XML 55 R24.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT
v3.6.0.2

Commitments and Contingencies | 12 Months Ended
--- | ---
Dec. 31, 2016
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 periodically enters into financial commitments in connection with its business operations. Also, the Company is involved in various legal and regulatory (Note 17) 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 any damages sought, and the probability of success. Such judgments are made with the understanding that the outcome of any litigation, investigation, or 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. Commitments and Contingencies Related to the Environment PVNGS Decommissioning Funding PNM has a program for funding its share of decommissioning costs for PVNGS, including portions held under leases. The nuclear decommissioning funding program is invested in equities and fixed income instruments in qualified and non-qualified trusts. PNM funded $4.2 million, $4.9 million, and $4.9 million for the years ended December 31, 2016, 2015, and 2014 into the qualified and non-qualified trust funds. The market value of the trusts at December 31, 2016 and 2015 was $253.9 million and $249.1 million. 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 DC 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. The lawsuits filed by APS alleged that damages were incurred due to DOE’s continuing failure to remove spent nuclear fuel and high level waste from PVNGS. In August 2014, APS and DOE entered into a settlement agreement, which establishes a process for the payment of claims for costs incurred through December 31, 2016. Under the settlement agreement, APS must submit claims annually for payment of allowable costs. PNM’s share of settlements under this process for costs incurred from January 2007 through June 2011, which amounted to $5.9 million, was recorded in the fourth quarter of 2014 and substantially all was credited back to PNM’s customers. In the first quarter of 2015, PNM recorded $4.3 million, including $3.1 million credited back to PNM’s customers, for its share of the settlement under this process for costs incurred from July 2011 through June 2014. In the second quarter of 2015, PNM recorded claims of $1.3 million, including $0.5 million credited back to PNM’s customers, for costs incurred between July 1, 2014 and June 30, 2015. Thereafter, PNM began recording estimated claims quarterly. The settlement agreement, which would have terminated upon payment of costs incurred through December 31, 2016, has been extended to December 31, 2019. PNM estimates that it will incur approximately $57.7 million (in 2016 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 December 31, 2016 and 2015, PNM had a liability for interim storage costs of $12.1 million and $12.2 million included in other deferred credits. 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. On June 8, 2012, the DC 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 DC 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 DC 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. 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. The NRC lifted its suspension on final licensing actions on all nuclear power plant licenses and renewals that went into effect when the DC Circuit issued its June 2012 decision although PVNGS had not been involved in any licensing actions affected by that decision. The August 2014 final rule has been subject to continuing legal challenges before the NRC and the United States Court of Appeals. On May 19, 2016, the NRC denied petitions filed by multiple petitioners to revise the August 2014 rule. The DC Circuit issued an order upholding the August 2014 rule on June 3, 2016 and denied a subsequent petition for rehearing on August 8, 2016. In 2011, the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners and the Nuclear Energy Institute challenged, in the DC Circuit, 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. On January 3, 2014, the DOE notified Congress of its intention to suspend collection of the one-mill fee, subject to Congress’ disapproval, as ordered by the DC Circuit. 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 Compliance – 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 ruled that SJGS was required to reduce NOx emissions by installing selective non-catalytic reduction technology (“SNCR”) as BART. Nevertheless, in August 2011, EPA published a FIP, which included a regional haze BART determination for SJGS that required installation of selective catalytic reduction technology (“SCR”) as BART on all four units by September 21, 2016. PNM, as the operating agent for SJGS, engaged in discussions with NMED and EPA regarding an alternative to the FIP and SIP, which resulted in a non-binding agreement that would include 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 (the “RSIP”). EPA issued final rules, which became effective on November 10, 2014, approving the RSIP and withdrawing the FIP. In addition to the SNCR equipment required by the RSIP, the NSR permit, which was required to be obtained in order to install the SNCRs, specified that SJGS Units 1 and 4 be converted to balanced draft technology (“BDT”). The requirement to install BDT was made binding and enforceable in the NSR permit issued by NMED 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 ….” Following issuance of the FIP, PNM estimated the total cost to install SCRs on all four units of SJGS to be between approximately $824 million and $910 million, including BDT equipment to assist with compliance with the NAAQS requirements and to eliminate all fugitive boiler emissions. 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, the cost of which had been estimated to total between approximately $105 million and $110 million for all four units of SJGS. 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 and entered into contracts for the work. Installation of SNCRs on Unit 1 and BDT equipment on both Units 1 and 4 was completed in 2015 and installation of SNCRs on Unit 4 was completed in January 2016, which dates were within the timeframe contained in the RSIP. PNM’s share of the total costs for SNCRs and BDT equipment was $77.9 million. See Note 17 for information concerning the NMPRC’s treatment of BDT in PNM’s NM 2015 Rate Case. Although operating costs will be reduced due to the retirement of SJGS Units 2 and 3, the operating costs for SJGS Units 1 and 4 have increased with the installation of SNCR and BDT equipment. 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
PNM’s filing also addressed replacement of the capacity from the shutdown of SJGS Units 2 and 3, which will reduce PNM’s ownership in SJGS by 340 MW, including a possible increase in PNM’s ownership in SJGS Unit 4, the identification of a new 177 MW natural gas-fired generation source, and 40 MW of new utility-scale solar PV. PNM received approval to construct the 40 MW of solar PV facilities in its 2015 Renewable Energy Plan. See Note 17. 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). On October 1, 2014, PNM and certain intervenors filed a stipulation with the NMPRC that would have settled all matters in PNM’s filing. On April 8, 2015, the Hearing Examiner in the case issued a Certification of Stipulation, which recommended the NMPRC reject the stipulation as proposed. In June 2015, a NMPRC Commissioner issued an order designating a facilitator to determine whether an uncontested settlement among some or all of the parties in this case could be accomplished. On August 13, 2015, as a result of the facilitation process, PNM, the staff of the NMPRC, the NMAG, Western Resource Advocates, and the Coalition for Clean Affordable Energy filed a settlement agreement with the NMPRC. NMIEC, Interwest Energy Alliance, and New Mexico Independent Power Producers subsequently joined in this agreement and NEE filed in opposition to the agreement. The stipulating parties agreed that the October 2014 stipulation should be approved, as modified by the settlement agreement (collectively, the “Stipulated Settlement”). The Hearing Examiner scheduled a hearing on PNM’s application concerning BART for SJGS to begin on October 13, 2015. NEE previously filed motions before the NMPRC requesting that four of the five NMPRC commissioners recuse themselves, alleging they had improper ex-parte communications, were biased, and had pre-judged the outcome of the BART case. Each of the four commissioners declined to recuse themselves. On October 5, 2015, NEE filed a Petition for a Writ of Mandamus and Request for Stay in the NM Supreme Court requesting the four commissioners be recused from this case and that PNM’s application be dismissed. On October 9, 2015, the NM Supreme Court issued orders that allowed the hearing conducted by the Hearing Examiner to proceed, but ordered that any action by the NMPRC be stayed, pending a decision by the NM Supreme Court on NEE’s petition. The hearing on the Stipulated Settlement was held from October 13, 2015 through October 20, 2015. Oral argument on NEE’s petition was held before the NM Supreme Court on November 9, 2015. On November 9, 2015, the NM Supreme Court denied NEE’s petition. On December 16, 2015, following oral argument, the NMPRC issued an order adopting the Stipulated Settlement. As provided in that order:
• | PNM will retire SJGS Units 2 and 3 (PNM’s current ownership interest totals 418 MW) by December 31, 2017 and recover, over 20 years, 50% of their undepreciated net book value at that date and earn a regulated return on those costs
• | PNM is granted a CCN to acquire an additional 132 MW in SJGS Unit 4, with an initial book value of zero, plus the costs of SNCR and other capital additions
• | PNM is granted a CCN for 134 MW of PVNGS Unit 3 with an initial rate base value equal to the book value as of December 31, 2017, including transmission assets associated with PVNGS Unit 3, (currently estimated to aggregate approximately $151 million)
• | No later than December 31, 2018, and before entering into a binding agreement for post-2022 coal supply for SJGS, PNM will file its position and supporting testimony in a NMPRC case to determine the extent to which SJGS should continue serving PNM’s retail customers’ needs after mid-2022; all parties to the stipulation agree to support this case being decided within six months (to facilitate the 2018 filing PNM is developing two resource portfolios in its 2017 IRP to be filed in July 2017, one with SJGS continuing beyond mid-2022 and one where it is shut down)
• | PNM is authorized to acquire 65 MW of SJGS Unit 4 as excluded utility plant; PNM and PNMR commit that no further coal-fired merchant plant will be acquired at any time by PNM, PNMR, or any PNM affiliate; PNM is not precluded from seeking a CCN to include the 65 MW or other coal capacity in rate base
• | Beginning January 1, 2020, for every MWh produced by 197 MW of coal-fired generation from PNM’s ownership share of SJGS, PNM will acquire and retire one MWh of RECs or allowances that include a zero-CO 2 emission attribute compliant with EPA’s Clean Power Plan; this REC retirement is in addition to what is required to meet the RPS; the cost of these RECs are to be capped at $7.0 million per year and will be recovered in rates; PNM should purchase EPA-compliant RECs from New Mexico renewable generation unless those RECs are more costly
• | PNM will accelerate recovery of SNCR costs on SJGS Units 1 and 4 so that the costs are fully recovered by July 1, 2022 (cost recovery for PNM’s BDT project is discussed in Note 17)
• | PNM will not recover approximately $20 million of other costs incurred in connection with CAA compliance
• | PNM’s 2014 IRP docket will be closed without other NMPRC action
At December 31, 2015, PNM’s carrying value for its current ownership share of SJGS Units 2 and 3 included plant in service of $468.2 million, accumulated depreciation and amortization (including cost of removal) of $193.3 million, and construction work in progress of $2.2 million for a net undepreciated net book value of $277.1 million. PNM estimated the undepreciated net book value of SJGS Units 2 and 3 at December 31, 2017 would be approximately $255.3 million, 50% of which would be recovered over a 20-year period, including a return on the unrecovered amount at PNM’s WACC. At December 31, 2015, PNM recorded a $127.6 million regulatory disallowance to reflect the write-off of the 50% of the estimated December 31, 2017 net book value that will not be recovered. The ultimate amount of the disallowance will be dependent on the actual December 31, 2017 net undepreciated book values of SJGS Units 2 and 3. Accordingly, the amount initially recorded will be adjusted periodically to reflect changes in the projected December 31, 2017 net book values. A regulatory disallowance of $21.6 million was also recorded at December 31, 2015 for other unrecoverable costs based on the approved Stipulated Settlement. The new coal mine reclamation arrangement entered into in conjunction with the new coal supply agreement (“CSA”), described under Coal Supply below and in Note 16, resulted in a $16.5 million increase in the liability recorded for coal mine reclamation. The expense recorded for this increase and the above disallowances, aggregating $165.7 million, is included in regulatory disallowances and restructuring costs on the Consolidated Statements of Earnings (Loss). In addition, the shutdown of SJGS Units 2 and 3 will result in the reversal of certain deferred income tax items. The estimated impact of these tax items resulted in an expense of $1.8 million being recorded at December 31, 2015, which amount is included in income tax expense. During 2016, PNM revised its estimates of the December 31, 2017 projected book value of SJGS Units 2 and 3 and the other unrecoverable costs, which resulted in a net expense of $3.7 million, including a $4.5 million expense related to a refinement of the estimated liability for coal mine reclamation resulting from the new coal mine reclamation arrangement, that is reflected in regulatory disallowances and restructuring costs on the Consolidated Statement of Earnings. In addition, PNMR Development recorded an expense of $0.6 million in 2016 for costs it was obligated to reimburse the other SJGS participants under the restructuring arrangement, which is included in other deductions on the Consolidated Statement of Earnings. At December 31, 2016, the carrying value for PNM’s current ownership share of SJGS Units 2 and 3 is comprised of plant in service of $471.8 million and accumulated depreciation and amortization (including cost of removal) of $203.9 million for a net undepreciated book value of $267.9 million, offset by 50% (which equals $128.6 million) of the anticipated December 31, 2017 net undepreciated book value of SJGS Units 2 and 3 that will not be recovered, resulting in the net carrying value for SJGS Units 2 and 3 being $139.3 million at December 31, 2016. On January 14, 2016, NEE filed a Notice of Appeal with the NM Supreme Court of the NMPRC’s December 16, 2015 order. On July 22, 2016, NEE filed a brief alleging that the NMPRC’s decision violated New Mexico Statutes and NMPRC regulations because PNM did not adequately consider replacement resources other than those proposed by PNM, the NMPRC did not require PNM to adequately address and mitigate ratepayer risk, the NMPRC unlawfully shifted the burden of proof, and the NMPRC’s decision was arbitrary and capricious. Answer briefs refuting NEE’s claims were filed on November 2, 2016 by PNM, the NMPRC, and other intervenors. In addition, on February 5, 2016, NEE filed a motion for reconsideration with the NMPRC of that order based on developments related to the loan made by NM Capital to facilitate the sale of SJCC, which is described under Coal Supply below. NEE alleged the loan is a transaction that, under the New Mexico Public Utility Act, requires prior NMPRC approval. PNM filed its response to NEE’s motion for reconsideration on February 18, 2016. The NEE motion was denied by operation of law because the NMPRC did not act on the motion. On March 31, 2016, NEE filed a complaint with the NMPRC against PNM regarding the financing provided by NM Capital to facilitate the sale of SJCC. The complaint alleges that PNM failed to comply with its discovery obligation in the SJGS abandonment case and requests the NMPRC investigate whether the financing transactions could adversely affect PNM’s ability to provide electric service to its retail customers. PNM responded to the complaint on May 4, 2016. The NMPRC has taken no action on this matter. PNM cannot currently predict the outcome of these matters. SJGS Ownership Restructuring Matters – Currently, 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. In connection with requirements to install SNCR and BDT equipment at SJGS, the California participants indicated that, under California law, they may be prohibited from making significant capital improvements to SJGS and expressed the intent to exit their ownership in SJGS by December 31, 2017. One other participant also expressed a similar intent to exit ownership in the plant. As a result, the SJGS participants negotiated a restructuring of the ownership in SJGS and addressed the obligations of the exiting participants for plant decommissioning, mine reclamation, environmental matters, and certain future operating costs, among other items. The exiting participants currently own 50.0% of SJGS Unit 3 and 38.8% of SJGS Unit 4, but none of SJGS Units 1 and 2. PNM currently owns 50.0% of SJGS Units 1, 2, and 3 and 38.5% of SJGS Unit 4. Following mediated negotiations, the SJGS participants executed the San Juan Project Restructuring Agreement (“RA”) on July 31, 2015. The RA provides the essential terms of restructured ownership and addresses other related matters, including that the exiting participants 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. PNMR Development became a party to the RA and agreed to acquire a 65 MW ownership interest in SJGS Unit 4 on the exit date, which is anticipated to be December 31, 2017, but has obligations related to Unit 4 before then. On the exit date, PNM and PNMR Development would acquire 132 MW and 65 MW of the capacity in SJGS Unit 4 from the exiting owners for no initial cost other than funding capital improvements, including the costs of installing SNCR and BDT equipment. PNMR Development’s share of the costs of installing SNCR and BDT equipment amounted to $7.6 million. PNMR currently anticipates that PNMR Development will transfer the rights and obligations related to the 65 MW to PNM prior to December 31, 2017 in order to facilitate dispatch of power from that capacity. As ordered by the NMPRC, PNM would treat the 65 MW as merchant utility plant that would be excluded from retail rates. Reflecting the additions of the 132 MW and 65 MW, PNM’s ownership share would be 77.3% in SJGS Unit 4 and an aggregate of 66.3% in SJGS Units 1 and 4. The RA became effective contemporaneously with the effectiveness of the new CSA. The effectiveness of the new CSA was dependent on the closing of the purchase of the existing coal mine operation by a new mine operator, which as discussed in Coal Supply below, occurred at 11:59 PM on January 31, 2016. The RA sets forth the terms under which PNM acquired the coal inventory of the exiting SJGS participants as of January 1, 2016 and will supply coal to the exiting participants for the period from January 1, 2016 through December 31, 2017, which arrangement provides economic benefits that are being passed on to PNM’s customers through the FPPAC. 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. PNMR Development’s share of the restructuring fee was recorded at December 31, 2015 and the $3.1 million impact is included in other income on the Consolidated Statements of Earnings. On September 25, 2015, PNM made an application at FERC seeking certain approvals necessary for implementation of the restructured SJGS participation agreements. FERC approved the application on December 30, 2015. 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. The SJPPA also obligates PNM to take reasonable and prudent actions necessary for the successful and proper operation of SJGS if the participants fail to approve the requested expenditures. PNM presented the SNCR project, including BDT equipment, to the SJGS participants in Unit 1 and Unit 4 for approval in October 2013. The project was approved for Unit 1, but the Unit 4 project, which includes some of the California participants, was not approved. PNM subsequently submitted several requests to the owners of Unit 4 for approval of certain expenditures critical to comply with the time frame in the RSIP, as well as requests to approve the total forecasted project expenses. The required majority of Unit 4 owners did not approve these requests. PNM, in its capacity as operating agent, subsequently issued several “Prudent Utility Practice” notices under the SJPPA indicating PNM was undertaking certain critical activities to comply with regulatory requirements and keep the Unit 4 SNCR project on schedule. Although the RA results in an agreement among the SJGS participants enabling compliance with current CAA requirements, it is possible that the financial impact of climate change regulation or legislation, 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 Four Corners FIP with a 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. PNM estimates its share of costs for post-combustion controls at Four Corners Units 4 and 5 to be up to $90.4 million, including amounts incurred through December 31, 2016 and PNM’s AFUDC. PNM is seeking recovery from its ratepayers of these costs in its NM 2016 Rate Case discussed in Note 17. PNM is unable to predict the ultimate outcome of this matter. The Four Corners plant site is leased from the Navajo Nation. APS, on behalf of the Four Corners participants, negotiated amendments to the 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 required the approval of the DOI, as did a related federal rights-of-way grant that culminated in the issuance of a DOI Record of Decision on July 17, 2015. The Record of Decision approves the 25-year site lease extension with the Navajo Nation for Four Corners, authorizes continued mining operations to supply the remaining units at Four Corners, renews transmission line and access road rights-of-way on the Navajo and Hopi Reservations, and accepts the proposed mining plan for the Navajo Mine. The Record of Decision provides the authority for the Bureau of Indian Affairs to sign the lease amendments and rights-of-way renewals, which occurred in July 2015. In addition, installation of SCR control technology at Four Corners required a PSD permit, which APS received in December 2014. The Four Corners participants’ obligations to comply with EPA’s final BART determinations, coupled with the financial impact of 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. Four Corners Federal Agency Lawsuit – On April 20, 2016, several environmental groups filed a lawsuit against OSM and other federal agencies in the United States District Court for the District of Arizona in connection with their issuance of the approvals that extended the life of Four Corners and the adjacent mine. The lawsuit alleges that these federal agencies violated both the ESA and NEPA in providing the federal approvals necessary to extend operations at Four Corners and the adjacent mine past July 6, 2016. The court granted APS’ motion to intervene in the litigation on August 3, 2016. Briefing on the merits of this litigation is expected to extend through May 2017. On September 15, 2016, NTEC, the current owner of the mine providing coal to Four Corners, filed a motion to intervene for the purpose of dismissing the lawsuit based on NTEC’s tribal sovereign immunity. The court has placed a stay on all litigation deadlines pending its decision regarding NTEC's motion to dismiss. PNM cannot predict the timing or outcome of this matter. Carbon Dioxide Emissions On August 3, 2015, EPA established final standards to limit CO 2 emissions from power plants. EPA took three separate but related actions in which it: (1) established the final carbon pollution standards for new, modified and reconstructed power plants; (2) established the final Clean Power Plan to set standards for carbon emission reductions from existing power plants; and (3) released a proposed federal plan associated with the final Clean Power Plan. The Clean Power Plan was published on October 23, 2015. Multiple states, utilities, and trade groups subsequently filed petitions for review and motions to stay in the DC Circuit. The Clean Power Plan establishes state-by-state targets for carbon emissions reduction and establishes deadlines for states to submit initial plans to EPA by September 6, 2016, with a potential two-year extension, and final plans by 2018. The September deadline has passed with no action and the 2018 deadline could be adjusted due to the stay of the Clean Power Plan issued by the US Supreme Court and pending litigation described below. State plans can be based on either an emission standards (rate or mass) approach or a state measures approach. Under an emission standards approach, federally enforceable emission limits are placed directly on affected units in the state. A state measures approach must meet equivalent rates statewide but may include some elements, such as renewable energy or energy efficiency requirements, that are not federally enforceable. State measures plans may only be used with mass-based goals and must include “backstop” federally enforceable standards that will become effective if the state measures fail to achieve the expected level of emission reductions. On January 21, 2016, the DC Circuit denied petitions to stay the Clean Power Plan. On January 26, 2016, 29 states and state agencies filed a petition to the US Supreme Court to reverse the DC Circuit’s decision and stay the implementation of the Clean Power Plan. On February 9, 2016, the US Supreme Court issued a 5-4 decision granting the stay pending judicial review of the rule. The US Supreme Court’s order stated, “The EPA rule to have states cut power sector carbon dioxide (CO 2) emissions 32% by 2030 is stayed pending disposition of the applicants’ petitions for review in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.” The decision means the Clean Power Plan is not in effect and states are not obliged to comply with its requirements. If the rule prevails through the legal challenges, states will be able to resume preparing state plans where they left off and may still have six more months to prepare initial plans and 2.5 years for final plans. The DC Circuit heard oral arguments on September 27, 2016 in the case challenging the Clean Power Plan. A decision by the DC Circuit is not expected until sometime later in 2017. The stay will remain in effect pending US Supreme Court review if such review is sought. The proposed federal plan released concurrently with the Clean Power Plan is important to Four Corners and the Navajo Nation. Since the Navajo Nation does not have primacy over its air quality program, the EPA would be the regulatory authority responsible for implementing the Clean Power Plan on the Navajo Nation. In addition, the proposed rule recommends that EPA determine it is “necessary or appropriate” for EPA to regulate CO 2 emissions on the Navajo Nation. The comment period for the proposed rule closed on January 21, 2016. APS and PNM filed separate comments with EPA on EPA’s draft plan and model trading rules, advocating that such a federal plan is neither necessary nor appropriate to protect air quality on the Navajo Nation. If EPA was to determine that it was not necessary or appropriate, the Clean Power Plan would not apply to the Navajo Nation, in which case, APS has indicated the Clean Power Plan would not have a material impact on Four Corners. PNM is unable to predict the financial or operational impacts on Four Corners operations if EPA determines that a federal plan is necessary or appropriate for the Navajo Nation. On June 30, 2016, EPA published in the Federal Register the design details of its voluntary Clean Energy Incentive Program under the Clean Power Plan. Comments were due to EPA on November 1, 2016. PNM’s review of the new CO 2 emission reductions standards is ongoing and the assessment of its impacts will depend on the litigation of the final rule and actions the Trump administration may take through judicial and regulatory proceedings. Accordingly, PNM cannot predict the impact these standards may have on its operations or a range of the potential costs of compliance. 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 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. NMED did not receive a letter. On August 11, 2015, EPA released the Data Requirements Rule for SO 2, telling states how to model or monitor to determine attainment or nonattainment with the new 1-hour SO 2 NAAQS. On June 3, 2016, NMED notified PNM that air quality modeling results indicated that SJGS was in compliance with the standard. In January 2017, NMED submitted their formal modeling report regarding attainment status to EPA. The modeling indicates that no area in New Mexico exceeds the 1-hour SO 2 standard. In July of each year, NMED will submit an annual report to EPA documenting annual SO 2 emissions from SJGS and the associated compliance status. On May 14, 2015, PNM received an amendment to its NSR air permit for SJGS, which reflects the revised state implementation plan for regional haze BART and requires the installation of SNCRs as described above. The revised permit also requires the reduction of SO 2 emissions to 0.10 pound per MMBTU on SJGS Units 1 and 4 and 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 for these constituents. The BDT equipment modifications were installed at the same time as the SNCRs, in order to most efficiently and cost effectively conduct construction activities at SJGS. See Regional Haze – SJGS above. 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 October 1, 2015, EPA finalized the new ozone NAAQS and lowered both the primary and secondary 8-hour standard from 75 ppb to 70 ppb. With ozone standards becoming more stringent, fossil-fueled generation units will come under increasing pressure to reduce emissions of NOx and volatile organic compounds, and to generate emission offsets for new projects or facility expansions located in nonattainment areas. On November 10, 2015, EPA proposed a rule revising its Exceptional Events Rule, which outlines the requirements for excluding air quality data (including ozone data) from regulatory decisions if the data are affected by events outside an area’s control. The proposed rule is timely in light of the new more stringent ozone NAAQS final rule since western states like New Mexico and Arizona are particularly subject to elevated background ozone transport from natural local sources such as wildfires, and transported via winds from distant sources, such as the stratosphere or another region or country. On February 25, 2016, EPA released guidance on area designations, which states used to determine their initial designation recommendations by October 1, 2016. EPA recommended that states and tribes use the three most recent years of quality assured monitoring data available (e.g., 2013 to 2015) to recommend designations. In their submittals, states and tribes were also able to use preliminary 2016 data. EPA is expected to release final designations of attainment/nonattainment for areas by October 1, 2017. By October 2018, NMED must submit an infrastructure SIP that provides the basic air quality management program to implement the revised ozone standard. Due dates for SIPs for areas that have been designated as non-attainment for ozone are generally due within 36 months from the date of designation and are expected to be submitted to EPA by October 1, 2020. NMED published its 2015 Ozone NAAQS Designation Recommendation Report on September 2, 2016. In New Mexico, NMED is designating only a small area in southern Dona Ana County as non-attainment for ozone. NMED will have responsibility for bringing this nonattainment area into compliance and will look at all sources of NOx and volatile organic compounds since these are the pollutants that form ground-level ozone. According to NMED’s website, “If emissions from Mexico keep New Mexico from meeting the standards, the New Mexico area could remain nonattainment but would not face more stringent requirements over time”. PNM does not believe there will be material impacts to its facilities as a result of NMED’s nonattainment designation of the small area within Dona Ana County, but must wait on EPA’s ultimate approval, which should occur by October 1, 2017. Until EPA approves attainment designations for the Navajo Nation and releases a proposal to implement the revised ozone NAAQS, APS is unable to predict what impact the adoption of these standards may have on Four Corners. PNM cannot predict the outcome of this matter. Citizen Suit Under the Clean Air Act The operations of SJGS were 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. 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 estimated the implementation would increase annual mercury control costs for the entire station from $0.7 million to $6.6 million. Under a stipulated order, PNM was required to repeat a mercury study that would establish the activated carbon injection rate that maximizes mercury removal at SJGS, as required under the consent decree. PNM 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. The NSR permit issued by NMED on May 14, 2015 incorporates this operational parameter as a permit condition. Achievement of mercury operational requirements was the final open issue under the consent decree, and on January 23, 2017, PNM, NMED, and the plaintiffs filed an agreed petition with the court for termination. In the petition, the parties advised the court that investments by PNM and the other SJGS owners in SO 2, particulate matter, NOx, and mercury pollution technologies at SJGS had significantly reduced emissions from the plant, improved air quality in the “four corners” region, and fulfilled the terms of the consent decree. The court granted the petition to terminate the consent decree the same day. 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 agreed on terms of a settlement. On August 17, 2015, a consent decree was entered by the court, marking resolution to the litigation. The settlement requires installation of pollution control technology and implementation of other measures to reduce SO 2 and NOx emissions from Four Corners Units 4 and 5, although installation of much of this equipment was already planned in order to comply with EPA’s Regional Haze Rule BART requirements. The settlement also requires Four Corners co-owners to pay a civil penalty of $1.5 million and spend $6.7 million for certain environmental mitigation projects to benefit the Navajo Nation. Under the terms of the consent decree, the current Four Corners co-owners are responsible for $3.5 million of the environmental mitigation project costs. PNM is responsible for 13% of these costs based on its ownership interest in the units at the time of the alleged violations, which PNM recorded in 2014. A former Four Corners co-owner is responsible for the $3.2 million balance of the environmental mitigation costs. Navajo 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 took action to cure the defect in its permitting process identified by the court. NTEC, the owner of the mine, appealed to the Tenth Circuit. On December 29, 2015, OSM took action to cure the defect in its permitting process by issuing a revised environmental assessment with a finding of no new significant impact and reissued the permit. On March 30, 2016, the Tenth Circuit vacated and dismissed the appeal on mootness grounds due to OSM’s revised environmental assessment and re-approval of the permit at issue. 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. In February 2016, venue for this matter was transferred to the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas. A stay in this matter expired on April 1, 2016 and was not renewed although the parties continued to engage in settlement negotiations. On August 31, 2016, the court entered an order remanding the matter to OSM for the completion of an EIS. The EIS is to be completed by August 31, 2019. The court ruled that mining operations may continue in the interim and the litigation will be administratively closed. If OSM does not complete the EIS within the time frame provided, the court will order immediate vacatur of the mining plan at issue. The scope of the EIS will be determined through a public process and is expected to include cumulative and indirect effects of surrounding sources. PNM cannot currently predict the outcome of this matter. Navajo Nation Environmental Issues Four Corners is located on the Navajo Reservation and is held under an easement granted by the federal government, as well as a lease from the Navajo Nation. The Navajo Acts purport to give the Navajo Nation Environmental Protection Agency authority to promulgate regulations covering air quality, drinking water, and pesticide activities, including those activities that occur at Four Corners. In October 1995, the Four Corners participants filed a lawsuit in the District Court of the Navajo Nation challenging the applicability of the Navajo Acts to Four Corners. 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 rule is not clear as to how it applies and what the compliance timelines are for facilities like SJGS that have a cooling water intake structure and only a multi-sector general stormwater permit. PNM is in discussion with EPA regarding this issue. However, PNM does not expect material changes as a result of any requirements that may be imposed upon SJGS. APS is currently in discussions with EPA Region 9, the NPDES 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 offered 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. All proposed alternatives establish a “zero discharge” effluent limit for all pollutants in fly ash transport water. 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. EPA signed the final Steam Electric Effluent Guidelines Rule on September 30, 2015. The final rule, which became effective on January 4, 2016, phases in the new, more stringent requirements in the form of effluent limits for arsenic, mercury, selenium, and nitrogen for wastewater discharged from wet scrubber systems and zero discharge of pollutants in ash transport water that must be incorporated into plants’ NPDES permits. Each plant must comply between 2018 and 2023 depending on when it needs a new/revised NPDES permit. Because SJGS is zero discharge for wastewater and is not required to hold a NPDES permit, it is expected that minimal to no requirements will be imposed. Reeves Station, a PNM-owned gas-fired generating station, discharges cooling tower blowdown to a publicly owned treatment works and holds an NPDES permit. It is expected that minimum to no requirements will be imposed at Reeves. Based upon the requirements of the final Steam Electric Effluent Guidelines Rule, 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. Until a draft NPDES permit is proposed for Four Corners, APS is uncertain what will be required to comply with the finalized effluent limitations. 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 also 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. Results of tests conducted by NMED in April 2012 and April 2013 showed elevated concentrations of nitrate in three monitoring wells and an increase in free-phase hydrocarbons in another well. 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. However, 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. Therefore, PNM has agreed to monitor nitrate levels in a limited number of wells under the terms of the renewed discharge permit for the former generating station. PNM is unable to predict the outcome of these matters. Effective December 22, 2015, PNM and NMED entered into a memorandum of understanding to address changing groundwater quality conditions at the site. Under the memorandum, PNM will continue hydrocarbon investigation of the site under the supervision of NMED and qualified costs of the work will be eligible for payment through the New Mexico Corrective Action Fund (“CAF”), which is administered by the NMED Petroleum Storage Tank Bureau. Among other things, money in the CAF is available to NMED to make payments to or on behalf of owners and operators for corrective action taken in accordance with statutory and regulatory requirements to investigate, minimize, eliminate, or clean up a release. PNM’s work plan and cost estimates for specific groundwater investigation tasks were approved by the Petroleum Storage Tank Bureau. PNM submitted a monitoring plan consisting of a compilation of the data associated with the recent monitoring activities conducted under the CAF to NMED on October 3, 2016. Following review of the data by NMED, PNM, and NMED will develop plans for the next phase of work under the CAF. 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 or landfills. The NMMMD currently regulates placement of ash, which is generated from coal combustion at SJGS, in the San Juan mine with federal oversight by the OSM. APS disposes of CCBs in ash ponds and dry storage areas at Four Corners. 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. 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 sets minimum criteria for existing and new CCB landfills and existing and new CCB surface impoundments and all lateral expansions consisting of location restrictions, design and operating criteria; groundwater monitoring and corrective action; closure requirements and post closure care; and recordkeeping, notification, and internet posting requirements. 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, with an effective date of October 19, 2015. Based upon the requirements of the final rule, PNM conducted a CCB assessment at SJGS and made minor modifications at the plant to ensure that there are no facilities which would be considered impoundments or landfills under the rule. PNM does not expect it to have a material impact on operations, financial position, or cash flows. As indicated above, CCBs at Four Corners are currently disposed of in ash ponds and dry storage areas. Depending upon the results of groundwater monitoring required by the CCB rule, Four Corners may be required to take corrective action. Initial monitoring at Four Corners is not yet complete, so expenditures related to potential corrective actions, if any, cannot be reasonably estimated at this time. Pursuant to a June 24, 2016 order by the DC Circuit in litigation by industry and environmental groups challenging EPA’s CCB regulations, within the next three years EPA is required to complete a rulemaking proceeding concerning whether or not boron must be included on the list of groundwater constituents that might trigger corrective action under EPA’s CCB rules. EPA is not required to take final action approving the inclusion of boron, but EPA must propose and consider its inclusion. Should EPA take final action adding boron to the list of groundwater constituents that might trigger corrective action, any resulting corrective action measures may increase costs of compliance with the CCB rule at coal-fired generating facilities. At this time, PNM cannot predict when EPA will commence its rulemaking concerning boron or the eventual results of those proceedings. On December 16, 2016, the Water Infrastructure Improvements for the Nation Act (the “WIIN Act”) was signed into law to address critical water infrastructure needs in the United States. The WIIN Act contains a number of provisions requiring EPA to modify the self-implementing provisions of the current CCB rules under Subtitle D. Among other things, the WIIN Act provides for the establishment of state and EPA permit programs for CCBs, provides flexibility for states to incorporate the EPA final rule for CCBs or develop other criteria that are at least as protective as the EPA’s final rule, and requires EPA to approve state permit programs within 180 days of submission by the state for approval. As a result, the CCB rule is no longer self-implementing and there will either be a state or federal permit program. Subject to Congressional appropriated funding, EPA will implement the permit program in states that choose not to implement a program. Until permit programs are in effect, EPA has authority to directly enforce the self-implementing CCB rule. For facilities located within the boundaries of Native American tribal reservations, such as the Navajo Nation where Four Corners is located, EPA is required to develop a federal permit program regardless of appropriated funds. EPA has yet to undertake rulemaking proceedings to implement the CCB provisions of the WIIN Act. There is no timeline for establishing either state or federal permitting programs, which could take at least 18 months. The December 2014 CCB 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. The CCB rule does not cover mine placement of coal ash. OSM is expected to publish a proposed rule covering mine placement in 2017 and will likely be influenced by EPA’s rule. 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. PNM would seek recovery from its ratepayers of all CCB costs that are ultimately incurred. 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 has control technology on each of the four units at SJGS that provides 99% mercury removal efficiency. The plant is in compliance with the MATS. Therefore, PNM did not request an extension and began complying with the MATS rule by the date specified in the rule. APS has determined that no additional equipment will be required at Four Corners Units 4 and 5 to comply with the rule. On June 29, 2015, the US Supreme Court issued its decision overturning the MATS rule. The justices ruled that EPA should have taken costs to utilities and others in the power sector into consideration before issuing the MATS rule. The case is now remanded to the DC Circuit for further proceedings consistent with the opinion. No changes are required at SJGS as a result of the US Supreme Court action. Other Commitments and Contingencies Coal Supply SJGS The coal requirements for SJGS are supplied by SJCC. Through January 31, 2016, SJCC was a wholly owned subsidiary of BHP and supplied processed coal for operation of SJGS under an underground coal sales agreement (“UG-CSA”) that was to expire on December 31, 2017. The parties to the UG-CSA were SJCC, PNM, and Tucson. SJCC holds certain federal, state, and private coal leases. Under the UG-CSA, SJCC was reimbursed for all costs for mining and delivering the coal, including an allocated portion of administrative costs, and received a return on its investment. In addition to coal delivered to meet the current needs of SJGS, PNM prepaid SJCC for certain coal mined but not yet delivered to the plant site. At December 31, 2016 and 2015, prepayments for coal, which are included in other current assets, amounted to $48.7 million (including amounts purchased from the existing SJGS participants discussed below) and $49.0 million. 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 UG-CSA. Following extensive negotiations among the SJGS participants, the owner of SJCC, and third-party miners, agreements were 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 and agreements for CCB disposal and mine reclamation services with SJCC on or about January 1, 2016. Effectiveness of the agreements was 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 were necessary for the restructuring of ownership in SJGS to be consummated. On July 1, 2015, PNM and Westmoreland Coal Company (“Westmoreland”) entered into a new coal supply agreement (“CSA”), pursuant to which Westmoreland will supply all of the coal requirements of SJGS through June 30, 2022. PNM and Westmoreland also entered into agreements under which Westmoreland will provide CCB disposal and mine reclamation services. Contemporaneous with the entry into the coal-related agreements, Westmoreland entered into a stock purchase agreement (the “Stock Purchase Agreement”) on July 1, 2015 to acquire all of the capital stock of SJCC. In addition, PNM, Tucson, SJCC, and SJCC’s owner entered into an agreement to terminate the existing UG-CSA upon the effective date of the new CSA. The CSA became effective as of 11:59 PM on January 31, 2016, upon the closing under the Stock Purchase Agreement. Upon closing under the Stock Purchase Agreement, Westmoreland’s rights and obligations under the CSA and the agreements for CCB disposal and mine reclamation services were assigned to SJCC. Westmoreland has guaranteed SJCC’s performance under the CSA. Pricing under the CSA is primarily 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 has the option to extend the CSA, subject to negotiation of the term of the extension and compensation to the miner. In order to extend, PNM must give written notice of that intent by July 1, 2018 and the parties must agree to the terms of the extension by January 1, 2019. The RA sets forth terms under which PNM acquired the coal inventory of the exiting SJGS participants as of January 1, 2016 and 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. Coal costs under the CSA are significantly less than under the previous arrangement with SJCC. Since substantially all of PNM’s coal costs are passed through the FPPAC, the benefit of the reduced costs and the economic benefits of the coal inventory arrangement with the exiting owners are passed through to PNM’s customers. In support of the closing under the Stock Purchase Agreement and to facilitate PNM customer savings, NM Capital, a wholly owned subsidiary of PNMR, provided funding of $125.0 million (the “Westmoreland Loan”) to Westmoreland San Juan, LLC (“WSJ”), a ring-fenced, bankruptcy-remote, special-purpose entity that is a subsidiary of Westmoreland, to finance the purchase price of the stock of SJCC (including an insignificant affiliate) under the Stock Purchase Agreement. NM Capital was able to provide the $125.0 million financing to WSJ by first entering into a $125.0 million term loan agreement (the “BTMU Term Loan Agreement”) with BTMU, as lender and administrative agent. The BTMU Term Loan Agreement became effective as of February 1, 2016, has a maturity date of February 1, 2021, and bears interest at a rate based on LIBOR plus a customary spread. In connection with the BTMU Term Loan Agreement, PNMR, as parent company of NM Capital, has guaranteed NM Capital’s obligations to BTMU. The balance outstanding under the BTMU Term Loan Agreement was $92.2 million at December 31, 2016 and $82.8 million at February 21, 2017. The Westmoreland Loan is a $125.0 million loan agreement among NM Capital, as lender, WSJ, as borrower, SJCC and its affiliate, as guarantors, BTMU, as administrative agent, and MUFG Union Bank, N.A., as depository bank. The Westmoreland Loan became effective as of February 1, 2016, and has a maturity date of February 1, 2021. The Westmoreland Loan initially bears interest at a rate of 7.25% plus LIBOR and escalates over time. The Westmoreland Loan has been structured to encourage prepayments and early retirement of the debt. WSJ must pay principal and interest quarterly to NM Capital in accordance with an amortization schedule. In addition, the Westmoreland Loan requires that all cash flows of WSJ, in excess of normal operating expenses, capital additions, and operating reserves, be utilized for principal and interest payments under the loan until it is fully repaid. At December 31, 2016, the amount outstanding under the Westmoreland Loan was $95.0 million. Reflecting the principal payment of $9.6 million that was paid when due on February 1, 2017, the balance of the Westmoreland Loan was $85.4 million as of February 21, 2017. The Westmoreland Loan is secured by the assets of and the equity interests in SJCC and its affiliate. The Westmoreland Loan also includes customary representations and warranties, covenants, and events of default. There are no prepayment penalties. In connection with certain mining permits relating to the operation of the San Juan mine, SJCC was required to post reclamation bonds of $161.6 million with the NMMMD. In April 2016, NMMMD reduced SJCC’s bonding requirements to $118.7 million. In order to facilitate the posting of reclamation bonds by a surety on behalf of SJCC, a Reclamation Bond Agreement (the “Reclamation Bond Agreement”) was entered into by PNMR, Westmoreland, and SJCC with the surety. In connection with the Reclamation Bond Agreement, PNMR used $40.0 million of the available capacity under the PNMR Revolving Credit Facility to support a bank letter of credit arrangement for the benefit of the surety. On July 19, 2016, these reclamation bonds were released by NMMMD upon acceptance of $118.7 million of replacement reclamation bonds from alternate surety companies, which were supported by letters of credit aggregating $30.3 million issued from available capacity under the PNMR Revolving Credit Facility. The Reclamation Bond Agreement was terminated effective August 3, 2016 and the prior letter of credit was surrendered and canceled. On October 21, 2016, PNMR entered into separate letter of credit arrangements with a bank to replace the letters of credit issued from available capacity under the PNMR Revolving Credit Facility. The letters of credit issued from available capacity under the PNMR Revolving Credit Facility were surrendered and canceled upon acceptance of the replacement letters of credit by the surety companies that issued the reclamation bonds. Four Corners 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 NTEC, 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 NTEC. The BHP subsidiary was retained as the mine manager and operator through December 2016. Bisti Fuels Company, LLC, a subsidiary of The North American Coal Corporation, took over management and operation of the mine effective January 1, 2017. The average coal price per MMBTU under the new contract was approximately 48% higher in the second half of 2016 than in the second half of 2015. 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. Coal Mine Reclamation In conjunction with the proposed shutdown of SJGS Units 2 and 3 to comply with the BART requirements of the CAA, an updated coal mine reclamation study was requested by the SJGS participants. 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 2013 coal mine reclamation study indicates reclamation costs have increased, including significant increases due to the proposed shutdown of SJGS Units 2 and 3, which would reduce the amount of CCBs generated over the remaining life of SJGS and result in a significant increase in the amount of fill dirt required to remediate the underground mine area thereby increasing the overall reclamation costs. 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. In 2015, PNM updated its final reclamation costs estimates to reflect the terms of the new reclamation services agreement with Westmoreland, discussed above, and changes resulting from the approval of the 2015 SJCC Mine Permit Plan. The 2015 reclamation cost estimate reflects that the scope and pricing structure of the reclamation service agreement with Westmoreland would significantly increase reclamation costs. In addition, design plan changes, updated regulatory expectations, and common mine reclamation practices incorporated into the 2015 SJCC Mine Permit reflect an increase in the 2015 reclamation cost estimate. The impacts of these increases, amounting to $16.5 million, were recorded at December 31, 2015 and were reflected in regulatory disallowances and restructuring costs on the Consolidated Statements of Earnings (Loss). Upon effectiveness of the CSA and the RA, PNM, on behalf of the SJGS owners, coordinated a more detailed coal mine reclamation cost study, which was completed in the third quarter of 2016. To complete the study, PNM was provided access to the mine site and obtained supporting data from Westmoreland, allowing for the 2015 study to be refined with a more extensive engineering analysis. The new reclamation cost estimate reflects the terms of the new reclamation services agreement with Westmoreland and continuation of mining operations through 2053. The study indicates an increase in the reclamation cost estimate. PNM’s share of the increase is $4.5 million, which was recorded in 2016 and is reflected in regulatory disallowances and restructuring costs in the Consolidated Statements of Earnings. The current estimate for decommissioning the mine serving Four Corners reflects the operation of the mine through 2031, the term of the new agreement for coal supply. Based on the 2016 estimates and PNM’s current ownership share of SJGS, PNM’s remaining payments for mine reclamation, in future dollars, are estimated to be $102.0 million for the surface mines at both SJGS and Four Corners and $127.8 million for the underground mine at SJGS as of December 31, 2016. At December 31, 2016 and 2015, liabilities, in current dollars, of $41.0 million and $38.8 million for surface mine reclamation and $14.0 million and $11.4 million for underground mine reclamation were recorded in other deferred credits. Under the terms of the CSA, PNM and the other SJGS owners are obligated to compensate SJCC for all reclamation costs associated with the supply of coal from the San Juan mine. On June 1, 2012, the SJGS owners entered into a reclamation trust funds agreement to provide funding to compensate SJCC for post-term reclamation obligations under the UG-CSA. As part of the restructuring of SJGS ownership (see SJGS Ownership Restructuring Matters above), the SJGS owners and PNMR Development negotiated the terms of an amended agreement to fund post-term reclamation obligations under the CSA. The trust funds agreement requires each owner to enter into an individual trust agreement with a financial institution as trustee, create an irrevocable reclamation trust, and periodically deposit funds into the reclamation 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. As part of the restructuring of SJGS ownership discussed above, the SJGS participants agreed to adjusted interim trust funding levels. PNM funded $7.0 million in 2016, $4.3 million in 2015, and $1.0 million in 2014. Based on PNM’s reclamation trust fund balance at December 31, 2016, the current funding curves indicate PNM’s required contributions to its reclamation trust fund would be $7.8 million in 2017, $8.3 million in 2018, and $8.7 million in 2019. Under the coal supply agreement for Four Corners, which became effective on July 7, 2016, PNM is required to fund its ownership share of estimated final reclamation costs in thirteen annual installments, beginning on August 1, 2016, into an irrevocable escrow account solely dedicated to the final reclamation cost of the surface mine at Four Corners. In July 2016, PNM funded its $1.9 million requirement for 2016. PNM’s anticipated funding level is $2.0 million, $2.0 million, and $2.1 million in 2017, 2018, and 2019. 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 retail customers 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. The reclamation amounts discussed above reflect PNM’s estimates of its share of the revised costs. 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. 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 an 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. SJCC Arbitration The coal supply agreement for SJGS provides that the participants in SJGS have the right to audit the costs billed by SJCC. The audit for the period from 2006 through 2009 resulted in disagreements between the SJGS participants and SJCC and certain issues were submitted to a panel for binding arbitration. The issues were: 1) whether the SJGS participants owed SJCC unbilled mining costs of $5.2 million or whether SJCC owed the SJGS participants overbilled mining costs of $1.1 million, and 2) whether SJCC billed the SJGS participants $13.9 million as mining costs that SJCC should have considered to be capital costs, which were not billable under the mining contract. PNM’s share of amounts subject to the arbitration was approximately 46.3%. A hearing before the arbitration panel on the remaining issues was held in May 2014. The arbitration panel found in favor of SJCC on both issues. Of PNM’s share of the costs, approximately 33% of the first issue was passed through PNM’s FPPAC and the rest impacted earnings in 2014. The amounts related to the second issue were recorded when billed in prior periods and had no impact in 2014. 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. 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. On June 30, 2015, the court ruled that the assessment was not valid and further ruled that APS and the other Four Corners co-owners receive a refund of all of the contested amounts previously paid under the applicable tax statute. NMTRD filed a notice of appeal with the New Mexico Court of Appeals on August 31, 2015. In March 2016, the parties settled this matter. PNM has paid its share of the settlement, which was $0.1 million in addition to amounts previously paid. PVNGS Liability and Insurance Matters Public liability for incidents at nuclear power plants is governed by the Price-Anderson Nuclear Industries Indemnity Act, which limits the liability of nuclear reactor owners to the amount of insurance available from both commercial sources and an industry-wide retrospective payment plan. In accordance with this act, the PVNGS participants are insured against public liability exposure for a nuclear incident up to $13.4 billion per occurrence. PVNGS maintains the maximum available nuclear liability insurance in the amount of $450 million, which is provided by American Nuclear Insurers. The remaining $13.0 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 $5.8 million, to be adjusted periodically for inflation. The PVNGS participants maintain 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”). 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 due to losses. The insurance coverages discussed in this and the previous paragraph are subject to certain policy conditions, sublimits, and exclusions. Natural Gas Supply PNM procures gas supplies for its power plants from third-party sources and contracts with third party transportation providers. 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. Although PNM does not believe that its operations will be materially affected by drought conditions at this time, it cannot forecast long-term weather patterns. Public policy, local, state and federal regulations, and litigation regarding water could also impact PNM operations. To help mitigate these risks, PNM has secured permanent groundwater rights for the existing plants at Reeves Station, Rio Bravo, Afton, Luna, Lordsburg, and La Luz. 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 deliveries) could pose a threat of reduced water availability for these plants. For SJGS and Four Corners, PNM and APS have negotiated an agreement with the more senior water rights holders (tribes, municipalities, and agricultural interests) in the San Juan basin to mutually share the impacts of water shortages with tribes and other water users in the San Juan basin. The agreement to share shortages in 2017 through 2020 has been negotiated and awaits endorsement by the parties and the New Mexico State Engineer. 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 40 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, then 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 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 and maintaining the rights-of-way, as well as for capital improvements. 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 on one of the utilities’ claims, which was granted by the court, leaving a claim regarding telecommunications service as the remaining federal claim. On January 4, 2016, the utilities filed an Application for Interlocutory Appeal from the state court. The state court litigation is stayed pending the New Mexico Court of Appeals’ ruling on the Application for Interlocutory Appeal. 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. In addition, PNM intervened in a proceeding filed by SPS to revise its rates for sales to PNM. There have been extensive proceedings at FERC on these matters, as well as negotiations among the parties. On August 28, 2015, SPS filed settlement documentation with FERC, including a settlement agreement to which PNM was a party that would resolve all outstanding fuel cost adjustment and rate issues between SPS and PNM. FERC approved the settlement on October 29, 2015. Under the settlement, SPS paid PNM $4.2 million, including interest through December 31, 2014. Of this amount, $2.6 million was passed back to PNM’s customers through its FPPAC. 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 allottees’ appeal was dismissed with prejudice. 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. On July 13, 2015, PNM filed a condemnation action in the United States District Court for the District of New Mexico regarding the approximately 15.49 acres of land at issue. On December 1, 2015, the court ruled that PNM could not condemn 2 of the 5 allotments at issue based on the Navajo Nation’s fractional interest in the land. PNM’s motion for reconsideration of this ruling was denied. On March 31, 2016, the Tenth Circuit granted PNM’s petition to appeal the December 1, 2015 ruling. On September 18, 2015, the allottees filed a separate complaint against PNM for federal trespass. Both matters have been consolidated and are stayed while PNM pursues its appeal before the Tenth Circuit. On June 27, 2016, PNM filed its opening brief in the Tenth Circuit. Amicus briefs were filed in support of PNM’s position. On October 5, 2016, the United States, the Navajo Nation, and individual allottees filed their response briefs. After the response briefs were filed, other entities requested leave to file amicus briefs addressing arguments raised in the United States’ response brief. Oral argument before the Tenth Circuit was heard on January 17, 2017. PNM cannot predict the outcome of these matters.

X
- References No definition available. + 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 825 -SubTopic 20 -Section 50 -Paragraph 1 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=6449706&loc=d3e16207-108621 Reference 2: 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=68068213&loc=d3e12565-110249 Reference 3: 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 4: 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 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=73718637&loc=d3e25287-109308 + Details
Name: | us-gaap_CommitmentsAndContingenciesDisclosureTextBlock
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | nonnum:textBlockItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration