XML 48 R25.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT
v3.3.1.900

Regulatory and Rate Matters | 12 Months Ended
--- | ---
Dec. 31, 2015
Regulated Operations [Abstract] |
Regulatory and Rate Matters | Regulatory and Rate Matters The Company is involved in various regulatory matters, some of which contain contingencies that are subject to the same uncertainties as those described in Note 16. PNM New Mexico General Rate Case On December 11, 2014, PNM filed an application for revision of electric retail rates based upon a calendar year 2016 future test year (“FTY”) period. The application proposed a revenue increase of $107.4 million, effective January 1, 2016. Several parties filed briefs, which alleged that PNM’s application was incomplete and challenged the distributed generation charge, as well as other aspects of PNM’s filing. On April 17, 2015, the Hearing Examiner in the case issued an Initial Recommended Decision to the NMPRC recommending that the NMPRC find PNM’s application incomplete and reject it on the grounds that it does not comply with the FTY rule. The Hearing Examiner cited procedural defects in the filing, including a lack of fully functional electronic files and appropriate justification of certain costs in the future test year period. PNM filed exceptions arguing that PNM substantively met the filing requirements of the applicable New Mexico Statutes and NMPRC Rules, the Initial Recommended Decision established an unreasonable standard for FTY filing requirements, and the recommendations placing limits on the timing of the test period relative to the base period effectively nullified the FTY statute. On May 13, 2015, the NMPRC voted to accept the Initial Recommended Decision regarding the completeness of PNM’s application and dismissed PNM’s application. On August 27, 2015, PNM filed a new application with the NMPRC for a general increase in retail electric rates. The application proposes a revenue increase, including base fuel revenues, of $123.5 million. PNM’s new application is based on a FTY period beginning October 1, 2015, which meets the NMPRC’s May 2015 interpretation of the FTY statute discussed below. The proposed ROE is 10.5%. Similar to the 2014 filing, the primary drivers of PNM’s identified revenue deficiency are infrastructure investments and the recovery of those investment dollars, including depreciation based on an updated depreciation study, and declines in forecasted energy sales as a result of PNM’s successful energy efficiency programs and other economic factors. The new application includes several proposed changes to rate design to establish fair and equitable pricing across rate classes and to better align cost recovery with cost causation. Specific rate design proposals include increased customer and demand charges, a revenue decoupling pilot program applicable to residential and small power customers, a re-allocation of revenue among PNM’s customer classes, a new economic development rate, and continuation of PNM’s renewable energy rider. PNM requested that the proposed new rates become effective beginning in July 2016. The NMPRC’s designated Hearing Examiner has established a procedural schedule that anticipates a public hearing on the proposed new rates will begin on March 14, 2016. PNM is unable to predict the outcome of this matter. Proceeding Regarding Definition of Future Test Year On May 27, 2015, the NMPRC approved an order that defines a FTY as a period that begins no later than 45 days following the filing of an application to increase rates. PNM disagreed with the interpretation adopted by the NMPRC and believes that the correct interpretation of the New Mexico FTY statute allows a FTY to begin up to 13 months after the filing of an application. On June 25, 2015, PNM filed a Notice of Appeal to the NMSC, challenging the NMPRC’s June 3, 2015 written order. On July 31, 2015, PNM and the NMPRC filed a joint motion for a temporary 30-day stay and remand of PNM’s appeal so that the NMPRC could reconsider its FTY order in PNM’s 2014 rate case. The NMSC remanded this matter back to the NMPRC. On November 30, 2015, the NMPRC modified its previous order to provide for a FTY to begin up to 13 months after the filing of a rate case application. On December 9, 2015, the NMPRC filed its revised order with the NMSC. On January 20, 2016, PNM and the NMPRC filed an unopposed stipulation of voluntary dismissal of the appeal and the NMSC dismissed the appeal on February 15, 2016. Renewable Portfolio Standard The REA establishes a mandatory RPS requiring a utility to acquire a renewable energy portfolio equal to 10% of retail electric sales by 2011, 15% by 2015, and 20% by 2020. PNM files annual renewable energy procurement plans for approval by the NMPRC. The NMPRC requires renewable energy portfolios to be “fully diversified.” The current diversity requirements, which are subject to the limitation of the RCT, are 30% wind, 20% solar, 3% distributed generation, and 5% other. The REA provides for streamlined proceedings for approval of utilities’ renewable energy procurement plans, assures that utilities recover costs incurred consistent with approved procurement plans, and requires the NMPRC to establish a RCT for the procurement of renewable resources to prevent excessive costs being added to rates. Currently, the RCT is set at 3% of customers’ annual electric charges. PNM makes renewable procurements consistent with the NMPRC approved plans. PNM recovers certain renewable procurement costs from customers through a rate rider. See Renewable Energy Rider below. Included in PNM’s approved procurement plans are the following renewable energy resources:
• | 2013 plan – Construction of 20 MW of PNM-owned solar PV facilities, at a cost of $48.9 million; wind and solar REC purchases in 2013; a PPA for the output of the Lightning Dock Geothermal facility; and an additional procurement of 1.5 MW of PNM-owned solar PV facilities to supply the energy sold under PNM’s voluntary renewable energy tariff. The plan enabled PNM to comply with the statutory RPS in 2013, but required a variance from the NMPRC’s diversity requirements in 2013 while the proposed geothermal facilities were being constructed. The geothermal facility began providing power to PNM in January 2014. The current output of the facility is 4 MW and future expansion may result in up to 9 MW of generation capacity.
• | 2014 plan – 50,000 MWh of wind generated RECs in 2014; construction of 23 MW of PNM-owned solar PV facilities at a cost of $46.5 million; a 20-year PPA for the output of Red Mesa Wind, an existing wind generator having an aggregate capacity of 102 MW, beginning January 1, 2015 at a first year cost estimated to be $5.8 million; and the purchase of 120,000 MWh of wind RECs in 2015.
• | 2015 plan – Construction of 40 MW of PNM-owned solar PV facilities at a cost of $79.3 million. The proposed 40 MW solar facilities are identified as being a cost-effective resource in PNM’s application to retire SJGS Units 2 and 3 (Note 16). Under a stipulated settlement, the costs of the 40 MW of solar would be recovered in base rates rather than through PNM’s renewable energy rider and have been included in rates requested in the New Mexico General Rate Case discussed above.
PNM filed its 2016 renewable energy procurement plan on June 1, 2015. The plan meets RPS and diversity requirements within the RCT in 2016 and 2017. The plan does not propose any significant new procurements. The NMPRC approved the plan in November 2015, but subsequently vacated the order in response to a rehearing motion regarding the rate treatment of certain non-residential customers eligible for a cap on RPS procurement costs and certain governmental customers exempt from RPS procurement costs. On rehearing, the NMPRC approved the plan in an order issued on February 3, 2016. In this order, the NMPRC deferred the issue related to capped and exempt customers to a new case related to the calculation of PNM’s FPPAC, as discussed in FPPAC Continuation Application below. Renewable Energy Rider The NMPRC has authorized PNM to recover certain renewable procurement costs through a rate rider billed on a per KWh basis. The rider will terminate upon a final order in PNM’s pending electric rate case unless the NMPRC authorizes PNM to continue it. As a separate component of the rider, if PNM’s earned return on jurisdictional equity in a calendar year, adjusted for weather and other items not representative of normal operations, exceeds 10.5%, PNM would be required to refund the amount over 10.5% to customers during May through December of the following year. PNM made timely filings with the NMPRC demonstrating that it had not exceeded the 10.5% return for 2014 and 2013. Preliminary calculations indicate PNM’s jurisdictional equity return did not exceed 10.5% in 2015. PNM recorded revenues from the rider of $41.9 million, $31.9 million, and $21.7 million in 2015, 2014, and 2013. In its 2016 renewable energy procurement plan case, PNM proposed to collect $42.4 million in 2016. The 2016 rider adjustment was approved as part of the final order issued February 3, 2016 on the 2016 renewable energy plan. Energy Efficiency and Load Management Program Costs Public utilities are required by the Efficient Use of Energy Act to achieve specified levels of energy savings and to obtain NMPRC approval to implement energy efficiency and load management programs. In 2013, this act was amended to set an annual program budget equal to 3% of an electric utility’s annual revenue. PNM’s costs to implement approved programs are recovered through a rate rider. In October 2012, PNM filed an energy efficiency program application for programs proposed to be offered beginning in May 2013. The filing included proposed program costs of $22.5 million plus a proposed profit incentive. The NMPRC approved PNM’s program application, including the annual profit incentive discussed below, on November 6, 2013. On October 6, 2014, PNM filed an energy efficiency program application for programs proposed to be offered beginning in June 2015. The filing included proposed program costs of $25.8 million plus a proposed profit incentive. The proposed energy efficiency budget and plan are consistent with the 2013 amendments to the Efficient Use of Energy Act. PNM and the NMPRC staff filed a stipulated settlement on January 30, 2015. After a public hearing, the NMPRC approved the settlement on April 29, 2015. The approval established program budgets and the incentive amounts discussed below. Disincentives/Incentives The Efficient Use of Energy Act requires the NMPRC to remove utility disincentives to implementing energy efficiency and load management programs and to provide incentives for such programs. The NMPRC has adopted a rule to implement this act. In November 2013, the NMPRC issued an order authorizing PNM to recover an incentive equal to 7.6% of annual program costs beginning with program implementation in December 2013. Based on PNM’s approved program costs, this amounted to an annual incentive of $1.7 million. In PNM’s 2014 energy efficiency program application, PNM proposed an energy efficiency incentive of $2.1 million. PNM’s proposed incentive was based upon a shared benefits methodology and is similar in amount to previous PNM incentives authorized by the NMPRC. Under the terms of the January 30, 2015 stipulation discussed above, the incentive amount would be $1.7 million in 2015 and $1.8 million in 2016 assuming threshold level of savings are achieved. Energy Efficiency Rulemaking On May 17, 2012, the NMPRC issued a NOPR that would have amended the NMPRC’s energy efficiency rule to authorize use of a decoupling mechanism to recover certain fixed costs of providing retail electric service as the mechanism for removal of disincentives associated with the implementation of energy efficiency programs. The proposed rule also addressed incentives associated with energy efficiency. On July 26, 2012, the NMPRC closed the proposed rulemaking and opened a new energy efficiency rulemaking docket that may address decoupling and incentives. Workshops to develop a proposed rule have been held, but no order proposing a rule has been issued. PNM is unable to predict the outcome of this matter. On October 2, 2013, the NMPRC issued a NOPR and a proposed rule to implement amendments to the New Mexico Efficient Use of Energy Act. The NMPRC issued an order on October 8, 2014 adopting the proposed rule, which includes a provision that limits incentive awards to an amount equal to the utility’s WACC times its approved annual program costs. FPPAC Continuation Application Pursuant to the rules of the NMPRC, public utilities are required to file an application to continue using their FPPAC every four years. On May 28, 2013, PNM filed the required continuation application and requested that its current FPPAC be modified to increase the reset frequency of the fuel factor from annually to quarterly, to allow PNM to retain 10% of its off-system sales margin, and to apply the same carrying charge rate to both over and under collections in the balancing account. On April 23, 2014, the NMPRC approved a stipulated agreement resolving this case. The settlement allows PNM to retain 10% of off-system sales margin from July 1, 2013 through December 31, 2016, resolves the ratemaking treatment for coal pre-treatment at SJGS until the next rate case, required PNM to write-off $10.5 million of the under-collected balance in its FPPAC balancing account, and required PNM to recover the remaining under-collected balance ($63.5 million as of April 30, 2014) over 18 months beginning July 1, 2014. PNM recorded the $10.5 million write off as a regulatory disallowance in the fourth quarter of 2013. The NMPRC issued a show cause order on February 3, 2016 concerning the rate treatment of large and capped customers in respect to PNM’s RPS procurements to determine whether PNM miscalculated the FPPAC and base fuel costs due to its treatment of renewable energy costs. See the Renewable Portfolio Standard above. PNM cannot predict the outcome of this matter. Integrated Resource Plan NMPRC rules require that investor owned utilities file an IRP every three years. The IRP is required to cover a 20-year planning period and contain an action plan covering the first four years of that period. PNM filed its 2014 IRP on July 1, 2014. The four-year action plan was consistent with the replacement resources identified in PNM’s application to retire SJGS Units 2 and 3. PNM indicated that it planned to meet its anticipated long-term load growth with a combination of additional renewable energy resources, energy efficiency, and natural gas-fired facilities. Consistent with statute and NMPRC rule, PNM incorporated a public advisory process into the development of its 2014 IRP. On July 31, 2014, several parties requested the NMPRC not to accept the 2014 IRP as compliant with NMPRC rule because to do so could affect the pending proceeding on PNM’s application to abandon SJGS Units 2 and 3 and for CCNs for certain replacement resources (Note 16) and because they assert that the IRP does not conform to the NMPRC’s IRP rule. Certain parties also asked that further proceedings on the IRP be held in abeyance until the conclusion of the pending abandonment/CCN proceeding. The NMPRC issued an order in August 2014 that docketed a case to determine whether the IRP complies with applicable NMPRC rules. The order also held the case in abeyance pending the issuance of final, non-appealable orders in PNM’s 2015 renewable energy procurement plan case and its application to retire SJGS Units 2 and 3. The final order regarding PNM’s application to abandon SJGS Units 2 and 3 described in Note 16 states that the NMPRC will issue a Notice of Proposed Dismissal in the 2014 IRP docket. Such notice has not yet been issued. San Juan Generating Station Units 2 and 3 Retirement On December 20, 2013, PNM filed an application at the NMPRC to retire SJGS Units 2 and 3 on December 31, 2017. On October 1, 2014, PNM and certain parties to the case filed a stipulation with the NMPRC proposing a settlement of this case. The Hearing Examiner issued a Certification of Stipulation on April 8, 2015 that recommended rejection of the agreement as proposed, and recommended several modifications to the agreement. On August 13, 2015, PNM and certain parties to the case filed an agreement that, subject to approval by the NMPRC, would modify the stipulation and settle all issues in the case. The NMPRC issued an order approving the modified stipulation on December 16, 2015. On January 14, 2016, NEE filed an appeal of the final order with the NMSC. On February 5, 2016, NEE filed a motion with the NMPRC for reconsideration of the final order based on developments subsequent to the date of the order (Note 16). PNM filed its response to that motion on February 18, 2016. Additional information concerning the NMPRC filing, including a summary of the terms of the modified stipulation, and related proceedings before the NMSC is set forth in Note 16. On September 25, 2015, PNM made an application at FERC seeking certain approvals necessary for implementation of the restructured SJGS participation agreements. FERC issued the requested approvals on December 30, 2015. Application for Certificate of Convenience and Necessity On June 30, 2015, PNM filed an application for a CCN for a 187 MW gas plant to be located at SJGS. This resource was identified as a replacement resource in PNM’s application to retire SJGS Units 2 and 3. PNM estimated the cost of the facility, which would be located at SJGS, to be $133.2 million. PNM identified the necessary in-service date to be in the first half of 2018. On July 9, 2015, a party to the SJGS Unit 2 and 3 retirement case filed a motion to consolidate this CCN case with the retirement case, which motion was subsequently withdrawn. PNM is re-evaluating the timing and resource requirements for installation of the natural gas-fired unit requested in the CCN proceeding, including the potential for a smaller unit, along with other possible power resources, taking into consideration PNM’s recently revised lower load forecast and the impacts of the NEC settlement, which is discussed below. On February 12, 2016, PNM filed a motion to withdraw its application and stated that it intends to file either a new application for a gas-fueled resource or a report on the status of the CCN application by April 22, 2016. PNM’s current construction expenditure forecast includes a 85 MW gas-fired unit with an estimated cost of $101.8 million. PNM cannot predict the outcome of this proceeding. Four Corners Right of First Refusal On February 17, 2015, PNM received notice from EPE that EPE has entered into an agreement to sell its 7% interest in Four Corners to APS, thereby triggering PNM’s ability to exercise its right of first refusal (“ROFR”) to acquire a portion of EPE’s interest in Four Corners. PNM notified the NMPRC about receipt of the notice and advised the NMPRC that PNM did not intend to exercise its rights under the ROFR. The ROFR expired unexercised 120 days after the date of EPE’s notice. Transmission Rate Case In October 2010, PNM filed a notice with FERC to increase its wholesale electric transmission revenues by $11.1 million annually, based on a return on equity of 12.25%. FERC accepted PNM’s filing and the proposed rates were implemented on June 1, 2011, subject to refund. The rate increase applied to all of PNM’s wholesale electric transmission service customers, which include other utilities, electric cooperatives, and entities that use PNM’s transmission system to transmit power at the wholesale level. The rate increase did not impact PNM’s retail customers. On January 2, 2013, FERC approved an unopposed settlement agreement, which increased transmission revenues by $2.9 million annually. In addition, the parties agreed that if PNM filed for a formula-based rate change within one year from FERC’s approval of the settlement agreement, no party would oppose the general principle of a formula rate, although the parties may still object to particular aspects of the formula. PNM refunded amounts collected in excess of the settled rates in January 2013, concluding this matter. Formula Transmission Rate Case On December 31, 2012, PNM filed an application with FERC for authorization to move from charging stated rates for wholesale electric transmission service to a formula rate mechanism pursuant to which rates for wholesale transmission service are calculated annually in accordance with an approved formula. The proposed formula includes updating cost of service components, including investment in plant and operating expenses, based on information contained in PNM’s annual financial report filed with FERC, as well as including projected large transmission capital projects to be placed into service in the following year. The projections included are subject to true-up in the following year formula rate. Certain items, including changes to return on equity and depreciation rates, require a separate filing to be made with FERC before being included in the formula rate. As filed, PNM’s request would have resulted in a $3.2 million wholesale electric transmission rate increase, based on PNM’s 2011 data and a 10.81% return on equity (“ROE”), and authority to adjust transmission rates annually based on an approved formula. The proposed $3.2 million rate increase would be in addition to the $2.9 million rate increase approved by the FERC on January 2, 2013. On March 1, 2013, FERC issued an order (1) accepting PNM’s revisions to its rates for filing and suspending the proposed revisions to become effective August 2, 2013, subject to refund; (2) directing PNM to submit a compliance filing to establish its ROE using the median, rather than the mid-point, of the ROEs from a proxy group of companies; (3) directing PNM to submit a compliance filing to remove from its rate proposal the acquisition adjustment related to PNM’s 60% ownership of the EIP transmission line, which was acquired in 2003; and (4) setting the proceeding for hearing and settlement judge procedures. PNM would be allowed to make a separate filing related to recovery of the EIP acquisition adjustment. On April 1, 2013, PNM made the required compliance filing. On August 2, 2013, new rates went into effect, subject to refund. In June 2013, May 2014, and March 2015, PNM made additional filings incorporating final 2012, 2013, and 2014 data into the formula rate request. On March 20, 2015, PNM along with five other parties entered into a settlement agreement, which was filed at FERC. The settlement reflects a ROE of 10% and results in an annual increase of $1.3 million above the rates approved in the previous rate case. Additionally, the parties filed a motion to implement the settled rates effective April 1, 2015. On March 25, 2015, the ALJ issued an order authorizing the interim implementation of settled rates beginning on April 1, 2015, subject to refund. In May 2015, the settlement judge recommended that FERC approve the settlement. There is no required time frame for FERC to act upon the settlement. Firm-Requirements Wholesale Customers Navopache Electric Cooperative, Inc. In September 2011, PNM filed an unexecuted amended PSA between PNM and NEC with FERC. NEC filed a protest to PNM’s filing with FERC. In November 2011, FERC issued an order accepting the filing to be effective April 14, 2012, subject to refund, and set the proceeding for settlement. The parties finalized a settlement agreement and amended PSA, which were filed with FERC on December 6, 2012. The settlement agreement and amended PSA provided for an annual increase in revenue of $5.3 million and an extension of the contract for 10 years through December 31, 2035. On April 5, 2013, FERC approved the settlement agreement and the amended PSA. In 2015 and 2014, monthly billing demand for power supplied to NEC averaged approximately 54 MW and 55 MW and revenues were $27.1 million and $28.4 million under the PSA. On April 8, 2015, NEC filed a petition for a declaratory order requesting that FERC find that NEC can purchase an unlimited amount of power and energy from third party supplier(s) under the amended PSA. On May 8, 2015, PNM filed an intervention and protest with FERC requesting that FERC deny NEC’s petition or to proceed with a public hearing if the petition is not denied. On July 16, 2015, FERC issued an order setting the matter for a public hearing concerning the parties’ intent with regard to certain provisions of the PSA and held the hearing in abeyance to provide time for settlement judge procedures. Following proceedings before a settlement judge, PNM and NEC entered into, and filed with FERC, a settlement agreement on October 29, 2015 that includes certain amendments to the PSA and related contracts on file with FERC that, subject to FERC approval, would settle this matter. Under the settlement agreement, PNM would continue to serve all of NEC’s load through December 31, 2015 at rates that are substantially consistent with those currently provided under the PSA. In 2016, PNM would serve all of NEC’s load at reduced demand and energy rates from those under the PSA. Beginning January 1, 2016, NEC would also pay certain third-party transmission costs that it did not pay in 2014 and partially paid in 2015. The PSA and related transmission agreements would terminate on December 31, 2016. In 2017, PNM would serve 10 MW of NEC’s load under a short term coordination tariff at a rate lower than provided under the PSA. PNM received approval to bill interim rates, which reflect the settlement, effective November 1, 2015 under the PSA and effective January 1, 2016 under the related contracts. FERC approved the settlement on January 21, 2016. City of Gallup, New Mexico Contract PNM provided both energy and power services to Gallup, previously PNM’s second largest firm-requirements wholesale customer, under an electric service agreement that was to expire on June 30, 2013. On May 1, 2013, PNM and Gallup agreed to extend the term of the agreement to June 30, 2014 and to increase the demand and energy rates under the agreement. On September 26, 2013, Gallup issued a request for proposals for long-term power supply. PNM submitted a proposal, but in March 2014, Gallup notified PNM that the contract for long-term power supply had been awarded to another utility. PNM’s contract with Gallup ended on June 29, 2014. PNM’s revenues for power sold under the Gallup contract were $6.1 million in the six months ended June 30, 2014 and totaled $11.7 million during 2013. PNM’s New Mexico General Rate Case discussed above reflects a reallocation of costs among regulatory jurisdictions reflecting the termination of the contract to serve Gallup. In conjunction with the termination of PNM’s electric service agreement with Gallup, Gallup purchased substations and associated transmission facilities owned by PNM that had been used solely to provide service to Gallup. This sale resulted in a gain of $1.1 million, which PNM recorded in other income during the three months ended June 30, 2015. TNMP Advanced Meter System Deployment In July 2011, the PUCT approved a settlement and authorized an AMS deployment plan that permits TNMP to collect $113.4 million in deployment costs through a surcharge over a 12-year period. TNMP began collecting the surcharge on August 11, 2011. Deployment of advanced meters began in September 2011 and is scheduled to be completed over a 5-year period. In February 2012, the PUCT opened a proceeding to consider the feasibility of an “opt-out” program for retail consumers that wish to decline receipt of an advanced meter. The PUCT requested comments and held a public meeting on various issues. However, various individuals filed a petition with the PUCT seeking a moratorium on any advanced meter deployment. The PUCT denied the petition and an appeal was filed with the Texas District Court on September 28, 2012. Subsequently, the Texas District Court dismissed the case on jurisdictional grounds and the complainants appealed to the Texas Third Court of Appeals. The Third Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal on November 25, 2015. This matter is now concluded. The PUCT adopted a rule on August 15, 2013 creating a non-standard metering service for retail customers choosing to decline standard metering service via an advanced meter. The cost of providing non-standard metering service is to be borne by opt-out customers through an initial fee and ongoing monthly charge. On September 30, 2013, TNMP filed an application to set the initial fee and monthly charges to be assessed for non-standard metering service provided to those retail customers who choose to decline the advanced meter necessary for standard metering service. On June 20, 2014, the PUCT approved a settlement permitting TNMP to recover $0.2 million in costs through initial fees ranging from $63.97 to $168.61 and ongoing annual expenses of $0.5 million collected through a $36.78 monthly fee. The settlement presumes up to 1,081 consumers will elect the non-standard meter service, but preserves TNMP’s rights to adjust the fees if the number of anticipated consumers differs from that estimate. TNMP notified all appropriate customers that they could elect non-standard metering. As of February 19, 2016, 98 customers have made the election. TNMP does not expect the implementation of non-standard metering service to have a material impact on its financial position, results of operations, or cash flows. On October 2, 2015, TNMP filed a reconciliation of the costs and savings of its AMS deployment program with the PUCT. Those costs include $71.0 million in capital costs and $18.0 million in operation and maintenance expenses. However, since the deployment is not complete and the total program costs to date are $1.5 million below the original approved forecasts, TNMP is not requesting a change to its monthly surcharge amount. The reconciliation is subject to prudency and reasonableness review by the PUCT. On January 8, 2016, the PUCT staff recommended that the PUCT approve TNMP’s reconciliation without adjustment. The matter is pending before the PUCT. TNMP is unable to predict the outcome of this matter. Energy Efficiency TNMP recovers the costs of its energy efficiency programs through an energy efficiency cost recovery factor, which includes projected program costs, under or over collected costs from prior years, rate case expenses, and performance bonuses (if the programs exceed mandated savings goals). The following sets forth TNMP’s energy efficiency cost recovery factor increases:
Effective Date |  | Aggregate Collection Amount |  | Performance Bonus
|  | (in millions)
January 1, 2013 |  | $ | 5.2 |  |  | $ | — |
March 1, 2014 |  | 5.6 |  |  | 0.7 |
March 1, 2015 |  | 5.7 |  |  | 1.5 |
March 1, 2016 |  | 6.0 |  |  | 0.7 |
Transmission Cost of Service Rates TNMP can update its transmission rates twice per year to reflect changes in its invested capital. Updated rates reflect the addition and retirement of transmission facilities, including appropriate depreciation, federal income tax and other associated taxes, and the approved rate of return on such facilities. The following sets forth TNMP’s recent interim transmission cost rate increases:
Effective Date |  | Approved Increase in Rate Base |  | Annual Increase in Revenue
|  | (in millions)
September 27, 2012 |  | $ | 26.4 |  |  | $ | 2.5 |
March 20, 2013 |  | 21.9 |  |  | 2.9 |
September 17, 2013 |  | 18.1 |  |  | 2.8 |
March 13, 2014 |  | 18.2 |  |  | 2.9 |
September 8, 2014 |  | 25.2 |  |  | 4.2 |
March 16, 2015 |  | 27.1 |  |  | 4.4 |
September 10, 2015 |  | 7.0 |  |  | 1.4 |
On January 29, 2016, TNMP filed an application to further update its transmission rates, which would increase revenues by $4.3 million annually, based on an increase in rate base of $25.8 million. The application is pending before the PUCT. Periodic Distribution Rate Adjustment In September 2011, the PUCT approved a rule permitting interim rate adjustments to reflect changes in investments in distribution assets. The rule permits distribution utilities to file for a periodic rate adjustment between April 1 and April 8 of each year as long as the electric utility is not earning more than its authorized rate of return using weather-normalized data. Consolidated Tax Savings Adjustment On June 14, 2013, the Governor of Texas signed into law a bill eliminating the consolidated tax savings adjustment (“CTSA”) from electric utility ratemaking in Texas. Previously, the CTSA required electric utilities to artificially reduce their respective tax expenses due to the losses incurred by their affiliates. The bill became effective on September 1, 2013.

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

X
- References No definition available. + Details
Name: | us-gaap_RegulatedOperationsAbstract
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | xbrli:stringItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration