settlement. The terms of the settlement do not have a material impact on PNM. PNM recorded the impact of its share of the proposed settlement in 2014. A final consent decree has not yet been executed. Four Corners Coal Mine In 2012, several environmental groups filed a lawsuit in federal district court against the OSM challenging OSM’s 2012 approval of a permit revision which allowed for the expansion of mining operations into a new area of the mine that serves Four Corners (“Area IV North”). In April 2015, the court issued an order invalidating the permit revision, thereby prohibiting mining in Area IV North until OSM takes action to cure the defect in its permitting process identified by the court. APS has indicated that NTEC, the owner of the mine and supplier of coal to Four Corners, does not anticipate any near-term interruption of coal supply to the plant as a result of the suspension of mining in Area IV North. PNM cannot predict the time period that will be required for OSM’s further permitting process to be completed or whether the outcome of the process will be sufficient to allow the permit to be reinstated. WEG v. OSM NEPA Lawsuit In February 2013, WEG filed a Petition for Review in the United States District Court of Colorado against OSM challenging federal administrative decisions affecting seven different mines in four states issued at various times from 2007 through 2012. In its petition, WEG challenges several unrelated mining plan modification approvals, which were each separately approved by OSM. Of the fifteen claims for relief in the WEG Petition, two concern SJCC’s San Juan mine. WEG’s allegations concerning the San Juan mine arise from OSM administrative actions in 2008. WEG alleges various NEPA violations against OSM, including, but not limited to, OSM’s alleged failure to provide requisite public notice and participation, alleged failure to analyze certain environmental impacts, and alleged reliance on outdated and insufficient documents. WEG’s petition seeks various forms of relief, including a finding that the federal defendants violated NEPA by approving the mine plans, voiding, reversing, and remanding the various mining modification approvals, enjoining the federal defendants from re-issuing the mining plan approvals for the mines until compliance with NEPA has been demonstrated, and enjoining operations at the seven mines. SJCC intervened in this matter. The court granted SJCC’s motion to sever its claims from the lawsuit and transfer venue to the United States District Court for the District of New Mexico. Legal briefing is complete and the matter is ready for a ruling from the court. If WEG ultimately obtains the relief it has requested, such a ruling could require significant expenditures to reconfigure operations at the San Juan mine, impact the production of coal, and impact the economic viability of the San Juan mine and SJGS. PNM cannot currently predict the outcome of this matter or the range of its potential impact. 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. 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. PNM cannot currently predict the outcome of these matters or the range of their potential impacts. Cooling Water Intake Structures EPA signed its final cooling water intake structures rule on May 16, 2014, which establishes national standards for certain cooling water intake structures at existing power plants and other facilities under the Clean Water Act 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 final rule was published on August 15, 2014 and became effective October 14, 2014. The final rule allows multiple compliance options and considerations for site specific conditions and the permit writer is granted a significant amount of discretion in determining permit requirements, schedules, and conditions. To minimize impingement mortality, the rule provides operators of facilities, such as SJGS and Four Corners, seven options for meeting Best Technology Available (“BTA”) standards for reducing impingement. SJGS has a closed-cycle recirculating cooling system which is a listed BTA and may also qualify for the “de minimis rate of impingement” based on the design of the intake structure. To minimize entrainment mortality, the permitting authority must establish the BTA for entrainment on a site-specific basis, taking into consideration an array of factors, including endangered species and social costs and benefits. Affected sources must submit source water baseline characterization data to the permitting authority to assist in the determination. Compliance deadlines under the rule are tied to permit renewal and will be subject to a schedule of compliance established by the permitting authority. The renewal date for the SJGS NPDES permit is March 31, 2016; however, additional time to submit the application may be allowed by the NPDES permit writer. Because of the discretion afforded to EPA with respect to entrainment requirements, PNM is unable to predict the outcome of this matter or a range of the potential costs of compliance. However, the costs are not expected to be material. APS is currently in discussions with EPA Region 9, the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit writer for Four Corners, to determine the scope of the impingement and entrainment requirements, which will, in turn, determine APS’s costs to comply with the rule. APS has indicated that it does not expect such costs to be material. Effluent Limitation Guidelines On June 7, 2013, EPA published proposed revised wastewater effluent limitation guidelines establishing technology-based wastewater discharge limitations for fossil fuel-fired electric power plants. EPA’s proposal offers numerous options that target metals and other pollutants in wastewater streams originating from fly ash and bottom ash handling activities, scrubber activities, and non-chemical metal cleaning waste operations. The preferred alternatives differ with respect to the scope of requirements that would be applicable to existing discharges of pollutants found in wastestreams generated at existing power plants. All four alternatives would establish a “zero discharge” effluent limit for all pollutants in fly ash transport water. However, requirements governing bottom ash transport water differ depending on which alternative EPA ultimately chooses and could range from effluent limits based on Best Available Technology Economically Achievable to “zero discharge” effluent limits. Depending on which alternative EPA finalizes, Four Corners may be required to change equipment and operating practices affecting boilers and ash handling systems, as well as change its waste disposal techniques. PNM has reviewed the proposed rule and continues to assess the potential impact to SJGS and Reeves Station, the only PNM-operated power plants that would be covered by the proposed rule. On April 9, 2014, several environmental groups agreed to allow EPA until September 30, 2015 to issue final effluent limits. Under the agreement, EPA will not seek any further extensions. 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 PNM’s 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 City of Santa Fe has indicated that since the City no longer needs the water from the well, the City would prefer to discontinue its operation and maintain it only as a backup water source. However, for PNM’s groundwater remediation system to operate, the water well must be in service. Currently, PNM is not able to assess the duration of this project or estimate the impact on its obligations if the City of Santa Fe ceases to operate the water well. 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 that the source may not be the former Santa Fe Generating Station. The NMED investigation is ongoing. In January 2013, NMED notified PNM that monitoring results from April 2012 showed elevated concentrations of nitrate in three monitoring wells and an increase in free-phase hydrocarbons in another well. None of these wells are routinely monitored as part of PNM’s obligations under the settlement agreement. In April 2013, NMED conducted the same level of testing on the wells as was conducted in April 2012, which produced similar results. PNM conducted similar site-wide sampling activities in April 2014 and obtained results similar to the 2013 data. As part of this effort, PNM also collected a sample of hydrocarbon product for “fingerprint” analysis from a monitoring well located on the northeastern corner of the property. This analysis indicated that the hydrocarbon product was a mixture of newer and older fuels, and the location of the monitoring well suggests that the hydrocarbon product is likely from offsite sources. PNM does not believe the former generating station is the source of the increased levels of free-phase hydrocarbons, but no conclusive determinations have been made. It is possible that PNM’s prior activities to remediate hydrocarbon contamination, as conducted under an NMED-approved plan, may have resulted in increased nitrate levels. Additional testing and analysis will need to be performed before conclusions can be reached regarding the cause of the increased nitrate levels or the method and cost of remediation. PNM is unable to predict the outcome of these matters. Coal Combustion Byproducts Waste Disposal 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 included two options for waste designation of coal ash. One option was 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 was 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. An OSM CCB rulemaking team is developing a proposed rule governing the placement of CCBs at coal mining and reclamation operations. On January 29, 2014, in a consolidated case in the D.C. Circuit involving several environmental groups, including Sierra Club, and industry group members, the court issued a consent decree directing EPA to publish its final action regarding whether or not to pursue the proposed non-hazardous waste option for CCBs by December 19, 2014. On December 19, 2014, EPA issued its coal ash rule, including a non-hazardous waste determination for coal ash. Coal ash will be regulated as a solid waste under Subtitle D of RCRA. The rule does not cover mine placement of coal ash and OSM is expected to publish a rule covering mine placement in 2015. It is expected that OSM will be influenced by EPA’s rule. Because the rule is promulgated under Subtitle D, it does not require regulated facilities to obtain permits, does not require the states to adopt and implement the new rules, and is not within EPA’s enforcement jurisdiction. Instead, the rule’s compliance mechanism is for a state or citizen group to bring a RCRA citizen suit in federal district court against any facility that is alleged to be in non-compliance with the new requirements. EPA published the final CCB rule in the Federal Register on April 17. 2015. PNM is reviewing the rule to fully understand its implications. The rule’s preamble indicates EPA is still evaluating whether to reverse its original regulatory determination and regulate coal ash under RCRA Subtitle C, which means it is possible at some point in the future for EPA to review the new CCB rules. PNM would seek recovery from its ratepayers of all costs that are ultimately incurred. PNM cannot predict the outcome of OSM’s proposed rulemaking regarding CCB regulation, including mine placement of CCBs, or whether OSM’s actions will have a material impact on PNM’s operations, financial position, or cash flows. Hazardous Air Pollutants (“HAPs”) Rulemaking In December 2011, the EPA issued its final Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (“MATS”) 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 were required to comply with the MATS rule by April 16, 2015, unless the facility was granted a 1-year extension under CAA section 112(i)(3). PNM did not request an extension and began complying with the MATS rule by the date specified in the 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. 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 requested and received a 1-year extension until April 16, 2016 for Four Corners to comply with the MATS rule. However, APS has determined that no additional equipment will be required at Four Corners Units 4 and 5 to comply with the rule. 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 March 31, 2015 and December 31, 2014, prepayments for coal, which are included in other current assets, amounted to $38.9 million and $37.3 million. 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. The parties to the coal sales agreement are SJCC, PNM, and Tucson. 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 SJGS through December 31, 2017. In conjunction with the activities undertaken to comply with the CAA for SJGS, as discussed above, PNM and the other owners of SJGS evaluated alternatives for the supply of coal to SJGS after the expiration of the current coal sales agreement. As discussed under SJGS Ownership Restructuring Matters above, the Resolution and the non-binding term sheet approved by the SJGS Coordination Committee on June 26, 2014 recognize that prior to executing a binding restructuring agreement relating to the ownership of SJGS, the remaining participants would need to have greater certainty in regard to the cost and availability of fuel for SJGS for the period after December 31, 2017. The remaining participants began the process of negotiating agreements concerning future fuel supply for SJGS. On October 1, 2014, the San Juan Fuels Committee approved a resolution authorizing an amendment to the coal sales agreement. The amendment provided for the negotiation of a potential purchase transaction for the mine assets by one or more of the utilities, an affiliate, or another entity agreed to by the parties to be consummated on or before December 31, 2016. The amendment, which was effective as of October 2, 2014, also released the parties from the obligation to negotiate an extension of the coal sales agreement, but does not impact the utilities’ option to purchase the mining assets at the end of the current contract term if the purchase transaction is not completed. On February 12, 2015, the SJGS Coordination Committee approved a resolution authorizing the modification of the amendment to extend the date for negotiation of a transaction until May 1, 2015 and to allow for a direct sale of the SJCC mining operations by BHP to a third-party mining company. Following extensive negotiations among the SJGS participants, the owner of SJCC, and third-party miners, substantially final, unexecuted forms of agreements have been negotiated under which the ownership of SJCC would transfer to a new third-party miner and PNM would enter into a new Coal Supply Agreement (“CSA”) with SJCC on or about January 1, 2016. Under the CSA, SJCC would supply all of the coal requirements for SJGS from January 1, 2016 through June 30, 2022. Pricing under the CSA would primarily be fixed, adjusted to reflect general inflation. The pricing structure takes into account that SJCC has been paid for coal mined but not delivered, as discussed above. PNM would have the option to extend the CSA, subject to negotiation of the term of the extension and compensation to the miner. The RA sets forth terms under which PNM will supply coal to the SJGS exiting participants for the period from January 1, 2016 through December 31, 2017 and to the SJGS remaining participants over the term of the CSA. PNM anticipates that coal costs under the CSA will be significantly less than under the current arrangement with SJCC. However, since substantially all coal costs are passed through PNM’s FPPAC, the benefit of the reduced costs and the economic benefits of the coal inventory arrangement with the exiting owners, which is discussed above, will be passed through to PNM’s customers. PNM and SJCC would enter into additional agreements, under which SJCC would perform all CCB disposal activities for SJGS over the term of the CSA and all reclamation obligations of the mines that have supplied coal for SJGS through the completion of final reclamation following closure of the mine. On May 1, 2015, PNM filed a notice of submittal of confidential, substantially final, unexecuted copies of the CSA, reclamation, and ash disposal agreements with the NMPRC. Effectiveness of the agreements will be dependent upon the closing of the purchase of SJCC by the new third-party miner and the finalization of the RA and other agreements, which along with regulatory approvals are necessary for the restructuring of ownership in SJGS to be consummated. It is currently anticipated that the coal supply agreement and the RA would become effective contemporaneously on January 1, 2016. Currently, PNM cannot predict if all of the necessary requirements will be satisfied and all approvals obtained in order for these agreements to become effective. APS purchased all of Four Corners’ coal requirements from a supplier that was also a subsidiary of BHP and had a long-term lease of coal reserves with the Navajo Nation. That contract was to expire on July 6, 2016 with pricing determined using an escalating base-price. On December 30, 2013, ownership of the mine was transferred to an entity owned by the Navajo Nation and a new coal supply contract for Four Corners, beginning in July 2016 and expiring in 2031, was entered into with that entity. The BHP subsidiary is to be retained as the mine manager and operator until December 2016. Coal costs are anticipated to increase approximately 30% at the inception of the new contract. The contract provides for pricing adjustments over its term based on economic indices. PNM anticipates that its share of the increased costs will be recovered through its FPPAC. In 2013, 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. This estimate reflects that, with the proposed shutdown of SJGS Units 2 and 3 described above, the mine providing coal to SJGS will continue to operate through 2053, the anticipated life of SJGS. The current estimate for decommissioning the Four Corners mine reflects the operation of the mine through 2031, the term of the new coal supply agreement. Based on the 2014 estimates, remaining payments for mine reclamation, in future dollars, are estimated to be $57.0 million for the surface mines at both SJGS and Four Corners and $93.3 million for the underground mine at SJGS as of March 31, 2015. At March 31, 2015 and December 31, 2014, liabilities, in current dollars, of $25.6 million and $25.7 million for surface mine reclamation and $8.8 million and $8.6 million for underground mine reclamation 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 periodically deposit funding into the trust for the owner’s share of the mine reclamation obligation. Deposits, which are based on funding curves, must be made on an annual basis. PNM funded $1.0 million in 2014, $0.3 million in 2013, and $3.5 million in 2012. Future funding requirements are currently expected to approximate $0.6 million annually. PNM collects a provision for surface and underground mine reclamation costs in its rates. The NMPRC has capped the amount that can be collected from ratepayers for final reclamation of the surface mines at $100.0 million. Previously, PNM recorded a regulatory asset for the $100.0 million and recovers the amortization of this regulatory asset in rates. If future estimates increase the liability for surface mine reclamation, the excess would be expensed at that time. In conjunction with the proposed shutdown of SJGS Units 2 and 3 to comply with the BART requirements of the CAA discussed under The Clean Air Act – Regional Haze – SJGS above, an updated coal mine reclamation study was requested by the SJGS participants. As discussed under Coal Combustion Byproducts Waste Disposal above, SJGS currently disposes of CCBs from the plant in the surface mine pits adjacent to the plant. The updated coal mine reclamation study, which was performed in 2013, indicates reclamation costs have increased, including significant increases due to the proposed shutdown of SJGS Units 2 and 3, although the timing of payments will be delayed. The shutdown of Units 2 and 3 would reduce the amount of CCBs generated over the remaining life of SJGS, which could result in a significant increase in the amount of fill dirt required to remediate the underground mine area thereby increasing the overall reclamation costs. The reclamation amounts discussed above reflect PNM’s estimates of its share of the revised costs. How costs would be divided among the owners of SJGS has not been finalized. Regulatory determinations made by the NMPRC may also affect the impact on PNM. PNM is currently unable to determine the outcome of these matters or the range of possible impacts. Continuous Highwall Mining Royalty Rate In August 2013, the DOI Bureau of Land Management (“BLM”) issued a proposed rulemaking that would retroactively apply the surface mining royalty rate of 12.5% to continuous highwall mining (“CHM”). Comments regarding the rulemaking were due on October 11, 2013, and PNM submitted comments in opposition to the proposed rule. There is no legal deadline for adoption of the final rule although the BLM has indicated that final action on the proposed rule is scheduled for October 2015. SJCC utilized the CHM technique from 2000 to 2003 and, with the approval of the Farmington, New Mexico Field Office of BLM to reclassify the final highwall as underground reserves, applied the 8.0% underground mining royalty rate to coal mined using CHM and sold to SJGS. In March 2001, SJCC learned that the DOI Minerals Management Service (“MMS”) disagreed with the application of the underground royalty rate to CHM. In August 2006, SJCC and MMS entered into a settlement agreement tolling the statute of limitations on any administrative action to recover unpaid royalties until BLM issued a final, non-appealable determination as to the proper rate for CHM-mined coal. The proposed BLM rulemaking has the potential to terminate the tolling provision of the settlement agreement, and underpaid royalties of approximately $5 million for SJGS would become due if the proposed BLM rule is adopted as proposed. PNM’s share of any amount that is ultimately paid would be approximately 46.3%, none of which would be passed through PNM’s FPPAC. PNM is unable to predict the outcome of this matter. Four Corners Severance Tax Assessment On May 23, 2013, the New Mexico Taxation and Revenue Department (“NMTRD”) issued a notice of assessment for coal severance surtax, penalty, and interest totaling approximately $30 million related to coal supplied under the coal supply agreement for Four Corners. PNM’s share of any amounts paid related to this assessment would be approximately 9.4%, all of which would be passed through PNM’s FPPAC. For procedural reasons, on behalf of the Four Corners co-owners, including PNM, the coal supplier made a partial payment of the assessment and immediately filed a refund claim with respect to that partial payment in August 2013. NMTRD denied the refund claim. On December 19, 2013, the coal supplier and APS, on its own behalf and as operating agent for Four Corners, filed a complaint in the New Mexico District Court contesting both the validity of the assessment and the refund claim denial. PNM cannot predict the timing or outcome of this litigation. However, PNM does not expect the outcome to have a material impact on its financial position, results of operations, or cash flows. PVNGS Liability and Insurance Matters Public liability for incidents at nuclear power plants is governed by the Price-Anderson Act, which limits the liability of nuclear reactor owners to the amount of insurance available from both private sources and an industry retrospective payment plan. In accordance with the Price-Anderson Act, the PVNGS participants have insurance for public liability exposure for a nuclear incident totaling $13.6 billion per occurrence. Commercial insurance carriers provide $375 million and $13.2 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 retrospective premium assessment per incident for all three units is $38.9 million, with a maximum annual payment limitation of $5.7 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”). Effective April 1, 2014, a sublimit of $2.25 billion for non-nuclear property damage losses has been enacted to the primary policy offered by NEIL. If NEIL’s losses in any policy year exceed accumulated funds, PNM is subject to retrospective premium assessments of $5.4 million for each retrospective premium 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, Rio Bravo, Afton, Luna, and Lordsburg. Water availability is not an issue for these plants at this time. However, prolonged drought, ESA activities, and a federal lawsuit by the State of Texas (suing the State of New Mexico over water allocations) could pose a threat of reduced water availability for these plants. 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. This agreement has been extended through 2016. 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 PNM 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 PNM 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 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, including water used at Four Corners and SJGS. PNM was made a defendant in the litigation in 1976. In March 2009, President Obama signed legislation confirming a 2005 settlement with the Navajo Nation. Under the terms of the settlement agreement, the Navajo Nation’s water rights would be settled and finally determined by entry by the court of two proposed adjudication decrees. The court issued an order in August 2013 finding that no evidentiary hearing was warranted in the Navajo Nation proceeding and, on November 1, 2013, issued a Partial Final Judgment and Decree of the Water Rights of the Navajo Nation approving the proposed settlement with the Navajo Nation. Several parties filed a joint motion for a new trial, which was denied by the court. A number of parties subsequently appealed to the New Mexico Court of Appeals. PNM has entered its appearance in the appellate case. No hearing dates or deadlines have been set at this time. PNM is participating in this proceeding since 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. PNM 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. Rights-of-Way Matter On January 28, 2014, the County Commission of Bernalillo County, New Mexico passed an ordinance requiring utilities to enter into a use agreement and pay a yet to be determined fee as a condition to installing, maintaining, and operating facilities on county rights-of-way. The fee is purported to compensate the county for costs of administering, maintaining, and capital improvements to the rights-of-way. On February 27, 2014, PNM and other utilities filed a Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief in the United States District Court for the District of New Mexico challenging the validity of the ordinance. The court denied the utilities’ motion for judgment. The court further granted the County’s motion to dismiss the state law claims. The utilities filed an amended complaint reflecting the two federal claims remaining before the federal court. The utilities also filed a complaint in Bernalillo County, New Mexico District Court reflecting the state law counts dismissed by the federal court. In subsequent briefing in federal court, the County filed a motion for judgment of one of the utilities’ claims, which was granted by the court, leaving a claim regarding telecommunications service as the remaining federal claim. This matter is ongoing in state court. The utilities and Bernalillo County reached a standstill agreement whereby the County would not take any enforcement action against the utilities pursuant to the ordinance during the pendency of the litigation, but not including any period for appeal of a judgment, or upon 30 days written notice by either the County or the utilities of their intention to terminate the agreement. If the challenges to the ordinance are unsuccessful, PNM believes any fees paid pursuant to the ordinance would be considered franchise fees and would be recoverable from customers. PNM is unable to predict the outcome of this matter or its impact on PNM’s operations. Complaint Against Southwestern Public Service Company In September 2005, PNM filed a complaint under the Federal Power Act against SPS alleging SPS overcharged PNM for deliveries of energy through its fuel cost adjustment clause practices and that rates for sales to PNM were excessive. PNM also intervened in a proceeding brought by other customers raising similar arguments relating to SPS’ fuel cost adjustment clause practices and issues relating to demand cost allocation (the “Golden Spread Proceeding”). In addition, PNM intervened in a proceeding filed by SPS to revise its rates for sales to PNM (“SPS 2006 Rate Proceeding”). In 2008, FERC issued its order in the Golden Spread Proceeding affirming an ALJ decision that SPS violated its fuel cost adjustment clause tariffs, but shortening the refund period applicable to the violation of the fuel cost adjustment clause issues that had been ordered by the ALJ. FERC also reversed the decision of the ALJ, which had been favorable to PNM, on the demand cost allocation issues. PNM and SPS filed petitions for rehearing and clarification of the scope of the remedies that were ordered and seeking reversal of various rulings in the order. On August 15, 2013, FERC issued separate orders in the Golden Spread Proceeding and in the SPS 2006 Rate Proceeding. The order in the Golden Spread Proceeding determined that PNM was not entitled to refunds for SPS’ fuel cost adjustment clause practices. That order and the order in the SPS 2006 Rate Proceeding decided the demand cost allocation issues using the method that PNM had advocated. PNM, SPS, and other customers of SPS have filed requests for rehearing of these orders and they are pending further action by FERC. PNM cannot predict the final outcome of the case at FERC or the range of possible outcomes. Navajo Nation Allottee Matters A putative class action was filed against PNM and other utilities in February 2009 in the United States District Court for the District of New Mexico. 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 and allege 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. 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, Office of Hearings and Appeals, Interior Board of Indian Appeals. Following briefing on the merits, on August 20, 2013, that board issued a decision upholding the Regional Director’s decision that the allottees had failed to perfect their appeals, and dismissed the allottees’ appeals, without prejudice. The allottees have not refiled their appeals. Although this matter was dismissed without prejudice, PNM considers the matter concluded. However, PNM continues to monitor this matter in order to preserve its interests regarding any PNM-acquired rights-of-way. In a separate matter, in September 2012, 43 landowners claiming to be Navajo allottees filed a notice of appeal with the BIA appealing a March 2011 decision of the BIA Regional Director regarding renewal of a right-of-way for a PNM transmission line. The allottees, many of whom are also allottees in the above matter, generally allege that they were not paid fair market value for the right-of-way, that they were denied the opportunity to make a showing as to their view of fair market value, and thus denied due process. On January 6, 2014, PNM received notice that the BIA, Navajo Region, requested a review of an appraisal report on 58 allotment parcels. After review, the BIA concluded it would continue to rely on the values of the original appraisal. On March 27, 2014, while this matter was stayed, the allottees filed a motion to dismiss their appeal with prejudice. On April 2, 2014, the allotees’ appeal was dismissed with prejudice concluding this matter. Subsequent to the dismissal, PNM received a letter from counsel on behalf of what appears to be a subset of the 43 landowner allottees involved in the appeal, notifying PNM that the specified allottees were revoking their consents for renewal of right of way on six specific allotments. On January 22, 2015, PNM received a letter from the BIA Regional Director identifying ten allotments with rights-of-way renewals that were previously contested. The letter indicated that the renewals were not approved by the BIA because the previous consent obtained by PNM was later revoked, prior to BIA approval, by the majority owners of the allotments. . It is the BIA Regional Director’s position that PNM must re-obtain consent from these landowners. PNM is in the process of investigating the validity of this notice of revocation and its potential impact in light of the BIA’s position and the recent dismissal with prejudice of the allottees’ appeal, and is therefore unable at this time to predict the likely outcome of this matter.

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

X
- Definition The entire disclosure for commitments and contingencies. + References Reference 1: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 210 -SubTopic 10 -Section S99 -Paragraph 1 -Subparagraph (SX 210.5-02.25) -URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=6877327&loc=d3e13212-122682 Reference 2: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 825 -SubTopic 20 -Section 50 -Paragraph 1 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=6449706&loc=d3e16207-108621 Reference 3: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 460 -SubTopic 10 -Section 50 -Paragraph 8 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=6398077&loc=d3e12565-110249 Reference 4: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 450 -SubTopic 20 -Section 50 -Paragraph 4 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=25496072&loc=d3e14435-108349 Reference 5: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 440 -SubTopic 10 -Section 50 -Paragraph 2 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=6394976&loc=d3e25287-109308 + Details
Name: | us-gaap_CommitmentsAndContingenciesDisclosureTextBlock
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | nonnum:textBlockItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration